MINUTES OF October 18, 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: Melvyn I. Tapper, Chairman ABSENT:
Shane Ricks, Vice Chair Robert Gaydos
Nadine D. Carney
David O’Halloran, Alternate
Frank Striano, Sr.
Anthony Kawalchuk
William De Graw
Town Planner, Nancy Vlahos, from The Chazen Companies was unable to attend the meeting.
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.
UPDATE ON THE HUDSON VALLEY RESORT (HVR)
Chairman Tapper explained that at the last meeting the Board had made motions to write correspondence to various entities regarding the possible construction of a water park and certain alterations at the HVR. He wanted to read the letters and responses to the public to keep them updated on the situation.
The first letter read was dated September 22, 2005 from the Planning Board to Douglas Dymond, CEO questioning the necessity for the HVR being sent to the Planning Board for their renovation/ addition project. The HVR questioned this citing several different sections of Chapter 140-40 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Rochester.
Memo dated October 3, 2005 from Douglas Dymond, CEO to the Planning Board responded that after further review, the Code Enforcement Office amended the Zoning permit to permit the HVR to proceed.
Letter dated September 21, 2005 from the Planning Board to Supervisor Pam Duke questioned if Ms. Duke and Ms. Blickstien of The Chazen Companies asked Mr. Robert Burick of the Hudson Valley Resort to deposit $30,000 for escrow for Planner Review. The Board was concerned that this wasn’t proper procedure as this was asked prior to an application and foregoing the Planning Board Office.
Letter dated October 14, 2005 from Supervisor Duke advising the Planning Board that there were rumors stated at the September 20, 2005 Planning Board meeting where the HVR was on the agenda to discuss the water park.
T/ Rochester Planning Board -2- October 18, 2005
Minutes of Regular Meeting
UPDATE ON THE HUDSON VALLEY RESORT (HVR)
Letter dated October 6, 2005 from the Planning Board to Susan Blickstein of The Chazen Companies questioned about the $30,000 in requested escrow money. This letter questioned the proper procedures not being followed and requested a response. No response was yet received.
Mr. De Graw wanted to have discussion on the matter because he noted that it was also the Town Attorney’s interpretation that the HVR needed to have Planning Board review. Was this still standing?
As far as the Chairman knew this was the case, but the determination was that of the Code Enforcement Officer. Mr. Tapper wasn’t looking to re-open discussion tonight. He was simply giving an update to the public.
DECISION
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. Property owner Mr. Richard Seibeking was also present.
The Chairman noted that the Public Hearing was closed at the last meeting and now it was time for the Board to make a decision.
Mr. Ricks questioned the site plan submitted by the Applicant because it was brought to his attention since the last meeting that there was a trailer on that property also that the property owner, Mr. Sieberking’s, Mother in law resided in. He questioned why this wasn’t brought to the Board’s attention or displayed on the map.
Mr. Siebeking replied because it was going to be removed upon the sale of the house. He had spoken with his Mother in law about this and the first thing she said to him was she didn’t know why he stayed in that big house for so long anyway.
Mr. Ricks was told by Mr. Seibeking’s mother in law that she was under the impression that she had lifetime residency there and didn’t know where she was going to live once the house was sold. He believed that the woman didn’t understand. This was surprising to him that this wasn’t disclosed to the Board or brought up at the Public Hearing.
Mr. Seibeking understood, but noted that when he isn’t at the house, the trailer is gone.
The Board reviewed the application and the original decision for her current cat shelter and noted that the original decision had a time constraint on the Special Use Permit of 7 years.
Mrs. Carney wanted the Board to discuss conditions. She read the conditions for the previous application. She noted that they could house no more than 40 house cats.
T/ Rochester Planning Board -3- October 18, 2005
Minutes of Regular Meeting
DIANA BANKS(cont’d)– Special Use Permit for Philanthropic Use, Cat Shelter
Mr. O’Halloran noted that the Town desperately needed cat shelters. If this was a home occupation use, Mr. O’Halloran would definitely support the application, but he had a problem that there wouldn’t be a full time person at the house. Being a business that deals with animals—say a horse is loose on Route 209 any where, he is called first, even if the horse isn’t his, but his men go down and get the horse, this usually happens at night. They secure it until the owners can get the horse. He is concerned that something like this may happen with the neighbors being in close proximity on either side of this house. He is afraid that the neighbors will be disturbed at night and maybe the animals would just get left unattended outside of the cat shelter or they would knock on the nearest door. So, his problem is not requiring someone living at the house. Right now the Board is talking about 40 cats with no supervision for a large portion of a 24 hour day. 10-12 hours of the day.
Mrs. Carney questioned if they should condition someone to be on call? Would Mr. O’Halloran want a full time resident as a condition or was he basing this as his reason to deny it?
Mr. O’Halloran felt this was his problem with approving the application. He felt that the Board was taking a home occupation with limited neighborhood disturbance (Mr. Seibeking’s TV repair) and allowing the use to change to a full business b/c the house is just for cats… no one will live there. This is an R-1 district and there are homes on either side, he was concerned with a full time business with only day time hours.
Mrs. Carney noted that with their discussions with the Applicant there wouldn’t be people at the house around the clock, but that is the intention of the business.
Mr. De Graw pondered this since the last meeting and has had similar concerns. He questions the use that this is classified under as Philanthropic, meaning not for profit. If this was for profit, it would be deemed as a kennel and that is not allowed in an R-1 zone. This is more of an animal kennel than it is more of the issue rather than for profit or not for profit defining the request. Having no one there full time is a potential for problems. Within the Zoning, the Board must assure itself that there will be no detrimental impact prior to issuing the Special Use Permit. He is not assured of this.
Mr. Striano believed that the Board also needed to base their decision on the fact that this is an existing shelter that has been in operation for years and has been successful with no problems. It plans to function the same, just at a different location.
Ms. Banks was recognized to speak and noted that there are homes in the area that haven’t been disturbed. There are 4 families living less than 100’ away and the railroad station that is a residence with a family is across the street. She gets cats and they are adopted. She doesn’t see this as a problem, there has never been a problem with her not being at the shelter. She can be there within 6 or 7 minutes. And she would be able to be quicker in getting to the Airport Road property…approximately 3 minutes. She also wanted to point out that the SPCA has day time hours. There is nobody there over night. They open at 7am and close at 5pm. No veterinarian office except for Dr. Cohen, has an overnight resident. There will be times that she will be staying overnight that wouldn’t be unheard of, she is unable to do this at her current location.
Mr. Kawalchuk questioned if kennels had staff overnight?
T/ Rochester Planning Board -4- October 18, 2005
Minutes of Regular Meeting
DIANA BANKS(cont’d)– Special Use Permit for Philanthropic Use, Cat Shelter
Ms. Banks replied that she wasn’t aware of any, however the kennel that was closed—Patty’s Angels had a derelict individual that lived there and this was the worst situation in the world. She felt that the Board was asking for something out of the norm of these entities.
Mr. De Graw felt that part of what he was saying was that why part of the Zoning Regulations this type of use wasn’t allowed in an R-1 and R-2 zones because of these issues. The Board also has to remember that typically he tries to give the permit to the property and not the individual, because essentially that is what is being done. You could run one of the best shelters but it could be sold next week to someone who may not run it as efficiently. These are things the Board needs to consider. He questioned if cats were ever dropped off without people being at the shelter to receive them. Is there a reason Ms. Banks wouldn’t want something like this at her residence?
Ms. Banks stated that she has had that happen once or twice, but she has never had an animal dropped off that wasn’t contained or in a carrier. Most people that are dropping off animals aren’t going to go to neighbors because they are embarrassed. Ms. Banks noted that it is a possibility that she would have a shelter at her own property, but right now, this is what they are going after and applying for.
Mr. De Graw would feel better if she actually resided at the place of the shelter, especially during the night.
Mr. Kawalchuk questioned if she lived at the house, would there be anything to stop her from having 40 cats?
Chairman Tapper replied that no, there would not.
Mr. De Graw noted the difference is that she is applying for a Special Use Permit here. He believed that there was a section in Zoning about having a certain amount of acreage for a certain amount of animals, but he didn’t know the specifics off hand.
Ms. Banks noted that she had a farm and at this point the property is categorized as a farm, but she also feels as though the use the property in question is its location…she doesn’t want to shut the door on ever having a shelter at her personal property, but on the other hand as far as people dropping off animals, they get dropped off everywhere in Town. She used the Town’s Kennel outside as an example… Look at the dogs, there isn’t anyone out there with them through the night.
Mrs. Carney noted that whenever they have an application that comes before the Board with any controversy, which can be often, somebody always mentions, ‘what does this offer to our community?’. This is something that does offer something to our community and that should be taken into consideration.
Mr. De Graw agreed, but he felt it was an issue of siting it properly.
Mr. Ricks’ concern was that most of the residential areas in the Town are evenly spaced, and this is a pretty small lot compared to the average lot size of the Town. On each side of the property in question, there is a house 107’ away and then one that is 150’ away. These are very close together. He believed that there were valid concerns with the neighbors and property values.
T/ Rochester Planning Board -5- October 18, 2005
Minutes of Regular Meeting
DIANA BANKS(cont’d)– Special Use Permit for Philanthropic Use, Cat Shelter
Mr. Kawalchuk questioned if this was an animal shelter or solely a cat shelter?
Mrs. Carney stated that the Board could condition it to be specifically for cats.
Replying to a question from Mr. De Graw, Mr. Seibeking stated that the property was 7/8 of an acre.
Mr. De Graw noted that under zoning under agriculture (140-20) there is a section for the keeping of animals for non commercial purposes and it says that no more than 15 rabbits, and all other farm animals per acre of land.
Mrs. Carney pointed out that these were house cats and not farm animals.
Resa Leonard was present with Ms. Banks and stated that these animals were inside of the house, they weren’t outdoor animals.
Mr. De Graw agreed, but noted that most of agriculture type animals are kept inside of some sort of structure, but his major problem was the determination of the Code Enforcement Office. Under the R-1 zone, animal shelters are not permitted, and regardless of this being a philanthropic use, it is an animal shelter which is not permitted.
Chairman Tapper stated that this has been a very difficult decision for him. He had visited the cat shelter currently in operation and went by the property in question 3 times to get a good sense of the property. There is no question that this is a needed function in the Town, and there is no question that Ms. Banks runs an excellent shelter now. There is no smell outside and inside it smelled like a veterinarian’s office. If this was for profit it would be a kennel and not allowed in this district even thought it’s a much needed function in the Town, he wasn’t sure that this was the right place for it. The neighbors aren’t pleased with this application and he always felt that whoever was there first, the weight should be a little more in their favor. This is the Chairman’s reason to vote against it only for these reasons.
Ms. Banks questioned what type of conditions would the Board put on this decision for them to consider voting for this application? She would be willing to compromise. One of the things pointed out by each Board member is that this shelter is badly needed the fact is that the building that she is currently in is being sold. Animals are going to be out in the street when she has to close the shelter. Maybe the volunteers can arrange to be there overnight if that would please the Board.
Mr. Kawalchuk noted that if Ms. Banks was to live at the house, she wouldn’t need to be in front of the Planning Board because she could have a customary home occupation.
T/ Rochester Planning Board -6- October 18, 2005
Minutes of Regular Meeting
DIANA BANKS(cont’d)– Special Use Permit for Philanthropic Use, Cat Shelter
Mrs. Carney motioned to grant a Special Use Permit to Diana Banks for a cat shelter for Philanthropic Use with conditions as follows:
1. permitted for cats only
2. the number of cats be limited to 40 total
3. cats shall be kept indoors
4. all cat feces shall be contained and disposed of off premises
Seconded by Mr. Striano. No discussion.
Vote: De Graw- No Striano- Yes
Carney- Yes Kawalchuk- No
O’Halloran- No Ricks- No
Tapper- No Gaydos- Absent
ZBA ADVISORY REQUEST
CAPTAIN OMNIPOTENT– c/o Victorian Builders, needs 35’ Front , 25’ Rear, and 20’ Side Yard Area Variances for warehouse storage on existing manufacturing business, Tax Map #76.10-1-9.2, ‘I’ District
(Industrial District Setbacks are: 60’ Front, 40 side, and 50 rear)
Owner, Martin Trumbore was present on behalf of the application along with Brian Squire of Victorian Builders.
Mr. O’Halloran recused himself as he owns adjoining property to the parcel in question.
Mr. Trumbore displayed photos to the Board and explained that he wanted to build a pavilion with a slab over his existing ‘stone yard’ (where slabs on stone material are stored for customers to view). This would enable him to show stone to clients in the winter.
The Board discussed the layout of the property and the applicant noted that there were about 10 houses between Academy Street and Old Mine. He is on the Private portion of Old Mine Road. The road is in rough shape and most residence go down Academy Street to get to the main road.
Mr. Ricks motioned for a favorable advisory as he didn’t see this request as impeding on the neighbors or being an undesirable change to the neighborhood. Seconded by Mr. Kawalchuk. No discussion.
Vote: De Graw- Yes Striano- Yes
Carney- Yes Kawalchuk- Yes
O’Halloran- Yes Ricks- Yes
Tapper- Yes Gaydos- Absent
T/ Rochester Planning Board -7- October 18, 2005
Minutes of Regular Meeting
PUBLIC HEARING
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.
Chairman Tapper noted that this project was Typed as Unlisted Action, the Board circulated Intent for Lead Agency on July 21st, the UCHD & Historic Preservation were the involved agencies with no comments, the 30 day response period has ended, the Planning Board had declared Lead Agency, the Applicant submitted new survey and engineered septic plans to the UCHD and is awaiting approval.
Mr. Ricks noticed that the site has been cleared out a bit and the house site looks like it was moved farther back off the road on the survey plan.
The Chairman opened the Hearing to the public. There was no public comment.
Mrs. Carney motioned to close the Public Hearing. Seconded by Mr. De Graw. No discussion.
Vote: De Graw- Yes Striano- Yes
Carney- Yes Kawalchuk- Yes
O’Halloran- Yes Ricks- Yes
Tapper- Yes Gaydos- Absent
Mrs. Carney motioned for a Negative Declaration as per the reviewing of Part 2 of the EAF. Seconded by Mr. O’Halloran. No discussion.
Vote: De Graw- Yes Striano- Yes
Carney- Yes Kawalchuk- Yes
O’Halloran- Yes Ricks- Yes
Tapper- Yes Gaydos- Absent
Mrs. Carney motioned to grant the Special Use Permit wit the following conditions:
1. the applicant obtains the UCHD permit prior to construction
2. the applicant obtain the proper building permits
3. the applicant provide for 4 parking spaces
Seconded by Mr. O’Halloran. No discussion.
Vote: De Graw- Yes Striano- Yes
Carney- Yes Kawalchuk- Yes
O’Halloran- Yes Ricks- Yes
Tapper- Yes Gaydos- Absent
T/ Rochester Planning Board -8- October 18, 2005
Minutes of Regular Meeting
PUBLIC HEARING
ERIC GILLES– Subdivision Approval for lot line adjustment in Quiet Mountain Estates, lots 5 & 11, Stillerberg Strada, Kerhonkson, Tax Map #s 67-3-5 & 25
The Chairman noted that this application has previously been typed as an Unlisted Action, Circulated intent for Lead Agency on September 21, UCHD & Historic were involved agencies-no comments, 30 day response period expires on October 21 and the Applicant submitted a revised EAF.
Chairman Tapper opened the Hearing to the public.
Kathy Kuthy was recognized to speak and questioned if all lot line adjustments needed to come before the Planning Board?
Mrs. Carney explained Mr. Gilles needed to come before the Planning Board because he affected a filed subdivision map.
Mr. Ricks motioned to close the Public Hearing. Seconded by Mr. Striano. No discussion.
Vote: De Graw- Yes Striano- Yes
Carney- Yes Kawalchuk- Yes
O’Halloran- Yes Ricks- Yes
Tapper- Yes Gaydos- Absent
Mr. Gilles was informed that he would be scheduled for a decision for next month’s meeting.
SEQRA DETERMINATION
AMPLE SELF STORAGE- c/o Todd Bivona, Special Use Permit for 56,000sf of storage sheds with 1,375 so offices, Route 209, Tax Map #76.2-2-13.22, ‘B’ District
Mr. Ricks recused himself as he owns a storage shed business in close proximity to the property in question.
Frank Castrack was present on behalf of the Application.
The Chairman noted that the applicant has submitted revised maps and Part 3 of the EAF again, submitted Stormwater Management Plan, previously typed as Unlisted Action, Planning Board is Lead Agent, Public Hearing is closed, The Chazen Companies have prepared a Conditional Negative Declaration (CND) Resolution for the Board to vote on at this meeting.
T/ Rochester Planning Board -9- October 18, 2005
Minutes of Regular Meeting
SEQRA DETERMINATION
AMPLE SELF STORAGE (cont’d): c/o Todd Bivona, Special Use Permit for 56,000sf of storage sheds
Chairman Tapper further explained that the Board had identified the potential large impacts and received the proposed mitigations from the Applicant. Now if the Board were to grant the CND on this project, which would mean that the Applicant has mitigated all of the impacts that the Board has identified to their satisfaction. And this puts the Applicant in line for an approval for the project.
Mr. O’Halloran questioned if this meant that the Applicant mitigated the impacts to the Board’s satisfaction, or if they mitigated the impacts to bring them a lesser degree of small to moderate?
The Board agreed with Mr. O’Halloran’s statement, they mitigated the impacts to the Board’s satisfaction as the Board determines if the impacts are small to moderate or large.
Chairman Tapper noted that apparently if a member were to vote against the CND tonight, that doesn’t mean that the project would go to a Positive Declaration; that would just mean that the Board and the Applicant would go back and see if they could mitigate the problem any further if the Board didn’t feel that it was reduced enough. The Chairman read instructions delivered via e-mail to the Planning Board Office on how to conduct the CND vote in her absence:
Ample Self Storage:
1.~~~~~ The Chairman is to announce that Chazen has prepared a CND based on the mitigation proposed in the Part 3 EAF.
2.~~~~~ He is to distribute copies of the CND to the Board members (if not already in their packet). The board is to review the CND and make any changes they feel is appropriate.
3.~~~~~ The board is to vote to approve the CND. Have the Chairman read the resolution out loud before the vote.
4.~~~~~ If they vote to approve it, the CND gets published in the ENB AND gets circulated by you to all involved agencies and there is a 30 day public comment period.
5.~~~~~ The Board cannot vote on the project until AFTER the 30 day comment period is up.
6.~~~~~ If the Board does NOT approve the CND, it means that they feel the applicant has not sufficiently mitigated all of the potentially large impacts and they need to go “back to the drawing board” with the applicant to agree on conditions they feel WILL sufficiently mitigate the impacts.
7.~~~~~ IT IS NOT APPROPRIATE TO DISCUSS OR ISSUE A POS DEC AT THIS POINT. All mitigation will be handled through the mitigation provided in the Conditioned Neg Dec.
T/ Rochester Planning Board -10- October 18, 2005
Minutes of Regular Meeting
SEQRA DETERMINATION
AMPLE SELF STORAGE (cont’d): c/o Todd Bivona, Special Use Permit for 56,000sf of storage sheds
The Chairman continued and read the Notice for the Conditioned Negative Declaration as prepared by Chazen:
State Environmental Quality Review
CONDITIONED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Notice of Determination of Non-Significance
Date: October 18, 2005
This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review Act) of the Environmental Conservation Law.
The Town of Rochester Planning Board has determined that the proposed action described below will not have a significant environmental impact and a Draft Environmental Impact Statement will not be prepared.
Name of Action: Ample Self Storage
SEQRA Status: Type 1
X Unlisted
Conditioned Negative Declaration: X Yes
No
Description of Action: The applicant is proposing a self storage facility on 5.6 (+/-) acres of land located on NYS Route 209 in the General Business (B) Zoning District. The applicant, Ample Self Storage, is proposing a 56,000 s.f. self storage facility on 5.6 (+/-) acres of land located on NYS Route 209 within the General Business (B) Zoning District.
Location: New York State Route 209, Town of Rochester, Ulster County, New York.
Reasons Supporting This Determination: The Planning Board has compared the proposed action with the Criteria for Determining Significance in 6 NYCRR 617.7 (c) and determined that no significant adverse impacts associated with the proposed action have been identified.
Conditions of Negative Declaration:
The project is a SEQRA Unlisted Action and a Coordinated Review was conducted. The Town of Rochester Planning Board declared itself Lead Agency on April 19, 2005. The following conditions of the negative declaration identify the potentially large impacts and the proposed mitigation measures of the action:
T/ Rochester Planning Board -11- October 18, 2005
Minutes of Regular Meeting
SEQRA DETERMINATION
AMPLE SELF STORAGE (cont’d): c/o Todd Bivona, Special Use Permit for 56,000sf of storage sheds
(NOTICE OF CND CONT’D)
Impact on Land
Potential Impact: Construction will continue for more than one year and involve more than one phase. The applicant has identified that the project will take 10 years to complete and will include three phases of construction. The first phase will consist of the construction of four storage buildings, including an office. The second phase will extend the existing buildings 14,000 square feet. The third and final phase will add four additional buildings, resulting in 12,000 s.f. of storage space. Full build out of the facility will only occur as the demand arises for storage units.
Proposed Mitigation: The applicant will implement construction controls as Best Management Practices (BMP’s) during each phase of construction. The following mitigation controls will result:
1.) Site disturbance during construction shall be limited only to necessary grading as shown on the site plan.
2.) Temporary berms and swales will be installed to divert runoff from newly graded areas until permanent ground cover is established.
3.) The applicant will install a stabilized gravel entrance/exit pad to minimize soil disturbance during construction.
4.) Silt fences and swales will be located on the site to mitigate erosion.
5.) During construction, temporary seed and mulch will be applied to stabilize disturbed portions of the site.
6.) The applicant proposes to preserve all large and healthy trees located on the site.
7.) An erosion control mat will be installed on steep slopes throughout the site.
8.) Qualified professionals will inspect the erosion control measures every seven days during the construction period.
9.) The contractor will prepare a written summary of SPDES compliance at a minimum frequency of every three months.
10.) Prior to the completion of each construction phase, a qualified professional shall
certify that the site has undergone final vegetative or structural stabilization methods.
T/ Rochester Planning Board -12- October 18, 2005
Minutes of Regular Meeting
SEQRA DETERMINATION
AMPLE SELF STORAGE (cont’d): c/o Todd Bivona, Special Use Permit for 56,000sf of storage sheds
The Chairman also noted that the Applicant submitted a Safety Access Analysis Study (SAA) and a visual impact study by submitting photos with the project superimposed on the site.
Mr. De Graw questioned about the obstructing bankment mentioned on Route 209. Would this affect the existing photos that were submitted?
Mr. Castrack noted that they weren’t going to change the photos. This only showed up in the traffic study.
The problem was because the report was done in the summer time when the brush was overgrown. The winter won’t be a problem at all, but they propose to cut the bank back and maintain the bank so it won’t present a problem.
Mrs. Carney noted that there isn’t supposed to be any vegetation over 30” across the line of site.
Mr. Castrack explained that NYS DOT does maintain that property, but the one day he looked at it, it wasn’t an issue, because DOT had just cut it. When the SAA was done, there was overgrown brush and that is where this issue came up. So, cutting it back should eliminate any problems.
Mr. De Graw questioned if percolation studies were performed for rain water run off on the site? There was public comment regarding very poor drainage in the area?
Mr. Sprague explained that they have a Stormwater Management Plan that will make the site have less run off than pre-construction. The Planner engineers have reviewed this and will forward any comments to the Applicant should they need to revise any calculations.
Mr. De Graw noted that his biggest issues were the aesthetics of the project and preserving rural character of the Town. HE thinks that the Comprehensive Plan requires the PB to address the rural characteristics and aesthetics. He didn’t believe that local architecture was mirrored in the project.
Mrs. Carney felt that Rosakranse and Rondout Valley Grocers were the same type of designs as is being proposed here.
Mr. De Graw didn’t believe that this would be visually adding to the Town. For some people it may be visually pleasing.
Mrs. Carney commented that she knew that the Town was working on it, but since currently there are not regulations or guidelines to go by as of what to require in a building—layout, color, roof…For the Board to discuss this and go back and forth—the Board could ask the Applicant to do something and then when it is done, it could look hideous. The PB does not have the guidelines to go by and for the PB to go off of just what they think is pleasing is arbitrary. Until that is in place, the Board has discussed these issues with Applicants and the Applicants have put their best foot forward and made several changes to the plans based on some of the Board’s concerns. They moved the doors from the front of the sheds, they deleted sheds…other than those discussions and the Applicant’s proposal, the Board has no way to ask for anything further.
T/ Rochester Planning Board -13- October 18, 2005
Minutes of Regular Meeting
SEQRA DETERMINATION
AMPLE SELF STORAGE (cont’d): c/o Todd Bivona, Special Use Permit for 56,000sf of storage sheds
Mr. O’Halloran didn’t fully agree with this statement. He doesn’t give away the responsibility for being responsible for what the building looks like because they don’t have architectural standards. He does feel it is important to try and work with the Applicants to the point where it satisfies each individual member so they can get a positive or negative vote from the Board to see if they mitigated these things to their satisfaction. They can’t just build anything.
Mrs. Carney still didn’t feel right about asking someone to add a cupola to the building because they felt it was more rural. She has seen buildings where someone has put a cupola on top and they look horrible…a big 2 story concrete building with a pitched roof and a cupola—it looks ridiculous. So, for the PB to keep asking for pitched roofs and cupolas does not make it rural character.
Mr. De Graw would like to see some other options. He would like the Applicant to present other designs.
Mr. O’Halloran stated that even though the Board doesn’t have these standards, the Applicant is still seeking approval from this Board. Regardless of the type of business, it still can be addressed to fit into the character of the Town. This should have more of a natural look to it to fit with our Town. Generally these more attractive business’s have more successful business.
Mrs. Carney questioned if these buildings that Mr. O’Halloran was referring to in Town’s where they had architectural standards?
Mr. O’Halloran was just speaking in general. He wasn’t sure. Just because they don’t have architectural standards, doesn’t mean that they can’t address what a building looks like.
Mrs. Carney agreed and stated that the Board has addressed it many times. The Applicant has brought in changes, they have taken buildings away, they changed door locations, and they’ve added additional screening. The Applicants have made numerous changes to their plan based on the Board’s discussions.
Mr. O’Halloran wasn’t sure if this was going to affect some member’s voting decisions on the CND.
Mr. De Graw stated that the Board was required to protect the rural character of the Town and that may not be to change the look of the buildings, it may require more screening or other options that he would like to see the Applicant present to the Board.
Mr. Castrack believed that they were beyond this point in the review process. They added substantial screening, they have made quite a few of these changes to the buildings based on the PB’s comments. It was upsetting him to be here at the 11th hour to reopen this discussion all over again.
T/ Rochester Planning Board -14- October 18, 2005
Minutes of Regular Meeting
SEQRA DETERMINATION
AMPLE SELF STORAGE (cont’d): c/o Todd Bivona, Special Use Permit for 56,000sf of storage sheds
The Chairman noted that the Board had gone over 2 or 3 times if they wanted different colors, if they wanted peaked, flat roof…and he said at the last meeting that the Board was going to give the Applicants a definitive response on these issues. The color didn’t matter to anyone. A consensus couldn’t be reached on the roof style and it faded away and it wasn’t important enough to anyone to insist on a change either because they don’t like the project to begin with, or they like the project and the color and roof lines didn’t matter. The Board went over these issues for 2 or 3 meetings in a row and last month was supposed to be the definitive answer to the Applicant. The Chairman came away from that meeting and he is sure the Applicant came away from the meeting that the project that they were putting through was either acceptable or not acceptable and there were no alternatives given to the Applicant to change and that is where this was left.
Mr. O’Halloran felt that there was a misunderstanding…because the Board moved forward in the process doesn’t mean that there was 100% consensus on every item. So, when the Applicant says that they are surprised that these discussions are going on at the 11th hour, this is what the Board does. Otherwise you would only need one person.
Mr. Castrack understood this, but he didn’t want to get into redesigning the project again and guessing what the Board wants. The Board isn’t direct with the Applicants in telling them what exactly they want to see. Every time they revise something at guessing what the Board wants, these are expensive things to do.
Mr. De Graw agreed that they don’t have architectural standards to go by and are here to accept what the Applicants propose.
Mr. O’Halloran added that the PB isn’t there to provide the Applicants on how to do their projects. They are here to receive what is being proposed. The PB isn’t going to tell the Applicants what to do.
Mr. Castrack felt that this is where they were coming into this meeting. They have presented what they are proposing, and they thought this was the time for the Board to move forward and vote on the information received.
Mrs. Carney felt that the Board needed to focus on the CND, make a vote and move on.
Mr. De Graw stated again that rural character needed to be considered.
Mr. O’Halloran had a technical question regarding Part 3 of the EAF. The Applicant presented a vehicle demonstration for turnarounds and he sees a demonstration that only shows a vehicle being able to get out of the facility once they have entered if there are no cars parked in the parking spots.
Mr. Sprague noted that it was going to be tight. This was prepared by Crieghton Manning Engineering.
Mr. O’Halloran noted that the Applicant was presenting something that would lock the vehicle into the parking lot or lock the cars in.
T/ Rochester Planning Board -15- October 18, 2005
Minutes of Regular Meeting
SEQRA DETERMINATION
AMPLE SELF STORAGE (cont’d): c/o Todd Bivona, Special Use Permit for 56,000sf of storage sheds
Mrs. Carney recalled that this issue had come up when the traffic study had come in. That is demonstrating that the way this was set up at the time was the only way to turn around, and since then they asked for the 4 bay (stormwater retention ponds) to be relocated so they could provide turn around space.
Mr. O’Halloran questioned if this was demonstrated somewhere?
Mrs. Carney reviewed the plans and noted that the plans were changed to reflect the revisions instructed by Crieghton Manning when they did the Safety Access Analysis.
Mr. Sprague agreed and said that since the SAA, they had expanded the truck pull off area.
After much discussion about having a model of a truck being unable to turn around and the Applicant revising the plans to provide for adequate room, and not having a successful model showing the truck turning around, Mrs. Carney noted that these plans were reviewed by Chazen’s Engineers. Just because the Board didn’t have a model showing it being successful, didn’t mean that it wasn’t provided for. This has been addressed.
There were a few Board members that were unhappy with not being able to see a diagram of a successful turnaround.
Mrs. Carney questioned if certain members didn’t agree with the CND- or the project, their votes could reflect that.
Mr. O’Halloran wasn’t disagreeable with the CND, but he is not satisfied with the turnaround issue and not seeing an actual successful diagram of this happening.
Mr. Sprague explained that this was their recommendation from Crieghton Manning. Medenbach & Eggers took the revisions supplied by Crieghton Manning to improve the situation and implemented it on their plans. This was then reviewed by the Town’s engineers at The Chazen Companies.
Mrs. Carney noted that this was also addressed under the CND that was prepared by Chazen. If there were Board members that didn’t believe with Chazen, they could show that in their vote.
There was much further discussion regarding this issue. Mr. De Graw felt that now the Board had an incomplete application. He wanted to see this as part of the approved plan. Mrs. Carney and Mr. Striano felt these problems were ridiculous because they were addressed and reviewed and accepted by the Town’s experts. Just because the Board didn’t have a picture to look at to show it working, didn’t mean that they didn’t make the improvements on the actual plan. It also wasn’t required by anyone to show this. Mr. O’Halloran was unhappy that he saw a picture showing that this didn’t work and he didn’t see one showing that it did.
The Chairman stated that he believed that the Ample Self Storage Applicants were very cooperative and mitigated certain issues the Board had. However he didn’t feel that he visual impact was mitigated.
T/ Rochester Planning Board -16- October 18, 2005
Minutes of Regular Meeting
SEQRA DETERMINATION
AMPLE SELF STORAGE (cont’d): c/o Todd Bivona, Special Use Permit for 56,000sf of storage sheds
The Chairman read the resolution for the CND as prepared by The Chazen Companies:
TOWN OF ROCHESTER
RESOLUTION ISSUING A CONDITIONED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
OF SIGNIFICANCE
Conditioned Negative Declaration
Ample Self Storage
Whereas, the Rochester Planning Board has received an application to permit the
development of a self storage facility on 5.6 (+/-) acres of land; and
Whereas, the subject property is located on NYS Route 209 and is designated as
parcel number 76.002-2-13.200 on the Town Tax Map; and
Whereas, the Planning Board has reviewed Parts 1, 2, and 3 of the Full
Environmental Assessment Form (EAF); and
Whereas, the Planning Board has determined that this action is an Unlisted Action
and declared itself Lead Agency on April 19, 2005; and
Whereas, The Planning Board has identified potentially large impacts relating to
the impact on land, aesthetic resources, and transportation, and the applicant
provided mitigation measures in Part 3 of the EAF; and
Whereas, the Planning Board has compared the proposed action with the Criteria
for Determining Significance in 6 NYCRR 617.7 (c) and determined that no
significant adverse impacts will result; and
Whereas, the Planning Board has considered all reasonably related long-term,
short-term, direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental effects associated with
the proposed action including other simultaneous or subsequent actions.
Now Therefore Be It Resolved That, the Planning Board has determined that
the proposed action will not have a significant impact on the environment; and
Be It Further Resolved That, the Planning Board hereby issues the attached
Conditioned Negative Declaration of Significance pursuant to the requirements of
the State Environmental Quality Review Act (6 NYCRR 617.7).
T/ Rochester Planning Board -17- October 18, 2005
Minutes of Regular Meeting
SEQRA DETERMINATION
AMPLE SELF STORAGE (cont’d): c/o Todd Bivona, Special Use Permit for 56,000sf of storage sheds
Motion: Frank Striano, Sr. Date: 10/18/05
Second: Nadine D. Carney
Discussion:
{Mrs. Carney believed that the impact on land, aesthetic resources and transportation have been mitigated. Mr. Kawalchuk was still concerned with the photos seeing the successful turnaround. If the Applicant would provide the successful demonstration, he didn’t have a problem voting for it. Chairman Tapper voted against the CND for his reason earlier stated regarding a lack of visual impact mitigation}
Melvyn I. Tapper, Chairperson- NO
Shane Ricks, Vice Chairperson- RECUSED
Nadine Carney- YES
William De Graw- NO
Robert Gaydos- ABSENT
Tony Kawalchuk- YES
Frank Striano, Sr- YES
David O’Halloran, Alternate- YES
The motion for a Conditional Negative Declaration was passed 4-2 with one member recused and one absent.
The Applicants would be scheduled for a final vote on the project in December as there is now a 30 day comment period for the CND.
CONTINUED APPLICATION REVIEW
KAREN HOF & MICHAEL RUSS– Subdivision approval for 2 lots, Queens Highway, Accord, Tax Map # 60.4-2-1.3, ‘A’ District
Ms. Hof and Mr. Russ were present on behalf of the Application.
The Chairman explained that the Applicants originally came in for New Application Presentation August 17, 2004. Information submitted at that time was very inadequate. Mr. Russ has since sold his remaining lands (that the PB wanted a complete survey of) and now is simply applying to split +/-10 acres in two lots with a shared driveway. This Application does not fall under the thresholds for Planner Review.
The Board reviewed the checklist with the Applicant and instructed him to give the checklist to his surveyor to place all of the applicable items on his map.
Mrs. Carney went over the EAF with Mr. Russ and instructed the items that would need to be revised. She advised him to make the corrections and resubmit them to the PB office.
T/ Rochester Planning Board -18- October 18, 2005
Minutes of Regular Meeting
CONTINUED APPLICATION REVIEW
KAREN HOF & MICHAEL RUSS– Subdivision approval for 2 lots
Mr. De Graw was confused because he felt that the Tax Map # indicated that this was part of a larger subdivision. He suggested that Mr. Russ check with his surveyor regarding this to make sure that this wouldn’t make this a major realty subdivision.
The Board reviewed the subdivision checklist with the Applicants.
Mr. O’Halloran motioned to waive the regulation for 2’ contours, but will show the Board elevations on the map through a statement from the Surveyor. Seconded by Mr. Striano. No discussion.
Vote: De Graw- Yes Striano- Yes
Carney- Yes Kawalchuk- Yes
O’Halloran- Yes Ricks- Yes
Tapper- Yes Gaydos- Absent
Mrs. Carney motioned to waive the location and species of any street trees. Seconded by Mr. O’Halloran.
No discussion:
Vote: De Graw- Yes Striano- Yes
Carney- Yes Kawalchuk- Yes
O’Halloran- Yes Ricks- Yes
Tapper- Yes Gaydos- Absent
Mr. De Graw noted that under general provisions in the subdivision requirements, this appears that this is a lot that was subdivided out of a larger lot due to the tax map number and under our regulations it states that the plat shall show the file number of all plats of previous divisions and dates of filing.
Mr. Russ noted that this was never part of a larger subdivision. The first time it was split was a couple months ago when they sold one part of it off. Mr. Russ would have his surveyor research this matter for the Board.
Mrs. Carney motioned for Intent for Lead Agency. Seconded by Mr. De Graw. No discussion.
Vote: De Graw- Yes Striano- Yes
Carney- Yes Kawalchuk- Yes
O’Halloran- Yes Ricks- Yes
Tapper- Yes Gaydos- Absent
Mr. De Graw motioned for this subdivision to be an unlisted action under SEQRA. Seconded by Mrs. Carney. No discussion.
Vote: De Graw- Yes Striano- Yes
Carney- Yes Kawalchuk- Yes
O’Halloran- Yes Ricks- Yes
Tapper- Yes Gaydos- Absent
T/ Rochester Planning Board -19- October 18, 2005
Minutes of Regular Meeting
CONTINUED APPLICATION REVIEW
KAREN HOF & MICHAEL RUSS– Subdivision approval for 2 lots
Mr. O’Halloran motioned to schedule a Public Hearing in November for this 2 lot subdivision. Seconded by Mrs. Carney. No discussion.
Vote: De Graw- Yes Striano- Yes
Carney- Yes Kawalchuk- Yes
O’Halloran- Yes Ricks- Yes
Tapper- Yes Gaydos- Absent
REVIEW FOR FINAL APPROVAL
SAHLER MILL ESTATES – Section 2, c/o RNR Housing, final approval for remaining 13 lots, Sundale/ Sahler Mill Road, Tax Map #60.4-1-1.2, ‘A’ District
Mrs. Carney recused herself as the Board discussed the possibility that this subdivision had recently been sold to SEAKILL BUILDERS. Mrs. Carney’s husband often works with this company.
Mr. Sprague of Medenbach & Eggers was present on behalf of this application.
The Board compared the layout that received Conditional Preliminary Approval in January of 2003 to the Map of Section 2 for Final Approval. The Board noted that lot 11 has been deleted in Section 2—it was combined with lot 9 to form +/- 7.17 acres.
Mr. O’Halloran questioned if the Applicant would now need to modify all of their previously submitted applications and paperwork. He questioned why lot 11 was deleted in Section 2?
Mr. Sprague wasn’t sure. He thought it was based on drainage.
Mr. O’Halloran stated that this subdivision had a lot of controversy.
Mr. De Graw felt the Board should schedule a Public Hearing for comments on the change.
The Board wondered what the time frames were like on this subdivision?
The Secretary informed the Board that she had spoken with someone from Chazen about Subdivisions coming back in sections and if there were any time restraints as there isn’t any provisions for it in the Subdivision Regulations. She was told that there was nothing in writing providing for this. She has stayed in touch with the Applicant to make sure they were progressing with the application. The Applicant has been working with the Health Dept. for the last couple of months and keeping her up to date on their status.
T/ Rochester Planning Board -20- October 18, 2005
Minutes of Regular Meeting
REVIEW FOR FINAL APPROVAL
SAHLER MILL ESTATES (cont’d) – Section 2, c/o RNR Housing, final approval for remaining 13 lots
Mr. O’Halloran motioned to schedule the Public Hearing for Section 2 based on the deletion of lot 11 contingent on getting the advisement of the Town Attorney, Mary Lou Christiana, Esq., and the Town Planner, Nancy Vlahos of Chazen, as to whether or not a Public Hearing is the proper procedure for this matter. Seconded by Mr. De Graw.
Vote: De Graw- Yes Striano- Yes
Carney- recuse Kawalchuk- Yes
O’Halloran- Yes Ricks- Yes
Tapper- No Gaydos- Absent
NEW APPLICATION PRESENTATION
DAWSON HOMES INC– subdivision to be known as Mount Laurel Estates, 22 lots, Samsonville Road, Tax Map # 60.1-2-2 &3, ‘A’ District
Mrs. Carney came back to the Board.
Mr. John Dawson was present on behalf of his Application along with representative Ed Sprague of Medenbach & Eggers.
Mr. Dawson explained that this was 2 parcels consisting of +/- 50 acres and +/-82.31 acres near the Town of Olive/ Town of Rochester line. This is the first time these 2 lots are being divided. Mr. Dawson explained that there is about 600’ of road frontage on Samsonville Road and he is proposing 1 private road into the subdivision. The road is rather long and may exceed subdivision regulations, but there are 2 separate tax lots that they are dealing with, and they did this long straight road also for purposes of storm water. The original Town Road used to go from Dewitt Road into his property through a deeded right-of-way. This could be a through road. This is about 5,000 feet of road that he is proposing. He could also put in a couple of cul-de-sacs to appease the Board and make it a safer road. The side road that is proposed is at less than 10% grade. Mr. Dawson hunts and walks the property often, so he is very familiar with it and it is definitely drivable.
Mr. O’Halloran noted that they would like to see a road profile to better show the Board the grade of the road.
Mr. Dawson noted that the County Highway Dept. chose the location for the road to come out on Samsonville Road and this was the best line of sight. The steepest part of the proposed road is about 8%
Mrs. Carney motioned for intent to be Lead Agency. Seconded by Mr. De Graw. No discussion.
Vote: De Graw- Yes Striano- Yes
Carney- Yes Kawalchuk- Yes
O’Halloran- Yes Ricks- Yes
Tapper- Yes Gaydos- Absent
T/ Rochester Planning Board -21- October 18, 2005
Minutes of Regular Meeting
NEW APPLICATION PRESENTATION
DAWSON HOMES INC– subdivision to be known as Mount Laurel Estates, 22 lots, Samsonville Road
Mrs. Carney motioned for Unlisted Action under SEQRA. Seconded by Mr. O’Halloran. Mr. De Graw felt it was out of procedure to type an unlisted action so early in review. Mrs. Carney stated that if any information comes up to show this is a Type 1 Action, then the Board can always change it.
Vote: De Graw- No Striano- Yes
Carney- Yes Kawalchuk- Yes
O’Halloran- Yes Ricks- Yes
Tapper- Yes Gaydos- Absent
The Board reviewed review letter from Chazen dated October 18, 2005.
The Applicant didn’t receive the letter until late as the Planning Board just received the letter late that afternoon. If the Applicant had any questions or issues with any of the items on the review letter they would contact the Planning Board Secretary or the Planner, Nancy Vlahos.
Mr. De Graw felt that if the road was continued to De Witt Road as a through road, it would eliminate any issues with the cul-de-sacs.
Mr. Dawson noted that he would still prefer to put in a couple of cul-de-sacs along the road. Mr. Dawson was going to re-evaluate the layout of the road and may move an easement to accomplish that.
ACTION ON MINUTES OF MEETING
Mrs. Carney motioned to accept the minutes of September 20, 2005. Seconded by Mr. Striano. No discussion.
Vote: De Graw- Yes Striano- Yes
Carney- Yes Kawalchuk- Yes
O’Halloran- Yes Ricks- Yes
Tapper- Yes Gaydos- Absent
Mrs. Carney motioned to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Mr. Striano. All members present in favor.
As there was no further business, at 10:20PM the Chairman adjourned the meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
Rebecca Paddock Stange
Secretary