MINUTES OF JULY 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: Frank Striano, Sr. Shane Ricks David O’Halloran, Alternate(not required to attend)
Nadine D. Carney Anthony Kawalchuk
Steven L. Fornal, Chairman
Melvyn I. Tapper, Vice Chair
Also present at the meeting were Town Planner, Jan Johannessenn, from The Chazen Companies and Planning Board Liaison, Alex Miller.
Pledge to the Flag.
PUBLIC HEARING
ANTHONY RUSOLO, c/o Gerald Rusolo– subdivision approval for 3 lots, Granite Road &Project 32 Road, Tax Map# 76.4-2-11, R-1 District
At 7:00PM Mr. & Mrs. Anthony Rusolo were asked to come forward for their Public Hearing.
The Chairman explained that the application was to split 3 lots out of lot #6 of an existing subdivision. He noted that Ulster County Health Dept. approval has been obtained for each of the 3 lots and the requested notations were added to the map.
Chairman Fornal opened the hearing up for public comment. There was none.
At 7:05 Mr. Tapper motioned to close the Public Hearing. Motion seconded by Mr. Gaydos.
Vote:
Fornal: Yes Ricks: Yes
Tapper: Yes Carney: Yes
Striano: Absent Kawalchuk: Absent
O’Halloran: Not requested to attend Gaydos: Yes
At this time the Planning Board went through part 2 of the EAF as drafted by the Secretary.
5. Will Proposed Action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity?
Proposed Action will allow residential uses in areas without water and/or sewer services. Yes, Small to moderate impact.
19. Will Proposed Action affect the character of the existing community?
Examples that would apply to column 2:
Proposed Action will cause a change in the density of land use. Yes, Small to moderate impact.
T/ROCHESTER Page 2
MINUTES OF MEETING July 18, 2006
PUBLIC HEARING
ANTHONY RUSOLO, c/o Gerald Rusolo(cont’d): subdivision approval for 3 lots
Mrs. Carney questioned checking these two items small to moderate when last month there was a big discussion on checking items as Potentially Large Impacts if they met on of the examples, which these two items do.
The Planner agreed that they should be checked as Potentially Large Impacts.
Mrs. Carney agreed that the actual impacts here weren’t large, but for consistency purposes, she wanted the Board to decide if they were going to do these on a case by case basis or go by the same procedure for every project?
The Board agreed that they should be changed from Small to Moderate to Potentially Large. The Board revised Part 2 of the EAF to reflect these changes.
Mr. Johannessen explained that the Board should briefly identify the items checked as Potentially Large Impacts in Part 3 of the EAF.
Mr. Gaydos motioned for a Negative Declaration, seconded by Chairman Fornal.
Vote:
Fornal: Yes Ricks: Yes
Tapper: Yes Carney: Yes
Striano: Absent Kawalchuk: Absent
O’Halloran: Not requested to attend Gaydos: Yes
Mr. Johannessen questioned if this subdivision was in an Agricultural District because he noticed the “Right to Farm note” on the map.
The Board explained that the “Right to Farm note” gets put on every map. Its in the Subdivision Regs.
Mrs. Carney questioned if the Negative Declaration needed to be published and then wait for comments?
Mr. Johannessen explained that this was an uncoordinated review, so it didn’t need to be published.
Mrs. Carney noted that because this is part of an existing major realty subdivision were there any rec fees for these lots?
The Secretary noted that they had paid their original Recreation Fees for the 6 lot subdivision.
Mr. Johannessen felt that this was a separate subdivision and it was 3 lots so they would not be required.
Mr. Ricks motioned for Conditional Preliminary Approval. Seconded by Mr. Tapper.
Vote:
Fornal: Yes Ricks: Yes
Tapper: Yes Carney: Yes
Striano: Absent Kawalchuk: Absent
O’Halloran: Not requested to attend Gaydos: Yes
T/ROCHESTER Page 3
MINUTES OF MEETING July 18, 2006
PUBLIC HEARING
ANTHONY RUSOLO, c/o Gerald Rusolo(cont’d): subdivision approval for 3 lots
Mr. Ricks motioned for Conditional Final Approval with the condition that the maps are filed with the County Clerk and three copies are returned to the Town. Mr. Tapper seconded the motion.
Vote:
Fornal: Yes Ricks: Yes
Tapper: Yes Carney: Yes
Striano: Absent Kawalchuk: Absent
O’Halloran: Not requested to attend Gaydos: 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. Kortright was present along with his Attorney, Dominic Cordisko and Ed Sprague from Medenbach & Eggers.
Chairman Fornal explained that this application has received of Negative Declaration from the DEC along with a Notice of Complete Application. He then explained that the Board sent letter dated July 18, 2006 to the DEC questioning aspects of the noise study. The DEC sent that letter to Medenbach & Eggers in search of a response, and Medenbach & Eggers sent it to H2H who prepared the noise study. H2H responded to the Chairman via email and basically told the Board not to concentrate on offsite impact, but rather on sight impact. The Chairman responded that off sight impact was the Board’s responsibility. He asked them to supply other data to support their position and they didn’t’ respond. He noted that the point is that it goes from basically 9.83 to 22 above, according to projective. The DEC says that 10 above their should be some mitigation measures. The Board didn’t get any response from the DEC or H2H other than H2H telling the Board not to look at the study. He was wondering if getting an extension from the applicant for the Board to make their decision in order to check into this further was appropriate.
Mr. Cordisco noted that the DEC sent out notices and invited public comment. The Board’s comment was in regard to the noise study which was addressed by the DEC who issued a Negative Declaration. He felt that at this point the notice wasn’t necessarily inviting comment on the Negative Declaration, it was inviting comment on whether or not the permit should be issued and whether or not the Town had any concerns as outlined in the Mine Land Reclamation Law where there is a process in regards to this notice that was sent out which invites comments regarding means of access, hours of operation, and whether or not there was any concerns over the Town wanting to enforce along side of the DEC for reclamation of the site.
Chairman Fornal noted that the Board sent their letter out prior to receiving the DEC’s Notice. This would have still been under SEQRA review. All the Board asked for in that letter was for the DEC guidelines to be applied. As it stands he asked the Board if they thought that another month would do any good? He was doubtful, and didn’t think that they would get anywhere anyway. He hoped the DEC would mitigate the noise issues brought up by the Town as it was their responsibility.
Mr. Cordisko agree that it was the DEC’s responsibility as they were Lead Agency. As the DEC is Lead Agency, the Planning Board was bound by the determination that the DEC already made.
T/ROCHESTER Page 4
MINUTES OF MEETING July 18, 2006
CONTINUED APPLICATION REVIEW
FRANK KORTRIGHT(cont’d): c/o Medenbach & Eggers, SUP for Expansion of Mine, 6 phases
The Chairman agreed. He questioned if the Board was prepared to give an approval for the Special Use Permit?
Mrs. Carney noted that she has reviewed the conditions as drafted by the Chairman and she had no problem with them and feels that they would apply.
Mr. Tapper was confused. Did the Board ever get a response from the DEC to their letter questioning the noise report?
Chairman Fornal explained that the DEC sent the letter to Medenbach & Eggers asking them to address it. Medenbach & Eggers forwarded the Board’s letter to H2H Associates who prepared the noise study. He wanted the Board to be aware that the DEC disallows the Board to taking Lead Agency because of DEC’s expertise and when the Board sends a question to them to be answered with their expertise, they wheel it off to the Applicant and the Board gets nothing from it. Just keep that in mind.
Mrs. Carney motioned for a Special Use Permit to be issued to Frank Kortright for his Expansion of Mine in 6 phases of +/-31 acres with the following conditions that were drafted by Chairman Fornal and dated July 18, 2006 and read into the record. Seconded by Mr. Gaydos.
Conditions:
Applicant shall comply with all NYSDEC permit conditions including hours and days of operation, dust suppression, noise mitigation, stormwater runoff and reclamation requirements
Applicant shall follow phasing according to the Phasing Plan prepared by Medenbach & Eggers, dated 15 April 2003 (Engineer’s Report)
Applicant shall submit manufacturer’s data sheets (or verified comparable information) for all proposed mining equipment to planning board secretary as condition of final approval
Applicant shall apply to the Town of Rochester Planning Board for renewal in advance of coterminous NYSDEC/SUP permit expiration (a minimum of six months prior is recommended)
Vote:
Fornal: Yes Ricks: Yes
Tapper: Yes Carney: Yes
Striano: Absent Kawalchuk: Absent
O’Halloran: Not requested to attend Gaydos: Yes
PRE-APPLICATION PRESENTATION
CHRISTOPHER KELDER– Special Use Permit for Mini Golf Course, Route 209, Tax Map #
76.2-2-35, ‘B’, R-1, & ‘F’ District
Mr. & Mrs. Kelder were present along with the designer of the mini golf course, Maria Breddleback.
Mr. Kelder explained that he and his wife own Kelder’s Field of Dreams at 5557 Route 209. It is a State Certified Agriculture District and is primarily a direct to the consumer agricultural fruit and vegetable farm. They grow crops on +/-200 acres, including, but not limited to hay, strawberries, corn, and flowers. Besides
T/ROCHESTER Page 5
MINUTES OF MEETING July 18, 2006
PRE-APPLICATION PRESENTATION
CHRISTOPHER KELDER(cont’d): Special Use Permit for Mini Golf Course
family, the employ up to 12 part time and full time seasonal employees. As farmers they are keeping many acres of working landscape active. One of the only ways to do this in the Rondout Valley is the direct to the consumer sales. In order to do this, farmers must offer something different. They have always put a big
emphasis on education. They educate many children as they come on tours and field trips because they realize that they are their next consumers and they would like them to realize where food comes from.
Their farm based educational mini golf is just an extension of what they’re already doing. He brought a drawing that outlines the mini golf course and it’s specifics.
Chairman Fornal noted that Mr. Kelder ran this project by Jerry Davis, CEO and he wasn’t really sure if it should be considered part of the existing farm use. Mr. Davis requested the advice of the Town Attorney. Mr. Kelder presented this as being part of his farm and quoting Ag Market Laws to support his case, however the Town Attorney felt that a Special Use Permit would be required as he believes this use to be classified as “Amusement for Profit”.
The Chairman can see both points of view. He asked why Mr. Kelder didn’t ask the Ag Market to give their opinion in the situation.
Mr. Kelder stated that he actually has. He doesn’t have anything in writing, just verbal conversation. They were out to the site last week and looked it over and certainly felt it is an integral part of marketing of fruits and vegetables, and if you look at the law, that makes it an Ag use. They also felt that it wouldn’t be unreasonable for a Town to ask for a simple permit process in order to do something like this, but the Ag Market can step in if they feel that the permit process was agregious and too costly in order for this application to happen. He was here tonight to see how simply they could do this to make everybody happy. He certainly appreciated the Board’s time. This is the first mini golf that the Ag Markets have ever seen and its all agriculture based—there are gardens going through it, chickens (enclosed in cages), there will be ducks… So, they are on the cutting edge and that is sometimes a challenging place to be.
Mrs. Carney questioned if this was part of the Ag Market’s basis—because there were animals involved?
Mr. Kelder replied that when you look at the law any on farm recreational activity can be done in an Ag district if it is going to enhance the marketing of agriculture products. They wanted to come out and make sure he wasn’t trying to put mini golf in the city of Kingston or anything…
Mr. Ricks questioned if anyone of the Board has walked the course? He did about a week ago. You come down one hole and there’s a lettuce garden and it has 5 different kinds of lettuce and its all labeled so people can see them all. Then there’s corn growing on another hole. Its just as much of an educational thing as people walk through it. Its not your typical mini golf course where they have fiber glass animals and all, its more of an actual thing with stuff planted and there’s a rabbit there too.
Mrs. Kelder felt that this was an extension of what they already did by educating children.
T/ROCHESTER Page 6
MINUTES OF MEETING July 18, 2006
PRE-APPLICATION PRESENTATION
CHRISTOPHER KELDER(cont’d): Special Use Permit for Mini Golf Course
Chairman Fornal noticed that he saw in the Ag Markets Law where the contribution to the production, preparation and marketing of crops. It does seem to fit, but the Board has gotten the ruling from the Town Attorney that a Special Use Permit is required.
Mr. Kelder noted that on their original approval for operating the business they are specifically approved for tours, petting farm, events, pick your own, hayrides, farm market…Its not like they are putting Disney in.
Mrs. Carney had a few concerns with the location being out in front of the barn. She realized that a lot of things were in front of their barn and a lot of things were behind it. She felt that it was very close to Route 209 and was a very big visual impact. The Board is constantly hearing about visual impacts on Route 209, so she felt that this would be something that would have to be addressed.
Mr. Ricks stated that all you would see is plants.
Mrs. Carney noted that you see a lot more than plants right now when you drive by.
Mr. Ricks indicated that was because it was just built. Its just starting to grow. He didn’t think the Board could compare this with other visual impacts they have been looking at lately.
Mr. Kelder wanted to work with the Board. They thought that they were completely within their bounds of doing it. If they were not, that is why they are hear now, they just don’t feel like it should be an exhaustive, expensive process and Ag and Markets doesn’t either.
Mr. Johannessen was also familiar with the Ag and Markets Law. He was dealing with a very similar application in another Town and what Mr. Kelder was stating was absolutely correct. He had no doubt that Ag and Markets would step in and off their advice.
Mrs. Carney questioned if Mr. Kelder had been given a copy of the list for the requirements for site plan requirements?
Mr. Kelder acknowledged having received it.
Mrs. Carney questioned if Mr. Kelder was asking for waivers from any of those?
Mr. Kelder felt that it should be as simplified as possible.
Chairman Fornal instructed the applicant to put that in writing to the Board.
Mrs. Carney reinforced that it was the applicant’s responsibility to request waivers if any are desired.
Mr. Kelder wanted a feeling from the Board on what they would be willing to grant waivers to?
The Chairman noted that he sees this will need a Public Hearing. That is required. Because this is a pre-app, the applicant will need to file an actual Special Use Permit application and come back in front of the Board to formally begin the process. This will be about 3 months, and that’s as long as everything goes perfectly.
T/ROCHESTER Page 7
MINUTES OF MEETING July 18, 2006
PRE-APPLICATION PRESENTATION
CHRISTOPHER KELDER(cont’d): Special Use Permit for Mini Golf Course
Mr. Johannessen noted that he had some guidelines that Ag and Markets has produced on what’s appropriate and its very useful. It kind of gives you an idea of what a site plan checklist should entail in dealing with this type of application. They don’t want you to require things like topography because that is an expensive process. He felt it was a very useful tool.
The Board viewed the original site plan that has Planning Board approval for the Farm Market and amenities.
Mr. Kelder invited the Board to come and conduct site visits.
Mr. Johannessen felt that this might be exempt from SEQRA. He’d have to check into it.
Mrs. Carney suggested getting Mr. Kelder the appropriate information that he needed to provide (if there were different guidelines for him through Ag and Market Laws), so that they could move forward and set the Public Hearing at the next meeting when he formally applies.
DISCUSSION
LARRAINE CALIRI & MARK FERRARI– Kirby Lane off of Alligerville Road
Mrs. Caliri, Mr. Ferrari, and Mrs. Caliri’s surveyor, Bruce La Monda were present on behalf of this discussion.
This application was in front of the Board and received Final Approval in September of 2005. They had applied for a 2 lot subdivision and 2 boundary line adjustments.
Ms. Caliri explained that basically there is a discrepancy. Mr. La Monda had written the description for this project as per what the Planning Board approved. He doesn’t want to change anything without speaking to the Planning Board.
Mr. La Monda explained that there wasn’t any discrepancy. He wrote a description based on what the Board approved. Mr. Ferrari now wants to make it 2 parcels and want the description to be for 2 parcels. That’s fine with him, as long as its fine with the Board. The Board approved one parcel.
Mr. Ferarri noted that part of the original discussion was that Health Dept. approval would not be needed on the land that Mr. Ferrari would be adjoining to his property which already had houses on them. In fact based on the Planning Board’s discussion, they made the applicant’s move the road, and which made lot B useless and not useable to anyone.
The Secretary clarified that the County Hwy. Dept. made them change their road, not the Planning Board.
Mr. Ferrari was under the impression that the Board was approving lot ‘A’ connected to lot 1 and lot ‘B’ connected to lot 2. These were originally 2 separate lots and he wanted to add land to each of them and keep them as 2 separate lots.
Mr. Ricks felt that was what the map showed. He recalled that was what the applicants had wanted.
T/ROCHESTER Page 8
MINUTES OF MEETING July 18, 2006
DISCUSSION
LARRAINE CALIRI & MARK FERRARI– Kirby Lane off of Alligerville Road
Mrs. Carney noted that there was no line of division down the center to represent these as 2 individual lots.
Mr. La Monda had a different concept of what was requested by his client, Ms. Caliri.
The Board tried to understand the map better. Through the 2 year review process for this application there were several revisions to this map because it was always confusing, and never quite clear to depict what the applicant wanted.
Mr. Ricks didn’t see any problems in changing what they wanted. Were they going to change the map and resubmit it?
Ms. Caliri thought the map was okay the way it was.
Mrs. Carney informed her that it wasn’t because the Board still didn’t understand what they wanted from looking at the map. It looks like Mr. Ferrari’s lots are all one piece on the map, and not like the 2 separate lots that he described.
Mr. La Monda noted that when he first started this that Mr. Ferarri didn’t even own the one lot. So, it was his assumption that he was doing one boundary line adjustment lot.
Mr. Ferrari noted that his sister’s name was on the property tax map, but he owned it.
Mr. La Monda now knows that Mr. Ferrari owns both lots and he understands what his intentions are (to have two separate lots). This wasn’t what he originally mapped, so he just wanted to know what the Board would require now.
Mr. Ferrari noted that he wanted to put the line on one side, so it would be owned by one of his 2 parcels.
Mr. Ricks didn’t see it as a problem. He told them again that they would need to make all the changes and bring it back in and the Board would approve it.
Mr. Ferrari felt that this was what the Board approved to begin with.
What is on the map isn’t what Mr. Ferrari wanted.
The maps would need to be revised and resubmitted and the Board would need to amend their decision and see the extent of review would need to happen. The Chairman felt that it would be able to just be amended as this was so minor and really just cleaning the map up.
T/ROCHESTER Page 9
MINUTES OF MEETING July 18, 2006
DISCUSSION
KEVIN MAHONEY– c/o Ken Treiling, 10 lots off of Lower Whitfield Road, Tax Map #68.4-4-4.12, R-2 District
Engineer, Ken Treiling, was present on behalf of Mr. Mahoney for his 10 lot subdivision off of Lower Whitfield Road.
Chairman Fornal explained that Mr. Mahoney’s project fell under the Moratorium as he didn’t meet the time frames for approvals, and because this was over 4 lots. Mr. Mahoney was prohibited to proceed without a variance from the Town Board, which he had recently received.
Mr. Treiling noted that he would be doing all new plans. He didn’t think it would be a new layout. According to Mr. Mahoney, they would be starting from the beginning as far as generating his own work was concerned. He can submit new plans for the 10 lot subdivision. It’s a relatively easy site. There are existing stone walls and tree lines that will be used as lot lines.
Mr. Johannessen noted that the EAF was on its second round of revisions. He noted that there were some wetland issues.
The Secretary noted that they held a Public Hearing and it was never closed as this was when all of the potential historic issues came up.
Chairman Fornal believed that there were wetland issues. He believed the designations/ locations were M21 and M22.
Mrs. Carney suggested that Mr. Treiling review the Town’s file by contacting the Secretary.
Mr. Johannessen noted that Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) had correspondence where they wanted additional information.
Mr. Treiling went to OPRHP’s website and this site is not within any State Listings.
Mr. Johannessen knew that, but noted that the Historic Elegibility was under consideration at this point. He noted that there was a Stormwater Management Plan that was already submitted that was not reviewed.
Mr. Treiling would look into this, but he didn’t believe there was anywhere on the site where there could be a wetland, but he would check into it.
T/ROCHESTER Page 10
MINUTES OF MEETING July 18, 2006
RE-APPLICATION PRESENTATION
VICTOR VANBORKULO– c/o Taconic Designs, 6 lot subdivision, Millbrook Lane, Tax Map #
76.002-2-6.411 R-2 District
Mr. Ricks recused himself as he owns a right-of-way that abuts this property.
Mr. Van Borkulo was present along with general contractor Kevin Carpenter, and Jonathan Cellas of Taconic Designs.
Mr. Cellas noted that there weren’t any changes since the last time. Their Conditional Preliminary Approval expired and they are just trying to get back to where they were so they could finish the process. They were waiting for Health Dept. review and they are just about done with that now.
Mr. Carpenter noted that he met with the Secretary about 3 days prior to it expiring. She had given him a list of everthing that needed to be done. Everything is done on the list accept for Health Dept. Approval. Alan Dumas, one of their principle engineers, left, so they are backed up. The Road has been approved from the Highway Superintendent, he just submitted the Road Maintenance Agreement. The road didn’t need to be named because its just an extension of Mill Brook Lane. Everything else is done.
Chairman Fornal noted that this application would procedurally have to start over as they exceeded their 2 90 day extensions for Conditional Preliminary Approval.
Mr. Cellas questioned if they could schedule the Public Hearing for the August meeting?
Chairman Fornal didn’t see why not, they already had Conditional Preliminary Approval, so anything that’s not obtained can be a condition again.
Mr. Gaydos motioned for an Unlisted Action under SEQRA. Seconded by Mr. Tapper. No discussion.
Vote:
Fornal: Yes Ricks: recuse
Tapper: Yes Carney: Yes
Striano: Absent Kawalchuk: Absent
O’Halloran: Not requested to attend Gaydos: Yes
Mr. Tapper motioned to declare Lead Agency with an uncoordinated review. Mrs. Carney seconded the motion. No discussion.
Vote:
Fornal: Yes Ricks: recuse
Tapper: Yes Carney: Yes
Striano: Absent Kawalchuk: Absent
O’Halloran: Not requested to attend Gaydos: Yes
T/ROCHESTER Page 11
MINUTES OF MEETING July 18, 2006
RE-APPLICATION PRESENTATION
VICTOR VANBORKULO– c/o Taconic Designs, 6 lot subdivision, Millbrook Lane
Mrs. Carney motioned to schedule the Preliminary Public Hearing for August. Seconded by Mr. Gaydos. No discussion.
Vote:
Fornal: Yes Ricks: recuse
Tapper: Yes Carney: Yes
Striano: Absent Kawalchuk: Absent
O’Halloran: Not requested to attend Gaydos: Yes
Mr. Johannessen noted that he would look over the new map and see that the Chazen comment letter of June 20, 2006 was fulfilled. He also noted that a letter should be circulated to involved agencies telling them that Conditional Preliminary Approval lapsed and the Board is now going through the process again and doing an uncoordinated review. He then instructed the applicant that they were still waiting for stormwater revisions.
NEW APPLICATION PRESENTATION
MOIRA FRANKLIN, c/o William Sitorovich-Site Plan Approval for 2 separate lots. 1st
lot proposed to have (1) 2,000 sf Retail Store. 2nd lot proposed to have (2) 2,000 sf Retail Stores, Route 209, Part of Tax Map #69.3-3-25, ‘B’ & R-1 District
Dan McCormack was present on behalf of Gerald T. O’Buckley surveying and engineer, David Rider, was also present on behalf of the application.
Mr. Rider noted that the project detailed 3 commercial retail/professional type structures on the 2 front lots. The parcel has been subdivided into 3 separate parcels and they are only proposing to utilize the front 2. The applicant has no plans for the rear parcel at this time. They are showing access through a common road way to get back to that third parcel for future use. There is a zoning line that shows most of lots 1 & 2 in the ‘B’ District and the third lot is residential.
Mrs. Carney thought that it was determined that all business districts were 600’ back from the center of the road.
Mr. Rider noted that the line he put on the map was 500’ back because he had to go out to the Building Dept. and scale one of the Zoning Maps to come up with the determination.
Mr. Ricks noted that there were a couple of zoning maps—it was a confusing situation.
Mrs. Carney believed that it was 600’ back. She wasn’t sure if it was from the center of Route 209 or the edge of the road.
Mr. Rider would show it from the centerline and check further into the case.
Chairman Fornal noted that in this case, the 600’ of Business District would take them past the proposed buildings which would be good.
T/ROCHESTER Page 12
MINUTES OF MEETING July 18, 2006
NEW APPLICATION PRESENTATION
MOIRA FRANKLIN (cont’d): c/o William Sitorovich-Site Plan Approval for 2 separate lots. 1st
lot proposed to have (1) 2,000 sf Retail Store. 2nd lot proposed to have (2) 2,000 sf Retail Stores
Mr. Rider noted that he was in receipt of Chazen’s review letter dated July 13, 2006 and had some questions. He had submitted this as 2 separate applications, now the planner wants 1 EAF?
Mr. Johannessen noted that he wanted it to be in 2 separate applications, but he wanted 1 EAF to address the whole impact.
Mrs. Carney questioned if the parking was just based on the square footage of these proposed retail stores?
Mr. Rider answered, yes, as he didn’t know what the exact use of the buildings would be at this point. They are trying to put together generalized plans so that they could sell the lots to someone who would like to build these types of facilities.
Mr. Tapper clarified that the road that is currently being built is a different piece of property?
Yes. It was a different owner.
Mr. Tapper questioned if they intended to clear cut the woods so people could see the business from Route 209?
Mr. Rider noted that they didn’t have any intentions to clear cut. They show a limit of disturbance on the plan that shows what they plan to clear. They weren’t sure what type of business this would be at this point. If a business went in there and needed to add a sign, they would have to come back to the Board to add it to the plan.
Mr. Johannessen felt that there had to be some sort of an idea as to what would go there as things are based upon the exact use. Things like parking. He needs to specify retail or professional. He felt he should propose a sign and whatever those business signs are going to say will be determined when it is purchased. This way they could just go to the Building Dept. and get a permit.
Mr. Ricks questioned what the limit was on Site Plan Approval or Special Use Permits if people don’t use them within a certain amount of time?
Mrs. Carney noted it was 1 year.
Mr. Johannessen noted that retail in the code is a permitted use with Site Plan Approval.
Mr. Rider was showing that each building was showing 2,000 sf retail space.
Mr. Rider felt that most of the questions in Chazen’s July 13, 2006 comment letter were easily answerable. He questioned of the information for utilities of septics and wells located within 200’ of the property?
Mr. Johannessen noted that the Planning Board adopted that as a requirement under their site plan checklist.
T/ROCHESTER Page 13
MINUTES OF MEETING July 18, 2006
NEW APPLICATION PRESENTATION
MOIRA FRANKLIN (cont’d): c/o William Sitorovich-Site Plan Approval for 2 separate lots. 1st
lot proposed to have (1) 2,000 sf Retail Store. 2nd lot proposed to have (2) 2,000 sf Retail Stores
Mr. Rider noted that this information would take some time to get. They would have to contact homeowners because they didn’t want to trespass.
Mrs. Carney questioned if the Board would consider waiving this requirement if the applicant wasn’t proposing any improvements within 200’ of their own property line?
Mr. Johannessen noted that if there aren’t septic fields within 200’ of the property lines they wouldn’t need to be shown, it’s the improvements that are within 200’ that would need to be shown. It could be approximate, but this was always something that came up at a Public Hearing.
Mr. Rider said that they would do what they could.
Mr. Johannessen requested that Mr. Rider call him so they could meet on the site to walk the property.
Mr. Rider had a question with comment letter #17. He wasn’t sure what Mr. Johannessen was looking for.
Mr. Johannessen noted that they needed to see a spot for handicap parking, ramps—and those type of details for the external plan.
Mr. Johannessen asked the Board if they wanted to see detailed architectural plans?
The Board noted that the site was heavily wooded. They would determine this when they had more information.
Mr. Rider noted that Mr. Johannessen suggested showing the reserve area in the area of disturbance. Technically you don’t want to disturb the reserve area, so that was why he didn’t include it.
Mr. Johannessen noted that the point it that some point it would be excavated. Its part of the requirements of the Stormwater Management design manual.
Mrs. Carney noted that this is something that they have done the opposite on before and is something else they need to be consistent with.
Mr. Johannessen noted that the applicant is over the threshold for disturbed areas, so its not going to trigger anything further. It is specified in the design manual. Mr. Johannessen noted that nothing further could be done without the new EAF.
Mrs. Carney reminded the applicant that all submissions should be in by August 2, 2006 to get on the next agenda.
T/ROCHESTER Page 14
MINUTES OF MEETING July 18, 2006
AQUARIUS STAR CORP– c/o Joseph Esposito, Site Plan Approval for 3 Unit Residential Building, Tax Map #77.1-2-42.12, R-1 District
Mr. David Rider, engineer, was present on behalf of this application. He explained that there is currently a mobile home on this property that will be replaced by a 4 bedroom 3 family apartment building. Its at 2900 Lucas Turnpike, part of the old Bank Brother’s property. (2 units will be 1 bedroom and 1 will be 2 bedrooms)
Mrs. Carney felt that the most important thing for this application would be the Public Hearing.
Mrs. Carney motioned for intent to be Lead Agency with a coordinated review. Seconded by Mr. Tapper. No discussion.
Fornal: Yes Ricks: Yes
Tapper: Yes Carney: Yes
Striano: Absent Kawalchuk: Absent
O’Halloran: Not requested to attend Gaydos: Yes
Mrs. Carney motioned to type the action as Unlisted for circulation purposes. Seconded by Chairman Fornal. No discussion.
Vote:
Fornal: Yes Ricks: Yes
Tapper: Yes Carney: Yes
Striano: Absent Kawalchuk: Absent
O’Halloran: Not requested to attend Gaydos: Yes
Chairman Fornal that Zoning says that for a Special Use Permit, primary access shall be a collector road.
Mrs. Carney felt that this meant the road that the driveway was coming off of.
Mrs. Carney had EAF comments. Under Planning and Zoning Information. Proposed Zoning—the Applicant is not proposing any zoning, so #4 & #5 would be N/A.
Mrs. Carney noted that they may need to leave the Public Hearing open because of the 30 day comment period under SEQRA for the involved agencies that are to be contacted. Did the applicant have any proposed architectural drawings?
Mr. Rider noted that they were being developed.
Mrs. Carney felt it would be good to submit those.
Mrs. Carney motioned to schedule the Public Hearing for August 15, 2006. Seconded by Mr. Ricks. No discussion.
Vote:
Fornal: Yes Ricks: Yes
Tapper: Yes Carney: Yes
Striano: Absent Kawalchuk: Absent
O’Halloran: Not requested to attend Gaydos: Yes
T/ROCHESTER Page 15
MINUTES OF MEETING July 18, 2006
ACTION ON MINUTES OF MEETING.
Mr. Gaydos motioned to accept the minutes of June 20, 2006. Seconded by Chairman Fornal. No discussion. All in favor.
OTHER MATTERS
Town of Olive Advisory Request for 2 lot subdivision off of Lower Sahler Mill Road bordering the Town of Rochester. Lot 1 is +/- 8 acres and lot 2 is +/-45 acres
Chairman Fornal noted that the Town of Olive has notified the Board that there is a 2 lot subdivision on the border of Olive and Rochester on Lower Sahler Mill Road. Because of the new requirement that they notify the bounding Town, they have contacted the Board.
The Board discussed it and wasn’t concerned. They would advise Olive that they had no comments.
DISCUSSION ON AMPLE SELF STORAGE APPEAL
Mr. Tapper stated that the Town Attorney reviewed all the records and advised the Town Board that he didn’t think it was feasible to seek an Appeal of the Court’s decision to grant Ample Self Storage their Special Use Permit. So, the Town Board wasn’t going to go forward with the appeal.
Mr. Tapper hoped to be able to speak at the next Town Board meeting. He is a little disappointed that they didn’t go along with the appeal. He realizes that the Town Attorney said it would cost $5,000.00 to do an appeal. He realized it’s a lot of money, however in the long run, we are spending a lot of money on the Master Plan. He agreed with that. It was time to upgrade things. But in the long run of things its obviously not going to fit into the master plan to have those buildings over there. This was one Judges opinion. If the Planning Board made mistakes in its decision Judges make mistakes. It’s appealed to the local appellate division. They make mistakes and it gets appealed to the NY State Board of Appeals. People make mistakes and they get corrected along the way. He was just disappointed that the Town Board didn’t go forward. They have absolutely nothing to lose except a few dollars. Obviously there were mistakes made in writing up the decision. Maybe another Judge would look at it differently.
Chairman Fornal thought that everybody really should read the Town Attorney’s memo. The biggest thing that came across is that the Planning Board didn’t get it into the record. Aside from the fact that the Judge maintains that its basically opinion. When they came up with the reasons to appeal, they were still too gray. Basically what the Town Attorney’s memo was saying was that if the Board wanted to discuss rural architecture, you had to make a case for it in the record. Even though the Town doesn’t have a definition, the point is if you can make a good enough case, for instance the surrounding buildings, or if a survey was done which in the review process, the evidence was gathered to put in the decision. That was something that was surprising. When the PB wanted to appeal and they tried to use lot coverage as a reason, that had to be in the original decision. This has to be stuff that the Board needs to be very conscious of. The Board needs to accumulate evidence.
Mr. Tapper stated that when the application first came in he said it was an overuse of the property. In Ample’s Attorney’s letters he states that Mr. Tapper stated that he was against it because he thought it was too much use of the property. And then he goes on to say that this was a thing that was discussed throughout the entire process.
T/ROCHESTER Page 16
MINUTES OF MEETING July 18, 2006
DISCUSSION ON AMPLE SELF STORAGE APPEAL (cont’d):
The Chairman noted that the definition of coverage in Zoning doesn’t include roads. Coverage is just buildings and structures.
Mr. Tapper noted that it doesn’t say it in the Density Control Schedule in the back.
Mrs. Carney and Chairman Fornal stated that it is under definitions.
Mrs. Carney included that the Board had the discussion about this in the beginning that it was actually less than the Maximum lot coverage as defined in the Code.
Chairman Fornal felt that this was a good point for the new code, because driveways and parking areas are uses of land, but unfortunately in the Code that the Town has, it is allowed.
Mrs. Carney said that another unfortunate thing is that the Board cannot consider what the Town is proposing for the new plan as something that helps the Board make decisions now. They only have a comprehensive plan that is on record to go by, not what the Town is talking about changing.
The Chairman hoped that when the Code did come before the Planning Board for consideration, that the PB would realize that when there are a lot of elements to be included in it, its not so that people can go nuts over it. Its so it can be covered in terms of a law suit. Omission of something in the Code isn’t good enough, it needs to say it one way or the other to back your case up.
Mr. Tapper noted that he would like to see the Business District line go further back than 600’ just for the purpose to leave a 200’ buffer from Route 209.
Chairman Fornal urged the Board again to read the memo from the Town Attorney. It was a real lesson and it says that the Board has to be very conscious of getting things into the record.
Mr. Ricks noted that one of the things they used to do before the Secretary worked here was that all the facts were listed on the decisions. He doesn’t know if they changed over the years. He also felt that maybe Chazen should follow applications that they review to the end by doing the decision. It seemed like they helped the Board through the whole process and then just left the decision to be drafted by the Secretary.
Mrs. Carney noted that the Board has the right to hire their own licensed professionals, but the Board had to keep in mind that the applicant has already hired a professional who is licensed in the field and they are supposed to do work up to a certain standard.
Chairman Fornal noted that an example would be tonight with H2H who did the noise study for Frank Kortright. They are geologists. If you go to the DEC to challenge something, they want proof from a licensed professional in that field, yet the own applicant submits a noise study from geologists and the DEC accepts it.
Some of the work that they submitted was suspicious of being wrong. Now the PB can bring that out, but its not a fact unless they are backed up by their own professional.
Mr. Gaydos motioned to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Mrs. Carney. All members present in favor.
T/ROCHESTER Page 17
MINUTES OF MEETING July 18, 2006
As there was no further business to discuss, at 9:05 PM, the Chairman adjourned the meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
Rebecca Paddock Stange,
Secretary