MINUTES OF January 24, 2006, 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: David O’Halloran, Alternate Nadine D. Carney (not in attendance as there was a full Board)
Frank Striano, Sr.
Robert Gaydos
William De Graw
Shane Ricks, Vice Chair
Anthony Kawalchuk
Also present at the meeting was Town Planner, Jan Johannessen, from The Chazen Companies and Liaison, Alex Miller.
Pledge to the Flag.
CONTINUED REVIEW
NELSON DE GONDEA– 4 lot subdivision, Pond Road, Private Road off of Rocky Mountain Road, Tax Map #52.020-1-8
Mr. De Gondea was present on behalf of his application.
Chairman Tapper noted that this application has been typed as an unlisted action, the Planning Board (PB) has declared itself Lead Agency, and the Public Hearing was held and closed. The Applicant has submitted revised plans per Chazen’s review to show sediment control. The Applicant has also submitted an estimate for the Road Bond, and has submitted documentation from the DEC regarding the non existence of endangered species on property. The PB is going to complete Part 2 of the EAF at this meeting and make a determination of significance.
The Board went over Part 2 of the EAF as prepared by Chazen. Planner, Jan Johannessen, noted that all the impacts marked were small to moderate.
Mr. Ricks motioned to accept Part 2 of the EAF as prepared by Chazen and as just reviewed by the Planning Board. Mr. De Graw seconded the motion. No discussion.
Vote:
Tapper: Yes De Graw: Yes
Ricks: Yes Gaydos: Yes
Carney: Yes Kawalchuk: Yes
Striano- Yes O’Halloran: Attendance not requested
T/ Rochester Planning Board -2- January 24, 2006
Minutes of Regular Meeting
CONTINUED REVIEW
NELSON DE GONDEA (cont’d) – 4 lot subdivision
Mrs. Carney motioned for a Negative Declaration under SEQRA. Seconded by Mr. De Graw. No discussion.
Vote:
Tapper: Yes De Graw: Yes
Ricks: Yes Gaydos: Yes
Carney: Yes Kawalchuk: Yes
Striano- Yes O’Halloran: Attendance not requested
Mrs. Carney motioned for Conditional Preliminary Approval, seconded by Mr. De Graw. No discussion.
Vote:
Tapper: Yes De Graw: Yes
Ricks: Yes Gaydos: Yes
Carney: Yes Kawalchuk: Yes
Striano- Yes O’Halloran: Attendance not requested
Mrs. Carney motioned for Conditional Final Approval. Seconded by Mr. Gaydos with the following conditions:
1. Road Maintenance Agreement to be signed by the Town Supervisor
2. Bond to be received in the amount as determined by the Highway Superintendent, $12,650
Vote:
Tapper: Yes De Graw: Yes
Ricks: Yes Gaydos: Yes
Carney: Yes Kawalchuk: Yes
Striano- Yes O’Halloran: Attendance not requested
90 DAY EXTENSIONS ON CONDITIONAL PRELIMINARY APPROVALS
VICTOR VAN BORKULO- c/o Taconic Designs, 6 lot subdivision, Millbrook Lane, Tax Map #76.002-2-6.411 R-2 District
Mr. Ricks recused himself from this application as he once owned this property.
Mrs. Carney motioned to grant a 90 day extension for Van Borkulo Enterprises, 6 lot subdivision, Mill Brook Road. Seconded by Mr. Gaydos.
Vote:
Tapper: Yes De Graw: Yes
Ricks: Yes Gaydos: Yes
Carney: Yes Kawalchuk: Yes
Striano- Yes O’Halloran: Attendance not requested
T/ Rochester Planning Board -3- January 24, 2006
Minutes of Regular Meeting
Vincent Valetutti– c/o Medenbach & Eggers, 4 lot subdivision, Cedar Drive, Tax Map # 68.1-3-32, ‘A’ District
Mr. Ricks was reinstated to the Board.
Mrs. Carney motioned to grant a 90 day extension for Vincent Valetutti, 4 lot subdivision, Cedar Drive. Seconded by Mr. Gaydos.
ACTION ON MINUTES OF MEETING
Mr. Gaydos motioned to accept the minutes of December 20, 2005. Seconded by Mr. Tapper. No discussion.
Vote:
Tapper: Yes De Graw: Yes
Ricks: Yes Gaydos: Yes
Carney: Yes Kawalchuk: Yes
Striano- Yes O’Halloran: Attendance not requested
OTHER MATTERS
The Chairman noted that Streamside Estates was appealing the Courts decision to standby the Planning Board’s tie vote which resulted in a denial.
He then noted that in Leon Smith’s subdivision, Attorney, Peter Berger, was consulted and determined that the land dispute between Mr. Smith and his neighbors, the Greens, was not of the Board’s concern and they could proceed with approvals.
Chairman Tapper noted to the Board that the Hudson Valley Resort’s CEO determination of Zoning Permit #324 of 2005 is having a Public Hearing on whether or not a Special Use Permit is required for the proposed additions/ alterations. He also noted that he spoke with the Supervisor and was told that the HVR was on the verge of being sold and the buyers were interested in putting in a 200 home complex. There is to be a Preliminary presentation from the buyers at the Town Board’s February 2, 2006 Meeting. They are inviting the public and Boards to the meeting.
TOWN BOARD ADVISORY REQUEST
Local Law # 1 of the Year 2006 of the Town of Rochester’s Local Laws being a Local Law to Enact a Moratorium on Development.
The Chairman noted that there have been revisions to the original draft of the moratorium on land development. Commercial building thresholds went from 4,000 sf to 20,000 sf.
Mr. Ricks thought it was plain that this moratorium only is prohibiting the HVR.
Mr. Kawalchuk didn’t understand that how this law could prohibit applications that haven’t been submitted prior to December 31, 2005. He thought that this was a year moratorium from when the law went into effect. He didn’t think that the applicants should be stopped until the law actually gets adopted.
T/ Rochester Planning Board -4- January 24, 2006
Minutes of Regular Meeting
TOWN BOARD ADVISORY REQUEST(cont’d):
Local Law # 1 of the Year 2006 of the Town of Rochester’s Local Laws being a Local Law to Enact a Moratorium on Development.
Mr. De Graw stated that the Town Board can enact another law to extend the moratorium if it goes longer than the year and (2) 3 month extensions.
Liaison, Alex Miller, was present and noted that first of all he was unaware about the Hudson Valley Resort regarding the possible sale and the February 2, 2006 meeting with the Town Board. In regards to the advisory, he recommended that the PB make their opinions known. He thought it would be of interest to the Town Board to have these opinions. From the initial Public Hearing the Town Board revised the commercial building size from 4,000 sf to 20,000 sf… the Board is listening and taking into consideration people’s opinions on this matter.
Mrs. Carney stated that the Board only had 2 open subdivision applications that would be affected by this moratorium. She could understand not accepting any more applications once the law is adopted, but these applications are already in progress and shouldn’t be stopped because they won’t have approval by February 1, 2006. She didn’t think it was a good idea to stop the review on these applications. There is a long process that someone goes through when subdividing property and the process begins long before they come in front of the Board. The applications mentioned are Mahoney and Dawson. These applications are for 10 lots and 22 lots. They are not looking to cluster 100 homes. The parcels size is adequate. She would like the Town Board (TB) to reconsider halting review on these applications.
Mr. Ricks stated that these applicants have established escrow accounts and have already paid for planner review. These people didn’t just get stuff in to beat the moratorium. They have already had reviews already. Its not right to penalize someone like that.
Mrs. Carney didn’t feel that it was really necessary to have a moratorium while the comprehensive plan is being reviewed. She can understand it because of seeing applications in other Towns for 200 homes, but she isn’t happy about the moratorium, but she can see where it is coming from.
The Chairman believed that if the Town didn’t put the moratorium in place then the HVR could come in with the 200 home complex proposal with out dated zoning to review it.
Mrs. Carney can see the point of having a deadline while the moratorium is here, but she doesn’t think this should affect existing applications.
Mr. De Graw thinks that the TB should consider local folks that want to subdivide off a few acres for family. He also thinks that it is absolutely necessary given the restructuring of the Master Plan to protect the Town. The moratorium is necessary to control last minute applicants prompted by this moratorium to get their subdivisions get in under the wire and shove it through. The Town almost saw a big development to Peter Davis’s property and that could have been a detrimental impact to the Town
T/ Rochester Planning Board -5- January 24, 2006
Minutes of Regular Meeting
TOWN BOARD ADVISORY REQUEST (cont’d):
Local Law # 1 of the Year 2006 of the Town of Rochester’s Local Laws being a Local Law to Enact a Moratorium on Development.
Mr. Gaydos had a negative feeling about the moratorium. He felt that everyone was kidding themselves with trying to stop this and that and what was going to happen is mega developers were going to come into this Town one way or another. He felt that without the moratorium there would possibly be more local people developing where there would be more control and involved with what goes on in this community because they are a part of it.
Mr. Striano had no comments to make at this time.
Mr. Kawalchuk wanted a clarification of what happened with Peter Davis’s Farm and the possible sale of it.
As the Chairman understood it, the development rights were bought out by land conservancies.
Town Resident, Randy Hornbeck informed the Board that nothing has been bought out from Peter Davis. Nothing has happened. There is a signed intent and that is it.
Mr. Gaydos contributed that the intent is only for partial non development of the property from his discussions with Mr. Davis.
Mr. Kawalchuk noted that if this moratorium goes into place that nothing can even happen with the Davis Farm. The moratorium could go way more than a year and if he were them trying to negotiate on that he would sure wait and see if this moratorium went through. It can hurt people in a different way. This is just a negative aspect to it that Mr. Kawalchuk sees as a potential. He can’t support the moratorium without a set time limit that is non renewable. The moratorium would have to end on such and such a date and that would be it. No extensions.
The Chairman noted that there would be another Public Hearing on this on February 2, 2006. That would probably close the Public Hearing aspect of it…
Mr. De Graw explained that from a County standpoint “moratorium” is part of the Town’s Zoning Laws. The County reviews those. When Shawangunk was coming through they floundered for a year and didn’t accomplish anything in their first moratorium until they got on track. As that unfolded and they needed some more time to get that completed, the County really started putting the pressure on them telling them that they really needed to get their stuff together.
Mr. Kawalchuk would rather see in black and white that the moratorium would be lifted on such and such a date. Anybody that is trying to sell a large piece of property can get hurt. It could be used politically as a little chip here and there to help or to hurt people.
Mr. De Graw noted that politically, from a politician’s stand point, it can kill you, because you are putting people’s property rights on hold. It’s almost like a sliding scale.
T/ Rochester Planning Board -6- January 24, 2006
Minutes of Regular Meeting
TOWN BOARD ADVISORY REQUEST (cont’d):
Local Law # 1 of the Year 2006 of the Town of Rochester’s Local Laws being a Local Law to Enact a Moratorium on Development.
Mr. Kawalchuk couldn’t support it as it was written. He wasn’t against a breather to take a look at everything to change the plans for the Town, but without specific deadlines he couldn’t support it. This could hurt a lot of people. He doesn’t think that this was thought through when it was written.
Mr. Ricks understood that the Town was long over due for some improvements. In 1990 he was on the Board that met separately and did a lot of work and studies to update the Master Plan. They did a lot of work on it and nothing got done with it. They were real close to having all of their information done, very similar to the information that has been put together now. He read through a number of things. He read about the population growth in the Town and this is one of the largest ones in Ulster County percentage wise. From 2000-2005 there were 57 total of new parcels added to the tax rolls. This is in 5 years. This includes all properties subdivided including those not requiring PB approval. 57 parcels in 5 years don’t really justify the moratorium. In 2005 the Board had a number of approvals, but a lot of them were very small subdivisions compared to when he was on the PB in the mid 80’s where they were approving 20 and 30 lot subdivisions. They were meeting 3 times a month and staying till midnight or 1 am sometimes. He doesn’t see this as any comparison to what it was like then, so he has a real hard time wondering why with the small subdivisions that have come in this year and what has come in over the past 5 years. He can understand why you would want to stop a mega subdivision coming in that may be 40 or 50 lots, but he doesn’t see the need for a moratorium on the small ones that have been coming in. As far as the commercial development going up to 20,000 sf. It seems to him that that is probably aimed at the HVR. Anything else that someone would build in the Town could go through. The HVR wanted to do a $30 million dollar expansion being the largest employer in the Town. He felt that some real consideration needed to be taken for the Town’s tax reasons. In that survey it said that 17 or 18 cents was the cost of a commercial business compared to a residence. There is a business that wanted to put a 30 million dollar investment in the Town. And the largest employer probably could employ another 100 people or more. It is a tough thing to see a company want to put their neck out especially when they are trying to survive and end up getting it chopped off. Mr. Ricks felt that the HVR should be another application that shouldn’t be affected by the moratorium. They have been in the works with the Town for the last 7 months.
The Chairman agreed with what everyone has said.
Liaison, Alex Miller, noted that Mr. Ricks stated that between the years of 2000-2005 the total number of new parcels added to the Tax roll were 57. And then Mr. Ricks was referring to the rate of acceleration in the Town. He was just looking at the meeting agenda for this meeting and he saw an application for 22 lots. In one subdivision that is ½ of last 5 years number of new parcels.
Town Resident, Mr. Dawson noted that he builds 2 homes a year and he is building every one of those homes. He isn’t building 22 homes in one shot. He doesn’t divide and sell; he does this so he can build his own homes. He also noted that he started this project in 2004 and has over $500,000 invested in this. He has worked with a lot of planners trying to design it to the Town’s liking. The largest lot is +/- 10 acres and the smallest is +/- 6 acres. He didn’t just start this. He has been going through this the right way.
T/ Rochester Planning Board -7- January 24, 2006
Minutes of Regular Meeting
TOWN BOARD ADVISORY REQUEST (cont’d):
Local Law # 1 of the Year 2006 of the Town of Rochester’s Local Laws being a Local Law to Enact a Moratorium on Development.
Mr. Miller questioned—if by taking those numbers (57 new parcels in the last 5 years) and saying that they are only 57 parcels having been subdivided over a 5 year period of time, playing devil’s advocate and say who gets harmed then by taking a breather if so few parcels were being developed?
Mr. Kawalchuk questioned if their should only be a moratorium on Mr. Dawson?
Mr. De Graw stated that most of the subdivisions that they see won’t be affected because they are smaller lots.
Mr. Striano couldn’t understand the moratorium to stop building? For what? Most of the things the Board sees are 4 lots. It isn’t going to stop the growth of the Town if this is the intent of the moratorium. The growth will continue because people can still subdivide without Planning Board approval if they meet the requirements. So, what is the intent of the moratorium?
Mr. De Graw believed that the intent was laid out clearly by the demographics. If a 200 lot subdivision was brought in that could put 400 kids into the school district. That is a huge shot to the tax base. And with planning the future of the Town, the moratorium is needed because if that happened it would be detrimental.
Mr. Kawalchuk believed that there were about 5 projects that annoyed a certain group of people and if these projects were never brought to the table we would never be talking about this moratorium. He believed this was in response to Streamside Estates, roller rink, storage facility that was proposed above the roller rink and Dawson’s subdivision. There were several large projects that sparked this. He thought that the moratorium is the way that the Town Board can throttle down this ultra large growth that they weren’t used to seeing. This was just his opinion.
Mr. Ricks was concerned with how this could affect some of the smaller contractors in Town. Guys that make a living building in the Town.
Mr. De Graw felt that most of the subdivisions were so small that he doesn’t see that happening.
Mr. Ricks felt that if the Town was afraid of a 50 lot subdivision then they should base the moratorium on a 50 lot subdivision.
Mr. De Graw noted that when the school board gave some of their presentations with the number of kids and how that would affect the tax base, he felt this is what opened a lot of people’s eyes to what a large subdivision could do.
Mrs. Carney noted that the school district has had problems for years. Kids can’t even have lunch because their isn’t enough room now.
Mr. De Graw noted that they made a presentation last night and Carl Chipman said that they have actually seen a large number of young families with children moving into the area and buying houses. He was surprised at this fact.
T/ Rochester Planning Board -8- January 24, 2006
Minutes of Regular Meeting
TOWN BOARD ADVISORY REQUEST (cont’d):
Local Law # 1 of the Year 2006 of the Town of Rochester’s Local Laws being a Local Law to Enact a Moratorium on Development.
Mr. Gaydos noted that they learned that school enrolment has gone way down.
Mr. Kawalchuk questioned where were these people moving from and where were they working while they are buying these houses?
Mr. Miller noted that there are 3 places people are coming from. Dutchess County, Orange County, New York metro area. He knows a ½ dozen people that drive to Fishkill or an hour away because comparably these people are getting more for their money.
Mrs. Carney noted that the School Board needed to deal with their own problems.
Mr. Kawalchuk asked Mr. Miller for his opinion of the moratorium.
Mr. Miller stated that he felt that moratoriums can be really helpful and they have the potential to be detrimental too. If you look at the history of moratoriums you see that Town’s who experienced moratoriums and have come out of them, property values or prices actually increase. He can’t say that he is absolutely positive that the moratorium is the way to move forward. That is his personal opinion. He does think that a time to breath and take a look is good and he is glad to hear that there is agreement that the updated plan is needed. If a moratorium can be more helpful than detrimental to the community at large, he thinks taking a breather and allowing the Boards to focus on the Master Plan. The Town is experiencing swift growth with a 37 year old Master Plan. It is recommended by the State that at the end of a 5 year period the Town revisits the Plan and see how it is doing. He doesn’t know if this is a perfect law and he is open to suggestions. He has not made his position as a Town Board member yet to say if he is in favor or not. He is quite open minded about it.
There was an immense amount of debate on whether or not voting for a motion was the best way to get their report to the Town Board. Some members thought that their individual comments said enough and if they voted for a positive or negative advisory their comments would get lost in the motion and others wanted to vote in favor or against the moratorium. The following motion was the result of the Board’s compromise and suggestions from Mr. Miller on how to deliver the report to the Town Board:
* Mrs. Carney wanted to note that she had a prior Board meeting to attend on February 2, 2006 so she would regrettably be unable to attend the Town Board meeting and the discussion with the HVR.
T/ Rochester Planning Board -9- January 24, 2006
Minutes of Regular Meeting
TOWN BOARD ADVISORY REQUEST (cont’d):
Local Law # 1 of the Year 2006 of the Town of Rochester’s Local Laws being a Local Law to Enact a Moratorium on Development.
Mr. Ricks motioned to give an unfavorable advisory for Local Law # 1 of the Year 2006 the way it was written. Seconded by Mr. Gaydos.
Discussion: Mr. De Graw felt that his comments would get lost in the way this motion was worded and Mrs. Carney didn’t want to convey negativity through this motion.
Vote:
Tapper: No De Graw: No
Ricks: Yes Gaydos: Yes
Carney: Abstain Kawalchuk: Yes
Striano- Yes O’Halloran: Attendance not requested
The Board was in agreement that the following comments should be sent along with the advisory:
· There are 3 applications that the Board feels should be exempt from this proposed moratorium as they have all been in progress a considerable amount of time prior to this proposed law.
1. John Dawson- 22 lot subdivision off of Samsonville Road
2. Kevin Mahoney-10 lot subdivision off of Whitfield Road
3. Hudson Valley resort Zoning Permit #325 which includes the proposed Water Park Facility
· There should be a specific deadline set forth for the proposed moratorium so that people that are affected by these laws can prepare for the future
· There should be higher thresholds for subdivisions and commercial buildings
· The Comprehensive Plan is in definite need of revisions, and the moratorium is necessary to protect the Town during it’s revision
Mr. Gaydos motioned to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Mrs. Carney. All members present in favor.
As there was no further business, at 8:20PM the Chairman adjourned the meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
Rebecca Paddock Stange
Secretary