MINUTES OF AUGUST 16, 2005, REGULAR MEETING of the Town of Rochester PLANNING BOARD, held at the Town Hall, Accord, NY.
Meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM by the Chairman, Melvyn I. Tapper.
PRESENT: Frank Striano, Sr ABSENT: Nadine Carney
Shane Ricks, Vice Chair
Robert Gaydos
David O’Halloran, Alternate
Melvyn Tapper, Chairman
William De Graw
Anthony Kawalchuck
Also present at the meeting was Town Planner, Nancy Vlahos, from The Chazen Companies.
Pledge to the Flag.
Because there was not a full Board at this meeting, Alternate Mr. O’Halloran was recognized as a full Board Member able to make motions and participate in votes.
NEW APPLICATION PRESENTATION
DIANA BANKS– Special Use Permit for Philanthropic Use, Cat Shelter, Airport Road, Tax Map#69.3-2- 31.12, R-1 District
Ms. Banks was present on behalf of her application and explained that she presently operates a cat shelter in the Hamlet District in a building that she rents. She is going to be buying the house in which she is applying to use as a new shelter because she needs something permanent. The house in question would work better as a cat shelter because it has a kitchen to prepare the meals for the cats and a lot more space for them in general. They would have their own separate cages. She isn’t proposing any alterations to the existing dwelling, so the house would be left as is. Ms. Banks further explained that she would try not to go over 30 cats at a time, but she can’t always predict what will happen. People often leave cats on her door step and she can’t turn them away. She publicizes her shelter to promote the adoption of the cats in her care. The whole house would be for cats, there would be no full time residents, only volunteers.
Mr. Ricks went over the Prescribed Standards in the Zoning Ordinance that pertained to the Philanthropic use and Ms. Banks was proposing to adhere to said standards.
Mr. De Graw questioned if Ms. Banks had approached any neighbors to let them know of her application for the shelter.
T/ Rochester Planning Board -2- August 16, 2005
Minutes of Regular Meeting
She replied that she had spoken to some of them and she was aware that all of the bounding owners to the property would be contacted by the Planning Board to announce the Public Hearing.
Mr. O’Halloran motioned for a Type II Action under SEQRA as there was no impact being created by this application in accordance with the SEQRA Thresholds. Mr. De Graw seconded the motion. No discussion.
Vote: Tapper- Yes Ricks- Yes
Striano- Yes Kawalchuk- Yes
O’Halloran- Yes De Graw- Yes
Gaydos- Yes Carney- Absent
Mr. O’Halloran motioned to schedule the application for a Public Hearing to be held at the September 20, 2005 meeting. Mr. Gaydos seconded the motion. No discussion.
Vote: Tapper- Yes Ricks- Yes
Striano- Yes Kawalchuk- Yes
O’Halloran- Yes De Graw- Yes
Gaydos- Yes Carney- Absent
PUBLIC HEARING
Ample Self Storage– c/o Todd Bivona, Special Use Permit for 56,000sf of storage sheds with 1,375 sf office, Route 209, Tax Map #76.2-2-13.22, ‘B’ District
Mr. Ricks recused himself from the Board as he owns Storage Sheds that are in close proximity to this project.
At 7:20 PM, Mr. Bivona was present along with business partner, Frank Castrack. Nick Sadler of Medenbach & Eggers was also present on behalf of the application.
The Applicants had submitted revised maps and EAF to show deletion of buildings ‘A’ & ‘F’, submitted Safety Access Analysis prepared by Creighton Manning, submitted Visuals prepared by ELABD ARCHITECTURAL ILLUSTRATION.
The Board reviewed the visuals showing the buildings superimposed in the site from different angles. They also reviewed the safety access analysis.
Mr. Tapper commented in regards to the Safety Access Analysis (SAA) they had recommended that the applicants shave down a bank for better sight distance. Did the applicants own that property?
Mr. Bivona stated that they did not. He believed that it may have been in the right-of-way. He and his partner had just walked it about a half hour ago and the grass was cut by the State. They didn’t see what the problem was, but if it was an issue they would take care of it.
T/ Rochester Planning Board -3- August 16, 2005
Minutes of Regular Meeting
PUBLIC HEARING
Ample Self Storage(cont’d)– c/o Todd Bivona, Special Use Permit for 56,000sf of storage sheds
Mr. Sadler of Medenbach & Eggers noted that a lot of the problem was brush growing on top of the bank, not so much the bank itself. He had measured the site distance last fall and they were very good. When this study was done it was in the spring or summer when the vegetation was at full growth.
Ms. Vlahos felt that maybe there were times of the year when it wasn’t mowed that site distance would be poor. So, if there was some way to ensure that it remained clear, this would be best.
Mr. Castrack noted that they would contact the State and make sure it was okay for them to maintain that area for those reasons.
Ms. Vlahos touched on the highlights of her August 10, 2005 review letter.
Mr. Castrack noted that a lot of the comments on that review letter were to be added to the site plan, but just haven’t been incorporated into the plan yet.
Ms. Vlahos noted that they did receive the traffic report and the visual study, but typically the applicants should prepare a Part 3 EAF Addendum. It’s like a report that gets submitted to the Board that summarizes the findings of the technical reports. Part 2 has previously been filled out by the Board.
Ms. Vlahos noted that there were some comments in regards to the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan(SWPP).
Mr. Sadler noted that they had the comments, but were just waiting for the buildings and site layout to be a bit more finalized because when they add or delete buildings, it affects the calculations.
Mr. Tapper felt that reading through the visual impact analysis, that the physical buildings themselves, some Board Members haven’t had the opportunity to go over it in detail, and they may want to go over it and see how they feel about the aesthetics of the buildings.
Mr. Bivona stated that they thought the visuals showed that it was better not to have peaked roofs.
Mr. Castrack noted that they were a little confused about the comments in regards to the existing foundation that was on the property. It wasn’t going to be in the project area. They would clean the brush around it, but they didn’t think it should have to be removed. The foundation was also on the neighbor’s property.
Ms. Vlahos went through the recommendations by Chazen for the visual appearance of the project.
Mr. Bivona noted that the sign on the main office building would not be lit. It would just be a regular sign. The sign on the street would not be internally illuminated. There would be a soft light that shone downward at the sign.
Ms. Vlahos questioned if there was any way that the canopy or porch on the building could be raised up so there wouldn’t be a black flat roof.
T/ Rochester Planning Board -4- August 16, 2005
Minutes of Regular Meeting
PUBLIC HEARING
Ample Self Storage(cont’d)– c/o Todd Bivona, Special Use Permit for 56,000sf of storage sheds
Mr. Castrack stated that it was a pit wall that Ms. Vlahos was referring to. They could drop that wall down to be even with the roof, but they thought that it would look better the way that it was. It was just an aesthetic wall that they put up.
Mr. O’Halloran agreed with Ms. Vlahos that the pit wall made the building have a boxier look to it. He didn’t believe that was what the Board wanted to see. If the applicants were going to go to that building height, the pitch should go up to the peak of that height or maybe present it without that pit wall all together.
Mr. Bivona noted that the only reason they proposed that look for the building was because there were several buildings on that road that had the same appearance.
Mr. Castrack wanted to know if it would be okay to just cut it down to the canopy. It didn’t matter to them, what ever the Board suggested they would take into consideration.
Ms. Vlahos suggested bringing the canopy up to give the illusion of a pitched roof.
Mr. Striano noted that in the plan there was an area for a truck pull off. He didn’t see that displayed in the visual that was submitted to the Board.
Mr. Bivona explained that the visual was done prior to the requirement of the truck pull off being on the plan.
Ms. Vlahos continued the aesthetic recommendations by Chazen. They would suggest more neutral colors. There was previous discussions about the colors and a majority of the Board felt that the red was fine, but Chazen felt it would be better for less obtrusive colors.
Mr. Castrack questioned that the Board didn’t have a problem with it, but Chazen did?
Ms. Vlahos explained that as the consultant to the Town, Chazen was simply suggesting more neutral colors.
Mr. Castrack presented actual sample of the steel material that was being used on the buildings. He noted that it was a duller red in comparison to what was being shown in the visuals. It was more like a brick and the building would be beige.
Ms. Vlahos continued by noting that Chazen was recommending pitched roofs around the perimeter of the project. There was previous discussion about this, she was simply putting it out there again. The signage was discussed noting that the signs proposed contained no interior illumination.
Mr. Castrack indicated that the sign on the office may not stay if they dropped the pit wall down. There may not be an appropriate place for the sign. They would look into it for the next meeting.
T/ Rochester Planning Board -5- August 16, 2005
Minutes of Regular Meeting
PUBLIC HEARING
Ample Self Storage(cont’d)– c/o Todd Bivona, Special Use Permit for 56,000sf of storage sheds
Ms. Vlahos continued to go through the comment letter and noted that at the Southerly end of buildings ‘B’, ‘C’, ‘D’, & ‘E’ have the neutral sandstone colored siding extended along the façade. So, there would be no doors facing Route 209. They also recommended a few additional maple trees along the front of the site. There were also some comments from Chazen’s Engineers in regards to the traffic study that was done. Rather than going over the comments, the applicants should present the review letter to Crieghton Manning who did the study and have them give responses.
Mr. De Graw didn’t feel that Maple trees would be a good source of screening because they wouldn’t have leaves on them year round. He felt that maybe a 2 or 3’ berme would be a good idea with trees planted on that.
Mr. O’Halloran asked that there be some kind of landscaping proposed to break up the flat look of buildings ‘B’, ‘C’, ‘D’, & ‘E’. He suggested proposing a more detailed landscaping plan to present to the Board. The applicants would need to evaluate that area in front of those buildings to see where they would have room to put the landscaping where it wouldn’t affect the fencing or the storm water basin.
The applicants agreed to present an alternative landscaping plan, but they would not be able to revise the visuals as they are very involved and expensive.
The Board further discussed different types of plantings and agreed that shrubs would work best to break up those buildings.
At this time the Chairman opened the meeting up to the public.
Chairman Tapper recognized Michael Baden of Kerhonkson to speak. Mr. Baden questioned what the revised square footage was and he requested that someone demonstrate to him what has changed on the site plan since the last Public Hearing.
The new square footage was 56,000 square feet. Mr. Bivona noted the deletion of buildings ‘A’ & ‘F’ and displayed their removal on the map.
Len Bernardo of Kerhonkson was recognized to speak. Mr. Bernardo noted that he was building the roller skating rink down the street. He noted that at Town meetings there has been a lot of focus on retaining the rural character of the community. He questioned if the Planning Board did any sort of inventory on the necessity of more storage sheds in the Town?
The Chairperson couldn’t speak for any other Board members, but this was something that he has thought of. He wasn’t aware if there was a committee formed to evaluate this or not.
Mr. O’Halloran was aware that there was a committee currently in place being led by Councilman, Francis Gray.
Ms. Vlahos advised the Board that they couldn’t consider that.
T/ Rochester Planning Board -6- August 16, 2005
Minutes of Regular Meeting PUBLIC HEARING
Ample Self Storage(cont’d)– c/o Todd Bivona, Special Use Permit for 56,000sf of storage sheds
Mr. O’Halloran noted that the inventory has not been completed yet, nor has it been submitted to the Planning & Zoning Committee and it is not a part of the Zoning that the Board is working off of.
Chairman Tapper also informed the public that the Board couldn’t take that into consideration. This would be the applicant’s feasibility of this project whether they were going to make a profit or not. The Board could take into consideration the rural character, the density of an area, and traffic studies and things like that.
Town resident Ruth Bendelius was next to speak. She questioned what the commercial depth of the property was.
The Chairman responded that it was 600’.
Ms. Vlahos scaled out the property and it was only 450’ in depth, so it was well within the commercial zone.
Jean Moncrief was next to comment and she appreciated all that the Board was going through to make the site look pretty, but it can’t be hidden. The Board does have laws of intent to uphold the comprehensive plan where it says to preserve rural character. There isn’t any definition that includes storage sheds in rural character. In fact it is just the opposite, the storage facilities asphalt the community. This is not what she wants in our Town.
Randy Hornbeck, Town Resident, Councilman, and Liaison to the Planning Board noted that this project will look far better than Charlie Johnson’s Auto garage which is right across the street.
Michael Baden was recognized to speak again. He questioned what type of exterior lighting would be used and how would it be controlled?
Mr. Castrack noted that they would be building mounted, wall packed lights. They aren’t 100% sure yet on the options that they are going to use. They could be on a timer to be on when it was dark the lights on the individual sheds are on a photo sensor, so they would be on all night, but the lights in the drive aisles could be on a timer. All the lighting would be down shielded so it wouldn’t be splashing off of the property. They were still finalizing the hours of operation. The lighting notes on the plan that told the hours of operation were incorrect and they would be fixed for the next meeting.
Shane Ricks was recognized to speak and noted that at the beginning of this application review the Board was told that the office would hold post office boxes and the applicants haven’t really mentioned it again. That would really make a difference on parking spaces.
Mr. Bivona stated that they were still trying to see if it was feasible to have the PO Boxes. It may not be worth it since the Post Office is only a couple of miles down the road.
Mr. Ricks also questioned whether or not the Storm Water retention ponds would be able to hold and disburse the rain due to the amount of clay in that area. He has noticed around the local area that a lot of the flood over and don’t function like they are intended to.
T/ Rochester Planning Board -7- August 16, 2005
Minutes of Regular Meeting
PUBLIC HEARING
Ample Self Storage(cont’d)– c/o Todd Bivona, Special Use Permit for 56,000sf of storage sheds
Mr. Sadler explained that the retention basins aren’t for storage, they are engineered to control & drain. The control structure will drain within 24 hours. There won’t be any standing water and they are designed in accordance with the DEC regulations.
Mr. De Graw noted that someone from the public brought up the outline of the comprehensive plan and the rural character of the neighborhood that should be preserved. He brought up the aesthetics of the building and the landscaping again.
Chairman Tapper noted that he believed that this had already been discussed. The applicants were going to come in and present an alternative landscaping plan along with some proposals for changing the look of the office. The Board will think about the roof lines for the storage buildings and discuss whether or not they want pitched roof lines and whether or not they agree with the color choice by the next meeting.
Mr. Baden was recognized to speak again. He questioned if there was a fence surrounding the whole project.
Mr. Castrack explained that there is a 6’ chain linked fence at the rear of the property and the front is decorative fence with a gate.
Mr. O’Halloran motioned to continue the Public Hearing at the September 20, 2005 meeting pending the submittals of the revised plans per the discussion at tonight’s meeting. It will not be re-advertised in the paper, but it was announced at this meeting and it will be posted at the Planning Board office and at the Town Hall. Motion seconded by Mr. De Graw. No discussion.
DECISIONS ON PENDING APPLICATIONS
· Guiseppe & Antonella Cassano– Special Use Permit for change of use from retail sales to membership club, Route 209, Accord, Tax Map #69.3-3- 3.1, ‘B’ District
At 8:15PM Mr. Ricks rejoined the Board.
The Chairman noted that this application has been previously typed as an unlisted action, the Planning Board has declared intent for LA, the Public Hearing was closed, the 30 day comment period expired on July 22, 2005. Tonight the Board needed to make a determination of significance and to render a decision by September 18, 05.
Chairman Tapper motioned for the Planning Board to be Lead Agency. Seconded by Mr. Gaydos. No discussion.
Vote: Tapper- Yes Ricks- Yes
Striano- Yes Kawalchuk- Yes
O’Halloran- Yes De Graw- Yes
Gaydos- Yes Carney- Absent
T/ Rochester Planning Board -8- August 16, 2005
Minutes of Regular Meeting
DECISIONS ON PENDING APPLICATIONS
Guiseppe & Antonella Cassano(cont’d)– Special Use Permit for change of use from retail sales to membership club
Chairman Tapper noted that Part 2 of the EAF has been completed and any impacts were small to moderate and therefore Part 3 of the EAF did not need to be completed.
Mr. De Graw motioned for a Negative Declaration. Seconded by Chairman Tapper. No discussion.
Vote: Tapper- Yes Ricks- Yes
Striano- Yes Kawalchuk- Yes
O’Halloran- Yes De Graw- Yes
Gaydos- Yes Carney- Absent
Mr. O’Halloran motioned to grant a Special Use Permit according to the site plan dated June 22, 2005 to Guiseppe & Antonella Cassano, for change of use from retail sales to membership club, Route 209, Accord, Tax Map #69.3-3-3.1, ‘B’ District. Seconded by Mr. Striano. No discussion.
Vote: Tapper- Yes Ricks- Yes
Striano- Yes Kawalchuk- Yes
O’Halloran- Yes De Graw- Yes
Gaydos- Yes Carney- Absent
DECISIONS ON PENDING APPLICATIONS
Donald Hasenflue– 4 lot subdivision, Granite Road, Tax Map # 76.4-2-14, R-1 District
Mr. Hasenflue was present on behalf of his application.
The Chairman noted that this application had previously been typed as an unlisted action under SEQRA, declared intent for LA, Public Hearing was closed, 30 day comment period expired on July 24, 2005. The Board needed to make a determination of significance and to render a decision by September 18, 05 unless this time frame for approval was waived by the applicant.
The Chairman motioned for the Town of Rochester Planning Board to be Lead Agency. Mr. Striano seconded the motion. No discussion.
Vote: Tapper- Yes Ricks- Yes
Striano- Yes Kawalchuk- Yes
O’Halloran- Yes De Graw- Yes
Gaydos- Yes Carney- Absent
Ms. Vlahos noted that Part 2 of the EAF was completed and there were no concerns as there were all small to moderate impacts indicated.
T/ Rochester Planning Board -9- August 16, 2005
Minutes of Regular Meeting
DECISIONS ON PENDING APPLICATIONS
Donald Hasenflue(cont’d)– 4 lot subdivision
Mr. Gaydos motioned for a Negative Declaration under SEQRA. Seconded by Mr. Striano. No discussion.
Vote: Tapper- Yes Ricks- Yes
Striano- Yes Kawalchuk- Yes
O’Halloran- Yes De Graw- Yes
Gaydos- Yes Carney- Absent
Mr. Ricks motioned for a Conditional Preliminary Approval with the following conditions:
1. Wayne Kelder, Highway Superintendent, needed to inspect the road and a letter to be forwarded to the Planning Board reflecting such.
2. Road Maintenance Agreement to be provided to the PB and approved by the Town Attorney
Seconded by Mr. Striano. No discussion.
Vote: Tapper- Yes Ricks- Yes
Striano- Yes Kawalchuk- Yes
O’Halloran- Yes De Graw- Yes
Gaydos- Yes Carney- Absent
CONTINUED APPLICATION REVIEWS
Peter Sutherland-, c/o Medenbach & Eggers, 4 lot subdivision, Stony Kill Road, Tax Map# 76.4-3-21, R-1 District
Mr. Sutherland was present on behalf of his application with Nick Sadler from Medenbach & Eggers.
The Chairman noted that this application was not being reviewed by planner. No determinations or motions were yet made. The map was too incomplete at the initial meeting in June and the applicant now has revised maps to show topography, driveway alterations, and submitted the full EAF.
The Board reviewed the revised maps and Mr. Sutherland noted that Parcel 4 was separate from the project as it was existing and owned by himself. Parcels 1 & 5 were being created out of one parcel and Parcels 3 & 6 were being created out of one parcel. Each parcel was going to have its own driveway off of Stony Kill as he has enough road frontage to accomplish this and Road Maintenance agreements can get messy and confusing. He further explained that lots 1, 2, 3, & 4 were originally lots 5 & 6.
Mr. O’Halloran questioned if there should be driveway profiles for the driveways to show that they didn’t exceed 15%?
Mr. Sadler noted that they could work something up. He also noted that there was less than 5 acres of disturbance. There would probably be about +/-.5acres per lot.
T/ Rochester Planning Board -10- August 16, 2005
Minutes of Regular Meeting
Mr. Ricks motioned for Intent for the Planning Board to be Lead Agency. Seconded by Mr. De Graw.
No discussion.
Vote: Tapper- Yes Ricks- Yes
Striano- Yes Kawalchuk- Yes
O’Halloran- Yes De Graw- Yes
Gaydos- Yes Carney- Absent
Mr. Ricks motioned for a Public Hearing for September 20, 2005. Seconded by Mr. Tapper. No discussion.
Vote: Tapper- Yes Ricks- Yes
Striano- Yes Kawalchuk- Yes
O’Halloran- Yes De Graw- Yes
Gaydos- Yes Carney- Absent
The Board discussed whether or not the Ulster County Health Dept. would need to be involved for septic approvals prior to the Planning Board issuing any sort of approval.
Mr. De Graw noted that at a training that he attended, Dean Palen of the Health Dept. really stressed that all subdivisions should be sent for Health Dept. review.
Mr. O’Halloran suggested having a letter from the applicant’s engineer write a letter to the Board stating that the lots have been inspected and are suitable building lots.
Ms. Vlahos agreed that would be acceptable. Usually when the acreage is over 5, it can be assumed that there is a building site somewhere on that site. She also pointed out that #2 on the EAF—all the acreages don’t match up so this should be revised.
NEW APPLICATION PRESENTATION
Nelson De Gondea– 4 lot subdivision, Pond Road private road off of Rocky Mountain Road, Tax Map#52.020-1-8
Mr. De Gondea was present on behalf of his application. He noted that he tried to comply with all the Regs and just received his 1st review letter from Chazen at the meeting, so he hasn’t had a lot of time to review it himself.
The Board went over review letter prepared by Chazen dated August 18, 2005. Ms. Vlahos explained item by item to Mr. De Gondea.
The Board noted that the revised map now had 20’contours. From looking at the contours the Board found that there were portions of the driveway that had a 20% grade. The maximum grade allowed was 15%.
Mr. O’Halloran noted that the Board has been requiring applicants to show 2’ contours…
Mr. De Gondea stated that the area isn’t heavily wooded.
T/ Rochester Planning Board -11- August 16, 2005
Minutes of Regular Meeting
NEW APPLICATION PRESENTATION
Nelson De Gondea(cont’d)– 4 lot subdivision
Mr. Ricks felt that 2’ contours should be required for the areas of proposed improvement. That would be adequate.
Mr. De Graw motioned to waive the required 2’ contour regulation for the entire area and to accept 2’ contours for driveways, house sites, septic locations and roadways. Seconded by Mr. Ricks. Mr. O’Halloran felt the Board needed to be consistent.
Vote: Tapper- Yes Ricks- Yes
Striano- Yes Kawalchuk- Yes
O’Halloran- No De Graw- Yes
Gaydos- Yes Carney- Absent
The Board instructed Mr. De Gondea that he would need to have Pond Road inspected by the Highway Superintendent and the Board would request a letter of Mr. Kelder’s findings. Subdivision approval will be conditioned on this inspection.
The Board discussed whether or not drainage and grading plans should be required as per Chazen’s review letter.
Mr. Ricks thought that showing the limits of disturbance would be adequate.
Mr. De Graw would like to hold off on discussing the requirements of the drainage and grading plans due to the lack of topography which when completed, would give a better picture of the site.
Mr. Ricks motioned to waive drainage and grading plans. Seconded by Mr. O’Halloran. Mr. De Graw wasn’t comfortable with waiving this as they were unsure of the topography still.
Vote: Tapper- Yes Ricks- Yes
Striano- Yes Kawalchuk- Yes
O’Halloran- Yes De Graw- No
Gaydos- Yes Carney- Absent
Mr. De Graw motioned for intent to be Lead Agency. Seconded by Mr. Gaydos. No discussion.
Vote: Tapper- Yes Ricks- Yes
Striano- Yes Kawalchuk- Yes
O’Halloran- Yes De Graw- Yes
Gaydos- Yes Carney- Absent
Mr. Gaydos motioned to type the Action as Unlisted under SEQRA. Seconded by Mr. De Graw. No discussion.
Vote: Tapper- Yes Ricks- Yes
Striano- Yes Kawalchuk- Yes
O’Halloran- Yes De Graw- Yes
Gaydos- Yes Carney- Absent
T/ Rochester Planning Board -12- August 16, 2005
Minutes of Regular Meeting
PRE-APPLICATION PRESENTATION
Michael Herzog– Stony Kill Road, Special Use Permit for Multi-Family Dwelling & Subdivision Approval for 2 lots with common driveway, Tax Map# 76.3-2-19.11, ‘B’ & R-1 Districts
Mr. Herzog was present along with his architect Don Kepplar. They explained that they would like to turn the existing barn into a multi-family dwelling. Currently it sits very close to Route 44/55 and ideally they would the barn back further on the property. They would also like to subdivide 2 family lots in the rear of the property and they are aware that they would need a Road Maintenance Agreement.
The way the sketch was now, the applicants would need a variance as the number of apartment units in the barn exceeded the number of acres needed as per zoning.
Because of the size of the lots, this application would need planner review.
Mr. De Graw noted that the applicant should consult with the Town Historians to see if there were any grants to help preserve the barn as it is historic.
DISCUSSION
DENISE MENSCHE ROSS, C/O WILLIAM MENSCHE-
Proposed 2 lot subdivision, off of Lucas Turnpike, Accord, Tax Map #77.2-2-29.2, R-1 Zone
Attorney Phil Kirshner was present on behalf of the application.
The Chairman noted that this application had received Conditional Final Approval August 17, 2004. The Applicant did not file the maps within the 62 day time frame with the County Clerk. The Planning Board needs to to review the maps and application to see if Planner involvement is now necessary. In a previous conversation with Mary Lou Christiana, Esq., she thought that because the Board had just reviewed and approved the application that this could be re-approved in two meetings—an initial meeting and a Public Hearing where the Planning Board could close the hearing and re-approve it all at once. (She was not aware that the application now fell under Planner Thresholds).
The Board discussed this along with Ms. Vlahos. She agreed with the Town Attorney and didn’t see a need for Planner review as this subdivision was recently approved.
Mr. O’Halloran motioned for a Public Hearing for Denise Mensche Ross 2 lot subdivision for September 20, 2005 and that this application be performed with an uncoordinated review. Seconded by Mr. Gaydos.
No discussion. Vote: Tapper- Yes Ricks- Yes
Striano- Yes Kawalchuk- Yes
O’Halloran-Yes De Graw- Yes
Gaydos- Yes Carney- Absent
T/ Rochester Planning Board -13- August 16, 2005
Minutes of Regular Meeting
The Chairman motioned to table the action of the minutes until the next meeting seconded by Mr. Gaydos. No discussion. All members present in favor.
Mr. Gaydos motioned to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Mr. Striano. All members present in favor, no Discussion.
As there was no further business to discuss, Chairman Tapper adjourned the meeting at 9:40PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Rebecca Paddock Stange, Secretary