MINUTES OF September 20, 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: Nadine D. Carney ABSENT: Frank Striano, Sr
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.
PUBLIC HEARING
DIANA BANKS– Special Use Permit for Philanthropic Use, Cat Shelter, Airport Road, Tax Map#69.3-2- 31.12, R-1 District
At 7:00PM, Ms. Banks was present on behalf of her application and explained once again 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.
The Chairman explained that the Board received a letter dated September 14, 2005 from Florence Gray Rivenburg that had some questions regarding the shelter. It wasn’t outrightly against the shelter, but there were definitely some concerns. He read the letter aloud to the public. One of the questions was how the fecal matter and used cat litter were going to be disposed of and where.
Ms. Banks noted that she or the volunteers would take 1 or 2 heavy duty bags to the transfer station a day.
T/ Rochester Planning Board -2- September 20, 2005
Minutes of Regular Meeting
DIANA BANKS(cont’d)– Special Use Permit for Philanthropic Use, Cat Shelter
The Chairman asked another question from the mentioned letter: Was Ms. Banks going to live on the property or would there only be somewhere there during day time hours to look after the cats?
Ms. Banks responded and explained she would not be living there full time, but felt that it was a moot point. She is there approximately 14 hours a day as well as most of her volunteers are there maybe 3-4 hours a day. At this moment there wouldn’t be anyone living at the property full time.
Mr. O’Halloran commented that as a business operator in the Town who has to deal with Board of Health regulations, the need for this type of service that it provides for the business community is tremendous. If you own a food establishment (which attracts stray cats) the Board of Health requires the removal of these animals immediately and there are no organizations that accept the cats. He has reached out to local animal control—the SPCA, DEC…No one has the answer for you, they all just say, Yes, you have a problem. So, this type of operation is a service that is so needed in every community and we are fortunate to have one in the Town of Rochester.
In response to another question from the Rivenburg correspondence, Ms. Banks noted that she has plenty of volunteers and she only hopes to have 35 cats maximum, but she can’t anticipate people leaving them on her doorstep and so on. She has told people that they may need to contact her in a week or so if she is at full capacity. In regards to the question about “keeping the smell out of the neighborhood”, Ms. Banks requested that some members of the Board visit her current shelter to evaluate the cleanliness of the establishment.
Mr. O’Halloran questioned if odors associated with the keeping of cats were based more on the number of cats or the cleanliness of the facility?
Ms. Banks agreed. They try very hard to keep the shelter clean. She noted that the Florence Rivenburg lives on Route 209 and the property in question is up a hill and on another road…she believed Mrs. Rivenburg would get stench more from Route 209 traffic than she would from the shelter.
Chairman Tapper noted that this next question may not be relevant, but he would read it into record. Mrs. Rivenburg wanted to know how many acres of land Ms. Banks owned and why she wouldn’t want to save money and build a shelter on her property?
At this time the Chairman opened the Hearing to the public.
T/ Rochester Planning Board -3- September 20, 2005
Minutes of Regular Meeting
DIANA BANKS (cont’d) – Special Use Permit for Philanthropic Use, Cat Shelter
Chairman Tapper stated that the Board received close to 13 letters from the following, all in favor of the project saying that it is needed and that Ms. Banks history of dealing with the animals is exceptional:
1. Anthony V. Costanzi, Ulster County SPCA dated August 4, 2005
2. John L. Schoonmaker, Jr., Saunderskill Farms dated July 15, 2005
3. G. Smiley, Mohonk Mountain House, dated July 8, 2005
4. Sherry Chachkin, dated July 21, 2005
5. Michael & Amy Goldbaum, dated September 17, 2005
6. Joseph Walker, dated August 12, 2005
7. Jane E. Wilcox, dated July 11, 2005
8. James & Sharen Eaton, dated August 14, 2005
9. David Samuels, VMD Marbletown Animal Hospital, dated August 11, 2005
Vaughn Smith of High Falls spoke in favor of Ms. Banks and the shelter. He has 13 cats in his house and no one has ever complained that his house smells. They make no odor outside. Ms. Banks cats are all in cages and are well kept. There will never be an odor outside.
Jim Phillips, Airport Road, didn’t think that any of the neighbors were concerned about odor. He felt that the people that live on Airport Road, next to the proposed site don’t want a business next to their houses. It is a residential area. Route 209 from Stone Ridge to Accord—there are probably 15 properties for sale. The property she is at now is for sale.
Barbara Harding who lives next door to the proposed site on Airport Road, has nothing against an animal shelter, she does not want one next to her home. She is not concerned with the odor. She knows that Ms. Banks is very clean.
Sharon Eaton, of High Falls wanted to know what it was about this specific business that these people didn’t want it next to their houses.
Mr. Phillips stated that it wasn’t just the shelter. He didn’t want any business next to his house. He lived in a residential district.
Mrs. Eaton read the letter she submitted dated August 14, 2005 in favor of the application. She noted that the shelter is very unobtrusive and more like a home than a business. They maybe have 4 cars a day. She also responded to the concern that there wouldn’t be anyone residing in the shelter or staying with the animals overnight. She knew of only 1 vet in her lifetime that had ever had someone at the clinic that stayed over night with the animals.
Jeff Anderson of Lyonsville, read letter dated August 4, 2005. He noted that Ms. Banks has helped him by bringing strays in and she tries to keep a cat in the community. She is very selective about who she will adopt a cat out to. Also, cats are not like barking dogs, they are very quiet.
The Chairman noted that there was no question that Ms. Banks was good at what she does, so if there were any new comments the Board would hear them now.
T/ Rochester Planning Board -4- September 20, 2005
Minutes of Regular Meeting
DIANA BANKS (cont’d) – Special Use Permit for Philanthropic Use, Cat Shelter
Jill Shufeldt, the Town’s Dog Control Officer, along with Esopus and New Paltz. She is regulated through the state for Dog control. There are no state regulations on cats. New Paltz has an unusual population of cats because there is no shelter in that area. She felt that the Town would have the same problem if Ms. Banks was not in our Town.
Mr. Phillips agreed that it wasn’t that he didn’t want Ms. Banks in the Town, He just didn’t want her as a neighbor. There are more appropriate places for a shelter than in a neighborhood.
Ruth Bendelius, Town Resident noted that there had been a business at that site for over 40 years. This is not a new have a business in that building. She has known Ms. Banks for over 35 years. She urged the Board for their support so Ms. Banks could move before the winter months come.
Sarah Harris, read a line from Jack Schoonmaker’s letter dated July 15, 2005. He noted that he had farm property across from the property in question on Airport Road and would be glad to have her as a neighbor.
John Cooper, Town Resident, noted that every body wants the shelter in the Town, but the neighborhood wasn’t suitable. The houses were too close together. He didn’t believe this was the ideal location for it. He understood that we needed a cat shelter, but there were a lot of families out there who could use a nice home too.
Sue Patterson of High Falls noted that she is a past volunteer and she read excerpts from a current neighbor of Ms. Banks shelter. Letter dated August 12, 2005 from Joseph Walker noted that she was a very courteous neighbor and she provided a valuable service to the Town. She also noted that there was already a shelter in a Residential Area in the Town (Patty’s Angels).
Vaughn Smith was recognized to speak again. He commented on the low volume of traffic…1 or 2 or none in a day.
George Rider, Town Resident, wanted to know what this was going to do to the property values in that area.
Ms. Banks noted that she would hope it wouldn’t do anything. If she needed to sell the home if she had to or something came up, she would like to even make a profit off of the home.
Mr. Rider questioned why Ms. Banks didn’t just put the shelter on her property?
Ms. Banks noted that she owned a farm and she wanted to preserve it as very few pieces of property are going to remain whole. People are just splitting the land up. She also wants separation from her business and home.
Richard Sieberking, the current owner of the property was recognized to speak. He noted that he had a business on that property for 50 years and always had lots of traffic, big 10 foot ugly satellite dishes all over the place. This was never a problem with his neighbors, so he doesn’t understand why this is their problem now? He could understand the cat aspect of it because it is something different in the area.
T/ Rochester Planning Board -5- September 20, 2005
Minutes of Regular Meeting
DIANA BANKS (cont’d) – Special Use Permit for Philanthropic Use, Cat Shelter
Chairman Tapper noted that Barbara Micelli had called him and spoke highly in favor of the project.
Mr. Gaydos motioned to close the Public Hearing at 7:40 PM, seconded by Mrs. Carney. No discussion.
Vote: Tapper- Yes Ricks- Yes
Striano- Absent Kawalchuk- Yes
O’Halloran- Yes De Graw- Yes
Gaydos- Yes Carney- Yes
The Chairman noted again that Mr. O’Halloran was the alternate who was sitting in place of Board member Frank Striano, Sr.
Mr. De Graw noted that since it was an R-1 zone, he understood that there was some concern. What was the definition of a Philanthropic? Why is this being classified as Philanthropic?
The Secretary explained that it was classified as Philanthropic as it meant “not for profit”.
Mr. De Graw then asked if there would be a way to contact someone if there was a problem.
Ms. Banks noted that there will be a security system and she is within 2.2 miles of the site. There is no actual alarm that goes off. There is just a system that contacts the fire department. There is an emergency number listed on the building.
Mr. De Graw explained that under the basis of deliberation for a Special Use Permit the Board has to assure itself that there will be no detrimental impact on other uses in the area. He questioned if the applicant would be willing to condition the use of the building? He asked this because the permit runs with the land and if she were to sell the property, the permit would be good for someone else to use.
Ms. Banks noted that she would be willing to work with the Board and compromise. Ms. Banks assured the Board that she was buying this property for herself and would be using it for her needs. It would never be turned over to the SPCA or anything like that.
The Chairman noted that the Board would have to table this application until the next meeting for a decision. There were too many things that the Board needed to discus.
Ms. Banks exclaimed that this would put a big hardship on her and Mr. Sieberking.
The Chairman noted that there were people with concerns and the Board needed to make sure that they were protected as well and this would take some discussion and thought on the part of the Planning Board and therefore they would need a little more time.
Mrs. Carney suggested that the Board compare the old Special Use Permit conditions to this application and see what would apply to this situation.
T/ Rochester Planning Board -6- September 20, 2005
Minutes of Regular Meeting
DIANA BANKS (cont’d) – Special Use Permit for Philanthropic Use, Cat Shelter
Mr. O’Halloran questioned how long since Mr. Sieberking operated this house as a business.
Mr. Sieberking replied 1 year.
The Board discussed the distance between the property in question to the surrounding parcels. Neighbors were present and there was not a definite answer as to how far the houses were from each other.
The Board reiterated that they would need to give this application some more thought and reschedule it for next month.
PUBLIC HEARING
DENISE MENSCHE ROSS, C/O WILLIAM MENSCHE-
Proposed 3 lot subdivision, off of Lucas Turnpike, Accord, Tax Map #77.2-2-29.2, R-1 Zone
At 7:50 PM Attorney Phil Kirshner was present on behalf of the application.
The Chairman noted that this application had received Conditional Final Approval August 17, 2004 and Final Approval in March of 2005. The Applicant did not file the maps within the 62 day time frame with the County Clerk. The Planning Board determined that because they just approved this a few months ago that Planner involvement was not necessary.
The Board noted that this was an uncoordinated review as the application was just approved. The Notice of Hearing was advertised in the Daily Freeman.
The Chairman further noted that when the Board first approved this application 2 lots were applied for. The map was the same, the applicant simply thought he was creating 2 additional lots and leaving remaining land. This is technically a 3 lot subdivision applications and fees were amended to reflect the difference.
The Chairman opened the Hearing to the public and there were no comments.
Mr. Ricks motioned to close the Public Hearing at 7:55PM, seconded by Mrs. Carney. No discussion.
Vote: Tapper- Yes Ricks- Yes
Striano- Absent Kawalchuk- Yes
O’Halloran- Yes De Graw- Yes
Gaydos- Yes Carney- Yes
Mrs. Carney motioned for Final Approval seconded by Mr. Gaydos. No discussion.
Vote: Tapper- Yes Ricks- Yes
Striano- Absent Kawalchuk- Yes
O’Halloran- Yes De Graw- Yes
Gaydos- Yes Carney- Yes
T/ Rochester Planning Board -7- September 20, 2005
Minutes of Regular Meeting
PUBLIC HEARING
AMPLE SELF STORAGE– c/o Todd Bivona, Special Use Permit for 56,000sf of storage sheds with 1,375 sf of office, Route 209, Tax Map #76.2-2-13.22, ‘B’ District
At 8:00PM Mr. Bivona was present on behalf of his application along with representative, Ed Sprague of Medenbach & Eggers.
Mr. Ricks recused himself from the Board and sat in the audience as he owns storage sheds in close proximity to the property in question.
Mr. Sprague noted that they were holding off on completing the Stormwater Management Plan until the Board gave their okay on the layout of the project, because revisions to the layout would cause changes in the Stormwater Management Plan.
The Board discussed the roof lines and moving them and discussed whether or not it would be appropriate to make changes to the plan after the Public Hearing was closed.
Mr. O’Halloran thought that if they made changes to the site plan, the Public Hearing would have to be reopened.
Ms. Vlahos didn’t believe that would be necessary, it would be something that was caused by the Hearing.
Ms. Vlahos then noted that he applicant needed to revise Part 3 of the EAF to show the mitigation of the visual impact. They would also revise the Stormwater Management Plan once they received confirmation that the Board accepted the submitted layout.
At this time Chairman Tapper reopened the Hearing to the Public noting that this was the third Public Hearing for this application, so the Board has heard a lot of public comment on it, so he urged for new information to be brought forward at this time.
Ms. Fitzgerald was recognized to speak and believed that this Town already had ample self storage. She believed that the word was out that if people wanted to do self storage facilities to go to Rochester.
Next to speak was Jean Moncrief who knew that the Board didn’t have any codes they could follow that restricted self storage sheds, but the Board did have the Master Plan to protect the rural character. She presented the Board with examples of rural character collected from Town Meetings and storage sheds were not mentioned anywhere as an example of rural character.
Sarah Harris believed that this was just like that Joni Mitchell song, “take all the trees and put them in a tree museum and charge the people a dollar and a half to see them…” She wanted to know why there was no moratorium on these buildings. She felt it was a shame to take the rural character out of the Town with approving this project.
Phil Rose questioned if this was for a Special Use Permit? So, when the Board was looking at this, they needed to take into consideration that it didn’t disrupt the surrounding lands, and that it provided something for the Town? What does this bring to the Town?
T/ Rochester Planning Board -8- September 20, 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
The Chairman noted that the Board couldn’t look at this application for what it would bring to the Town. It is a permitted use in the area with a Special Use Permit in that it comes before the Planning Board for site plan review and if it fits in the Town.
Shane Ricks was recognized to speak and noted that he currently operated the largest storage shed business in Town. The other 2 facilities in the Town are narrow and fit in and his own is set far back off of Route 209. This facility being reviewed looks like something that belongs on Route 17 in New Jersey. It will really stand out. He believed that the Board needed to study the Traffic Report very carefully because there are some poor sight distance areas and the applicant will have to encroach on private property to fix them. Also across the street are 2 businesses with complete open access, so safety is a big concern.
The Chairman noted that the applicant had submitted a visual impact study and a traffic safety study. If anyone from the public was interested in viewing it they could visit the Planning Board office.
Elliot Rosenstien was a neighbor to the project area and was just concerned with the grading of the property and hadn’t seen a new site plan since there were buildings removed from the plan. He viewed the plan and noted that he wasn’t against the project and appreciated the screening being proposed. He has a home occupation and appreciates the reduction of storage facilities.
Mrs. Carney motioned to close the Public Hearing as there was no further comment. Seconded by Mr. O’Halloran. No discussion.
Vote: Tapper- Yes Ricks- recused
Striano- Absent Kawalchuk- Yes
O’Halloran- Yes De Graw- Yes
Gaydos- Yes Carney- Yes
The Board continued to discuss the aesthetics of the building.
Mr. Bivona submitted a layout to show the building with a hip roof. He was trying to work with the Board, but believed that a pitched roof didn’t look right.
Mr. De Graw was not satisfied by anything proposed to change the look of the building. He wanted to see something with more of a rural look, like the Saunderskill Farm Market.
Mrs. Carney questioned the Board, that if the applicant was willing to change the pitch of the roof, if that would have an impact on their final decision on the whole project? She felt that it would be wrong to spend the time and effort on this, if it wasn’t going to have an impact on someone’s final decision.
Mr. De Graw felt that the aesthetics would pull your eye away from the whole facility.
T/ Rochester Planning Board -9- September 20, 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
The Chairman noted that he liked maple trees better than evergreen. A pine tree after a few years spreads out, but he had no problem with the lack of coverage from a maple, because they are beautiful.
Mr. O’Halloran felt that a pitched roof on the main building would be more rural.
Mr. Bivona felt that he had conformed to everything that the Board has wanted so far. He strongly felt that a pitched roof would just look ugly. He felt that the roof the way it is presented would fit the community.
Mr. O’Halloran explained that the Town didn’t have architectural standards, but they were recommending a preferred look of the buildings. If Mr. Bivona didn’t want to take the Board’s advice, he didn’t have to.
Mr. De Graw wasn’t aware of buildings in the Town that resembled this building.
Chairman Tapper wanted to discuss the red color. After seeing the roller rink that was recently approved, he isn’t sure he likes the red color.
Mrs. Carney thought the roller rink looked good.
The Chairman was more interested in neutral colors to sort of make it blend in more and stand out less.
Mrs. Carney noted that you would only see the storage sheds when you were right in front of it. She didn’t see a problem with the colors.
Mr. O’Halloran felt that a more neutral color scheme could make the buildings look better or even worse…
Ms. Vlahos advised that the Applicant needs to revise Part 3 of the EAF and at the next meeting a conditional Negative Declaration would be prepared. Determination of Significance would be voted on at that point, and it would be published in the Environmental Notice Bulletin (ENB).
{Mr. De Graw motioned for a Positive Declaration because he didn’t believe that the visual impact was addressed sufficiently and that this project didn’t fit the character of the Town and that it would hinder Tourism.
Mr. O’Halloran was confused—shouldn’t the Board review Part 3 of the EAF before they made a Determination of Significance?
Mr. De Graw didn’t feel there would be any changes from a visual standpoint that would alter his decision.
Ms. Vlahos explained that if the Board issued a Positive Declaration the Applicant would have to do an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
T/ Rochester Planning Board -10- September 20, 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. De Graw reiterated his motion for a Positive Declaration.
Discussion: Mr. Tapper questioned Ms. Vlahos if someone were to vote against the Positive Declaration, would it still be procedurally correct to vote against the project as a whole?
Ms. Vlahos noted that they were separate issues. Members were not required to vote for a Positive Declaration if they were going to vote ‘no’ for the decision on the project.
Mr. De Graw noted that his motion was for a Positive Declaration due to visual impact as well as storm water run off.
Mr. O’Halloran noted that the last thing that he would want to do (if he were against the project) would be to use a Positive Declaration to make the Applicant go through even more hoops. If a person was against the project and planning to vote the project down, they shouldn’t make it go through all of this extra review, just to ultimately vote against it.
There was no second, the Motion was DEAD.}
Ms. Vlahos reiterated that SEQRA would be done at the next meeting and after the Determination of Significance (Conditional Negative Declaration), it would get published in the ENB and there would be a 30 day comment period. So after October’s meeting the Board should be able to render a decision in December.
PUBLIC HEARING
Peter Sutherland– c/o Medenbach & Eggers, 4 lot subdivision, Stony Kill Road, Tax Map# 76.4-3- 21, R-1 District
At 8:45 PM Mr. Sutherland was present on behalf of his Application along with representative, Ed Sprague from Medenbach & Eggers.
Mr. Ricks rejoined the Board.
Chairman Tapper opened the Hearing to the Public.
Dan Warner, resident of Stony Kill Road was concerned about traffic on this road. The Stony Kill is a natural wonder and he was just concerned because everyday he sees a new for sale sign on the road.
Ruth Bendelius was next to speak. She wanted the Planning Board to make a condition that these lots couldn’t be further subdivided.
Mr. Sutherland noted that the 50 acre parcel in the middle was not part of this subdivision.
Nicole Quinn, resident questioned if the Stony Kill was aquifer regulated? Were there any restrictions to building next to the stream?
T/ Rochester Planning Board -11- September 20, 2005
Minutes of Regular Meeting
PUBLIC HEARING
PETER SUTHERLAND (cont’d) – c/o Medenbach & Eggers, 4 lot subdivisions
Mr. De Graw suggested that Ms. Quinn address her questions and concerns regarding aquifer districts to the Town Board.
Mrs. Carney further noted that these lots were also subject to Health Dept. approval and during construction are subject to sediment erosion control plans. These regulations will monitor the building and Ms. Quinn’s concerns with disturbance to the Stream. None of this development is close to the stream.
Mr. O’Halloran noted that there were 4 separate driveways, one to each lot.
Mr. Ricks noted that the driveway grades would still need to meet Town standards.
Phillip Rose was recognized to speak and shared common concerns with other residents about the pace of development on the road. He was also concerned with water and the impact of buildings on the water supply. He was also concerned with light pollution. It is dark at night and he can see the stars. He is also concerned about further subdividing of these lots.
Chairman Tapper was empathetic to Mr. Rose’s concerns stating that he once had a 100 acre corn field across the street from his house, and now has 40 individual houses. Unfortunately this happens.
At 8:55 PM, the Chairman motioned to close the Public Hearing. Seconded by Mr. Ricks. No discussion.
Vote: Tapper- Yes Ricks- Yes
Striano- Absent Kawalchuk- Yes
O’Halloran- Yes De Graw- Yes
Gaydos- Yes Carney- Yes
Mr. O’Halloran was concerned that there were subdivision regulations that required that entrances were supposed to come off the least traveled road. He thought that there should be shared driveways to mitigate the number of entrances coming off of the Town road.
Mrs. Carney noted that it would be required if a private road were being proposed. It may not be the most favorable thing to create flag lots, but it is not illegal.
Mr. Sutherland didn’t want to deal with Road Maintenance Agreements and he has enough road frontages to legally split these lots without shared driveways.
Mrs. Carney motioned for the Planning Board to be Lead Agency. Seconded by Chairman Tapper. No discussion.
Vote: Tapper- Yes Ricks- Yes
Striano- Absent Kawalchuk- Yes
O’Halloran- Yes De Graw- Yes
Gaydos- Yes Carney- Yes
T/ Rochester Planning Board -12- September 20, 2005
Minutes of Regular Meeting
PUBLIC HEARING
PETER SUTHERLAND (cont’d): c/o Medenbach & Eggers, 4 lot subdivision
Mr. O’Halloran questioned if there was a Road Maintenance Agreement for the existing driveway that goes to Mr. Sutherlands home and crosses over on another parcel?
The Board noted that they would want a condition to either move the driveway upon the sale of parcel #1 or an easement to be established at that time.
At this time the Board went over Part 2 of the EAF.
Mrs. Carney motioned to accept Part 2 of the EAF as prepared by the Planning Board. Seconded by Mr. O’Halloran. No discussion.
Vote: Tapper- Yes Ricks- Yes
Striano- Absent Kawalchuk- Yes
O’Halloran- Yes De Graw- Yes
Gaydos- Yes Carney- Yes
Mr. O’Halloran motioned for a Negative Declaration. Seconded by Mrs. Carney. No discussion.
Vote: Tapper- Yes Ricks- Yes
Striano- Absent Kawalchuk- Yes
O’Halloran- Yes De Graw- Yes
Gaydos- Yes Carney- Yes
Mr. O’Halloran motioned for Conditional Final Approval. Seconded by Mr. Ricks. The following conditions to apply:
1. Upon the sale of Parcel #1, the driveway for Parcel #2 will either be granted an easement to remain on lands of Parcel # 1 or the driveway will be relocated to Parcel #2.
2. Further subdivision of Parcels 1, 3, 5, or 6 shall require further Planning Board approval and
approval from the Ulster County Health Dept.
3. The map title shall read, “Final Plan”.
Vote: Tapper- Yes Ricks- Yes
Striano- Absent Kawalchuk- Yes
O’Halloran- Yes De Graw- Yes
Gaydos- Yes Carney- Yes
CONTINUED APPLICATION REVIEW
Paul Pacht– Special Use Permit for 2 family dwelling, Queens Highway, Tax map #68.3-2-54, R-1
district
Mr. & Mrs. Pacht were present on behalf of their application and again explained that they were aware that they had enough acreage to build 2 single family dwellings, however they wanted to build a “mother-daughter” 2 family home and therefore would have to obtain a special use permit. They now had a survey of the property done and the house site and improvements were plotted on that map.
T/ Rochester Planning Board -13- September 20, 2005
Minutes of Regular Meeting
CONTINUED APPLICATION REVIEW
Paul PACHT (cont’d): Special Use Permit for 2 family dwelling
Mrs. Carney motioned for the Planning Board to be Lead Agency. Seconded by Mr. Gaydos. No discussion.
Vote: Tapper- Yes Ricks- Yes
Striano- Absent Kawalchuk- Yes
O’Halloran- Yes De Graw- Yes
Gaydos- Yes Carney- Yes
Mr. Pacht noted that he had applied to the Health Dept. in June for a septic permit and the septic was engineered and James Rodden had all of the information he needed by July 27, 2005.
Mr. Ricks motioned to schedule the Public Hearing for October. Seconded by Mr. O’Halloran. No discussion.
Vote: Tapper- Yes Ricks- Yes
Striano- Absent Kawalchuk- Yes
O’Halloran- Yes De Graw- Yes
Gaydos- Yes Carney- Yes
CONTINUED APPLICATION REVIEW
ERIC GILLES- Subdivision Approval for lot line adjustment in Quite Mountain Estates, lots 5 & 11, Stillerberg Strada, Kerhonkson, Tax Map #s 67-3-5 & 25
Mr. Gilles was present on behalf of his Application and explained that he had been waiting for his engineer and surveyor to complete the work. The issue was that part of the septic reserve was cut by the proposed lot line adjustment. The septic reserve was oversized, so the engineer just cut it back and showed on the map that there was still an adequate amount of reserve.
The Chairman confirmed that there is an existing house and garage on lot 11. And after the proposed lot line the house and garage will be separated.
Mr. De Graw questioned if Mr. Gilles had UCHD approval yet for the lot that is currently vacant, but will have a garage on it once the lot line is changed?
Mr. Gilles noted that this is a pre-engineered subdivision that was approved years ago.
Mrs. Carney was aware of this, but questioned if there was an alteration to septic locations?
Mr. Ricks explained that all they did on Lot 11 was to snip out a little section of the reserve area and it is explained on the map that there is still adequate reserve. Lot #5 had already received approval when the subdivision was originally approved.
Mrs. Carney still felt that this would need to be filed with the UCHD so that they would know the revision of the lot line.
T/ Rochester Planning Board -14- September 20, 2005
Minutes of Regular Meeting
CONTINUED APPLICATION REVIEW
ERIC GILLES (cont’d): Subdivision Approval for lot line adjustment in Quite Mountain Estates
Mr. Ricks motioned to schedule the Public Hearing for October. Seconded by Mr. Gaydos. No discussion.
Vote: Tapper- Yes Ricks- Yes
Striano- Absent Kawalchuk- Yes
O’Halloran- Yes De Graw- Yes
Gaydos- Yes Carney- Yes
Mr. O’Halloran motioned to type the action as Unlisted. Seconded by Mrs. Carney. No discussion.
Vote: Tapper- Yes Ricks- Yes
Striano- Absent Kawalchuk- Yes
O’Halloran- Yes De Graw- Yes
Gaydos- Yes Carney- Yes
Mrs. Carney motioned to circulate Intent for Lead Agency. Seconded by Chairman Tapper. No discussion.
Vote: Tapper- Yes Ricks- Yes
Striano- Absent Kawalchuk- Yes
O’Halloran- Yes De Graw- Yes
Gaydos- Yes Carney- Yes
Mrs. Carney noted that the EAF was still insufficient. When Mr. Gilles originally applied the Board gave him needed revisions that needed to be done to his EAF. This would need to be handed in.
Mr. Gilles noted that he had a revised one and would submit it.
PRE-APPLICATION DISCUSSION
HUDSON VALLEY RESORT– arcade & support areas for a water park facility along with updated meeting rooms and kitchen facilities plus 100 family style rooms to replace existing rooms, Granite Road, Tax Map# 76.4-1-56.1, R-1 District
Mrs. Carney recused herself and sat in the audience as she worked for a firm who was doing work for the Hudson Valley Resort (HVR).
Robert Burick was present on behalf of the HVR and noted that he was the Director of Strategic Planning and was authorized on behalf of the Resort to speak about this project.
Mr. Burick thanked the Board for letting him appear and speak. On June 28, 2005 the Resort, by its owner, filed an application for a building permit with the office of building and zoning here in the Town of Rochester. Shortly thereafter Mr. Burick received the decision by Mr. Douglas Dymond, CEO accepting their application and approving their project, but requiring that they obtain a special permit for the project. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Burick asked Mr. Dymond to reconsider his decision with respect to requiring the special building permit which precipitated his request to speak before this body this evening. He over heard one of the Board members saying “why is the HVR here tonight” and Mr. Burick is asking the same question.
T/ Rochester Planning Board -15- September 20, 2005
Minutes of Regular Meeting
PRE-APPLICATION DISCUSSION
HUDSON VALLEY RESORT(cont’d): arcade & support areas for a water park facility along with updated meeting rooms and kitchen facilities plus 100 family style rooms to replace existing rooms, Granite Road, Tax Map# 76.4-1-56.1, R-1 District
Mr. Burick noted that what they were looking to do really becomes magnified when you look at what happened at the hotel on August 23, 2005 when a fire hit the facility and closed the facility for 3 weeks. They are still not fully opened and have a temporary C/O and are operating at about 50% of the capacity that they were operating at previously. That doesn’t include the business that the hotel has lost probably permanently due to the fire. They are currently working with the insurance company with respect to resolution of the claim and what is covered by the building permit application is really in part what was destroyed by the fire. What they are looking to do with the building permit is to replace the existing conference center which suffered some serious damage as a result of the fire and they were going to replace it any way because the existing conference centers are really sub par and were built back in the 1940’s. They are looking to replace some existing hotel stock and the fire magnifies the reason why they need additional hotel stock…they aren’t looking to expand. There would be the same number of rooms in respect to the resort. The third thing they are looking to do is to put in an indoor aquatic center that. People use the word ‘water park’, but it is really an accessory to the hotel.
The owners don’t understand the reasons for the need to be before the Planning Board because what they are doing is something that is an accessory to the hotel and there is no precedent in the Town for requiring a special permit such a facility. Basically they are adding something for the use of the hotel. It is an expanded indoor pool with various activities that are associated with it. It is not increasing anything other than being added on the current site of the property. They are aware that there have been other like facilities that have been constructed in the Town with respect to accessory uses. Camp Rov Tov added a food service and arts and crafts building all without a special permit. The recent roller rink is all without a special permit. Here we have an existing facility which is zoned and permitted for the use of a hotel and what he requests that this Board consider sending this back to Mr. Dymond’s office and that this Board has no jurisdiction to hear anything with respect to this proposed construction.
Mr. O’Halloran confirmed that there would be no additional rooms. The first two discussions, to renovate a conference facility, he can’t see that being sent to the Planning Board. Maybe that is being combined with the other issues. Second, the rooms—If they were going to take down the same footprint and put up the same number of rooms—Mr. O’Halloran noted that this is a Building Dept. issue. The third item of the accessory building to the use—Mr. O’Halloran reviewed the code on this as well. He found it interesting as his biggest confusion is that the largest employer, the largest business in our Town is being subjected, possibly for the first time in our Town to obtain a Special Use Permit to add an accessory facility to the main facility itself. Many other businesses in this Town, prior to Zoning have done that regularly by just going through the Building Dept. He wasn’t sure why this application was sent to the Planning Board.
Mr. Gaydos added that even after Zoning was established this has never happened. The Granite (HVR) had added on a winter park and it wasn’t required to come before this Board.
T/ Rochester Planning Board -16- September 20, 2005
Minutes of Regular Meeting
PRE-APPLICATION DISCUSSION
HUDSON VALLEY RESORT(cont’d): arcade & support areas for a water park facility along with updated meeting rooms and kitchen facilities plus 100 family style rooms to replace existing rooms, Granite Road, Tax Map# 76.4-1-56.1, R-1 District
Mr. De Graw noted that the Board had a letter from the Town Attorney, Mary Lou Christiana, Esq. and that Mrs. Christiana and Mr. Dymond had made the determination that this needed to come before the Board for a Special Use Permit. He didn’t think the Board members were here to do Mr. Dymond or Mrs. Christiana’s job,
The Board was here to do their job which is to review this for a Special Use Permit.
Ms. Vlahos agreed with Mr. De Graw.
Mr. De Graw questioned if the additions being built would impact the parking areas or new areas of the hotel?
Mr. Burick responded that parking was not being affected and it would be built on the existing green space of the property. The Conference center is going where the tent is and the new rooms are basically going between where the two units are.
Mr. De Graw’s recollection of this interpretation is that the HVR isn’t building in the foot print of an area that had burned down or is being demolished and therefore the applicant would have to come in for review.
Mr. O’Halloran stated that this wasn’t the case in our Town. Camp Rov Tov put up three buildings. Mr. De Graw drives by it on his way home everyday. None of those buildings have come before this Board. The kitchen burnt down after they built a new one.
The Chairman noted that he couldn’t speak as to what has occurred with other projects in the Town, but the Code Enforcement Officer has sent this to the Board for review. He believed that if the Board had a problem with the Code Enforcement Officer’s determination that this has to be an appeal to the ZBA. He didn’t think that the Planning Board had the authority to send it back to the Code Enforcement Office and say “no we are not going to review it”.
Mr. O’Halloran felt that the Board could question the determination.
Mr. Ricks read section 140-40(1) With respect to buildings located upon lands owned by the holder of such non conforming use on the date of the adoption of this chapter, said owner may enlarge, increase or extend the size and areas of such buildings by no more than 100% of their present size and area as existed at the date of the adoption of this chapter. This extension may be exercised by adding to existing buildings or by the erection of new buildings on the same parcel or contiguous parcels, if title to such contiguous parcel was in the same owner on the date of the adoption of this chapter.
140-40(2) The right to increase, extend and enlarge the nonconforming use as herein provided shall be subject to a conditional use contingent on securing a Special Use Permit in each case from the Planning Board, pursuant to Article V11et seq of this chapter.
T/ Rochester Planning Board -17- September 20, 2005
Minutes of Regular Meeting
PRE-APPLICATION DISCUSSION
HUDSON VALLEY RESORT(cont’d): arcade & support areas for a water park facility along with updated meeting rooms and kitchen facilities plus 100 family style rooms to replace existing rooms, Granite Road, Tax Map# 76.4-1-56.1, R-1 District
Mr. O’Halloran believed that these were the two areas that as a Board they should ask the Code Enforcement Officer to review and tell the Board why the HVR has to come in for a Special Use Permit when they have the right to build up to 100% for an accessory building and they are certainly not doing that. If they are building 10% they are doing a lot.
The Chairman noted that the HVR can increase by 100%, but the right to increase, extend and enlarge is contingent on securing a Special Use Permit.
Mr. O’Halloran noted that when you are permitted as a resort property, it is based on the number of beds and the use is based on the size. As far as adding bars, Mr. O’Halloran noted that he was speaking as a hotel owner, barns, roller rinks, ice skating facilities are just done with a building permit. They have never come before this Board before.
Chairman Tapper believed that the problem may be with the water park aspect of it. If they had property that was destroyed by fire, all they would need would be a building permit to replace the burnt out structures. If they are expanding the use with a water park, maybe that aspect might have to come before the Planning Board for review.
Mr. Burick noted that they were doing nothing more than increasing their existing indoor pool. It wouldn’t be open to the public.
Mr. De Graw wanted to clarify some things. Regarding Camp Rov Tov, he had spoken with Mr. Dymond about this because he does drive by it everyday and he saw the building going on. Mr. Dymond said it was in the same foot print as the burnt down cafeteria area. The second thing is under Section 140-40; he believes that (1) is talking about uses that were nonconforming prior to Zoning. And it also says that”… if title to such contiguous parcel was in the same owner on the date of the adoption of this chapter.” If the same owner had it, and it hadn’t changed hands since the adoption of this chapter then that would apply, but it obviously doesn’t.
Mr. Burick stated that by making this project be reviewed for a Special Use Permit, particularly in light of the fire, the Board is basically shutting down the hotel. If they have to go through a year of review…
Ms. Vlahos indicated that the Applicant would need to apply through the ZBA.
Mr. O’Halloran stated that the Board could send a letter to the Code Enforcement Office asking him to review his decision based on section 140-40(1) and (2) and as pertaining to the addition of an indoor pool area. The renovation to the pool area and conference rooms to not belong before the Board for review.
Mr. De Graw felt that this really needed to be reviewed by the ZBA.
Mr. O’Halloran noted that the Board wasn’t denying anything, they were just requesting for the Code Enforcement Officer to review his decision.
T/ Rochester Planning Board -18- September 20, 2005
Minutes of Regular Meeting
PRE-APPLICATION DISCUSSION
HUDSON VALLEY RESORT(cont’d): arcade & support areas for a water park facility along with updated meeting rooms and kitchen facilities plus 100 family style rooms to replace existing rooms, Granite Road, Tax Map# 76.4-1-56.1, R-1 District
Mr. Ricks felt that a lot of things that he had heard from the public was that they are envisioning a large outdoor water park. This is all inside and contained in the building. Mr. Ricks had seen one in Pennsylvania and it is all within the hotel. By the time the conference room is done and the rooms are done and this is added, there is an over all 10% increase. Could the hotel cut down that 10% increase to where there wouldn’t be one at all?
Mr. Burick noted that you would drive right by and not even know that there was a water park in there. He didn’t believe that it could be downsized to less than 10% and accomplish what they were looking for.
Mr. De Graw hasn’t been happy with some of the decisions that come out of the Code Enforcement Office or from the Attorney, but they are the interpretations from our professionals that we hire to guide the Board in their decision making and he felt that the Board follow that.
Mr. O’Halloran made a motion that the Board send a letter to the Code Enforcement Officer asking him to review this application in regards to 140-40(1) and (2) as pertaining to the HVR water park and secondly that they should review sending the renovations to this Board for review. Seconded by Mr. Gaydos.
Discussion: Mr. De Graw didn’t feel that this was ever an area that the Board has attempted to enter and he felt that the Code Enforcement Officer is a professional and the attorney is a professional and they are held to professional standards, just like any engineer that comes before the Board. It is up to the Applicant if they don’t agree with a decision from the Code Enforcement Officer or Attorney to appeal it to the ZBA. He didn’t feel the Board should enter this realm.
Mr. O’Halloran questioned if Mr. Burick had been given a single answer by the Code Enforcement Office or was Mr. Burick directed to this Board?
Mr. Burick answered that the Code Enforcement Officer couldn’t give him a reason why they needed a special permit. There was discussion, however about going to the ZBA, but that was changed also.
Mr. O’Halloran noted that there has been ambiguity by the Code Enforcement Officer and this project had a public hearing held by the Supervisor and requiring the Board’s to attend. That too was out of the normal scope of how the Planning Board does business and operates in the Town. The Planning Board was required to attend that meeting for a non applicant. There have been many unique things with this project. What Mr. O’Halloran is doing is trying to bring it back to consistency in the Town, so he would like the Code Enforcement Officer to review it again as it is certainly being reviewed differently than prior applicants.
Mr. De Graw felt comfortable with the review from the Code Enforcement Officer and the Town Attorney.
Mr. Burick noted that they have given him no response as to why this needs to be reviewed by the Planning Board.
T/ Rochester Planning Board -19- September 20, 2005
Minutes of Regular Meeting
PRE-APPLICATION DISCUSSION
HUDSON VALLEY RESORT(cont’d): arcade & support areas for a water park facility along with updated meeting rooms and kitchen facilities plus 100 family style rooms to replace existing rooms, Granite Road, Tax Map# 76.4-1-56.1, R-1 District
Mr. De Graw noted that this was submitted in writing by the Town Attorney.
Mr. Burick stated that he has never seen this letter.
Chairman Tapper read letter dated, August 1, 2005 submitted by Mary Lou Christiana, Esq.
Mr. Burick felt that the Board needed to hear both sides. A legal opinion is based on a specific question that is addressed to that attorney. If you don’t know what the question is, how do you know what the opinion is?
The Chairman also noted that this predated the HVR’s fire. So he had no problems that there would need to be readjustments to buildings that were damaged by fire, but the water park brings it out of the realm of just a building permit.
Mr. O’Halloran had questions regarding Camp Rov Tov’s buildings and discussed them with the Town Attorney and she too for those believed that they should be before the Planning Board, but they never were. So, yes the Town Attorney feels that those projects should be before the Planning Board, however that is not what happened. He also asked the Code Enforcement Officer and was told that they were pre-existing to Zoning and they weren’t adding capacity, they were just accessory uses to the current use, therefore they didn’t require Planning Board review. This applicant before us is being used to set a different standard than what other people are required of in our Town.
The Chairman stated that if Mr. Burick felt that he was being treated differently, he has legal recourse.
Mr. Burick noted that he was very disturbed because from the get go, before an application was even filed, there was a pre-determination that the HVR would need to come before the Planning Board. There was no consideration…He was approached by the Supervisor of this Town to put money on the table to pay for a planner before an application was even filed. There was no consideration and this was prejudged and he felt it needed to go back to the Code Enforcement Officer for him to express his reasons why that this application was decided the way it was and what steps and questions he asked and what he was told prior to the application being submitted. Because it was obviously pre-determined.
Mr. O’Halloran questioned if Mr. Burick was asked for money for planning review prior to filing an application by the Town Board?
Mr. Burick answered, yes, by the Town Supervisor and the woman who is the Town Planner. They asked for $30,000.
The Board clarified that it was Susan Blickstein of The Chazen Companies that was being referred to as the Town planner.
T/ Rochester Planning Board -20- September 20, 2005
Minutes of Regular Meeting
PRE-APPLICATION DISCUSSION
HUDSON VALLEY RESORT(cont’d): arcade & support areas for a water park facility along with updated meeting rooms and kitchen facilities plus 100 family style rooms to replace existing rooms, Granite Road, Tax Map# 76.4-1-56.1, R-1 District
Mr. De Graw felt that this was irrelevant. The Board is not in a position to question the Code Enforcement Officer. They are a Planning Board, they are not professionals.
Mr. Ricks noted that he has been running a camping resort for years. There are a lot of bungalow colonies in this Town running similar businesses, now every time they add a picnic pavilion or an addition on a pool or a basketball court. To be in here and go through the Special Use Permit process is ridiculous.
Mr. O’Halloran agreed that they are basically reapplying for a Special Use Permit to continue an ongoing operation. No one has ever done this.
Mr. De Graw felt that if certain Board members had problems with the Code Enforcement Officer, maybe they should personally address them, but he didn’t feel that the Board should question him.
Mr. O’Halloran restated his motion:
Mr. O’Halloran made a motion that the Board send a letter to the Code Enforcement Officer asking him to review this application in regards to 140-40(1) and (2) as pertaining to the HVR water park and secondly that they should review sending the renovations to this Board for review. Seconded by Mr. Gaydos.
Vote: Tapper- No Ricks- Yes
Striano- Absent Kawalchuk- Yes
O’Halloran- Yes De Graw- No
Gaydos- Yes Carney- recused
Mr. O’Halloran motioned for the Chairperson to request information as to Chazen’s request for money from this applicant prior to an application being presented to the Planning Board.
Discussion:
Mr. De Graw recollected a project where Mohonk put in a spa and it wasn’t open to the public, but they needed to get a Special Use Permit?
Chairman Tapper confirmed this.
Mr. O’Halloran stated that they were in Rochester and Marbletown. Marbletown didn’t require review and had the Town of Rochester be lead agency and this was how they got it. Marbletown’s regulations required it and not ours.
T/ Rochester Planning Board -21- September 20, 2005
Minutes of Regular Meeting
PRE-APPLICATION DISCUSSION
HUDSON VALLEY RESORT(cont’d): arcade & support areas for a water park facility along with updated meeting rooms and kitchen facilities plus 100 family style rooms to replace existing rooms, Granite Road, Tax Map# 76.4-1-56.1, R-1 District
Mr. O’Halloran reiterated his motion:
Mr. O’Halloran motioned for the Chairperson to request information as to Chazen’s request for money from this applicant prior to an application being presented to the Planning Board. Seconded by Mr. Gaydos.
Vote: Tapper- No Ricks- Yes
Striano- Absent Kawalchuk- Yes
O’Halloran- Yes De Graw- No
Gaydos- Yes Carney- recused
Once again Mr. De Graw felt that the Board was out of line in this process.
Mr. O’Halloran was just trying to figure out why this application was being treated differently than other applicants.
Mr. Ricks agreed. Since when does the Town Board and Supervisor handle Planning Board applications?
This has to be addressed.
The Chairman noted that he didn’t agree with this 100%, but he didn’t know if the Board had the authority to go about this.
Mr. De Graw stated that this is conjecture that is third hand information. Mr. O’Halloran wasn’t present when this happened.
Mr. O’Halloran agreed that he wasn’t there, but the applicant stated that it did, so he would like to find out if it did by questioning it to Chazen. Are other applicants going to be asked in advance for money prior to a project?
Mr. De Graw felt that the Board was going to investigate something ridiculous.
The Chairman noted that a letter would be drafted and meet everyone’s approval before sent.
Mr. De Graw wasn’t aware that there was a meeting held in June that the Board was required to attend.
The Board explained that it was a Town Board meeting that all Boards were requested to attend.
T/ Rochester Planning Board -22- September 20, 2005
Minutes of Regular Meeting
ACTION OF MINUTES OF MEETING
At 10:00PM Mrs. Carney rejoined the Board.
The Chairman motioned to approve the minutes of August 16, 2005 seconded by Mr. Gaydos. No discussion.
Vote: Tapper- Yes Ricks- Yes
Striano- Absent Kawalchuk- Yes
O’Halloran- Yes De Graw- Yes
Gaydos- Yes Carney- Abstain
The Chairman noted that he didn’t go over the entire July 19, 2005 minutes, but he did find one mistake, a typo, that he gave to the Secretary to correct.
Mr. Ricks made a motion to accept the July 19, 2005 minutes. Seconded by Mrs. Carney.
Vote: Tapper- Yes Ricks- Yes
Striano- Absent Kawalchuk- Yes
O’Halloran- Abstain De Graw- Yes
Gaydos- Yes Carney- Yes
Mr. Gaydos motioned to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Mrs. Carney. All members present in favor.
As there was no further business, at 10:00PM the Chairman adjourned the meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
Rebecca Paddock Stange
Secretary