Planning Board Minutes 03/21/06

MINUTES OF  March 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:        Robert Gaydos                   ABSENT: David O’Halloran, Alternate                     Shane Ricks                                             (attendance not required)
                Nadine D. Carney                                        
                Frank Striano, Sr.                                      Melvyn I. Tapper, Vice Chair
                Anthony Kawalchuk
                Steven L. Fornal, Chairman   
                
Also present at the meeting was Town Planner, Jan Johannessenn, from The Chazen Companies.

 

Pledge to the Flag.

 

PUBLIC HEARING
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

 

At 7:00 PM, the Chairman called the applicant forward for his Public Hearing.

 

Keith Kortright, Attorney Alison Coan, and Geologist John Orza were present on behalf of the application.

 

Ms. Coan noted that this Public Hearing was for a single application pending before the DEC and the Planning Board to allow Mombaccus Excavating to install a water line from an existing well located near Fischer Road. They were including a service road to pipe the water up the water line to the existing mine on the adjacent parcel. The service road is necessary to provide an area where there is no vegetation on or near the water line and it is for the purposes of maintaining the water line. It will only be used in connection with that water line. It will not be used to haul materials back and forth to the mine. If there was a problem with the pump- they could use the truck to haul the water to the site if it is needed. The need for the water up to the mine is for the purpose of dust control. They are not changing their existing mining operation. By doing this they will be reducing air emissions and noise by taking a tanker truck off of the road. It will also help Mr. Kortright as he will not need to insure that vehicle any longer. To be clear, they only have 1 application with the NYS DEC and they have already issued a Negative Declaration on that. There were some questions if there were 2 pending applications with the DEC and there may be some confusion as a relative of Keith Kortright has an application in front of the DEC also. This relative has nothing to do with this application or the Mombaccus application. She hoped this cleared up the misunderstanding.
T/ ROCHESTER PLANNING BOARD                                                     PAGE 2
MINUTES OF MEETING                                                                      MARCH 21, 2006

 

PUBLIC HEARING
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

 

Chairman Fornal handed copies of letter dated February 21, 2006 from Attorney Marc S. Gerstman representing Adrienne Fischer to Mr. Kortright and Ms. Coan.

 

The applicant and Ms. Coan had previously received copies of these documents from the DEC. This is why Ms. Coan understood that there was confusion and people thought that there were 2 applications in front of the DEC for Mombaccus when there are not.

 

Chairman Fornal noted that in the letter dated March 20, 2006 from Alison Coan in response to Mr. Fornal’s correspondence of February 23, 2006 requesting further information, Ms. Coan stated that the size of the existing Plant or Crusher was irrelevant. Mr. Fornal believed that it was relevant to this application. This application is for dust suppression for that facility. Chairman Fornal then handed a copy of the DEC Air Facility Registration Certificate, Facility DEC ID: 3-5144-00006 to the applicant and his Attorney. He noted that on Page 3 where they have the data for Primary and Secondary 300 Ton Per Hour (TPH) Crushers. The mines in this Town, except for Metro, had been 150 TPH or less. There is a discrepancy here whether this is coming in as segmentation (as the Chairman had questioned at the February 21, 2006 meeting). This concerned him because dust suppression for a 300TPH Crusher that he is not permitted for is a problem. So that would mean that this is a permit for something that is coming in—or is it being used? Because it has been confirmed by Tom Miller that this Air Permit is for a 300 TPH Crusher.

 

Ms. Coan stated that the NYS DEC has exclusive jurisdiction over mining activity. They have registered their processing equipment with the NYS DEC and they have issued the Air Registration Certificates for all of that equipment. Whatever equipment is up there is the equipment that they will be using the water for the dust control. They are fully certified and permitted.

 

The Chairman noted that if it went from 150 TPH to a 300 TPH Crusher then the PB would need to be in the loop. Mr. Kortright would need to go for a modification on that.

 

Ms. Coan stated that they are in full compliance with their Air Permits issued by the NYS DEC and the DEC was just out there looking at the equipment at the site and there was not a question… They were in full compliance with the DEC.

 

Chairman Fornal questioned if the applicant was prepared to say what that was that they were in compliance with? Was it 150 TPH or 300 TPH Crusher?

 

Ms. Coan noted that she personally didn’t know, but she knew that the Air Permits were obtained…they are a public document. Ms. Coan was hoping to have copies of the Air Permits to give to the Board at this meeting, but she did not have any. Mombaccus has them and they are a public document. It isn’t relevant to this application as the only thing they are looking to change in connection with the mining activity is the addition of this water line. That is it.

 

The Chairman indicated that they was no answer to his question.
T/ ROCHESTER PLANNING BOARD                                                     PAGE 3
MINUTES OF MEETING                                                                      MARCH 21, 2006

 

PUBLIC HEARING
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

 

Ms. Coan didn’t know what kind of answer to give him.

 

The Chairman questioned if the equipment being used currently was the 150 TPH?

 

Mr. Kortright noted that what was in the Air Permit is what they were allowed to use by the NYS DEC.

 

The Chairman understood that the Air Permit was for a 300 TPH Crusher.

 

Mr. Kortright stated that what was in that Air Permit was what they were registered for. If they wanted to they could use that stuff.

 

Mrs. Carney questioned if there was something in the Special Use Permit what the Tonnage of the Crusher should be as far as the Town was concerned?

 

The Chairman explained that it was in DEC documentation.

 

Mrs. Carney was specifically questioning if there was something in the Town’s Special Use Permit that limited it or conditioned it in some way.

 

The Chairman replied that no, there was not.

 

Mrs. Carney continued, so as long as the Applicant was in compliance with the NYS DEC it wouldn’t affect his Special Use Permit at all?

 

Chairman Fornal explained that if it went from 150 TPH to 300 TPH Crusher they are required to notify the Town for a required permit modification and if he is using a 300 TPH Crusher that was a step up and the Town was not notified of that.

 

Ms. Coan wasn’t clear on what the Chairman was saying.

 

Chairman Fornal explained further that all the mines were permitted to use 150 TPH Crushers.

 

Mrs. Carney questioned if that was a special condition under his Special Use Permit for the Town?

 

Chairman Fornal replied that it was a condition for the DEC, not the Town.

 

Mr. Kawalchuck questioned what the applicant was modifying if he was modifying something that the Town didn’t condition?

 

T/ ROCHESTER PLANNING BOARD                                                     PAGE 4
MINUTES OF MEETING                                                                      MARCH 21, 2006

 

PUBLIC HEARING
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 explained that if he was permitted for a 150 TPH Crusher and he wanted to go to a 300 TPH Crusher he has to come to the PB for a permit modification.

 

Mr. Kawalchuck questioned where that permit was? With the Town or the DEC?

 

The Chairman noted that the DEC allowed the applicant 150 TPH.

 

Ms. Coan believed that the DEC permitted Mombaccus for a 300 TPH Crusher and they are in full compliance with their DEC permits.

 

The Chairman stated that this was the problem, because it never came to the Town for a 300 TPH Crusher. And that is why the Town’s Permit that they allowed was for a 150 TPH Crusher and he had a document that showed that from our PB files on Mombaccus.

 

Mr. Striano tried to understand what the Chairman was saying. So, the Special Use Permit from the Town did govern the size of the Crusher? In one sentence the Chairman was saying that it did and then the next he is saying it didn’t. He didn’t understand.

 

The Chairman presented a document from the PB file from 1990 in terms of what Mombaccus has. There is no tonnage listed.

 

Ms. Coan stated that this wasn’t a permit.

 

Mr. Kortright stated that the picture on the document was a screener.

 

The Chairman agreed and stated that the little picture below was the crusher.

 

Mr. Kortright wasn’t familiar with this document and his Attorney agreed that there was nothing on this document that identified it as being something submitted or pertaining to Mombaccus Excavating.

 

Mr. Kortright stated that this would be a huge crusher in real life. This wasn’t something that he had.

 

Chairman Fornal stated that this would need to be clarified with the DEC. He understood Ms. Coan’s point of view. She felt that this was allowed because of the Air Permit. The DEC doesn’t have the authority to usurp a Special Use Permit that the PB grants. If they wanted to go from a 150 TPH to a 300 TPH Crusher the PB would have to allow a permit modification. This is what was required of Metro Mine.

 

Ms. Coan continued to argue that the DEC has exclusive jurisdiction over all mining activity unless there is a special condition that relates to the actual use of the land. Anything that has to do with equipment, mining activities are within the complete jurisdiction of the NYS DEC.

 

T/ ROCHESTER PLANNING BOARD                                                     PAGE 5
MINUTES OF MEETING                                                                      MARCH 21, 2006

 

PUBLIC HEARING
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

 

Chairman Fornal wanted to be clear…Ms. Coan was saying that the PB did not need to be notified and go through a permit modification for a material change in the operation?

 

Ms. Coan replied, not when it comes to processing facilities, not the equipment used in connection with the mining activities.

 

The Chairman stated that this is why the PB would need to clarify this. He felt that this is why the Public Hearing would have to be kept open. This would have to go through the DEC who he has been in touch with for 3 weeks and he can’t get anyone to give him any information. The PB is going to have to do a paper trail now to document this.

 

Mrs. Carney wondered if this would be a question for the Town Attorney.

 

The Chairman has already spoken with the Town Attorney in regards to this particular application and he felt that it is unusual and that the PB’s condition should be based on the size of the equipment. So, if the PB needs to base this Special Use Permit on what is now 300 TPH Crusher, the Chairman knows that all mines were permitted 150 TPH or less. And to go beyond that triggers another permit from the PB.

 

Mrs. Carney questioned if the Chairman had a copy of the original Special Use Permit?

 

The Chairman did not. It was in the files in the PB office.

 

Mr. Kawalchuck still didn’t quite understand. At one point the Chairman said that the Town’s Special Use Permit doesn’t quantify the tonnage, and that it allows the DEC to approve it and then the DEC quantifies the tonnage.

 

Chairman Fornal explained again that if he requested more tonnage then that would be considered a material change and the DEC…

 

There was an interruption from the applicant who said that they were not applying for more tonnage.

 

Ms. Coan  agreed that if they did request more tonnage then that is where they would have to apply to the DEC for a permit modification for the DEC permit. But they are not requesting any kind of change in the equipment or the tonnage. They are operating exactly as they have been operating all along.

 

The Chairman noted that this was his fear that he doesn’t believe that the 300 TPH Crusher noted in the 2004 Air Permit is actually permitted.

 

Ms. Coan said again that the DEC was just out to the site for an inspection and they have no violations and are in total compliance with their permits.

 

T/ ROCHESTER PLANNING BOARD                                                     PAGE 6
MINUTES OF MEETING                                                                      MARCH 21, 2006

 

PUBLIC HEARING
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 noted that they were out Friday and inspected the property so the PB could request them to go out again and inspect the site and equipment. The inspector was Marc Davin from the DEC.

 

The Chairman noted that he has called Mr. Davin of the DEC 3 times and he has yet to get a reply. He would follow through with a letter.

 

Mrs. Carney was still unclear what Town Law limited the Crushers to 150 TPH or less?

 

The Chairman responded that it wasn’t a matter of limiting, it was a matter of being involved in the process, so if there is a material change as far as 100% increase in the capacity, then the PB should be in the loop.

 

Mrs. Carney continued, specific to the conditions on Mr. Kortright’s permit, where does it say that it limits it to 150 TPH? If there is nothing there, how can nothing be amended?

 

The Chairman noted that our Special Use Permit says nothing. It is in the NYS DEC documentation.

 

Mr. Kawalchuk wanted to clarify this further. If this was based on capacity the applicant couldn’t have a machine that would be capable of more even if though it wouldn’t be used?

 

Mr. Kortright noted that yes, under the Air Emissions permit, which they have from the State.

 

Mrs. Carney thought that they would only have to come back before the PB for their Special Use Permit if one of the conditions of the Special Use Permit was being altered.

 

Chairman Fornal questioned the PB if they recalled what happened with Metro Mine? This is the exact same situation that happened. It was a material change and they had to come back and it was a whole big event.

 

Mr. Gaydos noted that Metro didn’t have existing permits and weren’t in operation. Wasn’t this the difference?

 

The Chairman agreed.

 

Mr. Gaydos continued that this operation has been in business for years and they aren’t changing anything.

 

The Chairman noted that what happened with Metro was that they wanted to go from 150 TPH to 300 TPH Crusher. This triggered the whole action because this is a material change.

 

Mr. Kortright explained that Marc Davin from the DEC said that Mombaccus and Metro couldn’t be compared because Mombaccus was existing and running at the time and Metro was totally different. The Board may want to speak with Mr. Davin to clarify that.
T/ ROCHESTER PLANNING BOARD                                                     PAGE 7
MINUTES OF MEETING                                                                      MARCH 21, 2006

 

PUBLIC HEARING
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

 

Mrs. Carney noted that when the DEC modified their permit it didn’t affect the Town’s Special Use Permit because it wasn’t part of the PB’s conditions. And she didn’t believe that by law they were required to notify the Town if they change anything to do with that. Because the Chairman didn’t agree with Mrs. Carney, she questioned if he spoke to the Town Attorney and just didn’t get an answer—or what happened with that?

 

The Chairman noted that this is all up in the air because he can’t get confirmation from the NYS DEC. He called this time because the last time he wrote a letter it took an 18 day turn around and he was hoping to get in touch with them to have an answer for this meeting. He was bounced around the different offices and no one would give him an answer.

 

Ms. Coan wanted to be clear. The Chairman’s concern was whether Mombaccus modified the DEC permit since they’ve ever had it?

 

This was the Chairman’s concern. From the initial stage, he believed this was modified without a permit modification.

 

Ms. Coan reiterated that they were absolutely certified and registered for the equipment that was on the site. That is the only equipment that they intended to use, that is the only equipment that they have been using. They are not changing the capacity, they weren’t changing the way they operated.

 

Mrs. Carney felt that the applicants were in compliance with their DEC permit. So, if they were in compliance, was this still an issue?

 

The Chairman stated that if the DEC allowed for a larger crusher without notifying the Town, it is an issue because the PB was supposed to be in on the process because it was a material change.

 

Ms. Coan stated that it wasn’t a material change under the law. The changing of equipment is not necessarily material change. Not that she is saying that they changed the equipment. Again they are in full compliance with their DEC permits.

 

The Chairman understood this.

 

This is why Mrs. Carney didn’t understand why the Chairman still felt that they had to contact the DEC because the Town Attorney should know the law that applies to this issue.

 

The Chairman said again—the PB needs to be in the loop of a permit modification.

 

Mrs. Carney stated that they weren’t expanding the boundaries.

 

The Chairman noted that it is expanding the capacity of crushing by 100%.

 

T/ ROCHESTER PLANNING BOARD                                                     PAGE 8
MINUTES OF MEETING                                                                      MARCH 21, 2006

 

PUBLIC HEARING
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

 

Mrs. Carney pointed out that this is something that the PB doesn’t limit. As far as the Town’s Special Use Permit—that is not limited. That is regulated by the DEC—it does not affect the Special Use Permit as it exists in the Town.

 

The Chairman questioned if Mrs. Carney was stating that the PB has never had permit modifications come in here? The Town has always had permit modifications for changes that come through and the PB needs to sign off on it.

 

Mrs. Carney was saying that this is something that was not listed as a condition on the Special Use Permit granted by the Town. If this was on the Special Use Permit, then she would agree.

 

The Chairman noted that the PB has had many permit modifications that have come through this Board.

 

Ms. Coan explained that the Town’s involvement on permit modifications for an existing mine are limited to mine limit setbacks, the need for barriers to prevent unauthorized access, dust control, hours of operation, and zoning prohibitions regarding the site generally. It doesn’t have anything to do with the actual excavation, mine operations, the processing equipment….

 

Chairman Fornal pointed out that this was if the DEC takes Lead Agency, which is a process that would involve the Town. They need to notify for that.

 

Ms. Coan stated that DEC has exclusive jurisdiction over mining operations in the State of NY.

 

Mrs. Carney reminded the Chairman that he had sent her that document that states what Ms. Coan is saying.

 

The Chairman agreed and noted that it also states that there are local permits and if they are required, they have to go through the PB.

 

Ms. Coan corrected that the local permits would have to deal with those local issues. The conditions on Special Use Permits have to relate to the use of the land as opposed to the mining processes. The cases are replete where the courts have overturned PB decisions where they’re trying to regulate the mining activities, unless there is a direct link to the usage of the land.

 

Mr. Kortright suggested that the Board refer to the letter from Lawrence Biegle of the DEC dated January 20, 2006. It spells out the 4 things that the Town is allowed to do. These are the issues.

 

The Chairman agreed and knew of the letter, but if this was a material change… and he understands that the applicants contend that they are in full compliance.

 

Mr. Striano noted that nothing was going to get clarified at this meeting, so the Board should move on with the Public Hearing.
T/ ROCHESTER PLANNING BOARD                                                     PAGE 9
MINUTES OF MEETING                                                                      MARCH 21, 2006

 

PUBLIC HEARING
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

 

Ms. Coan informed the Board that they would be more than happy to answer any of the questions from the public if the Board would allow it. They had their geologist with them to help them in any technical questions.

 

Chairman Fornal informed the Board and the public that the PB did receive clarification on the amount of water used.

 

At 7:20 the Chairman opened the Hearing up to the public.

 

Adrienne Fischer was recognized to speak. She stated that she lives across the road from Mombaccus Mine and she was struggling to understand why the Town seems to be reluctant to know about what the impacts are of all of this to someone who lives at a residential zoned property that is impacted constantly 7am-7pm, 6 days a week. She understood that the Town, just as an involved party, not Lead Agency, has the right to be informed, if they want to be informed about things like access and egress, hours and days of operation—the impact of increasing the tonnage 100% on their crusher. Rob Martin of the DEC, who is no longer with them, but who was reasonably cooperative with giving information, made it very clear to her that the DEC is contained. Having them be Lead Agency doesn’t mean that they have anything to do with what happens when the trucks come barreling up and down the roads that aren’t even County roads, but are Town Roads, and the taxes are constantly being used to pave and repair these roads. What happens when she can’t rent her house for the summer because half of the weekend is gone? And the other half, illegal trucks, not from Mr. Kortright, but from Smith’s red truck and all the other bloody trucks that go up and down the road to Waruch…and they do it at 11 & 12 at night. If she happens to be coming home from a friends house, she jumps in her car and chases them and follows them down Waruch’s road and she gets their license plate number and turns them into the commercial violation bureau in Middletown. They are barreling up that road at midnight. Why are they doing that? Doesn’t the Town want to know? They do this because they are overloaded trucks and they are able to avoid the weight restrictions at midnight. Does the Town ever send a sheriff out to check out what is going on that road? It is holy hell. She doesn’t care if the Town is Lead Agency or not, but she does really care about whether the PB cares. Some responsibilities in terms of zoning. She is residentially zoned. The Board seems to know a lot about the legal aspects about this, what about expressing interest in what happens to the residents.

 

Mrs. Carney explained that factors that were being brought up by Ms. Fischer really had nothing to do with this application that is in front of the Board, and those laws she speaks of are what the PB has to follow.
T/ ROCHESTER PLANNING BOARD                                                     PAGE 10
MINUTES OF MEETING                                                                      MARCH 21, 2006

 

PUBLIC HEARING
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

 

Ms. Fischer disagreed and stated that these factors are relevant because of the water being discussed for this application is water that is meant to sprinkle the material that the crusher is crushing and putting into trucks. Rob Martin from the DEC told her that the new crusher is going to make less noise and less dirt than the old one. Great! But what about the 100% more trucking that comes up and down the road that is filthy and the tarps that they don’t put on and the acrid kind of stuff that goes in and out of our lungs all day when its dry? Because no amount of spraying can really fix it. What about all those impacts? What about the fact that she has put in $3,000 worth of filtering equipment for her water because it keeps making veins breaking coming through with colloidal clay? So that the water is gunky and black half the time. Has anybody thought about getting the DEC to get a Hydrologist there? What about the water that goes after it washes the material—doesn’t that water flow into the Mombaccus trout stream which is a Class A Trout Stream? Does anyone know where it goes? She questioned Mr. Orza, the Geologist for Mombaccus, why her water was pure when she came here and now its full of those black veins.

 

The Board instructed the public and applicants that this Hearing was not to be a question answer period, but to receive Public Comment. All questions & comments should be directed to the Board. Ms. Fischer’s concerns about the water may be able to be discussed after they receive further comments from the public.

 

Tony Galefuco was next to speak. It sounded like Mombaccus was just looking to put a water line in and access road for that water line in and a lot of these issues are not on topic. He didn’t understand. They are going to use the water any way. Everyone is bringing up all this information that doesn’t pertain to this application. This was the first meeting that he has attended in years because Mr. Fornal used to be a member of the audience and turned him off because of his confusion and accusations. Now he is on the Board.

 

Stella Miller of Kerhonkson was next to speak. She questioned if there was anything resolved with the discrepancy on how much water was being used?

 

The Chairman noted that this was clarified and it would be up to 8,000 gallons a day, but on average there would be no change.

 

Town of Rochester Resident, Alex Miller, and Liaison to the PB was next to speak. He felt that clarification regarding the road was needed. He understood at the last meeting that the Board was trying to eliminate the use of the truck to go around with the 8,000 gallons of water. He wanted to hear more about the access road and why it would be needed. He has a well at his home and doesn’t need a road to access it. Also is there any concern with the number of trucks? Is it truly there to access the well should there be a problem?

 

Mr. Kortright was allowed by the Board to answer this question. He noted that the way mining works is that their permits don’t allow them to go through buffers. DEC won’t let them touch a buffer, so in order to get access to that line and continue to have access should they have a problem with the line, they can fix it and keep it operational and this would be the only way to get to the well.
T/ ROCHESTER PLANNING BOARD                                                     PAGE 11
MINUTES OF MEETING                                                                      MARCH 21, 2006

 

PUBLIC HEARING
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

 

Ms. Coan added that it was a dirt road for maintenance purposes only. They were going to keep the vegetation off the area that the water line is running under. If there was ever a break in the line or a problem with the pump they wanted to be able to have access to fix it.

 

Mrs. Carney added that it would be gated so there would be no thru traffic.

 

Chairman Fornal added that prior to this line they have been trucking the water down Fischer Road.

 

Mr. Kortright noted that if they run out of water in the tanker they may run out of water at any time in the day. So, they have to shut everything off and take the truck, unhook it from the hoses that spray, put a pump on a pickup, take the pickup down and take 2 guys to fill the tanker up and take the tanker back around. They would use a gas powered pump. They are proposing to have an electric pump so they can flip a switch on and have the pump fill the tanker up overnight. Now they have to leave the tanker sitting there for what time it takes to fill, so they lose a lot of time, and then if they don’t catch it in time then the tanker overflows and it is a pain. Its all very time consuming.

 

Mr. Miller questioned if this was a tank that was already on site or a tank is placed on site and the tanker truck is being driven around?

 

Mr. Kortright noted that the truck would be more of a stationary holding tank.

 

Kathy Kuthy was next to speak. She was confused. Was the mine operation going to expand as a result of having this water and is there a proposed expansion of this mine and would this be a segment of that expansion?

 

Ms. Coan answered that there is not. They are using the water for the existing mining operation…same water source, just a different way of transporting the water.

 

Mr. Miller questioned that the use of the access road would be limited to emergencies?

 

Mrs. Carney explained that this is not used for emergencies. Its really a trench for the water line that runs along this road so they can access that trench, water line, and the well. Its only used for maintenance of the water line and well.

 

Mr. Miller questioned what type of maintenance would a water line require?

 

Mrs. Carney responded that they could freeze, they could break, they may have to drive in there and dig it up and replace a piece.

 

Mr. Kortright added that there would be a gate at either end that the DEC required. They would want the gates any way to keep out trespassers.

 

T/ ROCHESTER PLANNING BOARD                                                     PAGE 12
MINUTES OF MEETING                                                                      MARCH 21, 2006

 

PUBLIC HEARING
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. Ricks added that once they put in the water line they would have to grade it and they would have a smooth area and they wouldn’t want the brush to grow up over it, so they would be able to have an access to get to it.

 

Mr. Kortright noted that for houses, if they are in the woods, they basically cut out a road type to get to the person’s well so that they know where it is and can get to it…its more of a carving.

 

Adrienne Fischer spoke out and noted that she has heard that this is a good thing because it will take a couple of trucks of f the road. And really it is amazing to her that suddenly people that have no concern over the number of trucks have suddenly said that this will be good for her because a couple of trucks will come off the road that only travel every other week on the road. That is like a red herring. She has clocked 18 wheeled trucks every 2 ½ minutes.

 

Mr. Ricks wasn’t trying to be sarcastic, but this wasn’t part of the application that they were reviewing. The maintenance road was the only road that the PB could address.

 

Ms. Fischer asked what were the justifications for the application in front of the PB?

 

Mr. Ricks responded that he was already using the water and he could operate his mine one way or the other.

 

Ms. Fischer understood that, but what she was saying that one of  the justifications for requesting this particular change was because it would take some trucks off of the road. She felt like this was a joke…she sarcastically asked the PB not to do her any favors.

 

As there were no other people requesting to speak at this point the Board decided to ask the geologist, Mr. Orza about where the water would go.

 

Mr. Orza noted in a storm water event there will be infiltration into the ground on undisturbed or disturbed ground. If it is a large enough precipitation event, they also get surface water run off. Basically at this site the ground water or surface run off is going to make its way down the hill. The area where the well is and the field road is kind of a low spot. So, surface water that would be essentially contributing to there…

 

Mr. Ricks believed that Ms. Fischer’s question was more for where did the water go when it was sprayed on the material? If her house is across the street, would any of that water sprayed on the material affect her well?

 

Mr. Orza stated that basically all they were really doing is circulating the water, so there is ground water that flows above bedrock that the well draws out of. When they spray for dust control all that water is basically contained within the mine. It is contained within mined areas. The permeability is greater than if flowing on undisturbed ground. That water percolates into the core of the mine and essentially rejoins the groundwater—its constantly circulating, there really is no net loss of water.
T/ ROCHESTER PLANNING BOARD                                                     PAGE 13
MINUTES OF MEETING                                                                      MARCH 21, 2006

 

PUBLIC HEARING
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

 

Ms. Fischer was at a loss, because not being a professional in this field she has never seen any study of the aquifer/ water supply in that general area of Rochester Center Road. All she knows is that when she moved in she didn’t have the nightmarish colloidal clay…now there is about 2 or 3 times a year when the water is so gunky that it clogs all her lines.

 

Mr. Kortright showed Mr. Orza and the Board where Ms. Fischer lived in relationship to his property. According to Mr. Kortright and members of the Board she lived up hill from the property in question.

 

Mrs. Carney offered that sometimes people’s water can change just from residential growth. When her mother moved into her home years ago she had wonderful water until someone put in a pond down the hill. Her 150’ well is kind of nasty now. There is no mining around, but her water is no longer what it used to be either.

 

Mr. Gaydos contributed that on the opposite side of Rochester Center Road on City Hall Road there has been numerous houses built that have drilled wells that are above her property which is probably the reason why the water is murky now. The problem is probably from residential growth and not this mine.

 

Alex Miller felt that everyone was making up stories to appease Ms. Fischer. We can acknowledge that houses have been put up down the road, but absent a hydrologist, he didn’t think the PB should be trying to explain Ms. Fischer’s problems with her water.

 

Mr. Gaydos was only saying that it is tough for water to run up hill.

 

Ms. Coan said again that this application was limited strictly to the access road and the water line. Not changing operations, the use of the water isn’t going to change, the amount of the water isn’t going to change.

 

Mr. Ricks motioned to close the Public Hearing, seconded by Mr. Gaydos. There was a member of the public who raised their hand to speak after Mr. Ricks made this motion. The Board agreed to continue the motion and hear the comment after the vote.
Vote:
Fornal- No                                              Tapper- Absent
Carney- Yes                                             Gaydos-         Yes
Ricks-          Yes                                             Striano-        Yes
O’Halloran-     Excused                                 Kawalchuk-      Yes

 

Resident Ruth Bendelius stated that water problems should be examined. Ms. Fischer’s home is important to her. Either the Health Dept. or the NYS DEC should check into this.
T/ ROCHESTER PLANNING BOARD                                                     PAGE 14
MINUTES OF MEETING                                                                      MARCH 21, 2006

 

PUBLIC HEARING
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

 

Ms. Coan believed that at this point the Application was complete and the Public Hearing closed, so they asked that the Board make a decision at this meeting on the application.

 

Mr. Ricks informed the applicant that the PB usually makes a decision at the following monthly meeting. And they would do so in this case as well.

 

CONTINUED APPLICATION REVIEW
Dawson Homes, Inc.-     subdivision to be known as Mount Laurel Estates, 22 lots,       Samsonville Road,                                       Tax Map # 60.1-2-2 &3, ‘A’ District

 

The Chairman called the applicant and his representative, Barry Medenbach forward to discuss the application.
He explained that the Board is in receipt of a letter from the Town Board dated March 13, 2006 to approve Mr. Dawson a variance from the Town’s Moratorium on subdivisions over 4 lots. The Town Board gave Mr. Dawson their approval for him to proceed to be reviewed by the Planning Board for 21 new homes. He pointed out to the applicant that his application is for 22 lots.

 

Mr. Dawson was aware of this and noted that he has 1 home existing in this proposed subdivision, so the TB’s approval for 21 new homes wouldn’t affect him. He thanked the Chairman for making him aware of the wording and possible complication to his application.

 

Chairman Fornal further explained that this application was not prepared for its 2nd Chazen review because the applicant was delayed in getting their material in on time.

 

Planner, Jan Johannessenn explained that he had prepared the initial review letter on October 18, 2005. He glanced at the materials submitted by Medenbach & Eggers and the materials still do not comply with their original memo and he didn’t think he would not offer additional comments until those things were addressed. He felt that it was a good sketch plan and a good opportunity for the PB to discuss the length of the road and clarify that issue.

 

Mr. Medenbach stated that this application was before the Board before and Chazen’s review letter requested to take it to the next level to a Preliminary stage which they needed to do road profiles and Stormwater Management Plan for…there were also questions about delineation of wetlands and an issue of how close they were to a state wetland. While they were working on those issues the Town passed the moratorium which stopped this application from moving forward. Mr. Medenbach’s office just kind of threw a submittal packet together and his office forgot to submit one of the maps that they had been working on. So, he was aware that the information wasn’t totally complete. Now that they had their variance was approved by the Town Board to proceed during the moratorium, they would like to clear up the issue of the length of the road as it exceeds the recommended length of roads in the Subdivision Regulations. They contacted the emergency response people via letter asking them if the road would propose a difficulty to their jobs for emergency responses because of its length.

 

T/ ROCHESTER PLANNING BOARD                                                     PAGE 15
MINUTES OF MEETING                                                                      MARCH 21, 2006
CONTINUED APPLICATION REVIEW
Dawson Homes, Inc.(cont’d):-    subdivision to be known as Mount Laurel Estates, 22 lots  

 

Mr. Medenbach continued that they have the access permit from the County.

 

Mr. Dawson noted that it is an existing road that the County wanted to site better. It’s the driveway for the existing house there.

 

Mr. Johannessen noted that under an unlisted action it stops another agency from issuing any other permits.

 

Mr. Medenbach noted that Mr. Dawson has an easement to go through other lands to go to Dewitt Road and neighbors.

 

Mr. Dawson did not want to use this easement as he believes it would ruin the neighborhood on Dewitt Road. People would just use this road as a short cut.

 

Mr. Medenbach stated that the survey for this property was in progress.

 

Mr. Dawson noted that this used to be a town road, “Doug Road”, but there are really steep slopes in that location. The road that they are proposing is 4,300’ in length with cul-de-sacs along the way.

 

Under section 125-20Roads(L) in the Subdivision Regulations, it states that “…dead end roads and driveways shall generally not exceed 2,000 feet in length…”

 

Mr. Medenbach was the Town’s consultant in the 1980’s when that law was created.

 

Mrs. Carney noted that the law did use the word “generally” which gives some leeway.

 

It was clarified that the Road Profiles that were submitted for this meeting were based on the revised plan.

 

Mr. Medenbach noted that there were many town roads that were longer than this. There are cul-de-sacs at lots 4, 5, & 19.  9 1/2 % was probably the steepest point on the road. Mr. Medenbach felt that some of the things that Chazen wanted were items that were further down the road in the review process; things that they would need to complete for final approval, not conditional.

 

Mr. Johannessen noted that a Survey would need to be submitted, even if it was for a previous owner at this point would be okay.

 

The Board discussed the right-of-ways that Mr. Dawson had. They agreed that they existing or proposed easements needed to be shown on the maps.

 

Mr. Medenbach noted that they would need a waiver from the design standards for the length of the road.

 

Mr. Dawson questioned the Highway Superintendent and he didn’t know where that law came from.

 

Mr. Medenbach explained that he helped the Board develop that law. At the time it was 750’.
T/ ROCHESTER PLANNING BOARD                                                     PAGE 16
MINUTES OF MEETING                                                                      MARCH 21, 2006

 

CONTINUED APPLICATION REVIEW
Dawson Homes, Inc.(cont’d):-    subdivision to be known as Mount Laurel Estates, 22 lots  

 

Mrs. Carney confirmed that these plans were circulated already for Lead Agency. They were. This application had only had 1 previous review in October and that was when the intent for Lead Agency was voted on. Having already been circulated as it was, and the PB has to make a decision on the length of the road and cul-de-sacs and in her opinion she would like to have public input before the PB made that type of decision to waive design standards in the Subdivision Regulations. She felt that if this application was complete enough to be circulated, it was complete enough to schedule a Public Hearing.

 

Mr. Johannessen noted that the only problem with scheduling a Public Hearing this early on is that there are time frames in which the Board has to approve the application. The PH can only be left opened for 180 days and then the PB would be forced to make a decision. The applicant could be requested to waive that decision timeline, but it becomes an awkward situation for the PB.

 

Mr. Ricks hoped that in 6 months this subdivision could be in the approval stages.

 

Mr. Medenbach knew that from the Applicant’s point of view, it is sometimes nice to have the public input early to see what the neighbors have to say so they can address their comments.

 

Mr. Dawson has been trying to work with his neighbors. He is working on conveying some land to one of the neighbors. He is putting a 100’ buffer around the property and he is trying to do everything he can for his neighbors. He would like the public input to be at the earliest stage possible, so if he needs to move anything or make any changes it isn’t so far in the review process and it could be easily done.

 

Back to the discussion on the length of the road, Mr. Medenbach noted that when this law was adopted he was the Town Consultant and at the time they had standards that were inappropriate as they were adopted from urban standards when they originally adopted zoning. They required curbing and sidewalks and roads not to exceed 750’ long and the Town was just ignoring the standards and they came to the realization that they needed some new standards. There was a committee set up and they came up with a set of standards for roads. At the time there were a lot of problems with private roads constructed prior to zoning. It was apparent that they needed to allow for a longer road and 2,000’ seemed like a reasonable length and they put the “generally” in there to make it like a suggestion so it could be exceeded. They also discussed that having private roads vs. not having them and the determination was made that private roads are actually good for the Town because people don’t drive as fast on gravel roads, the Town doesn’t have to increase their tax base by maintaining these roads, and homeowners liked living on gravel roads because they were more rural.

 

The Chairman felt that the PB should consult with the Highway Superintendent and see if he had any input on the length of the road.

 

Mr. Medenbach noted that this would be a private road and Mr. Kelder (Highway Superintendent) wouldn’t be maintaining it.

 

The Chairman felt it would be good to see what Mr. Kelder felt in terms of a 4,000’ road.

 

T/ ROCHESTER PLANNING BOARD                                                     PAGE 17
MINUTES OF MEETING                                                                      MARCH 21, 2006

 

CONTINUED APPLICATION REVIEW
Dawson Homes, Inc.(cont’d):-    subdivision to be known as Mount Laurel Estates, 22 lots  

 

Mr. Dawson noted that he did give Mr. Kelder a copy of the map and did show him the property. He drove out as far as you could go and he looked at the entrance and said it all looked good. Then he went to the fire department and they felt that because of the size of the cul-de-sacs the road was fine.

 

Mr. Striano felt at this point that should be the Board’s main concern—safety.

 

Mr. Medenbach noted that by having turnarounds and wide roads for 2 way traffic—there was a situation about 15 years ago where there was a fire and a whole stream of emergency vehicles went up the wrong road and it was a 1 lane road that they had to all back out of and it took a ½ an hour to get all the equipment out. If that was to happen in this situation there would be cul-de-sacs for them to turn around in and 2 cars can pass.

 

Mr. Dawson noted that helicopters would be able to land in the cul-de-sacs for first aid too.

 

Mr. Medenbach wanted to point out in terms of procedurally that in the October 18, 2005 minutes that there was a motion made for the PB to be Lead Agency and for Unlisted Action.

 

Mr. Johannessen explained that yes, this was an unlisted action and the Board is Lead Agency. Looking back at it the EAF should have been revised and re-circulated to involved and interested agencies instead of  not receiving comments back without up to date information.

 

Mr. Medenbach believed that on a practical point of view these agencies generally don’t respond on projects like this.

 

Mr. Johannessen stated that the County would have to respond. This is on a Town Line and it is a general municipal law that would trigger the County PB to review this.

 

The Board explained to Mr. Johannessen that they are aware of that law and have forwarded subdivisions to the County in the past and they have returned them saying that they do not review subdivisions.

 

Mrs. Carney added that they are understaffed to review subdivisions.

 

Back to the road issue, Mr. Dawson didn’t feel that it would be beneficial to anyone to make this a thru road. He would not do that to the people who lived on Dewitt Road. People would use it as a short cut.

 

Mr. Ricks believed that the topography looked like it would make it very difficult to make it a thru road.
T/ ROCHESTER PLANNING BOARD                                                     PAGE 18
MINUTES OF MEETING                                                                      MARCH 21, 2006

 

CONTINUED APPLICATION REVIEW
Dawson Homes, Inc.(cont’d):-    subdivision to be known as Mount Laurel Estates, 22 lots  

 

Mr. Ricks motioned to waive the Subdivision Regulations Under section 125-20Roads(L) in the Subdivision Regulations, it states that “…dead end roads and driveways shall generally not exceed 2,000 feet in length…”as the applicant has provided 3 cul-de-sac turn arounds and has provided letters to the Board from the Fire Dept., First Aid Squad, and the Sheriff’s Dept. saying that the road would be adequate for emergency vehicles after they had all examined the map. Mr. Gaydos seconded the motion.
Vote:
Fornal- Yes                                             Tapper- Absent
Carney- Yes                                             Gaydos-         Yes
Ricks-          Yes                                             Striano-        Yes
O’Halloran-     Excused                                 Kawalchuk-      Yes

 

Mr. Johannessen questioned what had triggered the Bog Turtle report?

 

Mr. Medenbach explained that it was part of the EAF.

 

Mr. Johannessen noted that he wasn’t going to review the revised EAF until the plans were brought up to preliminary stage as you can’t really judge the impacts until then and he didn’t want to waste Mr. Dawson’s money in his escrow account by reviewing the same materials.

 

Mr. Medenbach understood that and requested a Public Hearing as soon as can be scheduled.

 

The Board agreed that the Public Hearing will be tentatively scheduled for May pending the application is complete enough at that point. They will come back next month for further review.

 

LEGALIZING EXISTING SUBDIVISION
Anthony Rusolo, c/o Gerald Rusolo- subdivision approval for 6 lots created illegally in 1996,                                                             Granite Road & Project 32 Road, Tax Map# 76.4-2-11, R-                                                                   1 District
Mr. Gerald Rusolo and his father, Anthony Rusolo were present on behalf of this application.

 

Gerald Rusolo explained that his parents had wanted to split a piece of their property to sell. He went to the Building Department to see what he needed to do to split the property and the Building Dept. said that they couldn’t because this was an illegal subdivision and it wasn’t properly filed with the Town. At that time his grandmother took care of all of this. He isn’t sure how it got to this point, but he is just trying to straighten out the situation.
T/ ROCHESTER PLANNING BOARD                                                     PAGE 19
MINUTES OF MEETING                                                                      MARCH 21, 2006

 

LEGALIZING EXISTING SUBDIVISION
Anthony Rusolo, c/o Gerald Rusolo- subdivision approval for 6 lots created illegally in 1996,                                                             Granite Road & Project 32 Road, Tax Map# 76.4-2-11, R-                                                                   1 District
Mrs. Carney noted that in our Town you could split up to 4 lots that have frontage on a road without Town approval.  But since this is 6 lots it should have had PB approval and Health Dept. Approval.

 

Mr. Gerald Rusolo stated that he and his mother and father lived on lot 5. There was a house on lot 1. Lots 1 and 2 were not owned by family members; they were sold off after the 6 lots were separated. Lots 3 & 4 were owned by family, but they haven’t spoken to each other in years. Lots 5 & 6, according to Gerald Rusolo, were the same deed. His parents wanted to subdivide lots 5 & 6, and this is what triggered this illegal subdivision.

 

The Board discussed how to proceed with this review. Normally a subdivision of 5 lots or more would be considered a Major Realty Subdivision according to the Ulster County Health Dept. and would require an engineered layout of the septic systems and well configurations and would need Health Dept. approval for the whole plat. Basically the applicants needed to record this 6 lot subdivision to create the proper record. Because these lots existed, but were not filed or approved by the Planning Board they needed to formalize an approval. The Board agreed that the review would be fairly minor as these lots existed and different people now owned them. They didn’t think it would be possible or feasible to make the different lot owners go through the review or things like digging test holes on the property for Health Dept. Approval. Jan Johannessenn from Chazen was going to contact the Health Dept. to explain the situation and to see what they would require of this application. He would also prepare a short EAF form.  

 

Mr. Ricks motioned to schedule a Public Hearing for the April Meeting. An uncoordinated SEQRA review would be performed. Seconded by Mrs. Carney.
Vote:
Fornal- Yes                                             Tapper- Absent
Carney- Yes                                             Gaydos-         Yes
Ricks-          Yes                                             Striano-        Yes
O’Halloran-     Excused                                 Kawalchuk-      Yes
T/ ROCHESTER PLANNING BOARD                                                     PAGE 20
MINUTES OF MEETING                                                                      MARCH 21, 2006

 

CONTINUED APPLICATION REVIEW
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.

 

Mr. Ringler noted that they have submitted a more detailed site plan to show the lot with the proposed antique shop and improvements on it. The only thing they have left to decide is the signage details. NYS DOT requires a 24’ entrance and they have hired an engineer to develop the drainage.
The Board reviewed the Ulster County PB response dated 3/1/06. The recommendation of the UCPB was that the initial submittal from the applicant was incomplete.

 

Mr. Ringler noted that the flood plain was off of this site. There was only 20,000sf of disturbance. The topography and drainage is on the survey. They aren’t changing the grade of the site. The parking lot will just be surfaced by what is already there. The parking, building and septic are the only disturbances. The engineer is handling the Health Dept and septic.

 

Mr. Johannessen questioned if the wire fence would remain.

 

Mr. Dogar Marinesco would put a new fence up.

 

Mr. Ricks instructed the applicant that he needed to show where the signage would go. He could submit a separate sheet with the sign details on it.

 

Mr. Dogar Marinesco did not want exterior lighting. He would provide lights above the doors, but he would close around 5—definitely before it got dark, so he didn’t see a reason for lighting. He thinks he will propose a sliding gate.

 

Mrs. Carney instructed the applicant to put a note on the plan reflecting as much.

 

The Board agreed that there needed to be a revised submittal to the County and the Board would need to be in receipt of their revised comments prior to holding the Public Hearing.

 

Mrs. Carney motioned to schedule the Public Hearing for the April Meeting, pending the Board has received revised comments from the Ulster County PB. Seconded by Mr. Gaydos.
Vote:
Fornal- Yes                                             Tapper- Absent
Carney- Yes                                             Gaydos-         Yes
Ricks-          Yes                                             Striano-        Yes
O’Halloran-     Excused                                 Kawalchuk-      Yes
T/ ROCHESTER PLANNING BOARD                                                     PAGE 21
MINUTES OF MEETING                                                                      MARCH 21, 2006

 

CONTINUED APPLICATION REVIEW
Jon Dogar-Marinesco & Manuela Mihailescu(cont’d)-       Site Plan Approval for antique shop

 

Mrs. Carney motioned for the Board to be Lead Agent. Seconded by Mr. Striano. No discussion.
Vote:
Fornal- Yes                                             Tapper- Absent
Carney- Yes                                             Gaydos-         Yes
Ricks-          Yes                                             Striano-        Yes
O’Halloran-     Excused                                 Kawalchuk-      Yes

 

Mr. Ricks recommended that the Applicant contact Mrs. Cross from the Historic Preservation Commission regarding their letter dated March 15, 2006 where they informed the Board that the Gazlay Brick house owned by Mr. Dogar Marinesco on this property was eligible for the Historic Register.

 

PRE-APPLICATION PRESENTATION
Maria Diaz, c/o Terry Ringler–  3 lot subdivision, off of Schwabie Tpk. & Pinegrove Road                                                                (private), Tax Map# 67.2-1-13.1, ‘A’ District

 

Mr. Ringler noted that this property was one of the first properties to be reviewed for Open Development in 1999. At that time the      application was to build 3 houses on one lot off of a substandard private right-of-way (Pine Grove Road). In the minutes the representative (Calvin Kampff) was asked if this property was going to be subdivided in the future and he said it was not. At the time the Applicant did not opt to use Pine Grove Road because it was in bad condition, so, the Board agreed to let them use a 20’ right-of-way that was created  off of Schwabie Tpk. called Mary’s Way. The Applicant is looking to see what they need to do to move forward to subdivide this parcel, especially because of the Open Development issue and the road. He understands that he will most likely have to use Pine Grove Road as it is 50’. The PB secretary suggested that he contact Wayne Kelder to see what they would have to do to         improve the road.

 

The Board agreed to contact Mr. Kelder as well to see what condition Pine Grove Road is in for a possible 3 lot subdivision.

 

ACTION ON MINUTES

 

Mrs. Carney motioned to accept the minutes of February 21, 2006. Seconded by Mr. Gaydos. All members present in favor.
T/ ROCHESTER PLANNING BOARD                                                     PAGE 22
MINUTES OF MEETING                                                                      MARCH 21, 2006

 

OTHER MATTERS

 

1.  Vincent Valetutti–  Road Bond Discussion re: Conditional Preliminary Approval Decision                                              #PB2004-09SBD

 

The Chairman called Mr. Medenbach forward on behalf of the applicant. He explained to the Board that part of the PB’s Conditional Preliminary Approval Decision, it requires the road to be bonded or built prior to the issuance of Final Approval. Mr. Medenbach is contesting that shared driveways do not need to be bonded.

 

Mr. Medenbach further explained that it wasn’t in the Board’s motion for Conditional Preliminary Approval (CPA)  to bond the driveway.

 

The Chairman noted that the decision was reviewed by the Town Planner at that time, Nancy Vlahos, and Ms. Vlahos approved the decision as it was written and added 2 conditions. Chairman Fornal also noted that there was a discrepancy in the Subdivision Regs regarding what constituted a shared driveway.

 

Mrs. Carney agreed that there was some language that was contradictory. She confirmed that the road was partially installed and it just needed to be extended for the last 2 lots.

 

The Chairman noted that he did contact the Town Attorney about this situation and did not get an adequate response.

 

After further discussion, the Board decided not to require the applicant to bond the unfinished portion of the driveway, but noted it would need to be completed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy any way.  They then reviewed the conditions of the CPA and checked off the ones that were completed and moved to give the application Conditional Final Approval (CFA) as listed below:
T/ ROCHESTER PLANNING BOARD                                                     PAGE 23
MINUTES OF MEETING                                                                      MARCH 21, 2006

 

Vincent Valetutti(cont’d)–      Road Bond Discussion re: Conditional Preliminary Approval Decision                                              #PB2004-09SBD

 

Mrs. Carney motioned to give the application CFA based on the following conditions:
1. Applicant shall comply with instructions per correspondence dated July 11, 2005 from the United States     
    Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service regarding the Federally and State-listed endangered
     existence of the Indiana Bat on or near property in question. Note is to appear on Final Map stating same.
2.  Applicant shall comply with Central Hudson requirements for utilities and submit proof of such to the    
     Planning Board prior to Final Approval.
3.  Applicant shall submit to the Planning Board a signed and notarized Road Maintenance Agreement by the
     property owner for a 50’ right-of-way to provide access for lots #1-4. This Agreement is subject to review
     by the Town’s Legal Advisor. Proof of filing to be submitted to the Planning Board prior to Final Approval.        
4.  The Applicant hereby agrees to be responsible for all costs and expenses incurred by the Town in
     connection with the Road Maintenance Agreement; including but not limited to, preparation of said     
     agreements, engineering costs and attorney fees and inspection by the Town Superintendent of Highways.
     The Applicant acknowledges and agrees that said engineers, attorney and Highway Superintendent are  
     acting on behalf of the Town and in addition, the Applicant may, if he so desires, obtain his own attorney or
     engineer. Said costs and fees shall be submitted to the Planning Board Secretary not less than ten (10) days           
     prior to Final Approval.
5.  Prior to the issuance of Final Approval, the escrow account must be paid in full.
Seconded by Mr. Ricks.
Vote:
Fornal- Yes                                             Tapper- Absent
Carney- Yes                                             Gaydos-         Yes
Ricks-          Yes                                             Striano-        Yes
O’Halloran-     Excused                                 Kawalchuk-      Yes

 

***this motion was made after the Sahler Mill Estates discussion below, but it pertains to Mr. Valetutti’s application***
{For the record, regarding the application for Vincent Valetutti, Mrs. Carney motioned for the maps to be signed by the Chairman without requiring the Applicant to come back before the Board. Seconded by Mr. Ricks.
Vote:
Fornal- Yes                                             Tapper- Absent
Carney- Yes                                             Gaydos-         Yes
Ricks-          Yes                                             Striano-        Yes
O’Halloran-     Excused                                 Kawalchuk-      Yes}
T/ ROCHESTER PLANNING BOARD                                                     PAGE 24
MINUTES OF MEETING                                                                      MARCH 21, 2006

 

2.  SAHLER MILL reviewing conditions met for Conditional Final Approval #PB2003-06SUBD SECTION 2

 

Applicant, Michael Baum, Engineer, Barry Medenbach, and Attorney Michael Moriello were present on behalf of this application.

 

The Board reviewed the conditions for the Conditional Final Approval for the above Application and the only outstanding condition was the Road Maintenance and Drainage Maintenance Agreement (RMA & DMA).

 

After a lengthy discussion, the Board determined that they were in receipt of verification from the Town Attorney, Rod Futerfas, that the RMA and DMA were acceptable for the Board to issue Final Approval. The Secretary noted that when the Board issued this decision, the following were conditions regarding the RMA & DMA:
·       condition #2. “Applicant shall submit to the Planning Board a signed and notarized Road Maintenance Agreement by the property owner for a 50’ right-of-way to provide access for lots #4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20& 21. This Agreement is subject to review by the Town’s Legal Advisor and Approval by the Town Board.”
·       condition #3. “Applicant shall submit to the Planning Board a signed and notarized Drainage Easement Agreement by the  property owner. This Agreement is subject to review by the Town’s Legal Advisor andApproval by the Town Board.”   

 

The secretary further explained that when she had received Mr. Futerfas’s letter dated March 16, 2006 stating that he had given Mr. Moriello the go ahead to file the RMA and DMA as he had reviewed them and found them acceptable, she called Mr. Futerfas as he had a different understanding of how RMA’s should be approved and filed.

 

In the past an applicant would submit an RMA to the Board and the Board would forward it to the Town Attorney. The Town Attorney would review it and forward his comments back to the Planning Board. Once the Board was in receipt of an RMA that the Town Attorney accepted, the RMA would then be forwarded to the Town Board to be signed by the Town Supervisor at their next available meeting.

 

It was Mr. Futerfas’s view that the RMA’s did not need to be signed by the Town Supervisor any longer and that in the future, once the Town Attorney found the RMA acceptable, the Applicant would need to file it with the County Clerk’s office and bring a copy that was stamped or a receipt of proof of filing back to the Board before they could get their Final Approval by means of having the Chairman sign the Final Maps.

 

In this case Mr. Futerfas came on as our Town Attorney with his different view on Road Maintenance Agreements after this Decision with these conditions had been made by the Planning Board where they required the “approval by the Town Board” for both the RMA and the DMA. Mr. Futerfas verbally agreed with the secretary that because these conditions were already imposed, the Town Board would not need to sign the RMA & DMA, but would need to pass a resolution at their next available meeting saying that they accepted them both. After this resolution was past, the applicant could file his RMA & DMA, and once he brought proof of this filing with the County back to the PB, the Chairman could sign them maps and release them to the Applicant, where they would then have them filed and return 3 copies to the PB.

 

In future RMA’s the wording would not be on the conditions of the decisions to have them “approved by the Town Board” and in the future, the applicants would be able to proceed as directed by Mr. Futerfas’s instructions on RMA’s as mentioned above.
T/ ROCHESTER PLANNING BOARD                                                     PAGE 25
MINUTES OF MEETING                                                                      MARCH 21, 2006

 

2.  SAHLER MILL(cont’d) reviewing conditions met for Conditional Final Approval #PB2003-06SUBD                                         SECTION 2

 

Mr. Moriello whole heartedly disagreed with the secretary and wanted the maps signed at this meeting and wanted them released to his care to have them simultaneously filed with the RMA and DMA.

 

After much discussion, the Board decided to grant Final Approval as follows:

 

Mr. Ricks motioned to grant Final Approval to Section 2 of Sahler Mill Estates and permit Chairman Fornal to sign the maps based on clarification from the Town Attorney on how to proceed with the RMA & DMA as to whether or not a resolution needed to be passed by the Town Board. Mrs. Carney seconded the motion.
Vote:
Fornal- Yes                                             Tapper- Absent
Carney- Yes                                             Gaydos-         Yes
Ricks-          Yes                                             Striano-        Yes
O’Halloran-     Excused                                 Kawalchuk-      Yes
                        
                        *                       *                       *                       *

 

{For the record, regarding the application for Vincent Valetutti, Mrs. Carney motioned for the maps to be signed by the Chairman without requiring the Applicant to come back before the Board. Seconded by Mr. Ricks.
Vote:
Fornal- Yes                                             Tapper- Absent
Carney- Yes                                             Gaydos-         Yes
Ricks-          Yes                                             Striano-        Yes
O’Halloran-     Excused                                 Kawalchuk-      Yes}

 

Frank Kortright, c/o Medenbach & Eggers–        SUP for Expansion of Mine, 6 phases                                                                             of +/- 5.3 acres each, Rochester Center                                                                                  Road, Tax Map #68.3-2-14, ‘A’ District

 

Mr. Medenbach, Mr. Sprague and Mr. Frank Kortright were present on behalf of this discussion.

 

The Chairman explained that the reason that the applicant and his representatives are in front of the Board at this meeting was because the PB is in receipt of a Lead Agency request dated February 28, 2006 from the NYS DEC for expansion of a currently permitted +/-18 acre mine by an additional +/-31.8 acres to be done in 6 phases of an average of 5.3 acres per phase.
T/ ROCHESTER PLANNING BOARD                                                     PAGE 25
MINUTES OF MEETING                                                                      MARCH 26, 2006
Frank Kortright, c/o Medenbach & Eggers–        SUP for Expansion of Mine, 6 phases

 

Chairman Fornal further noted that this discussion was about vying for Lead Agency on this application. He felt that the PB really did need to take control of the situation in terms of letting the DEC have this. The PB needs to identify any impacts and request that they be mitigated. In order to do that the PB really needs to go through the process of requesting Lead Agency and in all likelihood it will be denied. Then they would go to the Commissioner and the DEC rarely grants Lead Agency. The point is, what that does is fully involves the PB. It makes them more than just an interested party, it fully involves them in the process for identifying and mitigating impacts. This way the Board can take all Public Hearing and put it into the minutes because we have seen what happened with prior applications. After the DEC issues their Negative Declaration, that is it.

 

The Chairman presented to the Board a letter that he has written to the DEC that he would like to send with the Board’s backing, once they vote and try to become Lead Agency. This is potentially a Type 1 impact as there would be more than 10 acres being disturbed. Under an Unlisted Action in classification, Determining  Significance, we show a potential for 8 impacts. Any 1 impact that is substantial, can trigger an EIS (Environmental Impact Statement). Having 2 impacts that are not substantial, but that are cumulative, can also trigger an EIS. Basically, this letter to seek Lead Agency is to take control of the process and identify impacts and request mitigation because the NYS DEC has refused to do that. This is an opportunity that this Board, based on the fact that the Town is becoming more residential, will be impacted and the PB does have an obligation to adjust these impacts. This is a perfect opportunity to do so and take control of the situation, which has not happened in the past. He felt that it is extremely important.

 

Mr. Ricks questioned if the letter presented to the Board by Mr. Fornal had already been sent?

 

Chairman Fornal replied that it had not, it was for the PB to review and this is what he is proposing for the Board to address.

 

Mr. Ricks stated that he had no bias or interests one way or the other as far as mines went and he certainly felt that the residential neighbors in the Town needed to be protected. He understood that the gravel mines have been in the Town a long time and so have the residents and this is an expansion. Some times (he didn’t want anyone to take his comments the wrong way, but…) Chairman Fornal gets a little over zealous on gravel mines; he’s like an activist against them and he doesn’t want to have the Town of Rochester become like other Towns where they put a gravel mine through more rigorous exam than other applicants. Mr. Ricks needed to do a lot of reading before he figured out which way he would want to go on this.

 

Chairman Fornal explained that the reason he had this letter prepared for the PB to view at this meeting was because the comment period deadline ended in 1 week (30 days from the date on the letter –February 28, 2006).

 

Mr. Medenbach wanted to point out that Mr. Frank Kortright made this application to the PB for this expansion in May of 2003 and at that time this Board and the Chairperson, Nadine D. Carney, wrote a letter to the NYS DEC dated May 21, 2003 stating that the Board was not seeking Lead Agency, but would like to be kept involved in the coordinated review.
T/ ROCHESTER PLANNING BOARD                                                     PAGE 27
MINUTES OF MEETING                                                                      MARCH 21, 2006
Frank Kortright, c/o Medenbach & Eggers–        SUP for Expansion of Mine, 6 phases

 

Mr. Medenbach continued that they then made an application to the DEC at that time and the DEC looked at the letter from the PB and assumed Lead Agency. They proceeded to review their application and for the last 2 ½ almost 3 years working with the DEC. They did a sound study, a visual analysis, they dug deep test holes and did borings that show how the ground water conditions are. They have been working on this thing for 2 ½ years and the DEC is about at the point of giving a complete application and Negative Declaration. When they looked at this original letter, they felt that they should have done a more formal request for Lead Agency and so that is what they are doing now. The DEC told Mr. Medenbach that quite frankly that they would not relinquish Lead Agency to the PB on any application for mining especially this one as they have already gone through the review process with them. This Board basically relinquished their right to take Lead Agency 3 years ago.

 

Chairman Fornal explained that this was from the 2003 expansion.

 

Mrs. Carney agreed and stated that there was a motion and a vote on this and the Board decided not to seek Lead Agency.

 

Mr. Medenbach asked this Board to reaffirm that they do not seek Lead Agency by telling the DEC that.
They still would need to come back for the Special Use Permit, so there would still be review on the Board’s end.

 

Chairman Fornal knew this and this is why he was saying that if they were coming back to the PB for a Special Use Permit, Lead Agency was still up in the air.

 

Mr. Medenbach continued to argue that it was not.

 

Mr. Johannessen noted that the Board would be an involved agency as they do need to review this for a Special Use Permit.

 

Mr. Ricks questioned if they did it once already, did they need to vote on it again?

 

Mr. Medenbach noted that the DEC is asking the Board to do that by sending out their coordinate review letter.

 

Chairman Fornal explained that this is why he saw this as the Board’s opportunity to seek Lead Agency.

 

Mrs. Carney didn’t see the harm in having another motion and having another vote…the members points of view would be expressed through their voting.

 

Mr. Ricks motioned for the NYS DEC to be Lead Agency, as the Planning Board would be an involved agency. Seconded by Mr. Gaydos.
Vote:
Fornal- No                                              Tapper- Absent
Carney- No                                              Gaydos-         Yes
Ricks-          Yes                                             Striano-        Yes
O’Halloran-     Excused                                 Kawalchuk-      Yes

 

T/ ROCHESTER PLANNING BOARD                                                     PAGE 28
MINUTES OF MEETING                                                                      MARCH 21, 2006
Frank Kortright, c/o Medenbach & Eggers–        SUP for Expansion of Mine, 6 phases

 

Chairman Fornal felt that this was the wrong message to send.

 

Mr. Ricks didn’t like how the PB got this last minute information and proposed letter from the Chairman to seek Lead Agency. The Applicant has come before this Board a number of years ago for this reason. It was decided then. And the PB is still an involved agency.

 

Chairman Fornal believed that they were actually an ‘interested party’ and not an ‘involved agency’.

 

Mr. Medenbach requested that the Public Hearing be scheduled for the Special Use Permit.

 

Mr. Ricks felt that the Board would need a refresher.

 

Mr. Medenbach noted that he would submit more copies for the Board. He then explained the project. This is a piece of property that has been a mine prior to the Town having mining laws. At one point part of it was the Tapper Chicken Farm. There are two parcels. One of them is  a shale bank that has access on Rochester Center Road. There is an open field area that has been subject to mining for a very long time. There is a shale bank. He would like to expand that life of mine and this is the last opportunity he would have to do it, so he is requesting the existing life of mine expansion. It kind of slopes down toward Boice Mill Road in the back. The Town of Rochester has a gravel bank in close proximity. This is a nice deposit of sands and gravels that have been mined for decades. Mr. Kortright’s current life of mine is +/- 18 acres and he wants to add +/-31 acres to that, which would expand it in the back. It can’t even been seen from the Town Roads. And it is completely surrounded by a wooded area. It would be reclaimed by an agricultural field. Mr. Kortright does not have a very big operation. He really uses the gravel for his own projects, but he wants to be able to continue for the rest of his working years and possibly have something to pass on to his kids. They are really asking for a continuation of what has been going on on this property.

 

Mr. Ricks questioned if they were going to have crushers?

 

Mr. Medenbach couldn’t quite recall…he knew they had a screener.

 

Mr. Kortright noted that he currently had a screener and he didn’t really plan to ever have a crusher. Maybe down the road, but he isn’t sure.

 

Mr. Medenbach explained that what happens is that the boulders that get screened off accumulate to a point where they have a lot of them and traditionally they would rent a crusher and it would come in for 3-6 months. It would crush up all the boulders and then move out and continue the sand and gravel.

 

The material that Mr. Kortright is working in right now is being sold off of the screen and there hasn’t been a need for the crusher.

 

Mr. Ricks questioned if there was a report that would be submitted that addresses the things like noise and dust and all the stuff that the members of the Board would get to read through?
T/ ROCHESTER PLANNING BOARD                                                     PAGE 29
MINUTES OF MEETING                                                                      MARCH 21, 2006
Frank Kortright, c/o Medenbach & Eggers–        SUP for Expansion of Mine, 6 phases

 

Chairman Fornal commented that he felt that the noise seemed like it has elevated the ambient level. There are ATV’s mentioned in the Noise Study during the testing. He has a feeling that Mombaccus was probably working at that time too.

 

Mr. Sprague noted that they had performed an evaluation for each phase and they were less than a 6 decibel increase.

 

The Chairman noted that it was elevated because it was already high. The ambient level all the way from Boodle Hole all the way across is between 40 & 45.

 

Mr. Medenbach noted that there is a lot of other activity in the Town. The Town has a mine here and there are 2 other mines on the street. There is a saw mill on the street. Everyone says its ‘residential’ it’s zoned ‘A’ and if you look at the ‘A’ zone.

 

The Chairman argued that it was a residential zone and it has always been a residential zone.

 

Mr. Medenbach noted that it lists other activities too…you can put hotels, commercial recreation, mining. There are many many uses that are permitted in that zone, so you can’t say that its ‘zoned exclusively residential’.  

 

Chairman Fornal continued, especially when they allow, mine, a mine, a mine and the ZBA gives Use Variances for a saw mill based on a mine.

 

Mr. Medenbach argued that it wasn’t a Use Variance. It was a zoning district of Light Industrial. It was a floating zoning district.

 

Chairman Fornal noted that an individual had actually sued over that Use Variance. It was granted; it was in the paper. It was a Use Variance. How does the applicant propose to get the gravel down to wherever they take it, other than through residential areas?

 

Mr. Medenbach noted that the trucking is out on the highways. Rochester Center goes out onto Queens Highway, which is a main artillery road for the Town or to Samsonville Road, which is a County Road. This is the way it has been done for years.

 

Chairman Fornal stated that this was a violation of the Master Plan. These are some of the concerns that have not been addressed. And that was absolutely clear about Industrial and Commercial truck traffic through residential zones. That isn’t supposed to happen. These are some of the things that the DEC just lets go through. Noise levels too.

 

Mr. Medenbach wanted to get an issue out into the open. Mr. Fornal has been very vocally and he’s written articles about mining and he has been campaigning against mines for several years. He has been opposed to them. He has contacted DEC officials and he’s probably been to the Governor’s office. He writes letters in the newspapers all the time. He has been campaigning against mining and now to sit here as the Chairman of this Board, does he think that he can conduct this meeting and give Mr. Kortright a fair Hearing, with this preconceived notion of mining. He felt it was a conflict for Mr. Fornal to be Chairing Mr. Kortright’s meeting.
T/ ROCHESTER PLANNING BOARD                                                     PAGE 30
MINUTES OF MEETING                                                                      MARCH 21, 2006
Frank Kortright, c/o Medenbach & Eggers–        SUP for Expansion of Mine, 6 phases

 

Chairman Fornal could see where Mr. Medenbach would feel that way. He has a very strong opinion about mining, and that is what it is.

 

Mr. Striano had the same problem and was very uncomfortable with the situation, mainly because he has been such an outspoken opponent. He finds it harder to take his feelings and considerations seriously because of that. If  Chairman Fornal wasn’t as publicly outspoken as he is, Mr. Striano would be more apt to side with him on a lot of the issues he is presenting, but he is very uncomfortable with that pre-designated design of what the Chairman thinks this should be. This worries Mr. Striano.

 

Chairman Fornal stated that the PB has to go on what the facts are. And when you talk about truck traffic through a residential zone; that is not allowed by the Master Plan.

 

Mr. Striano agreed that this was a concern and should be a concern of every member of this Board.

 

Chairman Fornal stated that if he started bringing things up that were irrelevant or off topic that would be one thing. He felt that everything he did bring up was very relevant, and yes it is passionate, but it is very relevant to the discussion.

 

Mr. Striano informed the Chairman that he needed to understand how people would perceive that. It may be detrimental to what he is trying to accomplish.

 

What the Chairman was trying to accomplish was for the PB to take control, to identify and mitigate impacts. That is all he is trying to do and he felt that was the PB’s job.

 

Mr. Striano felt that this was a beautiful sentiment.

 

Chairman Fornal noted that it hasn’t happened, but that is his opinion, but when he hears noise levels and truck levels and dust levels.

 

Mr. Striano agreed that this concerned him too.

 

Chairman Fornal felt that he would be fair as there are issues to be discussed and that’s what it will be. Everyone has seen that he can’t carry a vote, so there you have it.

 

Mr. Medenbach felt that the Chairman could still lead the discussions.

 

Chairman Fornal joked that no one was listening any way.

 

Mr. Ricks stated that the only thing he had an issue with was sometimes there are letters, like the one the Chairman prepared for the DEC, being pumped out without the Board, instead of the whole Board agreeing on it.

 

The Chairman explained that that was what he did with this letter. He prepared it for the Board to view and decide on. He brought it here because the Board had 1 week to respond to the DEC.
T/ ROCHESTER PLANNING BOARD                                                     PAGE 31
MINUTES OF MEETING                                                                      MARCH 21, 2006
Frank Kortright, c/o Medenbach & Eggers–        SUP for Expansion of Mine, 6 phases

 

Mr. Ricks stated that there have been letters like this going back and forth between applicants, and the DEC in between Board Meetings without the knowledge or consent of the other Board members. He realized that the Chairman has to be on top of all these things, but it seems like all of a sudden particularly on mining just from these past 2 applications (Kortright & Mombaccus) there are a lot more letters generated than on any other applications.

 

The Chairman questioned if anything in those letters was irrelevant or off topic or information that the Board didn’t need?

 

Mr. Ricks would have to read through them all again.

 

The Chairman reiterated that if anyone felt that anything that he did in terms of information gathering was off topic or irrelevant, or wrong, just tell him.

 

Mr. Ricks was only saying that they needed to do things as a full Board. That’s why there are 7 people on the Board.

 

At this time there was an outburst from the audience and then they left the building.

 

The Board agreed that they wanted to see further information before they would schedule the Public Hearing.

 

Mr. Gaydos motioned to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Mrs. Carney. All members present in favor.

 

At 10:30 PM, Chairman Fornal adjourned the meeting as there was no further business to discuss.
                                                                Respectfully submitted,
                                                                Rebecca Paddock Stange
                                                                Secretary