MINUTES OF February 21, 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, Steven L. Fornal.
PRESENT: Steven L. Fornal, Chairman ABSENT:David O’Halloran, Alternate
Shane Ricks, (attendance not required) Nadine D. Carney Anthony Kawalchuk
Robert Gaydos
Frank Striano, Sr.
Melvyn I. Tapper, Vice Chair
Also present at the meeting was Town Planner, Jan Johannessen, from The Chazen Companies.
Pledge to the Flag.
Chairman Fornal noted that for people present for the first time, there were copies of the agenda and the rules of procedure available. He also noted that this was not a Public Hearing so there would be no public participation. If anyone disrupted the meeting they would be asked to leave. This was his first meeting and explained that it was probably understood by everyone that his appointment to the Board and to Chair was controversial, but he hoped that they could all work together and keep any personal feelings outside. This was for the better interest of the Township and the people and that is the job that they are all here for.
NEW APPLICATION PRESENTATION
MOMBACCUS EXCAVATING, C/O KEITH KORTRIGHT– Special Use Permit for Proposed addition of service Road and water line to access water well on adjacent parcel. The new facilities will be used in connection with the existing sand and gravel mine, Rochester Center Road, Fischer Road, Tax Map #68.3-3-2, R-1 District–
Mr. Kortright was present on behalf of his application with his attorney, Alison Cohen and Engineer John Orza.
Mr. Kortright explained that the NYS DEC requires that everything off of the crusher be sprayed with water and they spray for dust control and they also spray the roads. And what they do right now is they go down around to a well that they draw water out of. They go down around to Samsonville to Fischer Road and they take a 400 gallon a minute pump and they fill the tanker up from the well. So, they license and insure the truck to go around and get the water and it doesn’t make any sense, so what they want to do is to dig a well line and make a driveway and use an electric pump. They have the electric hookups on the road. That is basically what they would be doing.
Chairman Fornal questioned if this was existing?
T/ Rochester Planning Board -2- February 21, 2006
Minutes of Regular Meeting
NEW APPLICATION PRESENTATION
MOMBACCUS EXCAVATING, C/O KEITH KORTRIGHT (cont’d): Special Use Permit for Proposed addition of service Road and water line to access water well on adjacent parcel.
Mr. Kortright answered that yes, the well has been used for about 5 years now.
Mr. Striano questioned how many times a day they were driving to get water?
Mr. Kortright noted that it was one time a day.
Mr. Tapper questioned if they could place the well elsewhere.
Mr. Kortright noted that the main water was where it existed. He was afraid that if they tried to put it where Mr. Tapper suggested that it would cut into the neighbors’ water supply as they only get 2 gallons per minute now.
Mrs. Carney noted that there was said to be an 8,000 gallon water tank—that was said to be kept on the site—was that moveable?
Mr. Kortright noted that they may move it, but mostly they would just run a line to the plant. They would probably fill the tank, but use some of it over a period of time. Now they fill it in a ½ hour, which is pretty quick, but they wouldn’t be pumping that quick as they would be using it over a period of time.
Mrs. Carney felt that it was a really long run, but Mr. Kortright mentioned that this pump would be manually run, so when they did need it they would just turn it on and shut it off when done. She questioned what type of plastic pipe he would be using?
Mr. Kortright believed it was 2” plastic pipe because of the restrictions.
Mr. Tapper questioned how deep the well was right now? How big of a pump do you use now?
Mr. Kortright stated that it was only about 12 feet deep. It has a lot of water. Right now they are using a 400 gallon per minute gas powered pump.
Mrs. Carney noted that they have a big draw down in a short amount of time. But they are going to spread that out so it takes longer to fill up and the well has more time to recharge.
Mr. Kortright stated that there is a lot of water and only goes down about a tile. He said that they also use that well for irrigation as they have a NY State Farm.
Mr. Ricks questioned if the land next to them was the Town of Rochester’s mine?
Yes, it was.
Mr. Ricks further questioned if they were anticipating using 8,000 gallons of water a day?
T/ Rochester Planning Board -3- February 21, 2006
Minutes of Regular Meeting
NEW APPLICATION PRESENTATION
MOMBACCUS EXCAVATING, C/O KEITH KORTRIGHT (cont’d): Special Use Permit for Proposed addition of service Road and water line to access water well on adjacent parcel.
Mr. Kortright answered yes, that water just goes back into the ground and goes back into the direction it came from. There is no standing water.
Mr. Ricks indicated that this was a shallow well, so the water used wasn’t really affecting the water table in the area.
Mr. Kortright agreed and said that it was a spring.
Mr. Tapper questioned if they were using 8,000 gallons of water a day now? So it really wouldn’t affect the well with the water supply.
Mr. Kortright replied that yes, they were.
Chairman Fornal stated that in the narrative it says 8,000 gallons every other week is what is being used now. That is a big difference. It suggests that there is something more—also with the air permit that was granted in 2004.
Mr. Kortright’s attorney, Allison Cohen, stated that the NYS DEC had the water requirements to keep down the fugitive dust. So what ever the DEC was requiring is what they were doing.
Chairman Fornal questioned if this was for the existing crusher? This application wasn’t pending a larger crusher?
Ms. Cohen answered, no—that they were proposing to do exactly what they are currently doing, there are no changes to the mine.
Mr. Kortright confirmed his attorney’s statement.
The Chairman indicated that he has seen this type of things several times before where the DEC is famous for what would be considered segmented review.
Ms. Cohen stated that there was no segmentation here. They were strictly looking to run the water to use as they are currently using it. There are no plans to change anything.
The Chairman questioned if the narrative was in error when it stated that the water usage was currently 8,000 gallons every other week?
Ms. Cohen was unaware of the report that the Chairman was referring to and reiterated that they were continuing to do what they have been there are no plans to change the current usage.
T/ Rochester Planning Board -4- February 21, 2006
Minutes of Regular Meeting
NEW APPLICATION PRESENTATION
MOMBACCUS EXCAVATING, C/O KEITH KORTRIGHT (cont’d): Special Use Permit for Proposed addition of service Road and water line to access water well on adjacent parcel.
The Chairman stated that the Board would need clarification on the water usage discrepancy.
Mr. Tapper questioned if when they crush materials if the crusher had a tank on it that sprayed the water?
Mr. Kortright answered that they use a garden hose. It goes to it and there is a high pressure nozzle that emits a mist.
Mr. Tapper felt that 8,000 gallons a day seemed like a lot.
Mr. Kortright noted that it wasn’t bad, and they also sprayed the road and the crusher with the spray bars.
Mr. Tapper questioned if any of this was going to be added to the mine.
Ms. Cohen noted that the only application that they had was for the water line.
Mr. Tapper questioned if they were going to be using the proposed road for trucking materials?
Mr. Kortright answered that they would not use the road for trucking materials. It says that in the DEC permit. They even required a gate at either end which Mombaccus has no problem doing. They have 2 permits for the mines they operate.
Chairman Fornal noted that if the 8,000 gallons of water every other week were correct, then there was something wrong, but if it wasn’t correct…
Mrs. Carney noted that the Board could get clarification of the actual usage and the applicant could amend the application and report if they had to.
Mr. Gaydos questioned how many gallons a day were they drawing now?
Mr. Kortright stated that they weren’t taking a lot now, but in the summer when they are crushing they will take about 8,000 gallons a day.
Ms. Cohen stated that this may explain some of the errors. It depends on what time of year as to how much water they may use.
Mr. Kortright agreed and said that they couldn’t spray or crush right now because it is so cold. They would get clarification of that.
The Chairman noted that 8,000 gallons a day if that what was being used now, then there would be no change or impact.
T/ Rochester Planning Board -5- February 21, 2006
Minutes of Regular Meeting
NEW APPLICATION PRESENTATION
MOMBACCUS EXCAVATING, C/O KEITH KORTRIGHT (cont’d): Special Use Permit for Proposed addition of service Road and water line to access water well on adjacent parcel.
Mr. Kortright stated that they were really just looking to take the truck that they use for the water off of the road. What they have now is a truck insured and licensed just for the water and that seems like a waste.
Mr. Tapper questioned if he had a farm couldn’t he just put farm plates on it?
Mr. Kortright stated that he didn’t think so as he uses it for mining purposes and not farming.
Mr. Ricks questioned if the well was on a separate parcel from the mine? Because if it was on the same parcel as the mine and there was a well—there is no change in impact—he didn’t understand the need for all the permits.
Mr. Kortright answered yes it was on a separate piece.
Ms. Cohen stated the fact is that it is on a separate parcel so the application for the Special Use Permit was to add the well line.
Mr. Kortright added that there are buffers that they have to have permission to cross from the DEC.
Chairman Fornal questioned what the 2004 Air Permit was in reference to?
Mr. Kortright answered that they have to have Air Permits on the crushers. They have watered for about 6 to 7 years because the DEC came and told them they had to spray for dust control.
The Chairman added that the request for Lead Agency did not come to the Planning Board and was delayed by 2 months.
Planner, Jan Johannessen, explained to the Board that at this point they were an involved agency.
As Ms. Cohen understood it, the Lead Agency request was on the Supervisor’s Desk.
Mr. Johannessen questioned if Mr. Kortright owned the parcel that the well was on? And the mine parcel is adjacent to that parcel?
Mr. Kortright answered yes to both questions.
Mr. Fornal questioned if the 33,000 cubic yards being taken out were just connected to the creation of the road?
Mr. Kortright confirmed this.
Mr. Tapper felt this was a lot of work for what he wanted to do.
T/ Rochester Planning Board -6- February 21, 2006
Minutes of Regular Meeting
NEW APPLICATION PRESENTATION
MOMBACCUS EXCAVATING, C/O KEITH KORTRIGHT (cont’d): Special Use Permit for Proposed addition of service Road and water line to access water well on adjacent parcel.
Mr. Kortright felt that if you figure out what you pay for the truck insurance and licensing and work involved with that it is worth it.
Mr. Johannessen questioned what the yield was from the well that they were tapping into?
Mr. Kortright explained that he knew in dry weather they could take it down 1 or 1.5 tiles and it will come back in about an hour and half. The well is only about 12 feet deep, but there is a lot of water.
Mr. Tapper questioned if the retention basins were just for any run off that comes down?
Mr. Kortright stated that it was in connection with the Storm water permits.
Mr. Tapper questioned what kind of a slope the road had.
John Orza, engineer for Mr. Kortright, answered about 9%.
Mr. Johannessen questioned about the onsite Storm water? Was it treated?
Mr. Orza stated that it was designed for just run off. They designed a road side ditch that would be a vegetative swale to follow the service road to handle a 24 hour 25 year flood. They have prepared a Storm water Pollution Prevention Plan. He will clarify any questions regarding the water usage discrepancy.
Chairman Fornal noted that they talked about the mitigation of the dust and noise, but don’t give any details.
Mr. Kortright noted that these impacts will be less because they won’t be using the noisy gas powered pump and the dust will be less because of the lack of trucking the water.
Mr. Johannessen noted that the Board had until March 3, 2006 to prepare any comments and send them to the DEC for inclusion in their public comment.
Mr. Johannessen questioned what the time frame was for the DEC to issue the permit?
Ms. Cohen wasn’t positive, but she didn’t think it would be that long.
Mr. Johannessen noted that the Planning Board would just want to be assured that the DEC issued a permit before they issued their Special Use Permit.
Mr. Ricks motioned to schedule a Public Hearing for this application for March 21, 2006. Seconded by Mrs. Carney. All Members present in favor.
T/ Rochester Planning Board -7- February 21, 2006
Minutes of Regular Meeting
NEW APPLICATION PRESENTATION
JON DOGAR-MARINESCO & MANUELA MIHAILESCU-Site Plan Approval for antique shop, storage area, office space, and garage, Route 209, Tax Map#76.2-2-39.1, ‘B’ District
Mr. Dogar-Marinesco was present along with his surveyor Terry Ringler to discuss their application.
Mr. Dogar-Marinesco issued pictures of his proposed structure to the Board. It was an antique shop that resembled a bard, a red color to keep in context with the surrounding rural character. This shop would be 1 floor, maybe have a drop ceiling, most likely be year round, possibly heated and would have a bathroom and an adequate amount of storage space.
Mr. Ringler noted that there would be a well and septic and the intention is to split +/- 1.6 acres from the existing +/-16 acres. Once the lot for the proposed shop was separated he would show more detail. He is going to keep the dimensions of the lot out of the flood plain so that wouldn’t be an issue. The building would sit about 100 feet off of Route 209. The building would be about 40’ x 60’ with about a 10’ overhang.
Mr. Tapper informed the Board that Saunderskill Farm Market sat about 100’ off of Route 209, so they could use that as a reference.
Mr. Ricks advised the applicant that the parking spaces were determined by square footage of the building.
Mrs. Carney questioned if the applicant was going to provide some screening as there are near by residences?
Mr. Dogar-Marinesco noted that there would be no outside storage; it would be clean and neat.
Mr. Ringler wanted the Board’s feedback before he proceeded doing fieldwork in regards to how the building was sited and so on.
Mr. Ricks felt the proposed building was nicely placed.
Mr. Tapper questioned how close this project was to its neighbor, Ron’s Auto Body?
Mr. Ringler replied that the parking lot was about 10’ away from the adjoining property line.
Mrs. Carney was curious about this and read the zoning code and found that there open parking lots could encroach within 3 feet of the property lines.
The Board was in agreement that this was a nice proposal.
Mr. Dogar-Marinesco stated that the shop would be a pole barn constructed out of wood.
Mrs. Carney instructed the applicant that he should show the limits of disturbance on his site plan.
T/ Rochester Planning Board -8- February 21, 2006
Minutes of Regular Meeting
NEW APPLICATION PRESENTATION
JON DOGAR-MARINESCO & MANUELA MIHAILESCU(cont’d)-Site Plan Approval for antique shop, storage area, office space, and garage, Route 209, Tax Map#76.2-2-39.1, ‘B’ District
Mr. Johannessen suggested that the Board should circulate the site plan and the application to involved agencies with the intent to be Lead Agent. There would not be enough time to set the public hearing for the March meeting as the comment period deadline would still be open.
Mr. Ringler noted that he has been in contact with Tom Storry of NYS DOT and he felt that it shouldn’t be a problem because they aren’t changing any drainage. It would require curbing and a paved apron off of Route 209.
Mr. Striano motioned to circulate the intent for Lead Agency. Seconded by Mr. Gaydos.
Vote:
Striano- Yes Ricks- Yes
Gaydos- Yes Carney- Yes
Fornal- Yes Kawalchuk- Absent
O’Halloran- Absent Tapper- Yes
Mrs. Carney motioned for an Unlisted Action under SEQRA. Seconded by Mr. Gaydos.
Vote:
Striano- Yes Ricks- Yes
Gaydos- Yes Carney- Yes
Fornal- Yes Kawalchuk- Absent
O’Halloran- Absent Tapper- Yes
Mr. Gaydos motioned to accept the minutes of the January 24, 2006 meeting. Seconded by Mrs. Carney. All members present in favor.
OTHER MATTERS
DISCUSSION ON ALTERNATE POSITION
Chairman Fornal noted that the position of the Alternate was originally created with the intent of securing a quorum and have since added in the instances of extended absences of regular members and conflict of interest. The way the Board utilizes the position of Alternate now makes voting very murky. The Alternate sits in for a couple of meetings and then when the regular member comes back they are the one that is supposed to vote on the project. His policy is going to be that Mr. O’Halloran (the Board’s Alternate) will not be allowed to sit in unless it is an extended illness or a conflict of interest. If it is conflict of interest, he would come in on the first part of application and stay for every time the application comes to the Board. The extended illness is more than 2 absences. And again, the person who was sick should recuse themselves for the remainder of the application.
T/ Rochester Planning Board -9- February 21, 2006
Minutes of Regular Meeting
OTHER MATTERS
DISCUSSION ON ALTERNATE POSITION(cont’d):
Mrs. Carney thought this was good but questioned if it was going to be mandatory for that other person to recuse themselves? Because on other applications when someone has missed a meeting and they come back and they start reiterating points that were covered at the meeting in which they were absent. Was it just for 1 application or for everything on the agenda?
The Chairman felt that he would have to look further into this.
Mr. Ricks believes that this really needs to be defined in writing. The rules have changed a number of times over the years. Originally the Alternate was able to sit up at the table and participate in discussion and that way they felt like they were part of the Board and they were kept up on every application. They weren’t allowed to vote if there was already 7 members present. Then there was a rule that they couldn’t sit at the table and they had to sit in the audience and if there wasn’t 7 members then they could participate—and if there were 7 members the Alternate was excused and didn’t have to attend the meeting. There have been a lot of conflicts over the past years on exactly what the rules are…
Mr. Striano felt that if you didn’t attend any of the meetings, whether you sat at the table or in the audience you really can’t get a feel for the applications. To have someone just step in and vote on something. He thinks the Alternate should be present regardless, just to keep up.
The Chairman agreed, but felt it was a lot to ask of a person.
Mr. Ricks noted that in the past they have had Alternates drop out because of having to sit in the audience. If they are going to be on the Board they want to help and participate.
Mr. Striano didn’t feel it would be a bad thing to have an Alternate sit with the Board but not vote on things.
The Chairman noted that the original intent was for a quorum. There was only a need twice in 17 years. He didn’t feel the need at that point and now it just seems like it makes everything murky…it is in the Code though.
Mr. Ricks does recall a few years ago where they have all had to go home because they haven’t had a quorum.
Mrs. Carney that this Board is fortunate that Mr. O’Halloran keeps up on applications even if he isn’t present. Using good judgment and recusing oneself from an application whether you’ve missed review or whatever, but the Board has had people not use good judgment in certain instances. If they could get that defined a little better and maybe put into the procedures it would be helpful.
Chairman Fornal agreed and noted that a lot of the procedures are going to need to be written down because there are a lot of things that are just done because of past practice. There has to be clarification so that if everyone left there should be a clear path to follow. For instances absences, there is an issue there.
Mr. Ricks agreed that there needed to be clarification on whether they were excused or not or how that was defined.
T/ Rochester Planning Board -10- February 21, 2006
Minutes of Regular Meeting
DISCUSSION ON ALTERNATE POSITION(cont’d):
The Chairman agreed and noted that he hasn’t seen any authority on that and that should be put into procedure.
Mr. Ricks questioned how that would be developed.
The Chairman stated that this maybe a good workshop meeting for the PB. He noted that he has already outlined this and will distribute it to Board members.
Mr. Gaydos motioned to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Mr. Striano. All members present in favor.
As there was nothing further to discuss, at 7:54, Chairman Fornal adjourned the meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
Rebecca Paddock Stange,
Secretary