MINUTES OF December 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: Melvyn I. Tapper, Chairman ABSENT:
Nadine D. Carney Shane Ricks, Vice Chair
David O’Halloran, Alternate Anthony Kawalchuk
Frank Striano, Sr.(left at 7:20PM)
William De Graw
Robert Gaydos
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.
DECISION
AMPLE SELF STORAGE– c/o Todd Bivona, Special Use Permit for 56,000 sf of storage sheds with 1,375 sf office, Route 209, Tax Map #76.2-2-13.22, ‘B’ District
Mr. Bivona was present along with business partner, Frank Castrack and representative from Medenbach & Eggers, Edward Sprague.
Mr. Sprague noted that they have recently received NYS DOT approval and the drainage was also accepted.
Mr. Tapper noted that the comment period time frame for the Conditioned Negative Declaration (CND) that was given to this project in October has expired and there were no comments.
Ms. Vlahos explained that by the Board issuing the CND they felt that there were no impacts as long as the conditions of the CND were complied with.
T/ Rochester Planning Board -2- December 20, 2005
Minutes of Regular Meeting
DECISION
AMPLE SELF STORAGE(cont’d)– c/o Todd Bivona, Special Use Permit
Mr. O’Halloran confirmed that this application was before the Board at this meeting to receive either an approval or denial and then offered the following:
This applicant and professionals that were hired by the applicant worked hard and thorough and he respected
them for that, but there were a few things that he disagreed with during this application process and he respected the applicant’s decision not to make those recommended changes. He would have liked to have seen the plan to have a pitched roof for the office building to give it a more of a barn like appearance. The applicant did provide some raised roof choices, but not opting for a more pitched or rural look. The Second one was actually brought up in a motion by Mr. O’Halloran and that didn’t go forward and that was something that the Ulster County Planning Board recommended. The applicant did accept one of the choices to cut the end buildings in half to break them up. Mr. O’Halloran’s preference was removal of the buildings and the applicant chose to cut them in two pieces. The third point was the color choices. He thought the color choices were nice for our area, but he did not believe that they worked for this type of business. He felt that it drew more attention to this business. Mr. O’Halloran is a very pro business individual, feeling that jobs and growth are important to our Town. This structure has him in a tough spot. He is not sure that when he looks at Section 140-35(b) that such use will be in harmony with the orderly development of the district. Location nature and height of buildings, walls, fences and parking areas will not discourage the appropriate development and use of adjacent lands. Having an additional storage facility in our Town to a close proximity of another one as well as a third or fourth—he doesn’t see that jobs being created and in his business decisions he doesn’t see it as a job creative enterprise, even though this is not part of his deliberations in Zoning, but he does look at this from a pro business stance. His biggest problem is the last line of that Section 140-35(b)…discourage appropriate development of adjoining lands… if the goal was to develop the Town to be the best at storage facilities or to attract additional storage facilities, then he thought this would fit. However he doesn’t believe that is what the goal of the town is. He believes it is to encourage business and residential growth and planning so we can grow together and support our families and improve our neighborhood. Because of those reasons and particularly it will discourage business growth of adjoining properties. The nice thing about storage facilities is that they have limited traffic, limited use, limited everything—they won’t encourage business development.
Mr. De Graw felt from the beginning with SEQRA that this project should have been a Positive Declaration and
the impacts to the community were strong. He still doesn’t believe that the internal configuration is going to function and meet the Code for loading and unloading areas. The landscaping lacks a lot. He doesn’t believe it will be effective. Basically he agrees with Mr. O’Halloran as he doesn’t believe that this will conform to our area or zoning or Comprehensive Plan.
Mrs. Carney just wanted to note that the only business district the Town has is on Route 209, so if a business isn’t allowed to be on Route 209, where is it going to be?
Chairman Tapper noted that he hasn’t felt favorably about this project from the beginning. He would have rather seen an alternative site plan submitted with the buildings pushed back off of the road much more with a different store front. He believes that the way it is designed now, it is too large of an impact. His concern is the site plan.
T/ Rochester Planning Board -3- December 20, 2005
Minutes of Regular Meeting
DECISION
AMPLE SELF STORAGE(cont’d)– c/o Todd Bivona, Special Use Permit
Mr. O’Halloran motioned to deny the application for a Special Use Permit for the requested self storage facility. Seconded by Mr. De Graw.
Vote: O’Halloran- Yes De Graw- Yes
Striano- No Carney- No
Gaydos- Yes Tapper- Yes
Kawalchuk- Absent Ricks- Absent
Mr. Striano felt that the Planning Board was overstepping their bounds as they didn’t have any set standards in this Town for rural character. The Master Plan doesn’t clearly define quite a bit of what the Board is discussing here. A lot of it is arbitrary because those laws don’t exist. Until those laws are formed, these applications are going to continue… it is a risk to vote it down. The Applicants have done everything the Board has asked for. Maybe Mr. Striano personally doesn’t want to see another storage unit in this Town, but he doesn’t see how it can bee voted against.
Final Vote: 4 ayes- 2 nays- 2 absent Application Denied
Mr. Castrack noted that they were going to appeal as they were in a difficult situation because they owned the property and they planned to develop it commercially and he felt that they met all of the Board’s requirements and he felt that some of the Town Politics have played a bigger role in the decision. They have watched approvals of other projects breeze through this Board with no where near the amount of scrutiny as this project has been subject to. They really tried to work with the Board and they spent a lot of money in doing so, and he isn’t very happy with this outcome.
PUBLIC HEARING
NELSON DE GONDEA- 4 lot subdivision, Pond Road private road off of Rocky Mountain Road, Tax Map# 52.020-1-8, ‘A’ District
The Chairman motioned for Lead Agency under SEQRA. Seconded by Mr. Gaydos. No discussion.
Vote: O’Halloran- Yes De Graw- Yes
Striano- Absent Carney- Yes
Gaydos- Yes Tapper- Yes
Kawalchuk- Absent Ricks- Absent
The Board went over Chazen’s review letter dated December 1, 2005.
Mrs. Vlahos noted that she had received a revised EAF and a few things still needed to be revised on it and that they could be revised by Mr. De Gondea at this meeting:
A.2: The subject site is 15.24 (+/-) acres in size. The sum of the “presently” and “after completion” conditions should equal 15.24 (+/-) acres.
A.5: The site contains slopes in excess of 10%; the applicant should accurately identify on-site slopes.
A.11: The applicant should provide correspondence from the NYSDEC confirming
the absence of threatened and endangered species.
T/ Rochester Planning Board -4- December 20, 2005
Minutes of Regular Meeting
PUBLIC HEARING
NELSON DE GONDEA(cont’d)- 4 lot subdivision
A.17: The applicant should indicate the existing public utilities servicing the site.
B.1.b: The entire site is not proposed for development. The applicant should provide the number of acres that will “ultimately” be developed.
B.1.f: The applicant should provide the existing and proposed number of off-street parking spaces associated with the site.
B.1.g: The applicant should provide the maximum vehicle trips generated per hour and cite the source used.
B.2: The applicant should confirm that no natural material will be removed from the site.
B.3: Disturbed areas will likely be reclaimed for landscaping purposes; the applicant should revise this answer accordingly.
B.4: The applicant should provide an exact area of disturbance; a range of 1-5 acres is not acceptable.
B.9: The applicant should provide the approximate number of jobs during and after construction.
B.13: Subsurface liquid waste disposal is proposed; the applicant should revise this answer accordingly.
B.16: The applicant should identify the amount of solid waste generated per month.
B.17: The applicant should answer “no” to this question.
B.23: The applicant should provide the daily anticipated water usage and cite source material used.
B.25: The applicant should provide the required approvals for each agency. As disturbance to the site is greater than one-acre, a Notice of Intent is required to be submitted to the NYSDEC for coverage under Permit GP-02-
01; the applicant should include NYSDEC under “State Agencies.” The applicant should confirm that a variance is required from the Zoning Board of Appeals.
C.3: The applicant should determine the maximum number of units allowed on 15.24 (+/-) acres in the (A) Zoning District.
C.4: The applicant should not answer this question.
C.5: The applicant should not answer this question.
C.10: Sewer and water districts will not be formed; the applicant should mark “no.”
Mr. De Gondea noted that he has shown a great deal of work done on his survey on how they plan to do the drainage. He questioned if the limits of disturbance really needed to be shown on the plan. He is providing for it under his DEC permit.
Chairman Tapper believed that it really needed to be shown on the plan as that is what is required under the Board’s checklist.
Ms. Vlahos confirmed that the Erosion Sediment Control Plan and limits of disturbance needed to be shown on the final plan.
T/ Rochester Planning Board -5- December 20, 2005
Minutes of Regular Meeting
PUBLIC HEARING
NELSON DE GONDEA(cont’d)- 4 lot subdivision
The Chairman opened the hearing to the public. There was no comment.
Chairman Tapper motioned to close the Public Hearing. Seconded by Mrs. Carney. All members in favor. No discussion.
The Chairman instructed the Applicant that he needed to submit the discussed materials. He needed to bond the road and discuss that with the Highway Superintendent. Once the Planning Board accepted the amount of the Bond, Mr. De Gondea would bond the determined amount to the Town of Rochester.
PUBLIC HEARING
LEON SMITH- 3 lot subdivision, Route 209, Tax Map # 76.2-2-27.1, ‘B’, R-1 District
Mr. Smith was present on behalf of his application and noted that Attorney, Peter Berger, has reviewed and accepted his Road Maintenance Agreement.
As the Circulation for Intent for Lead Agency’s time period had expired with no comments, Chairman Tapper motioned to declare Lead Agency. Seconded by Mr. Gaydos.
Vote: O’Halloran- Yes De Graw- Yes
Striano- Absent Carney- Yes
Gaydos- Yes Tapper- Yes
Kawalchuk- Absent Ricks- Absent
Mr. De Graw questioned if Parcel #2 had received Health Dept. Approval? He didn’t believe that the Board should be approving lots if they weren’t buildable and by getting Health Dept. Approval, this would put that question to ease. He noted that the County suggests that any lot that comes before the Planning Board for subdivision approval to get Health Dept. Approval. Even though a lot is 10 acres, the Board is just looking at a map and it could be a swamp or something. This would prevent the Board from ever approving an unbuildable lot.
The Board discussed whether or not lots over 5 acres or fewer than 5 lots should be required to obtain Ulster County Health Dept. approval and they determined that there was nothing that formally required that.
The Chairman noted that bounding owner Mr. Norman Greene stopped into the Planning Board office late this afternoon and submitted a letter dated July 12, 2005 from his Attorney, Michael R. Siegel, addressed to Mr. Smith’s Surveyor, Timothy M. McCabe stating that there was a discrepancy in the survey. Mr. Siegel believed that a boundary line was wrong and that they disputed the survey. The Chairman wasn’t sure where the Board should stand on this matter until it was cleared up.
T/ Rochester Planning Board -6- December 20, 2005
Minutes of Regular Meeting
PUBLIC HEARING
LEON SMITH(cont’d)- 3 lot subdivision
Mr. Smith stated that Mr. Greene had approached him in May of 2005 when he first had the property surveyed and flagged and said that the property line wasn’t the tree line as they both had always thought it was. They discussed it and Mr. Smith hired the surveyor to come back out and check the lines (at his cost) and he discussed this with Mr. Greene and Mr. Greene still didn’t believe that this line was correct. Mr. Smith
discussed it with his surveyor and Mr. McCabe said that was where the line was. The July 12, 2005 letter went to Mr. McCabe’s office with some paper work, he reviewed it and still stands by his survey. There has been no proof that his survey is wrong.
Chairman Tapper opened the hearing to the public.
Norman Greene, bounding owner to the property in question was recognized to speak. He noted that there is a problem with the boundary. He has a map and his family has been farming that land since the 1800s… they know where the boundaries are.
Mr. Gaydos questioned if Mr. Green had a certified, title searched survey map?
Mr. Greene responded that he had a survey from 1987 of Mr. Smith’s property before he owned it and the boundary lines were different. The survey was actually altered. The Title company found that the deeds were altered.
Mr. Gaydos questioned how much property was being disputed?
Mr. Greene didn’t know exactly. He and his family would be willing to adjust property lines with Mr. Smith and give them what they wanted in the back with their parcel. They aren’t opposed to the subdivision, they just want to straighten this issue up.
Mr. O’Halloran noted that generally you just let the surveyors work these type of issues out.
Ms. Vlahos believed that this was really a legal matter and not a Planning Board matter.
Chairman Tapper questioned how far the PB could proceed with this application? He didn’t know if the Board could grant an approval for something that would have to be filed with the County if this is contested.
Mr. Smith noted that he wasn’t changing the property line, he was just cutting his property up. The property line is the outside line that is under discussion. Back in May of 2005, Mr. Smith attempted to do a boundary line adjustment with Mr. Greene, but he never heard back from Mr. Greene. He thinks that he brought this question to Mr. Greene’s attention by flagging the property. Mr. Greene wouldn’t have even known about it. But the thing is that no one realized that the line went past the wood line.
Mrs. Carney questioned if the discrepancy was from the fence to the line? She felt that may be substantial.
Mr. Smith noted that it wasn’t that much, only part of it. Probably 100’.
T/ Rochester Planning Board -7- December 20, 2005
Minutes of Regular Meeting
PUBLIC HEARING
LEON SMITH(cont’d)- 3 lot subdivision
Mr. Greene tried to explain what he felt the boundaries were to Mr. Smith and the Board. He believed that the property line between them was very wrong. He didn’t care too much, he just wanted to make sure he owned his crop land.
Chairman Tapper questioned if this survey map was different from the one Mr. Smith had when he bought the property.
Mr. Smith said that it was not different.
Mr. Greene believed it was different.
Mr. Smith tried to explain that the maps were done in two different scales.
Mr. De Graw stated that the Board was really bound by the subdivision code and orderly development is really a big part of the process. He didn’t feel that the Board could move forward with this application until it was sorted out.
Mr. Greene stated that he had talked with Mr. Smith this past summer and he was willing to work this out and he felt that after his lawyer sent the letter contesting the survey that everyone was mad at him and that is why he never heard from Mr. Smith again.
Mr. O’Halloran questioned what surveyor Mr. Greene was or did use for his property that lead him to believe that there was a discrepancy?
Mr. Greene responded that they used a lawyer that went through a company on Long Island to do a title search. He did not have a local surveyor.
Mr. Smith questioned when was the last time that Mr. Greene had his land surveyed?
Mr. Greene supposed that it went back to the 1800s. He didn’t have a survey map. He had a deed and all of the boundaries.
Charlie Greene, was recognized to speak. He was partners in the property and Mr. Norman Greene’s brother. He didn’t believe that when Mr. Smith’s property was surveyed in 1993 there was a problem with the boundaries and now there is, so something has to be wrong.
Mr. Smith noted that the only difference between the surveys was a little piece in the corner, but not the whole strip of land that is being indicated by Norman & Charlie Greene.
Mr. De Graw questioned what the bearing and distances were between the maps?
T/ Rochester Planning Board -8- December 20, 2005
Minutes of Regular Meeting
PUBLIC HEARING
LEON SMITH(cont’d)- 3 lot subdivision
Mrs. Carney was reviewing them and noted that one of the differences is that they are different Magnetic Norths so the bearings are going to be different, but the distances would be the same.
Mr. O’Halloran believed that Mr. Greene would need to go and get their property line surveyed. There are protections in purchasing of lands and that wouldn’t affect what Mr. Smith is trying to accomplish now. There is legal recourse for Mr. Greene, but that shouldn’t affect what the Board is trying to approve.
Mr. De Graw stated that the oldest deed of record would be the one that holds water. He felt that the Board couldn’t move forward until this was straightened out.
Mrs. Carney requested that Mr. Smith obtain a letter from his surveyor that acknowledges that he is aware that there is a claim that there is a problem and that he stands by his survey.
The Chairman questioned if Mr. Smith had any prospective buyers for a lot that is in question here?
Mr. Smith responded that yes, he did.
Mr. Greene told the PB that they should have known Abe Tedesky who owned the property in question prior to Mr. Smith. He farmed that side and the Greene’s farmed the other side and if they were over on Mr. Tedesky’s land, they would have known about it for sure.
Mr. Smith noted that he believes that when old farms start to get subdivided, the lines end up not being where people thought they were… they used to refer to tree lines and such, but they just didn’t know for sure.
The Chairman read letter dated December 20, 2005 from bounding owners, Mark & Janet Gerstenhaber. They praised the maintenance that the Smith’s gave to their property and hoped that whoever bought it would maintain the high standard of upkeep. The Gerstenhaber’s were not so happy with other surrounding property conditions.
Because there were no other comments from the public, Chairman Tapper motioned to close the public hearing. Seconded by Mr. O’Halloran. All members present in favor.
Mr. De Graw read a section of the Subdivision Regulations that he believed to back up his statement about requiring all lots to obtain Ulster County Health Dept. approval.
Board members noted that they would have to get Health Dept. approval prior to obtaining a building permit and there are no provisions in the code that state that all lots have to get approved.
Mrs. Carney noted that the County did recommend this, however they did not change their laws to reflect this.
The Board filled out Part 2 of the EAF.
T/ Rochester Planning Board -9- December 20, 2005
Minutes of Regular Meeting
PUBLIC HEARING
LEON SMITH(cont’d)- 3 lot subdivision
The Chairman noted that the PB had received a phone call from Mrs. Alice Cross of the Historic Preservation Commission notifying the Board that the blue multi-family dwelling that is on Mr. Smith’s property near Route 209 is actually a stone house.
Mr. Smith was aware of this stating that it is stone with stucco and then blue siding over that. He has never seen any pictures of what it originally looked like. The house is on the Town of Rochester Stone House Inventory.
Mrs. Carney motioned to accept Part 2 of the EAF as it was answered by the Board. Mr. O’Halloran seconded the motion.
Vote: O’Halloran- Yes De Graw- No
Striano- Absent Carney- Yes
Gaydos- Yes Tapper- Yes
Kawalchuk- Absent Ricks- Absent
Mrs. Carney motioned for a Negative Declaration under SEQRA. Seconded by Mr. Gaydos.
Vote: O’Halloran- Yes De Graw- Yes
Striano- Absent Carney- Yes
Gaydos- Yes Tapper- Yes
Kawalchuk- Absent Ricks- Absent
The Secretary informed the Board that once a Final Map is accepted by the Board, Peter Berger reviewed the Road Maintenance Agreement and approved it. (Town Attorney, Mary Lou Christiana, couldn’t review the agreement because she is Mr. Smith’s personal Attorney)
Mr. O’Halloran felt that a letter from Mr. McCabe, certifying his survey could be a condition of Final Approval.
Mrs. Carney motioned for Conditional Preliminary Approval pending the following conditions:
1. receive letter from surveyor stating that he is aware of the discrepancy and that he certifies his survey
Seconded by Mr. Gaydos. No discussion.
Vote: O’Halloran- Yes De Graw- No
Striano- Absent Carney- Yes
Gaydos- Yes Tapper- Yes
Kawalchuk- Absent Ricks- Absent
T/ Rochester Planning Board -10- December 20, 2005
Minutes of Regular Meeting
PUBLIC HEARING
LEON SMITH(cont’d)- 3 lot subdivision
Mr. O’Halloran motioned for permission for the Chairman to sign the Final Map once the Board receives the letter from the surveyor. Seconded by Mr. Gaydos.
Discussion:
Chairman Tapper wanted to check with Peter Berger to make sure that the Board is proceeding correctly because there is a discrepancy and he will sign the final map if he agrees.
Vote: O’Halloran- Yes De Graw- No
Striano- Absent Carney- Yes
Gaydos- Yes Tapper- Yes
Kawalchuk- Absent Ricks- Absent
DECISION
KAREN HOF/ MICHAEL RUSS- subdivision approval for 2 lots, Queens Highway, Accord, Tax Map #60.4- 2-1.100, ‘A’ District
Mr. Russ and Ms. Hof were present on behalf of their application.
The Chairman noted that the Public Hearing was closed and the time period for the Circulation of the Intent for Lead Agency has since expired, so the Board can declare themselves Lead Agency and do Part 2.
Chairman Tapper declared Lead Agency. Seconded by Mr. De Graw. No discussion.
Vote: O’Halloran- Yes De Graw- Yes
Striano- Absent Carney- Yes
Gaydos- Yes Tapper- Yes
Kawalchuk- Absent Ricks- Absent
After reviewing Part 2 of the EAF, Mrs. Carney motioned to accept the Part 2 as the Board just reviewed it. Seconded by Mr. De Graw. No discussion.
Vote: O’Halloran- Yes De Graw- Yes
Striano- Absent Carney- Yes
Gaydos- Yes Tapper- Yes
Kawalchuk- Absent Ricks- Absent
Mrs. Carney motioned for a Negative Declaration under SEQRA as there would be no large or important impacts. Seconded by Mr. O’Halloran. No discussion.
Vote: O’Halloran- Yes De Graw- Yes
Striano- Absent Carney- Yes
Gaydos- Yes Tapper- Yes
Kawalchuk- Absent Ricks- Absent
T/ Rochester Planning Board -11- December 20, 2005
Minutes of Regular Meeting
Mr. O’Halloran motioned for Conditional Preliminary Approval based on the following conditions:
1. Road Maintenance Agreement reviewed by the Town Attorney at the Applicant’s cost
2. Health Dept. Approval for lot 1
Seconded by Mr. Gaydos. No discussion
Vote: O’Halloran- Yes De Graw- Yes
Striano- Absent Carney- Yes
Gaydos- Yes Tapper- Yes
Kawalchuk- Absent Ricks- Absent
The Chairperson could sign the final maps once they were received and the conditions were met.
Seconded by Mr. Gaydos.
Vote: O’Halloran- Yes De Graw- No
Striano- Absent Carney- Yes
Gaydos- Yes Tapper- Yes
Kawalchuk- Absent Ricks- Absent
ZBA ADVISORY REQUEST
RICHARD GELDARD & ASTRID FITZGERALD– Appeal for Hudson Valley Resort Zoning Permit #325 for an arcade and supporting areas for a water park facility along with updated meeting rooms and kitchen facilities plus 100 family style rooms to replace existing rooms, 400 Granite Road, R-1 District, Tax Map#76.4-1-56.1
The Chairman called applicants Richard Geldard & Astrid Fitzgerald to the table to discuss their application.
He explained that the PB only gives an advisory to the ZBA. They are the Board that is actually going to hear the matter and they can either take the PB’s advisory into consideration or not pay any attention to it at all.
Mr. Geldard explained that the appeal is a result of the reversal of Doug Dymond, CEO, initial decision on the Zoning Permit to say that a Special Use Permit wouldn’t be needed for this project. It seemed clear in Town Law and from every consideration they could make that a Special Use Permit was obviously required. The hotel is sitting in a residential area and this is a change, not simply an alteration of the site.
Mrs. Fitzgerald noted that there appeal was also for procedural happenings that went on. They were in attendance at the PB meeting where this was discussed. It was called a Pre-Application discussion and no one even looked at plans. Basically what was said was mentioned that this was an extension of the swimming pool. This is way more than that. No one had any plans in front of them to come up with their opinions or decisions. Mr. Burrick sat here and said “I don’t know why I am here”.
Mr. Geldard stated that all they are asking for is to appeal the decision of the CEO and support his initial findings that a Special Use Permit was required. The Code is very clear and they are preparing their presentation for the ZBA. He didn’t believe this was the place to present their case, so they were not presenting their argument at this meeting.
Mr. De Graw questioned if the Applicants understood the PB role in this at all? What the PB is looking at is how this project would affect the planning process and then they would advise the ZBA of their findings.
T/ Rochester Planning Board -12- December 20, 2005
Minutes of Regular Meeting
ZBA ADVISORY REQUEST
RICHARD GELDARD & ASTRID FITZGERALD(cont’d)– Appeal for Hudson Valley Resort Zoning Permit #325
Mr. Geldard noted that they weren’t concerned with what the proposed project was. They were concerned that the project receive the appropriate review which would be a Special Use Permit.
The Chairman noted that in the application, the Applicants site 140-40(d) which talks about a non-conforming use in a residential zone requiring a Special Use Permit for expansion.
Mr. O’Halloran noted that when Mr. Burrick of the HVR came in front of the Board they had this discussion and he referred to 140-40(a). This is where the PB based there decision to send this application back to the CEO for him to review his initial determination that a Special Use Permit would be required. He believed that the Board looked at this application from the HVR as 3 things going on. There was replacement or renovation of 100 rooms not adding or subtracting and they had a pre-existing Special Use Permit and according to our Code, they can’t increase it or else they would require a Special Use Permit. Then the convention center that they are replacing…they are taking down and rebuilding. The water park or the extension of the swimming pool is strictly for the guests use which is very common in this business today. They are never open to the public which makes it an accessory building. The CEO also based his decision on 140-5 where it addresses accessory buildings. Mr. O’Halloran’s original argument why a Special Use Permit wasn’t required was because what was being asked of the HVR was a higher standard or change to what was being asked of other businesses in this Town and he couldn’t understand why the HVR, the largest tax payer, the largest employer would be held to a higher standard than any other business that was doing to same. This was the previous argument that they made.
Mr. O’Halloran believed that this Board has already discussed this and gave their opinion when they sent it back to the CEO for his review.
Mr. De Graw noted that this Board hasn’t seen any plans and his question of 140-40(a)(1) it mentions that in order to be eligible for this the owner must be the same as when this chapter was adopted. The owner is definitely different. Plus it is a new building, so he doesn’t think it falls under what Mr. O’Halloran is arguing.
Mr. O’Halloran stated that it does because it is well under 100% increase so it does apply. And this owner purchased the corporation that was the Granite—call it the Hudson Valley Resort, but it’s the same thing.
Mr. Geldard noted that the Town Attorney’s opinion was that a Special Use Permit did apply to this situation. He didn’t understand why a Special Use Permit was so erroneous to the development in this particular case when it should be a normal procedure and this is such a large development?
The Chairman didn’t feel the Board could speak for the HVR and the Board could only assume what the applicants may be thinking.
T/ Rochester Planning Board -13- December 20, 2005
Minutes of Regular Meeting
ZBA ADVISORY REQUEST
RICHARD GELDARD & ASTRID FITZGERALD(cont’d)– Appeal for Hudson Valley Resort Zoning Permit #325
Mr. O’Halloran noted that as a single alternate member of the Board. His understanding is that the difference of going through a Special Use Permit in business in this case is that when you have professional planning review and when you look at previous applications of similar size and scope, you are looking at a minimum of planning review. In this market place and when you are in the position where you are not turning a profit and when you are fighting for each day in business, which could be a hurdle. This is prior to any construction… This could be why they wouldn’t want to go through it.
Mrs. Fitzgerald believed that Mr. O’Halloran was speaking economics. She was speaking Town Code.
Mr. Geldard could sympathize with this situation, but just believed that a project of this magnitude that the Town would want to be Lead Agency in this situation and would want to be involved.
Mr. O’Halloran stated that the CEO made this decision and he respected the Appeal, but it was the CEO’s call.
Mr. Geldard noted that he reversed his decision and his original determination was that a Special Use Permit was required.
Representative for the HVR was in the audience and asked to speak. He noted that the HVR has never received a copy of the appeal that is being discussed at this meeting.
Mr. Tapper noted that the ZBA would handle that.
The Chairman understood that there were 3 points of the application. There was a replacement of the burnt out areas and that would require a building permit and the replacement of some buildings—if it was using the same footprint and square footage, which would only require a building permit. He thought the water park aspect would be helpful to see some plans. He then read letter dated September 22, 2005 to the CEO regarding the HVR and asking for further clarification of why this application needed to be in front of the PB.
Mr. Geldard stated that when the Planning Board asked the CEO to review his decision, Mr. Burick didn’t even make a presentation. He sat down at the table and asked why he was here. He didn’t present anything.
Mr. O’Halloran motioned for an advisory to the ZBA to deny the appeal made by Mr. Geldard and Mrs. Fitzgerald against the Determination by the CEO for Zoning Permit #325 of 2005 for the HVR. Seconded by Mr. Gaydos.
Vote: O’Halloran- Yes De Graw- No
Striano- Absent Carney- Recused
Gaydos- Yes Tapper- No
Kawalchuk- Absent Ricks- Absent
T/ Rochester Planning Board -14- December 20, 2005
Minutes of Regular Meeting
Mr. O’Halloran motioned to accept the minutes of the November 15, 2005. Seconded by Chairman Tapper.
Vote: O’Halloran- Yes De Graw- Yes
Striano- Absent Carney- Recused
Gaydos- Abstain Tapper- Yes
Kawalchuk- Absent Ricks- Absent
Mr. O’Halloran notified the Board that there was a training available on December 27, 2005 at the Ulster County Planning Board office for any one interested in attending.
Mr. Gaydos motioned to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Mr. O’Halloran. No discussion. All members present in favor.
As there was no other business to discuss Chairman Tapper adjourned the meeting at 9:30 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Rebecca Paddock Stange, Secretary