MINUTES OF APRIL 18, 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.-7:20 PM
Anthony Kawalchuk
Steven L. Fornal, Chairman
Melvyn I. Tapper, Vice Chair
Also present at the meeting was Town Planner, Jan Johannessenn, from The Chazen Companies.
The Chairman opened by speaking for everyone on the Board by sending their condolences to Planning Board Alternate David O’Halloran in regards to the passing of his brother.
Pledge to the Flag.
PUBLIC HEARING
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
At 7:00 PM, the Chairman called the applicant forward for his Public Hearing.
Mr. Gerald Rusolo was present on behalf of this application.
The Chairman explained that this was really formalizing a subdivision that was done 10 years ago without coming before the PB. The Board is trying to get it formalized so that the applicants can move on from this point. He noted that a letter was sent to Mr. Rusolo stating what notes needed to be added to the maps. Mrs. Carney and the Chairman were in touch with Alan Dumas and after talking it was recommended that 2 notations be added to the plans.
Mr. Gerald Rusolo stated that his surveyor hasn’t done this yet.
The Chairman opened the Hearing to the Public.
At this time there was no public comment.
T/ ROCHESTER Page 2
MINUTES OF MEETING APRIL 18, 2006
Mr. Ricks motioned to close the Public Hearing. Seconded by Mrs. Carney.
Vote:
Fornal- Yes Tapper- Yes
Carney- Yes Gaydos- Yes
Ricks- Yes Striano- not in attendance until 7:20pm
O’Halloran- Excused Kawalchuk- Yes
Mrs. Carney motioned for Conditional Final Approval with the conditions that the Map come back with the requested notations that were sent to Mr. Gerald Rusolo in a letter and the Right to Farm Note. The Chairman would be able to review the maps once those notes were added and sign them without the applicant coming back before the Board.
Vote:
Fornal- Yes Tapper- Yes
Carney- Yes Gaydos- Yes
Ricks- Yes Striano- not in attendance until 7:20pm
O’Halloran- Excused Kawalchuk- Yes
The Chairman explained to Gerald Rusolo that when he came back to apply for his proposed 3 lots, it would be a much more in depth process and much more detail would be required.
At this time, Maria Rusolo, Cousin to Gerald Rusolo, came forward. She traveled from Brooklyn and was a little late for the Public Hearing. She just wanted to know what was going on.
The Board explained the situation to her that nothing was changing, but 10 years ago the property was subdivided and it had needed to come in for Planning Board approval and it had not. Now Gerald Rusolo and the Board were resolving the situation.
Mrs. Carney rescinded her previous motion because it wasn’t procedurally the correct time to make that motion.
Mrs. Carney motioned for a Negative Declaration under SEQRA. Mr. Gaydos seconded the motion.
Vote:
Fornal- Yes Tapper- Yes
Carney- Yes Gaydos- Yes
Ricks- Yes Striano- not in attendance until 7:20pm
O’Halloran- Excused Kawalchuk- Yes
Mrs. Carney motioned for Conditional Preliminary Approval with the conditions that (3) notes be added to the plan as previously discussed in this meeting. Mr. Ricks seconded the motion.
Vote:
Fornal- Yes Tapper- Yes
Carney- Yes Gaydos- Yes
Ricks- Yes Striano- not in attendance until 7:20pm
O’Halloran- Excused Kawalchuk- Yes
T/ ROCHESTER Page 3
MINUTES OF MEETING APRIL 18, 2006
Mrs. Carney motioned for Conditional Final Approval with the conditions that those above mentioned notes have been added to the map. The Applicant is also responsible for Recreation fees in the amount of
$100.00. The Chairman is to review the plans and signs them once the above conditions have been met. Seconded by Mr. Ricks.
Vote:
Fornal- Yes Tapper- Yes
Carney- Yes Gaydos- Yes
Ricks- Yes Striano- not in attendance until 7:20pm
O’Halloran- Excused Kawalchuk- Yes
PUBLIC HEARING
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. Jon Dogar Marinesco and his surveyor, Terry Ringler were present on behalf of this Public Hearing.
Mr. Dogar-Marinesco displayed pictures of different views of his property with the proposed antique shop on it.
The Chairman opened the Hearing to the Public.
Mrs. Alice Cross of the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) was present and noted that the HPC had a letter on file with the Board where the HPC expressed concern as this is an extremely prominent historic property n the town. She has since seen plans of the building and speaks in support of the design and placement of the building. She felt that this was keeping in the historic nature of the property.
Ron Santosky was recognized to speak and noted that he is a neighbor to Mr. Dogar Marinesco and he was in support of the project and thought it was a nice building. He didn’t feel that this project would bother anyone. He also noted that this was a commercial zone where the building was going.
Mr. Gerry Gress was present on behalf of himself and his partner Joan Atwood who lived behind the property in question. Mr. Gress stated that after seeing the pictures of the different views of the project that his concerns were minimized, however they have spent a lot of money to make their property park like and they fear that Route 209 is going to be over commercialized. He questioned if there was going to be screening behind the building to break up his view of it. He and Ms. Atwood wish to continue to help beatify the area and wants to minimize the impact of the building.
The Chairman read Ms. Joan Atwood’s letter dated April 16, 2006 stating her opposition to the project because of its impact on the view of her property. She shared the same concerns as her partner, Mr. Gress.
The Chairman noted that the Board had received the Ulster County Planning Board response reviewed April 5, 2006.
T/ ROCHESTER Page 4
MINUTES OF MEETING APRIL 18, 2006
PUBLIC HEARING
Jon Dogar-Marinesco & Manuela Mihailescu(cont’d)- Site Plan Approval for antique shop
In regards to the County’s referral response, Mr. Ringler noted that the applicant isn’t proposing any landscaping. He wants to keep it as natural as it is now and just put a sign out front. The access application from the NYS DOT has been submitted and they are just waiting for their response from that. The signage was revised to be 6’ x 6’ instead of 6’ x 8’.
Mrs. Carney noted that there was an issue with the screening here. Because this property didn’t directly border a residential district, the Board wasn’t required to mandate screening. But since the neighbors have expressed their concern—would the applicant be willing to do some landscaping and put some screening in the rear of the building?
Mr. Ringler noted that there was a whole row of deciduous trees that grow along the creek in between the two properties. Once the leaves come out, there shouldn’t be any vision of this building. So, they weren’t proposing any screening.
Mr. Gress requested a simple tree break—nothing significant, just something to break up the view of the building.
The Board and the applicants discussed the possibility of screening and the best way to achieve it.
Mr. Ricks suggested 3 pines along the back of the building to break it up.
Mr. Ricks motioned to close the Public Hearing. Seconded by Mrs. Carney.
Vote:
Fornal- Yes Tapper- Yes
Carney- Yes Gaydos- Yes
Ricks- Yes Striano- Yes
O’Halloran- Excused Kawalchuk- Yes
At this time the Board filled out Part 2 of the EAF.
Mrs. Carney motioned to accept Part 2 as just completed by the Board finding no potential negative impacts. Seconded by Mr. Tapper.
Vote:
Fornal- Yes Tapper- Yes
Carney- Yes Gaydos- Yes
Ricks- Yes Striano- Yes
O’Halloran- Excused Kawalchuk- Yes
T/ ROCHESTER Page 5
MINUTES OF MEETING APRIL 18, 2006
Mrs. Carney motioned to issue a Negative Declaration. Seconded by Mr. Striano
Vote:
Fornal- Yes Tapper- Yes
Carney- Yes Gaydos- Yes
Ricks- Yes Striano- Yes
O’Halloran- Excused Kawalchuk- Yes
Mr. Ricks motioned to approve the requested antique shop application based on the following conditions:
1. Planning Board to receive NYS DOT Approval
2. Monument sign placed as shown on map and in the sketch submitted by the applicant
3. 3 evergreen trees to be planted 6’ in height at installation, to be maintained in perpetuity starting at the northwest corner placed 30’ apart going towards the east.
4. Ulster County Health Dept. approval for the septic
All conditions are to be met prior to a building permit being issued and NYS DOT & UCHD Approval and the trees planted prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
Seconded by Mrs. Carney.
Vote:
Fornal- Yes Tapper- Yes
Carney- Yes Gaydos- Yes
Ricks- Yes Striano- Yes
O’Halloran- Excused Kawalchuk- Yes
DECISION
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 Rochester Development Mine Site
Mr. Kortright and his attorney, Ms. Coan were present on behalf of the application.
Chairman Fornal noted that he had sent a letter to the NYS DEC and has not received a response in regards to the clarification about the actual size of the crusher that was there and what they were permitted to have. He did get a message today from Marc Davin and he said that he had come out and inspected the site and stated that there is no 300 TPH Crusher at the site, but if they wanted one they could anyway. This is according to the NYS DEC. This was what he wanted clarified. Mined land and Reclamation gives them the authority to bring in the equipment they apply for. They are supposed to come back before the PB when they do this. They have not answered that question. He was going to ask the Board to authorize a letter to have those questions answered because he feels they should answer questions when they are asked. Marc Davin said that he could have a 300 TPH Crusher by virtue of the Air Permit. The Board has a copy of that permit that says that Mr. Kortright is permitted to have a 300 TPH Crusher. The point is that if there is a 300 TPH Crusher at the site, it is a problem because it didn’t come back through the PB process. Uniform procedures is regulation. The letter that the Chairman forwarded to the NYS DEC, states with a permit condition change which is from 150tph to a 300 TPH Crusher, if they expand they are bound by Uniform Procedures Regulations to come back before the PB. Marc Davin claimed in his message today that if they want to increase the crusher, all they have to do is go by the Air Permit. This doesn’t supercede the process of PB approval. The Board can’t deny it, so it may seem moot, because Mined Land Reclamation does take precedent, however, they do have an obligation through this
T/ ROCHESTER Page 6
MINUTES OF MEETING APRIL 18, 2006
DECISION
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 Rochester Development Mine Site
to come back to the Board. The Chairman felt that this would just take another month. By Ms. Coan constantly saying that they were in compliance with the Air Permit, this is where it confused the Chairman. The Air Permit said that they had a 300 TPH Crusher. So, if they were in compliance with this permit, it would indicate to him that they had a 300 TPH Crusher on their property. There is a definite contradiction between the documentation and what Marc Davin has said.
The Chairman noted that the Board did receive a letter from the Town Attorney and he states that ‘if the size of the crusher at the Mombaccus Facility was a significant consideration in the granting of the original Special Use Permit, then the increase in the size of that crusher would be relevant since this impacts legitimate considerations by the PB in issuing a Special Use Permit in that traffic, noise and dust generated by the facility would be affected. Ultimately however, how significant that issue is rests with the entire Planning Board. In providing you with this opinion I am mindful of the fact that the applicant and his attorney have said that they processing facility and equipment has no relevance to the pending Special Use Permit. For the reasons stated above, I do not agree with that position.’ The Chairman stated that the responsibility to correctly review this lies with the NYS DEC and they are not going to follow the correct procedure. The next time there is a mine coming through, this is what the Board needs to go through with a fine tooth comb because these are the things that drop through and there is no explanation. The Board has to do this all up front so that as the process goes through the Board is going through the process and they make the NYS DEC go through the process as well. They have not been doing that, and this is the issue.
Mr. Tapper questioned the NYS Law—if they have a bigger crusher in there- then they aren’t in compliance with their Special Use Permit?
Mrs. Carney pointed out that there is no condition on the Board’s Special Use Permit for the size of the crusher and that is what the Town Attorney’s letter is basically saying—if that Special Use Permit had that condition in there, then it would have to come back.
The Chairman disagreed with Mrs. Carney’s statement—the Town Attorney didn’t say if it was a condition he said if it was significant. What is significant are all the impacts that happen because of the crusher size. That is how they determine trip generation, dust, noise, everything is based on the size of the facility, so that is a significant consideration that wasn’t considered and was not put in the PB’s conditions and that is the point.
Mr. Ricks noted that years ago when they did the Metro Mine there were all kinds of documents and reports on the larger crusher that they wanted to put in there and through these reports it was stated that the larger crusher—instead of it being there for 6 or 8 months it would only be there for 3 months, so it was much less time. It had a lower noise level and as far as the dust—they put the water on it and it suppressed it. He didn’t know if the size of the crusher was going to regulate how many trucks were going in and out because most of the time they would crush stuff and stock pile it. It doesn’t come off of a crusher and go into a truck as fast as it can crush… they just do this to get rid of the excess rubble in the mine.
Chairman Fornal handed out a draft copy of conditions that he had compiled for the Board to consider.
T/ ROCHESTER Page 7
MINUTES OF MEETING APRIL 18, 2006
DECISION
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 Rochester Development Mine Site
The Board discussed these conditions as prepared by the Chairman.
1. Mombaccus Excavating, Inc. is hereby granted approval to cut a single lane service road
(as described in Rochester Center Development Mine Modification Narrative for NYSDEC,
revised date 15 August 2005 and illustrated in the included Mining Plan Map For
NYSDEC) for well access on site in order to pump water to comply with NYSDEC dust suppression plan (issued in conjunction with NYSDEC Air Permit—dated 24 June 2004)
for processing equipment located at the Rochester Center Development Mine site.
2.Processing equipment (crushers/screeners) shall be in compliance with Town of Rochester Special Use Permit for mining as originally granted to Rochester Center Development Mine (the applicable SUP) and shall also be in compliance with all required NYSDEC permits.
3.Mombaccus Excavating, Inc. is granted approval to bury a water line along side of above
mentioned road on Rochester Center Development Mine site.
4.Well water drawn shall not exceed 8,000 gallons in any one day or more than 16,000 gallons per month.
5. Service road shall not be used for haulage of mining material.
6. Service road shall be gated at both ends to restrict unauthorized access.
7. There shall be no mine related ingress or egress from/onto Fischer Road.
8. Water pumped from well shall not be used for human consumption.
Mr. Ricks questioned condition #2. They didn’t specify anything originally, so how would it be in compliance.
The Chairman stated that it would just be in compliance with that mining plan.
Mrs. Carney didn’t think that the crusher could be made a part of this application.
Ms. Coan agreed—they respectfully submitted their application for the water line and access road, nothing to do with mining operations or changing the mining operations in any way. This is totally irrelevant to this application and she didn’t believe that under NYS LAW that this Board had the authority to regulate the way the mine is actually operated. Any mine operator can switch out their equipment if it’s to upgrade existing equipment to comply with standards… they have to comply with NYS DEC permits no matter what they do.
Mr. Ricks felt that he would make a motion to approve these conditions minus #2.
Mr. Tapper questioned what the difference was with how many gallons of water they pulled out of the well in a day?
Mr. Gaydos questioned why if you could take 8,000 gallons a day, they could only take 16,000 gallons of water per month.
Chairman Fornal noted that this is what the applicant has said they will be using. Its in the narrative, they clarified it with this Board and the DEC.
Ms. Coan noted that at peak consumption it would be 8,000 gallons a day. She noted that this condition would be potentially limiting them to two days of water.
T/ ROCHESTER Page 8
MINUTES OF MEETING APRIL 18, 2006
DECISION
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 Rochester Development Mine Site
Mrs. Carney noted that the 8,000 gallons per day made sense but not the 16,000 gallons per month.
The Chairman argued that this is why they asked the applicant for this clarification because if it were 8,000 gallons per day it would be 240,000 gallons per month.
Ms. Coan noted that they noted that a maximum consumption was about 8,000 gallons per day at peak time, so it’s not every day that they are using 8,000—but on occasion…
Mrs. Carney stated that the 16,000 gallons per month that was earlier indicated by the applicant may have been an average—so that doesn’t mean they meant for 16,000 gallons to be their maximum. There could be one month where they don’t use any and another month where they use 10 times that.
Mr. Kortright noted that they have been using this water in this manner for years and will continue to use the water even if they don’t get their Special Use Permit. They are only applying for the water line—not the usage of the water. The only difference is piping the water instead of trucking it.
The Chairman read letter dated February 27, 2006 from Bernie Neuman to Larry Biegel of the NYS DEC. The letter noted that the total anticipated usage would be filling the truck that holds 8,000 gallons of water once every two weeks. The Amount of water usage listed in the EAF should be considered the peak demand (8,000 gallons per day).
Mr. Ricks motioned to approve this application for addition of service Road and water line to access water well on Rochester Development Mine Site with the following conditions:
1. Mombaccus Excavating, Inc. is hereby granted approval to cut a single lane service road (as described in Rochester Center Development Mine Modification Narrative for NYSDEC, revised date 15 August 2005 and illustrated in the included Mining Plan Map For NYSDEC) for well access on site in order to pump water to comply with NYSDEC dust suppression plan (issued in conjunction with NYSDEC Air Permit—dated 24 June 2004) for processing equipment located at the Rochester Center Development Mine site.
2. Mombaccus Excavating, Inc. is granted approval to bury a water line along side of above mentioned road on Rochester Center Development Mine site.
3. Well water drawn shall not exceed 8,000 gallons in any one day.
4. Service road shall not be used for haulage of mining material.
5. Service road shall be gated at both ends to restrict unauthorized access.
6. There shall be no mine related ingress or egress from/onto Fischer Road.
7. Water pumped from well shall not be used for human consumption.
Motion Seconded by Mrs. Carney.
Vote:
Fornal- No Tapper- Yes
Carney- Yes Gaydos- Yes
Ricks- Yes Striano- Yes
O’Halloran- Excused Kawalchuk- Yes
T/ ROCHESTER Page 9
MINUTES OF MEETING APRIL 18, 2006
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
Mr. Dawson and Mr. Barry Medenbach were present on behalf of this application.
Mr. Johannessen from the Chazen Companies noted that he had some questions on the EAF that they could discuss. He referenced his letter dated April 14, 2006. He noted that a lot of these questions were from his last comment letter that the applicant still has not revised.
Mr. Medenbach noted that they were scheduled to have the NYS DEC come out the following week to discuss the boundaries of the potential wetlands on the site. (B.25 on the EAF) Mr. Medenbach stated that they weren’t planning on disturbing any of these areas anyway.
The Board viewed the wetlands on the subdivision map.
Mr. Medenbach didn’t agree with the Part 1 EAF review—B.1.b. He argued his understanding of it with Mr. Johannessen and settled to answer the question as instructed to by Mr. Johannessen.
After a pretty lengthy disagreement on interpretations of questions on the EAF, the Board instructed Mr. Medenbach that they wanted him to answer the questions as instructed by Mr. Johannessen, now and in future applications.
Mr. Medenbach and Mr. Johannessen argued over procedures in regards to requirements of Conditional Preliminary Approval and Conditional Final Approval. They determined that the previous boundary survey would suffice for Conditional Preliminary Approval as Mr. Medenbach stated that the updated Survey is in progress and not yet complete. When they do their final map they would definitely have the completed updated survey.
Mr. Johannessen instructed Mr. Medenbach that the Town’s Code for subdivision requires subdivision plats submitted to be scaled at 1” = 100’ or less. The current map submitted was at a scale of 1” = 200’. Mr. Johannessen preferred that the map be submitted at 1”=50’.
Mr. Johannessen and Mr. Medenbach had conflicting views over the need for a grading plan and siting houses as the house placements are ultimately up to the individual lot owner and the Health Dept. Mr. Medenbach felt it was a moot point to supply this information as this is not what the project will ultimately be like. Mr. Johannessen still required to see grading and house sites, even though he was fully aware of Mr. Medenbach’s point of view on this.
Mrs. Carney agreed that the applicant should supply a building site and the limits of disturbance as requested by the planner. This at least proves to the board that there is a buildable site on each individual lot.
Mr. Johannessen noted that metes and bounds could be considered for Final review. Mr. Johannessen also wanted driveway profiles for any driveway at 10% or higher.
T/ ROCHESTER Page 10
MINUTES OF MEETING APRIL 18, 2006
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
Mr. Dawson noted that he had a house built already on one of these proposed lots and wanted to sell it off. Would it be possible to do this separately from the rest of the subdivision?
The Board and Mr. Johannessen discussed this and noted that it would be possible for the applicant to submit a separate application for this. This could be done as Phase 1 after the application receives Conditional Preliminary Approval or he could cut it out prior to Preliminary approval as a separate application. Mr. Johannessen felt this could be a rather simple application as there was no development being proposed and the house already existed.
Mr. Ricks motioned to schedule the Public Hearing for the May meeting. Seconded by Mrs. Carney. All in favor.
The Board was in agreement that they were comfortable with Chazen reviewing the Habitat Report and the SWPPP.
Mrs. Carney motioned to waive #25 of Chazen’s comment letter dated April 14, 2006 to require Street trees as per Section 125-20Q of the Town’s Subdivision Regulations as this is a wooded site and not needed. Seconded by Mr. Gaydos.
Vote:
Fornal- Yes Tapper- Yes
Carney- Yes Gaydos- Yes
Ricks- Yes Striano- Yes
O’Halloran- Excused Kawalchuk- Yes
CONTINUED APPLICATION REVIEW
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, R-1 District
Mr. Medenbach and Mr. Frank Kortright were present on behalf of this application.
Mr. Medenbach explained that this property has been in the Kortright family since the 1970’s and used for the purpose of mining. Mr. Kortright is requesting to expand his life of mine. He uses the materials for his own construction. He has a portable screener and presently does not do any crushing. He applied to the Board 3 years ago and since they has been working with the NYS DEC. At the time when they came into the PB 3 years ago they relinquished Lead Agency to the NYS DEC and since then the NYS DEC sent out another Lead Agency request letter to the Town because so much time had passed and they wanted to make sure it was done correctly. This Board since voted at their last meeting again not to seek Lead Agency. The NYS DEC is about to issue a Negative Declaration and complete application. Part of this process is to secure a Special Use Permit from the Town. They would like to have their Public Hearing scheduled for May. Some area has been reclaimed and some has not yet been mined. The property is located on Rochester Center Road and is near Queens
T/ROCHESTER Page 11
MINUTES OF MEETING APRIL 18, 2006
CONTINUED APPLICATION REVIEW
FRANK KORTRIGHT(cont’d)– 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, R-1
District Highway This site is contained and isn’t visible from the road. There isn’t a lot of noise either. They have submitted an Engineer’s report and Noise Study that have been accepted by the NYS DEC.
Mr. Ricks questioned if there was a buffer between neighboring houses and the mine?
Mr. Medenbach stated that NYS Law required 25’ of undisturbed land and they had 50’ or more that was wooded. They had many discussions with the DEC regarding the phasing. They also have a letter of support from neighbors that was submitted to the Board.
Mr. Gaydos questioned if the Mombaccus mine was close in proximity to this mine?
Mr. Medenbach noted that yes, Mombaccus had a mine, the Town of Rochester had a Mine, there was the Metro Mine, and the Saw Mill within close proximity to this site. Howard Dunn also had a mine but it has been closed. Mines have many benefits to Towns. The materials they offer build roads, parking lots, driveways…
Chairman Fornal questioned if the NYS DEC has accepted the Noise Study in writing?
Mr. Medenbach replied that they have not done so yet.
Mrs. Carney motioned to schedule the Public Hearing for the May meeting. Seconded by Mr. Ricks. All in favor.
OPEN DEVELOPMENT
CALVIN & SHIRLEY KAMPFF– Open Development for a single family dwelling, Wynkoop Drive, off of Sundown Road, Tax Map #60.1-3-50, ‘A’ Zoning District
Mr. & Mrs. Kampff were present on behalf of their request for Open Development Status.
The Secretary had already given the applicants the Open Development checklist and explained each of the items and that it was their responsibility to accomplish these things. They contacted Mr. Kelder and he inspected the road, and forwarded a letter to the PB saying that it was in compliance with Hwy. regulations. The applicants are in the process of contacting the Fire Dept. and they are in the process of filling out their RMA.
Mrs. Carney motioned to give a favorable advisory for Open Development Status to the Town Board for the above applicants. Mr. Gaydos seconded the motion.
Vote:
Fornal- Yes Tapper- Yes
Carney- Yes Gaydos- Yes
Ricks- Yes Striano- Yes
O’Halloran- Excused Kawalchuk- Yes
T/ROCHESTER Page 12
MINUTES OF MEETING APRIL 18, 2006
90 DAY EXTENSION ON CONDITIONAL PRELIMINARY APPROVAL
VICTOR VAN BORKULO– 6 lot subdivision, Millbrook Lane
Mr. Ricks abstained.
Mr. Gaydos motioned to grant the second and final 90 day extension on Conditional Preliminary Approval for the above noted application. Seconded by Mrs. Carney.
Vote:
Fornal- Yes Tapper- Yes
Carney- Yes Gaydos- Yes
Ricks- Abstain Striano- Yes
O’Halloran- Excused Kawalchuk- Yes
ACTION ON MINUTES OF MEETING
Mr. Ricks rejoined the Board.
Mr. Gaydos motioned to accept the minutes of the March 21, 2006 meeting. Seconded by Mrs. Carney.
Vote:
Fornal- Yes Tapper- Abstain
Carney- Yes Gaydos- Yes
Ricks- Yes Striano- Yes
O’Halloran- Excused Kawalchuk- Yes
OTHER MATTERS
DAVID HARRITON– Phase II of the Mountain View Stables revisions to filed map
The Board discussed this situation:
Basically the PB motioned for CFA in May of 2005 and in July of 2005 Mary Lou Christiana (then Town Attorney) wrote a letter to the PB of notes that would need to appear on Harriton’s map. That information was forwarded to the applicant and since then we haven’t heard anything about this.
~
Then this past month, Medenbach & Eggers submitted Final Maps for the PB Chairman to sign. The secretary called Medenbach & Eggers to clarify the situation and they related to her that they had given the maps to Harriton to sign (quite a few months ago) and were just getting them back now. Medenbach & Eggers didn’t give an exact time frame, but indicated that Mr. Harriton had held on to them for a lengthy amount of time before returning them to Medenbach & Eggers.
~
The letter that was added to the plan from the office of parks & recreation was dated February 15, 2006. Harriton and Ferro signed the maps on March 14 & 20 of 2006 respectively, and the last revised date on the map is March 8, 2006.
The PB never issued a written decision to the applicant (as it was miscommunication in this office due to the maternity leave of the Secretary).
T/ROCHESTER Page 13
MINUTES OF MEETING APRIL 18, 2006
HARRITTON-(cont’d):
The Board consulted with Mr. Johannessen and he noted that even though the written decision was never issued, the time frame started when the applicant was given the Conditional Final Approval by the Board. This has long expired, but because this was a mistake in part to the Board not issuing the decision and it was a very minimal application, the Town Attorney should be consulted to see what can be done.
ADVISORY ON L# 2 of the Year 2006, A Local Law Amending Chapter 22 of the Code of the Town of Rochester Regarding the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC).
HPC Chairperson, Alice Cross, was present to discuss this proposed law with the Board and answer any questions.
The Board felt that this proposed law was a little too infinite in its authority and needed some alterations. Mrs. Cross ensured the Board that this was just a rough draft copy that would be revised through numerous Public Hearings with the Town Board and the Town’s people to fit the Historic Preservation needs of our community.
The Board requested that they be authorized to discuss this further to render a better advisory opinion once revisions have been made to this proposed law.
Mr. Gaydos motioned to adjourn the meeting seconded by Mrs. Carney. All members present and in favor.
Because there was no further business to discuss, at 10pm the Chairman adjourned the meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
Rebecca Paddock Stange
Secretary