MINUTES OF May 16, 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 (attendance not required)
Shane Ricks
Nadine D. Carney
Frank Striano, Sr.
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 and Planning Board Liaison, Alex Miller.
Pledge to the Flag.
PUBLIC HEARING
DAWSON HOMES, INC. – subdivision to be known as Mount Laurel Estates, 22 lots, Samsonville Road, Tax Map # 60.1-2-2 &3, ‘A’ District
At 7:00 PM, the Chairman called the applicant forward for his Public Hearing. Mr. Dawson was present along with representatives, Barry Medenbach, PE.
Mr. Medenbach brought a map for the public to view and explained that this subdivision is on Samsonville Road against the Olive Town Road. There are 2 lots involved, one is +/- 82 acres and the other is +/-50 acres. There is 500’ of Road frontage and it is a completely wooded parcel. Mr. Dawson proposes to construct a private road just over 4,000 feet long to service 22 new building sites. All of the building sites will be over 5 acres. There aren’t really any streams on the property. There is a state wetland that is located off of the property. The buffer of it crosses the property just a bit, but there are no real environmental restrictions to the property. However, Mr. Dawson has proposed to put a 100’ conservation area around the project site so there would be no clear cutting or building in those areas.
The Chairman wanted to know if they had new information on the possibilities of wetlands on the property.
Mr. Medenbach explained that the NYS DEC was out at the property a couple of times to verify the boundary. The DEC wetlands are not on the property and one corner of the buffer comes into the property which they are in the process of mapping. There is another isolated wetland that has determined to be a Federal Wetland. They don’t have the exact boundaries on that either. It is being flagged this week and then they will map that as well. It’s located in the area of lot 22, but they say it is an isolated Federal Wetland which technically means that it
T/ROCHESTER Page 2
MINUTES OF MEETING May 16, 2006
PUBLIC HEARING
DAWSON HOMES, INC. (cont’d): subdivision to be known as Mount Laurel Estates, 22 lots
isn’t regulated, but they are going to try to honor it. The Federal Wetland is being flagged by Mike Nowicki. The State verified that it isn’t a State Wetland. It does go off into the neighbor’s property.
The Chairman opened the hearing to the public.
Paul Champanier bounding property owner had a few questions. Some of his questions were because he hasn’t seen all reports and documents involved with this project. He noted that there is a big amount of water on the property in question and he also had a big water problem at his house. They were concerned with the drainage and wondered how putting in additional wells and leach fields was going to affect his water quality. Mr. Medenbach had identified his well on the map, but they actually identified where there septic was. Their well was actually on the side of the house closer to the Dawson property. He doesn’t want a worse water problem.
Mr. Medenbach noted that where Mr. Dawson recently built a house, there was a rise. He also noted that they will have to prepare a Stormwater Management Plan because of the size of the project. They are obligated to treat all run off and show the treatment through a series of ponds. Each basin is designed differently. A very small amount will be coming out on Samsonville Road. Some will be trenches and some will be treated by vegetation strips and soil run off goes back into the ground. They haven’t done tests yet to see where each septic would be sited, but each site would have to go through detailed tests and inspected by the Health Dept. before they would issue their permits.
Mrs. Carney added that other than treating the Stormwater, the applicant is not allowed to exceed what run off is there already. They have to make the water flow at a slower pace and that will be managed as far as pipe size or ponds or outlets. It will actually get released slower out onto the ground than it does at this point. This report that the applicant submits will be reviewed by the Board’s consultant engineer as well.
Mr. Tapper wanted the public to know that Mr. Medenbach may seem a bit unprepared on some of this stuff, but the Board decided to hold a Public Hearing maybe a little premature so they could get some feedback from the public. Further on in the process these questions will all be answered.
Mr. Champanier appreciated the 100’ buffer put along the property.
Mrs. Carney questioned what type of septic was installed on lot 1?
Mr. Dawson responded that it was an inground system.
Mr. Zali Win questioned about the right-of-way leading out to Dewitt Road?
Mr. Dawson noted that the right-of-way will be dissolved. It is now on his original deed, but he will not transfer this right-of-way into any of the new deeds that are being created.
Mr. Medenbach anticipated having maps signed by the NYS DEC for the June Meeting.
T/ROCHESTER Page 3
MINUTES OF MEETING May 16, 2006
PUBLIC HEARING
DAWSON HOMES, INC. (cont’d): subdivision to be known as Mount Laurel Estates, 22 lots
Mr. Ricks motioned to continue the Public Hearing to the June Meeting. Mr. Gaydos seconded the motion. All members present in favor.
*** Mr. Medenbach noted to the Board that the applicant had mentioned cutting off lot # 1 under separate application. He wanted to let the Board know and get their feeling that he didn’t feel PB approval was necessary on this lot as this property had ample amount of road frontage.
The Board and the planner agreed that the applicant could cut lot 1 off through a survey and filing it with the County and to just keep the Town informed of this for their record on this subdivision.
PUBLIC HEARING
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. Kortright was present along with representatives Barry Medenbach, PE and Edward Sprague from Medenbach & Eggers. Also present was Mr. Kortright’s Attorney, Dominick Cordisko.
Mr. Medenbach gave a presentation for the public. He noted that this is property on Rochester Center Road that has been in Mr. Kortright’s family since the 1960’s. This property has a portion that has frontage on Queens Highway as well. This is an active sand and gravel mine. There is also a shale bank which he pointed out on the map for the public to see. This area has been mined since prior to any mining regulations. The primary access is off of Rochester Center Road, even though there is a road off of Queens Highway. Mr. Kortright has applied to the NYS DEC to expand the life of the mine. Currently the life of the mine is displayed as such on the map and areas that have been reclaimed. His active mining area is at the point where he is going to run out of the existing footprint. This mine is used by Mr. Kortright primarily for his own projects. He doesn’t sell bulk quantities out to large customers. The expansion is going to be multiple phases. There are some over grown fields. The property now slopes down and that mine will continue to slope down and at the bottom there would be a depression where all the water would recharge into the ground. Right now all the water is retained onsite recharged into the open sand and gravel. It is a very low impact mine. It complies with all of the NYS Regulations for mining. They have just gone through a 2 year review process with the NYS DEC reviewing the application, conducting a sound study, visual impacts, test holes. They are expecting the application to be determined complete, momentarily. The fellow who is reviewing it at the DEC has been out turkey hunting for the last couple of weeks. They are here because they need to amend their Special Use Permit with the Town to expand the mine of this additional area. The current active area is a total of 18 acres and they are proposing to add 30 acres to that. So it would be about 49.8 acres and the total property area is +/- 87 acres. Undisturbed areas were displayed on the map.
Chairman Fornal opened the hearing to the public.
Zali Win questioned what the phases of reclamation were for the new area to be mined?
Mr. Medenbach noted that they were showing phases of the project that are around 5 acre intervals. It’s more of a migrating thing-reclaiming the land as you move on to the next area. Say within a year if you only have a ¼ of
T/ROCHESTER Page 4
MINUTES OF MEETING May 16, 2006
PUBLIC HEARING
FRANK KORTRIGHT(cont’d): c/o Medenbach & Eggers, SUP for Expansion of Mine
an acre to reclaim, you generally wait till you have an acre or more to reclaim it, because you need to be able to grade it off to certain slopes. Right now Mr. Kortright is bonded for 11 acres, so he can have 11 acres actively being mined at this time and a big part of that includes the shale bank, which will be hard to reclaim until he brings this down to grade. The areas that he has pulled out of—+/-2.8 acres has been reclaimed. So this area will probably linger on because there isn’t a great market for shale. When he pulls out and creates a 2 or 3 acre
area that will be reclaimed as he progresses on. There is no reason for him to increase that area being bonded above the 11 acres. That is plenty of room to stock pile materials and have reclamation going on. That whole operation will technically migrate through the phases, even though they are listed as ‘phases’.
Mr. Cordisko added that each mining permit that the DEC issues deals with 3 figures. 1 is the overall mine site—what is permitted to be disturbed on the overall site. 2nd is the amount that is permitted to be disturbed during a permit term which is a 5 year term. And 3rd the number of acres that have to be reclaimed as you move through that site. The DEC really controls the process by how much they disturb and have to reclaim during the permit process.
Mr. Medenbach noted that Mr. Kortright has noted that +/-1 acres have also been reclaimed and waiting to be signed off by the NYS DEC.
Mr. Win questioned what the new estimated life of the mine would be?
Mr. Medenbach noted that it was hard to predict time wise. It could go on 25-50 years.
Mr. Sprague clarified that they had estimated 40 years for the life of mine in their Engineering Report that was prepared for this project.
Mr. Win questioned what type of equipment was being operated on the site currently, and how would it be modified?
Mr. Medenbach noted that Mr. Kortright had a portable screener. He hasn’t ever done any crushing, so he doesn’t have a crusher. He doesn’t think it’s likely to happen. He has a loader, an off road truck to move top soil to relocate it for future reclamation.
Mr. Win questioned if there was any provision in this permit that restricts or otherwise addresses the types of equipment or is that the jurisdiction of the NYS DEC?
Mr. Medenbach noted that the only processing permit that he had was for the screener-and that was the only processing equipment that they were asking for. There would be no blasting and no crushing. In this area there are large cobbles that start to accumulate and then he may rent a crusher. Mr. Kortright hasn’t had this problem because most of the cobbles are sold off to people as such.
Chairman Fornal did note that the DEC determines that.
T/ROCHESTER Page 5
MINUTES OF MEETING May 16, 2006
PUBLIC HEARING
FRANK KORTRIGHT(cont’d): c/o Medenbach & Eggers, SUP for Expansion of Mine
Mr. Medenbach stated that they would have to go to the DEC and amend the permit if in the future they wanted a crusher.
Mr. Cordisco noted that the existing permit allows for the screening equipment that is on site, so if there was additional equipment that needed to be brought in, then that would be an amendment for that permit.
Chairman Fornal clarified that at that time if Mr. Kortright needed to amend his DEC permit if he were to seek permission for other equipment that part of that process would be Mr. Kortright having to come back to the Planning Board for additional review as well.
Mr. Cordisco and Mr. Medenbach both agreed, that yes he would because it would affect his Special Use Permit.
Mr. Win then asked that no bulk sales would happen from the site in this extended life of mine?
Mr. Kortright noted that his trucks are the only ones that presently haul his materials. He doesn’t have anyone in the gravel mine that is full time just loading trucks. Each driver (he has 2) load the material and hauls it themselves. He can’t predict the future, but they haven’t gotten into large amounts as of now.
Mr. Medenbach noted that if Mr. Kortright had a house site that needed a lot of material, he may have his trucks and maybe hire a couple local trucks. He wouldn’t call that a big operation. He would consider a big operation if he hauled out 30,000 yards or something, which is probably the most he uses in any year.
Mr. Win questioned what type of dust suppression was used.
Mr. Kortright answered that they used graded stone on the road and that will keep the dust down. They haven’t had much dust, but water would be used if needed.
Mr. Cordisco noted that dust suppression was one of the issues that the DEC invited comments on.
Mr. Tapper questioned, in the middle of August, when it hasn’t rained in a couple of weeks, what is the method of dust suppression?
Mr. Kortright stated that water would be used.
Mr. Medenbach stated that if Mr. Kortright starts creating a dust issue he would need to stop the operation and take care of it. Mr. Kortright has just had to use stone on the roads in the past. A lot of the dust problems have to do with the type of materials. If there is a high silt or clay content in the material then that gets air borne easy and if he doesn’t maintain his roads, that fine material will accumulate and then when it is dry and they run a truck through, it creates the cloud of smoke. What Mr. Kortright does is puts layers of fresh stone on top of that, so it seals off the accumulated small particles that would otherwise get airborne. The DEC basically says that if they get complaints, they are going to site the applicant.
T/ROCHESTER Page 6
MINUTES OF MEETING May 16, 2006
PUBLIC HEARING
FRANK KORTRIGHT(cont’d): c/o Medenbach & Eggers, SUP for Expansion of Mine
Mr. Kortright noted that he isn’t in there every day, so there isn’t constant traffic in that area, so sometimes it doesn’t create some dust.
Mr. Cordisco stated that they weren’t’ proposing to change the way mining happens at this site. The only thing they are proposing to do is to extend the boundaries of disturbance.
Mr. Win questioned how it affected Mr. Kortright’s neighbors as his boundaries change and get closer to their residences?
Mr. Cordisco stated that they have complied with all of the set back requirements and have conducted the noise and visual analysis to look at potential impacts to offsite areas.
Mr. Medenbach also noted that they had submitted a petition from 19 immediate surrounding neighbors who were in favor of keeping the mind in that area and in favor of the expansion.
Mr. Cordisco noted that they expect the DEC to deem their application complete in the near future. Hopefully this will be resolved before the June PB meeting. The DEC is Lead Agency and part of Coordinated review, they haven’t conducted SEQRA yet—they haven’t made a determination of significance yet. Until they give this project a Negative Declaration or a Positive Declaration, any other involved agency is kind of caught in limbo because the DEC is bound by the SEQRA Determination. He would be comfortable with the Board closing the Public Hearing, but then the clock would start ticking and if they ran into a problem with waiting for DEC to give a determination of significance, the applicant would waive the time frame constraints, or the Board could leave the Public Hearing open.
The Board discussed the SEQRA time frames and if and when they should submit a comment letter to the DEC.
The Board was leaning towards closing the Public Hearing, so Mr. Cordisco stated that if it became an issue, they would waive the 62 day requirement for making a decision after the Public Hearing was closed.
Mrs. Carney motioned to close the Public Hearing. Mr. Gaydos seconded the motion. All members present in favor.
Mr. Medenbach noted that they would come back when they received their permit from the state.
T/ROCHESTER Page 7
MINUTES OF MEETING May 16, 2006
ZBA ADVISORY REQUEST
PETER & KYRA GREWELING– 222 Towpath Road, Area Variance for a two story addition to include attached garage, 7’ 6” from corner of garage to rear property line, 77.1-3- 24.1, R-1 District
Mr. & Mrs. Greweling were present on behalf of their application along with their Architect, Rob Dupont.
Mr. Dupont explained that the applicants had a small house of 1,200 square feet on 1 acre of property in an R-1 District. They wanted to build a 2 car garage addition with the second story being the master bedroom. There is an existing attached single car garage that was built in the early 1990s that already does exceed the rear yard setback. They will demolish that and build the addition which they are requesting the area variance for. It would be about 7’6” from the property line and they would need a +/-33’ area variance to construct this addition.
Mr. Dupont further explained that part of their hardship was that this is where the existing blacktop driveway is, so to move the garage to another location would be very costly and there is about a 30’ rise from Tow Path Road to where the addition is planned and this is the only feasible spot to add on. There are 2 problems on the front of the house. The grade is lower and that is where the septic is.
Mrs. Greweling noted that they have spoken with their neighbor who lives behind them and they are in favor of the request.
Mr. Ricks noted that this is very important and they should get a letter of favor from them.
Mr. Johannessen questioned if they were increasing the number of bedrooms because that would require Health Dept. involvement.
Mr. Dupont stated that they were changing the layout of the rooms and keeping the number of bedrooms status quo.
The Chairman and the Board agreed that this was a substantial request, but being that it is so isolated, it kind of minimizes that.
Mr. Tapper motioned to give a favorable advisory for this area variance request. Mr. Striano seconded the motion.
Vote:
Fornal: Yes O’Halloran: Attendance not required
Carney: Yes Ricks: Yes
Tapper: Yes Gaydos: Yes
Striano: Yes Kawalchuk: Yes
T/ROCHESTER Page 8
MINUTES OF MEETING May 16, 2006
PRE-APPLICATION REQUEST
TOM POWERS C/O JEFF FREER – Site Plan Approval for 10,000 sf of retail/ professional space to be separated from the NAPA Auto Parts parcel, Route 209, Tax Map#76.2-2- 6.7, ‘B’District
Mr. Ricks recused himself from this application as he felt that he had a personal interest in a nearby property.
Mr. Freer was present on behalf of this application and explained that he was interested in putting a 10,000 square feet retail space on +/-3 acres adjacent to Napa on the South side and across from Kelder’s Farm on Route 209. If Mr. Freer gets a good feeling from the Board at this meeting he would like to move forward with splitting this parcel from the Napa parcel. It is currently 1 piece.
The Board reviewed the preliminary plan that Mr. Freer submitted and there was some confusion because it displayed Napa Auto Parts on the Site Plan as well.
Mr. Freer noted that he was interested in making this area a central location and talking to neighboring businesses about making a central type of parking lot to try and connect everything. He is looking to make several rental spaces being retail/ professional spaces.
Mr. Johannessen questioned if the swale existed on the site plan.
Mr. Gaydos answered that there was a minor swale in that location.
Mr. Freer noted that Napa was existing and he wasn’t proposing anything for that location.
Some Board members felt that this may make for a tough turn if these properties were separated.
Some Board members discussed the functionality of the proposed property line and the parking lot.
Mrs. Carney urged the Board to focus more on Mr. Freer’s request and not Napa. Mr. Freer was here to get the Board’s feelings on the proposed retail/ professional space.
The Board agreed that the type of business and the location being proposed was very feasible.
Mr. Freer mentioned that he was interested in putting in stores and services that would be helpful to the Town.
Mr. Tapper questioned if Alternate, Mr. O’Halloran would be called to sit in on the review process for this application as Mr. Ricks has abstained ?
Chairman Fornal replied that no, Mr. O’Halloran would not be requested to sit in on the review process for this application.
Mr. Tapper questioned why.
T/ROCHESTER Page 9
MINUTES OF MEETING May 16, 2006
PRE-APPLICATION REQUEST
TOM POWERS C/O JEFF FREER(cont’d): Site Plan Approval for 10,000 sf of retail/ professional space
Chairman Fornal noted that there would be enough members and they would have a quorum, so the alternate would not be requested.
NEW APPLICATION PRESENTATION
WAYNE KELDER– subdivision approval for boundary line adjustment between Kelder, Aguis, & Descours, Mill Road, Tax Map #s 68.4-4-22.2, 76.2-1-27.1, & 76.2-1-26.1, R-2 District
Mr. Kelder was present along with Mrs. Descours and Mr. Barry Medenbach who was representing the applicant at this meeting.
Mrs. Descours explained that her and her sister Mrs. Aguis owned property next to each other and Mr. Kelder owned property in between and they were just kind of swapping so that she and her sister were together and Mr. Kelder was on the other side.
The Board viewed the map and Mr. Medenbach explained into further detail what was going on. Lot 1 is technically going to be made part of Lands of Elizabeth and Wayne Kelder at the top of the map. Mr. Kelder’s property is essentially land locked, with the exception of retaining a right-of-way over what is listed as lots 2 and 3 on this map. Mr. Kelder wants the right-of-way to the property and Mrs. Descours and Mrs. Aguis don’t really want Mr. Kelder building a road or selling the land and having someone put a driveway in there and using that, so they are all making a swap. The swap will be such that Mr. Kelder will relinquish his rights to lots 2 and 3 to Mrs. Descours and Mrs. Aguis in exchange they are going to give him lot 1 to be made part of Lands of Wayne and Elizabeth Kelder. Lot 2 will be made part of lands of Aguis. Lot 3 will be made part of Descours and Lot 4 is going from Descours to Aguis. Its really just reconfiguring the lots. Mr. Medenbach’s office did not put this map together, but he would mark up revisions that should be added to it to give to Mrs. Descours for her Surveyor.
Mrs. Carney motioned for an uncoordinated review under SEQRA for an Unlisted Action. Mr. Gaydos seconded the motion. No involved agencies would be necessary.
Vote:
Fornal: Yes O’Halloran: Attendance not required
Carney: Yes Ricks: Yes
Tapper: Yes Gaydos: Yes
Striano: Yes Kawalchuk: Yes
Mrs. Carney motioned to set the Public Hearing for June. Seconded by Mr. Striano.
Vote:
Fornal: Yes O’Halloran: Attendance not required
Carney: Yes Ricks: Yes
Tapper: Yes Gaydos: Yes
Striano: Yes Kawalchuk: Yes
T/ROCHESTER Page 10
MINUTES OF MEETING May 16, 2006
NEW APPLICATION PRESENTATION
KEVIN MAHONEY, C/O JOHN DIPPEL- Subdivision Approval for 2 lots in the Queensmont Subdivision on Cedar Drive, Tax Map #68.1-4-5, ‘A’ District
Robert Hagopian was present on behalf of Mr. Mahoney’s request to subdivide a +/-5 acre piece of property in the Queensmont Subdivision into 2 parcels. Lot 5.1 has a house and lot 5.2 is vacant.
Mr. Hagopian noted that he has been hired to design the septic for the vacant parcel. This is in front of the Board because it is a change to a major realty subdivision (Queensmont). He noted that the layout of the property was taken into consideration for the layout of the lots and the house site. The Highway Superintendent had come out and given his okay for the location of this second driveway. The Board has been issued this letter.
The Board reviewed Chazen’s review letter of May 12, 2006.
Mr. Hagopian was only given the review letter before he came to the meeting. He was aware that the applicant had been issued a copy of the review along with Mr. Dippel, the surveyor who prepared this map. He would note the designated areas of surrounding septics and wells within 200’.
The Board discussed letters received from neighbors who lived in the Queensmont subdivision against this re-subdivision of this lot. The Board recalled someone who came in last year to subdivide their lot in this subdivision. Marvin and Gail Ellis. They originally subdivided this for a family member, so the neighbors had no problem with it, but they do not agree with this subdivision because it is just for making a profit.
The Board noted that there was nothing in the deed or on the map that said that any of these lots couldn’t be further subdivided. The deed stated that if someone was going to further subdivide that they would need Planning Board approval. The Board discussed the layout of the subdivision.
Mr. Johannessen questioned if there was a cliff on this property. The topography would indicate this.
Mr. Hagopian noted that the topography was accurate.
Mr. Johannessen questioned if this was a safety issue.
Mr. Hagopian said that it was not.
Mrs. Carney motioned for an Unlisted Action and an uncoordinated review under SEQRA. Chairman Fornal seconded the motion.
Vote:
Fornal: Yes O’Halloran: Attendance not required
Carney: Yes Ricks: Yes
Tapper: Yes Gaydos: Yes
Striano: Yes Kawalchuk: Yes
The Board wanted to see further information which was requested in Chazen’s review letter prior to setting the public hearing.
T/ROCHESTER Page 11
MINUTES OF MEETING May 16, 2006
NEW APPLICATION PRESENTATION
ANTHONY RUSOLO C/O GERAL RUSOLO– Subdivision approval for 3 lots, Granite Road & Project 32 Road, Tax Map# 76.4-2-11, R-1 District
Mr. Gerald Rusolo was present on behalf of this application.
The Board reviewed this map and discussed the situation. Mr. Gerald Rusolo had just came in to rectify a situation where six lots had been split up in 1996 without prior Planning Board approval. Now Mr. Gerald Rusolo was coming in to subdivide lot # 6 in the original subdivision that they were looking to subdivide into 3 lots being lot 1 with +/-9.926 acres, lot 2 with +/-4.645 acres and lot 3 with +/-4 acres.
Mrs. Carney wasn’t sure if these lots should be renamed to follow the subdivision numbers 1-6 of the original plat (to be known as 6, 7, & 8 rather than 1, 2, & 3) to be more of a continuation?
Some members felt that this was new, so 1, 2, & 3 would be fine, but it should at least reference the filed map of the original 6 lots.
Mr. Gerald Rusolo stated that the Health Dept. has come out to do Perc Tests on each of these lots.
Mrs. Carney explained that Mr. Rusolo would need to show house sites to show that there were buildable sites.
The Board reviewed Mr. Rusolo’s EAF and gave the following instructions and noted that these would be sent to him in a letter:
A — Site Description
2 – Show the approximate acreage breakdown for the applicable categories (e.g. how much acreage will be used for driveways, houses, patios, outbuildings, etc.); the total for all categories should be 18.571 acres.
3 – Provide list the soil types that exist on site (reference the source used in determining on-site soil types).
4a – Provide depth to bedrock (reference the source used in determining the depth to bedrock).
5 – Provide more detailed project site slope information.
8 – Provide depth to water table (reference the source used in determining depth to water table).
9 – Provide information (reference the source used in determining aquifer information).
11 – Provide reference source for determining no threatening or endangered species exist on project site.
12 – Describe the unique/unusual land form (Stony Kill) on project site.
15a – Provide name of stream and of River to which it is tributary.
16 – Provide information.
18 – Provide a Yes or No if project site is in an Agricultural District
19 – Need to check the NO box as there are no Critical Environmental Areas in Rochester township.
B – Project Description
1a,b,c,g – Need more specific information (subtracting disturbed areas, areas for buildings, driveways, septic fields) with totals adding up to 18.571 acres; estimated number of vehicle trips for each residence.
T/ROCHESTER Page 12
MINUTES OF MEETING May 16, 2006
NEW APPLICATION PRESENTATION
ANTHONY RUSOLO C/O GERAL RUSOLO(cont’d): Subdivision approval for 3 lots
1i – List dimension of largest proposed structure (e.g. 35’Hx40’Wx70’L).
4 – Provide a number (N/A not acceptable).
9 – Provide estimated number of jobs during construction.
15 – Verify that project site does not reside in 100 flood plain (reference source for verification).
22 – Indicate approximate water yield in gals/minute.
23 – Indicate total water usage in gals/per day (reference the source used in determining anticipated water usage; e.g. UCHD).
25 – Approvals Required: Circle Town Planning Board and enter Subdivision Approval under TYPE heading; County Health Department is correct w/Septic System under TYPE; Other Local Agencies should have Highway Department Driveway Permit under TYPE.
C – Zoning and Planning Information
3 – Supply information; N/A is not acceptable.
4 – There is no proposed zoning change for site; N/A is acceptable answer.
7 – N/A not acceptable; Residential is the predominant land use and R-1 is the predominant zoning classification.
11 – The answer is Yes.
11a – The answer is Yes.
The Board advised that he should submit these changes to his surveyor. They also gave Mr. Rusolo a set of the Subdivision Checklist items again. They also instructed him to give these to his surveyor as these items needed to be addressed and resubmitted to the Board to get on the next agenda.
ACTION ON MINUTES OF MEETING
Mr. Gaydos motioned to accept the minutes of April 18, 2006. Mrs. Carney seconded the motion. All members present in favor.
OTHER MATTERS
Mr. Ricks questioned if it was appropriate to recuse himself on that Pre-Application for the retail space for Jeff Freer as he holds the mortgage for a nearby property. He felt that he had a big interest in the project.
Chairman Fornal didn’t believe it was necessary in regards to being ethical. He didn’t believe that Mr. Ricks had any financial interest in that project.
Mr. Gaydos felt that if they split the property, then Mr. Ricks wouldn’t be bounding and he shouldn’t recuse himself.
Mrs. Carney felt that he should.
The Chairman felt that in terms of the code, he would have to have financial gain for a reason to recuse himself.
T/ROCHESTER Page 13
MINUTES OF MEETING May 16, 2006
Mr. Ricks felt that sometimes bounding owners do have interests one way or the other.
Mr. Tapper felt that if he came out strong against it for some reason it could look badly and end up in court.
TRAINING – Ulster County Planning Board Training on PB overview April 27, 2006
NYS Law mandates that all subdivisions over 4 parcels MUST employ underground utilities
The 62 day countdown only starts AFTER an application is deemed complete; an application is not complete until SEQR is complete…Meaning, most of the public hearings held by the Planning Board have not met legal mustard! Often times the PB has held off on positive/negative declaration until after the public hearing was held in order to see if any relevant info would come out. That seems the common sense approach, but as we found out, by doing that the public hearing is not considered “official” and therefore could not withstand legal challenge. When applied to subdivisions it isn’t such a problem as there is a provision for holding a public hearing on the final plat (a procedure not used by this board). However, when done that way for any other application there could be problems.
Our PB has never followed up with UCPB Final Action reports.
All PB decisions should be accompanied by a FINDING which states the reasons why a decision was made and why the conditions imposed were deemed necessary. Much easier way to check out what happened on any application ten or twenty years down the road; just one sheet of paper to read rather than the extensive notes.
While we had heard that minutes of meetings should be available in draft form one week after a meeting, it was reaffirmed that two weeks is the time frame. We will operate on the two week time frame for minutes requested via FOIL.
The PB may not be permitted to demand reconfiguration of lot(s); one attorney said absolutely not; the other felt the PB could under lot configuration consideration. However, since lot configuration considerations are not spelled out in local code, I doubt our PB has authority to demand reconfiguration of a lot unless it involves the health or safety of the public.
A majority vote by the PB is required for any advisory issued; no more segmented commentary (e.g., So-and-so said this, this one said that…etc etc)
I inquired if a Planning Board was obligated to identify and mitigate impacts associated with every application and especially for Special Use Permits. The response was an unequivocal YES!
The board needs to change its procedures in respect to the above mentioned points. We will need to come up with a “boiler plate” condition for assuring that underground utilities will be required for all subdivisions over 4 lots. We need to determine what sort of documentation will be needed for satisfying Final Approval.
We should do our declarations of significance prior to Public Hearings except for subdivisions (if a final plat public hearing will be convened via mutual consent). Jan assures that we could always rescind a declaration of negative significance should any problem come to light during public comment.
We should begin to issue Final Action Reports to UCPB where applicable in order to keep the County informed as to what actions we have taken.
T/ROCHESTER Page 14
MINUTES OF MEETING May 16, 2006
A Findings document should be incorporated into the files for every decision made by PB. This will merge the facts ascertained during the application process with the reasoning of the board as to why it made its decision. This should be the Chairman’s responsibility.
Minutes of meetings will not be available for FOIL requests until two weeks have passed.
The PB needs to keep in mind that identifying and mitigating impacts on adjacent properties is an obligation to assure orderly and harmonious development; thereby assuring the property rights of all. We should not be so timid about demanding mitigation.
Mr. Gaydos was not aware that it was a NYS Law about underground utilities for subdivisions over 4 parcels. He felt that Central Hudson called the shots on this.
Mrs. Carney felt that the law should be sited—maybe Mr. Johannessen could find it and if it is applicable, add it to the maps.
The Chairman questioned if there was a road that was 4,000 feet long—what happened if someone bought a lot further down the road—how was that person going to get electric to that lot—it should be the developers responsibility.
Mr. Gaydos noted that it would be the developer’s responsibility and it may run with the road.
Mr. Ricks said that he would look into this. He would call Central Hudson and learn the procedures and their formulas. He knows that the developer has to lay the money out—like a deposit and they get their money back after they sell a lot and install the electric. He would request this information from Central Hudson.
Mr. Johannessen advised to get the Attorney’s position on the requirement of giving a project a determination of significance prior to holding a Public Hearing. He noted that this is typically a law that is not followed because it doesn’t make a lot of sense. He would also try and find some more information out on this.
In regards to stamping un approved minutes “Draft”, Mr. Tapper advised stamping every page “Draft”, not just the front cover.
The Chairman noted that the Board should give a formal advisory for Chapter 22 of the Historic Preservation Law.
T/ROCHESTER Page 15
MINUTES OF MEETING May 16, 2006
Mr. Ricks motioned to give a negative advisory for the revision of Chapter 22 Historic Preservation Law as it was written. Seconded by Mr. Gaydos.
Discussion:
Chairman Fornal felt that by doing a sewer district in the Hamlet of Accord was the only way that we were going to get sewer and water in there and this law was the way to do it. This has been an issue for a long time.
Some Board members felt that this could still be accomplished with revisions to the law.
Vote:
Fornal: No O’Halloran: Attendance not required
Carney: Yes Ricks: Yes
Tapper: Yes Gaydos: Yes
Striano: Yes Kawalchuk: Yes
Mr. Tapper noted that the reason that they gave every person’s view on these past advisories and not just a general “in favor” or “not in favor” was because they wanted to give some sort of reason to accompany the vote.
In regards to mitigating potential impacts, the Chairman felt that the Board shouldn’t be timid about demanding screening to minimize potential impacts.
Mrs. Carney didn’t feel the PB could require things that were not required in the Code.
The Chairman believed that things like this were well within the PB’s authority.
Mrs. Carney felt that the Board could be arbitrary on the number of trees as the Board doesn’t have any standards to go by.
Mr. Kawalchuk understood from the training that the Board needed to identify whether or not it was something that needed to be mitigated, not just mitigate something that people come up with because they come up with, but the board has to agree that something is an impact.
Mr. Ricks noted that houses are exempt from blocking people’s views, but as soon as something is in front of the Planning Board, that is where the views come from. He didn’t believe that one person owned someone else’s view.
Mr. Kawalchuk believed that the biggest thing that he got from the training was that what ever the Planning Board was going to require, it better be in the Zoning Law and it better be even for all.
VALETUTTI ROAD MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
The Chairman noted that he noticed some problems in Mr. Valetutti’s RMA,(2 F) but he would put this to the Town Attorney’s attention.
Mr. Ricks believed that Road Maintenance Agreements in general are lacking and should be looked into.
T/ROCHESTER Page 16
MINUTES OF MEETING May 16, 2006
ALTERNATE POSITION
Mr. Tapper felt that if someone recuses themselves for an entire application, that this is when the Alternate should be called in.
The Chairman stated that the law doesn’t say that you have to, but that you could call the Alternate in. He felt that the Alternate was going to be called in only when a Quorum wasn’t present.
MAY 18TH ULSTER COUNTY PLANNING BOARD OPEN SPACE TRAINING
Mr. Striano wanted to know why the May 18th County Training wasn’t going to be deemed a training by the Chairman? It states that it fulfills 2.5 hours of training requirements for PB and ZBA members.
The Chairman stated that he was going to schedule a training for the 26th of June.
Mr. Gaydos stated that he would be on vacation at that time.
The Chairman stated that the County felt it was considered a training and he didn’t. He urged everyone to go as he felt it was valuable.
Mr. Gaydos and Mr. Striano couldn’t figure out how this was not considered a training. ZBA members get credited for this.
Mr. Fornal noted that he had different standards for trainings.
Mr. Fornal corrected himself and noted that the training that he was organizing was on the 27th, not the 26th—but that training would be credited.
Mr. Gaydos noted that the County puts these seminars on for Town Planning and Zoning members to get their trainings in. he didn’t think it was right that Chairman Fornal could sit there and say what is training and what isn’t.
The Chairman stated that Mr. Gaydos would have to change the code then.
Mr. Tapper questioned if Chairman Fornal felt that this training wasn’t relevant.
The Chairman felt that it was, but he wasn’t sure that they would have Open Space and farmland protection in there new comprehensive plan.
Mr. Tapper stated that his anniversary was on the 26th and he wouldn’t be able to attend Chairman Fornal’s training.
Mr. Gaydos thought that it was better to let members get their training in when it was convenient. Most members have families and jobs. Its an inconvenience in the summer time for Mr. Gaydos to go to trainings.
T/ROCHESTER Page 17
MINUTES OF MEETING May 16, 2006
The Chairman noted that he felt other trainings would be more pertinent… it would be on the 27th of June. He urges everyone to go to the Open Space training, he was planning on attending and wouldn’t be given a training credit either. It is very informative and people should go, you just won’t get credit for it.
Members didn’t feel this was right as the County was specifically holding this for members to fulfill training credits.
Mr. Gaydos didn’t see what power Chairman Fornal had over this. He could see the Town Board dictating these trainings, but not Chairman Fornal.
Chairman Fornal told him that this would be the process.
The Chairman noted that the Code stated that it was at his discretion what to consider a training.
The Members were adamant about this training being a credited training because this is why the County was holding it.
The Chairman felt that maybe other members had a different opinion about the level of County trainings. He has attended quite a few of them and found them lacking.
Mrs. Carney questioned if the Code stated specifically that Ulster County trainings or NYS Association of Towns would be considered trainings?
The Chairman stated that the Code noted “not withstanding the Chairpersons discretion”. He felt that the last County Training of April 27th was fine because they had 2 Attorneys from the Dept. of State to run the training. He doesn’t think the County trainings were valuable. One training would be supplied by the Town.
Mr. Tapper questioned what would happen if he couldn’t attend this?
Chairman Fornal replied that there was one on April 27th at the County.
Mr. Striano felt that the Board Members were here as representatives of the community who volunteer their time and they take a lot flack because of it and he’s reading this and its saying that it should count as a training and the Chairman is telling him, ‘no it doesn’t’. That doesn’t seem right.
As Mr. Gaydos got up to exit the meeting, Mr. Tapper motioned to adjourn the meeting and Mr. Striano seconded the motion. All members present in favor.
Because there was no further business to discuss, at 10pm the Chairman adjourned the meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
Rebecca Paddock Stange
Secretary