MINUTES OF September 19, 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: ABSENT:
Steven L. Fornal, Chairman
Shane Ricks David O’Halloran, Alternate(not required to attend)
Nadine D. Carney
Frank Striano, Sr.
Anthony Kawalchuk
Melvyn I. Tapper, Vice Chair
Robert Gaydos
Also present at the meeting was Town Planner, Jan Johannessenn, from The Chazen Companies.
Pledge to the Flag.
At this time the Chairman introduced the Board to the public
DISCUSSION
WILLIAM DAMBERG– proposed 2 lot subdivision in the Queensmont Estates subdivision off of Queens Hwy, Tax Map #68.1-4-2–
Applicant proposes to split +/-8.75 acres into 2 parcels. Queens Hwy separates the lots, so they would both have frontage on a public road. +/-5.5 acres on one side and about 3.25 acres on the other side. Mr. Damberg purchased this property about 4 years ago with the intentions of subdividing. Last year he asked the Building Dept if he could split the 5.5 acres and 3.25 acres that each had frontage on Queens Hwy. The building Dept. said it would be a simple subdivision. He then got driveway permits from the Highway Dept. for both sides and he also hired an engineer to do septic designs for both sides. Applicant does not yet have a survey of the parcel, but wants to get in front of the Board to move things along. Health Dept. Approval has been applied for and has been verbally obtained—waiting on written permits for each lot. He applied with the Ulster County Health Dept. in early spring. He was under the impression that he didn’t need Planning Board approval until he went back to the Town buildings with his Deed which said he couldn’t subdivide without Planning Board approval. He spoke to the Planning Board Secretary regarding this information and they found out that the parcel was in the Queensmont subdivision. Splitting any lot in a filed subdivision requires further Planning Board Approval. Since that time he has gone to the County building and obtained a copy of the filed subdivision map. On this map there is a note about his lot (lot 2) that access shall not be permitted for the south side of Queens Highway and that he would need to construct a bridge over lot #1 of the subdivision to access the North side. He was aware that he had a right-of-way to get to his north lot, but he felt the access was better in the area that he obtained a driveway permit and less intrusive to the neighbors on lot 1.
The planner looked at the map and noted that there was a conservation easement along the north side of the property on Queens Highway, right where Mr. Damberg got his permit for his driveway.
T/ROCHESTER Page 2
MINUTES OF MEETING September 19, 2006
DISCUSSION
WILLIAM DAMBERG(cont’d)– proposed 2 lot subdivision in the Queensmont Estates subdivision
Mr. Damberg was aware that there was the easement, but he didn’t realize he wasn’t allowed to disturb the area. He tried to go by the book. He had the Town Highway Superintendent come out and site the location for the driveways.
Planner, Mr. Johannessen, didn’t believe that you could get around the conservation easement. He believed that the original filed plat would have to be amended. He further believed that the original subdivider would have to do this. He recommended seeking the advice of the Town Attorney on this matter.
Mr. Damberg noted that he had a title search when he bought the property and none of this information was found. He recently asked his own Attorney to research this further and he couldn’t find anything.
The Board discussed that the notes on the Subdivision Map presented by Mr. Damberg say that he would need to build a bridge across a stream over a right-of-way through lot #1.
Mr. Johannessen suggested for the Secretary to pull the minutes from this original subdivision to see the reasons that these notes were imposed in the first place. Once they get the background on this, they should consult the Town Attorney and inform the applicant of his advisement.
DISCUSSION
LARAINE CALIRI– subdivision/ lot line adjustment, Kirby Lane Private Road off of Kyserike Road, High Falls, Tax Map #77.2-2-9.111, R-1 District
Ms. Caliri was present with her submitted maps that were revised to reflect the original intent of her subdivision/ lot line adjustments.
Chairman Fornal noted that this was simply paperwork at this point to amend the maps to reflect the intent of the decision.
The Board reviewed the map and stated that the revisions looked fine.
Mrs. Carney motioned for the Chairman to sign off on the revised maps for Larraine Caliri dated July 31, 2006. Seconded by Mr. Striano. No Discussion.
Vote:
Fornal: Yes Ricks: Yes
Tapper: Yes Carney: Yes
Striano: Yes Kawalchuk: Yes
O’Halloran: Not requested to attend Gaydos: Yes
T/ROCHESTER Page 3
MINUTES OF MEETING September 19, 2006
PUBLIC HEARING
VICTOR VAN BORKULO– c/o Taconic Designs, 6 lot subdivision, Millbrook Lane, Tax Map #
76.002-2-6.411 R-2 District
At 8:30, Mr. Cellas was present for the Public Hearing.
Mr. Ricks recused himself from this application and sat in the audience.
Mr. Johannessen noted that the applicant had submitted Part 3 and it was adequate.
The Secretary noted that the Planning Board office has not been in receipt of recent submittals from the applicant that have been submitted to the planner.
Jonathan Cellas of Taconic Designs stated that he would submit those things to the office tomorrow.
Mr. Johannessen noted that his comment letter dated September 13, 2006 had been forwarded to the applicant.
The Chairman didn’t feel that the Board was ready to give Preliminary Approval at this meeting.
Chairman Fornal read Part 2 into the record as prepared by the Chazen Companies and dated August 17, 2006.
Mr. Johannessen noted that Part 2 has been addressed by the applicant. He had been submitted Part 3 by the applicant which he found to address all concerns. As noted earlier, the applicant would forward Part 3 to the PB office tomorrow.
Mrs. Carney motioned to accept Part 2 as prepared by Chazen dated August 17, 2006 and read into the record and that a Negative Declaration be issued. Mr. Gaydos seconded the motion. No discussion.
Vote:
Fornal: Yes Ricks: Yes
Tapper: Yes Carney: Yes
Striano: Yes Kawalchuk: Yes
O’Halloran: Not requested to attend Gaydos: Yes
Chairman Fornal opened the hearing to the public. There was no comment.
Mr. Gaydos motioned to close the Public Hearing. Seconded by Mrs. Carney. No discussion.
Vote:
Fornal: Yes Ricks: Yes
Tapper: Yes Carney: Yes
Striano: Yes Kawalchuk: Yes
O’Halloran: Not requested to attend Gaydos: Yes
The Board questioned if it would be appropriate to issue Conditional Preliminary Approval tonight based on Chazen’s comment letter dated September 13, 2006 regarding the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan and outstanding conditions from the original Conditional Preliminary Approval on file.
T/ROCHESTER Page 4
MINUTES OF MEETING September 19, 2006
PUBLIC HEARING
VICTOR VAN BORKULO(cont’d)– c/o Taconic Designs, 6 lot subdivision
Mrs. Carney questioned if there would be a separate maintenance agreement for stormwater?
Mr. Cellas noted that there was a stormmwater management easement for the original lots in the adjoining subdivision.
Mr. Johannessen questioned if they would just be expanding the original Home Owners Association from the original 6 lots?
Mr. Cellas answered yes.
Mrs. Carney motioned for Conditional Preliminary Approval with the following conditions that were read into the record:
1. Applicant shall submit to the Planning Board, prior to submission of map for Final Approval, an
Approval for lots # 1-6 by the Ulster County Health Department.
2. Recreation Fees in the Amount of $100.00 ($100 per lot over 5 lots) shall be deposited with the Planning Board Secretary not less than ten days prior to submission of maps for Final Approval. Sec. 125-19 of The Code of the Town of Rochester.
3. Applicant shall submit to the Planning Board a signed and notarized Stormwater Maintenance Agreement by the property owner for lots 1-6. This Agreement is subject to review by the Town’s Legal Advisor.
4. A Home Owner’s Association (HOA) shall be established and shall be responsible for RMA and~Stormwater maintenance/repairs. Said~HOA~creation documentation~and subsequent responsibilities~shall be subject to review and acceptance by Town’s legal advisor.
5. The Applicant hereby agrees to be responsible for all costs and expenses incurred by the Town in
connection with the Road Maintenance Agreement; including but not limited to, preparation of said agreement, engineering costs and attorney fees and inspection by the Town Superintendent of
Highways. The Applicant acknowledges and agrees that said engineers, attorney and Highway
Superintendent are acting on behalf of the Town and in addition, the Applicant may, if he so desires, obtain his own attorney or engineer. Said costs and fees shall be submitted to the Planning Board Secretary not less than ten (10) days prior to Final Approval.
6. Applicant must comply with Chazen comment letter dated September 13, 2006 regarding revisions to the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan.
Motion seconded by Mr. Striano.
Vote:
Fornal: Yes Ricks: Yes
Tapper: Yes Carney: Yes
Striano: Yes Kawalchuk: Yes
O’Halloran: Not requested to attend Gaydos: Yes
T/ROCHESTER Page 5
MINUTES OF MEETING September 19, 2006
PUBLIC HEARING
CHRISTOPHER KELDER– Special Use Permit for Mini Golf Course, Route 209, Tax Map #
76.2-2-35, ‘B’, R-1, & ‘F’ District
At 8:45PM, Mr. Kelder was Present on behalf of his Public Hearing.
Chairman Fornal opened the hearing to the public.
Len Bernardo of Accord expressed that he was in favor of this and that he was on the Comprehensive Plan Committee and this was actually a use that fit in well with tourism and agritainment.
Terry Bernardo felt that this was a wonderful addition to the Town.
Michael Callan of Berme Road lives across the Rondout Creek and can actually see it from his property and has no problems with it.
Mr. Ricks motioned to give a Negative Declaration. Seconded by Mr. Striano.
Vote:
Fornal: Yes Ricks: Yes
Tapper: Yes Carney: Yes
Striano: Yes Kawalchuk: Yes
O’Halloran: Not requested to attend Gaydos: Yes
Mr. Ricks motioned to close the Public Hearing. Seconded by Mr. Tapper.
Vote:
Fornal: Yes Ricks: Yes
Tapper: Yes Carney: Yes
Striano: Yes Kawalchuk: Yes
O’Halloran: Not requested to attend Gaydos: Yes
Mrs. Carney questioned if the Board ever got a response from the NYS DOT?
The Chairman replied, no. They were contacted and did not reply.
Chairman Fornal requested a motion for approval for the Special Use Permit with the following conditions.
Applicant shall comply with Ulster County Planning Board recommendation (dated 6 September 2006) that any proposed lighting be upgraded to full cut-off fixtures in order to reduce off-site glare onto U.S. Route 209.
Applicant shall remove any/all seasonal appurtenances (e.g. flags, signs, banners, plaques, etc etc) during off-season months.
Applicant shall submit copy of old deed with accurate metes and bounds to confirm existing lot lines.
T/ROCHESTER Page 6
MINUTES OF MEETING September 19, 2006
PUBLIC HEARING
CHRISTOPHER KELDER(cont’d)– Special Use Permit for Mini Golf Course,
Applicant shall submit copy of latest Water Supply test result (done quarterly) in order to establish that water supply will provide water for domestic consumption and fire protection.
Applicant shall apply to Town Planning Board for any further expansion or future change of use in accordance with the Code of the Town of Rochester.
Mr. Ricks stated that they have received the Ulster County Planning Board (UCPB) response and the applicant has complied. NYS DOT approval was obtained.
Chairman Fornal explained that the County recommendation condition would only apply to lighting. DOT never responded to the Town.
Mr. Ricks questioned what would be considered seasonal items to bring in? There are things that can’t be taken apart every winter. He could see flags being taken in.
Chairman Fornal didn’t believe that applied to permanent fixtures.
Mrs. Carney questioned if things like arbors would be left out there all winter?
Mr. Kelder responded that there were plants growing on these items.
Chairman Fornal suggested adding “any temporary seasonal appurtences”.
Mr. Ricks felt that was fine.
Mr. Gaydos questioned why the Town was involved with his water source?
The Chairman noted that this was in the checklist and one of the things they didn’t wave.
Mr. Gaydos motioned to grant the Special Use Permit with the following conditions:
1. Any additional lighting shall be approved by the Planning Board prior to installation.
2. Applicant shall remove any/all seasonal temporary appurtenances (e.g. flags, signs, banners, plaques, etc etc) during off-season months.
3. Applicant shall submit copy of old deed with accurate metes and bounds to confirm existing lot lines.
4. Applicant shall submit copy of latest Water Supply test result (done quarterly) in order to establish that water supply will provide water for domestic consumption and fire protection.
5. Applicant shall apply to Town Planning Board for any further expansion or future change of use in accordance with the Code of the Town of Rochester.
Motion seconded by Mr. Striano. No discussion.
Vote:
Fornal: Yes Ricks: Yes
Tapper: Yes Carney: Yes
Striano: Yes Kawalchuk: Yes
O’Halloran: Not requested to attend Gaydos: Yes
T/ROCHESTER Page 7
MINUTES OF MEETING September 19, 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
Ed Sprague of Medenbach & Eggers along with John Dawson were present on behalf of the application.
Chairman Fornal read the draft of conditions for Conditional Preliminary Approval dated 9/19/06 as follows:
1. Applicant shall submit to the Planning Board, prior to submission of map for Final Approval, an Approval for lots # 1-22 by the Ulster County Health Department.
2. Condition #1 shall be complied with prior to any parcel of the subdivision being transferred in any manner.
3. No Building Permit shall be issued until Condition #1 is complied with.
4. Applicant shall comply with Central Hudson requirements for utilities and submit proof of such to the Planning Board prior to Final Approval.
5. Prior to Final Approval, the road must be completed or a cash Bond posted. Bond amount to be determined by the Planning Board after discussion with the Town of Rochester Highway Superintendent.
6. Road shall be named and name shall be approved by the Ulster County Real Property Tax Service Agency and shall be filed with the Planning Board prior to Final Approval.
7. Applicant shall submit to the Planning Board a signed and notarized Road Maintenance Agreement (RMA) by the property owner for a 50’ right-of-way to provide access for lots #1-22. This Agreement is subject to review by the Town’s Legal Advisor.
8. Applicant shall submit to the Planning Board a signed and notarized Drainage Easement Agreement by the property owner for lots 1-22. This Agreement is subject to review by the Town’s Legal Advisor.
9. A Home Owner’s Association (HOA) shall be established and shall be responsible for RMA and~Stormwater maintenance/repairs. Said~HOA~creation documentation~and subsequent responsibilities~shall be subject to review and acceptance by Town’s legal advisor.~
10. The Applicant hereby agrees to be responsible for all costs and expenses incurred by the Town in connection with the Road Maintenance Agreement, Drainage Easement Agreement, and Home Owner’s Association; including but not limited to, preparation of said agreements, engineering costs and attorney fees and inspection by the Town Superintendent of Highways. The Applicant acknowledges and agrees that said engineers, attorney and Highway Superintendent are acting on behalf of the Town and in addition, the Applicant may, if he so desires, obtain his own attorney or engineer. Said costs and fees shall be submitted to the Planning Board Secretary not less than ten (10) days prior to Final Approval.
11. Recreation Fees in the Amount of $1,700.00 ($100 per lot over 5 lots) shall be deposited with the Planning Board Secretary not less than ten days prior to submission of maps for Final Approval. Sec. 125-19 of the Code of the Town of Rochester.
12. The following notation shall appear on the final map which shall be submitted to the Planning Board prior to Final Approval: “This property may border a farm, as defined in Chapter 75 of the Town of Rochester Code. Residents should be aware that farmers have the right to undertake farm practices which may generate dust, odor, smoke, noise, and vibrations and which may involve insecticides, herbicides, pesticides, etc.”
13. Prior to the issuance of Final Approval, the escrow account must be paid in full.
14. Phasing as per Section 125-8~(C-2) of the Code of the Town of Rochester shall be according toSoil Erosion and Sediment Control and Construction Sequence (received from Medenbach &Eggers, September 6, 2006) consisting of~~Phase 1A: Lots 2-4; Phase~1B: Lots 20-22; Phase 2A: Lots 5-9; Phase 2B: Lots 14-15, 19; Phase 3A: Lots 10-13; Phase 3B: Lots 16-18
15. Applicant must comply with Chazen comment letters dated August 9, 2006 and August 4, 2006(attached).
16. Prior to Final Approval,~conservation easement(s) shall be stipulated~on final maps as~per location and with proviso that same must be~maintained in perpetuity as well as be included in deed descriptions. Applicant must provide proof of such deed inclusions prior to final approval.
17. The following notation shall appear on the final map which shall be submitted to the Planning Board prior to Final Approval: “No further subdivision without Planning Board approval ” unless same is stipulated in deed covenant. If applicant prohibits any further subdivision via deed~covenant, applicant must provide~proof of such deed restriction prior to Final Approval.
18. Prior to Final Approval, applicant shall eliminate~20’ right-of-ways listed as “Road up the Hill” and “Dug Road”~as show on map prepared by Medenbach & Eggers dated 8/30/06
T/ROCHESTER Page 8
MINUTES OF MEETING September 19, 2006
CONTINUED APPLICATION REVIEW
DAWSON HOMES, Inc.(cont’d)- subdivision to be known as Mount Laurel Estates, 22 lots
Chairman Fornal had a comment on #s 16 and 17. Those are pending the Town Attorney’s approval of the word usage.
Mr. Ricks questioned #9 regarding the Home Owner’s Association. Was this going to be a protocol on all future subdivisions? And would there be a sample form handed to applicants?
The Chairman noted that it would and the Town Attorney was working on drafting something up to that effect.
Mr. Ricks felt that this was a good thing.
Mr. Tapper questioned the Soil Erosion Sediment Control Plan—was this something that was verbatim on a computer someplace—or was this something site specific.
Mr. Sprague answered that this was site specific.
Mr. Johannessen had comments on #8. He felt that the Drainage Easement Agreement might be an incorrect use of words. He felt it should be called Stormwater Management Agreement. It would be like the Road Maintenance Agreement where all lots would be responsible.
Mrs. Carney noted that the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan would be listed in individual deeds.
T/ROCHESTER Page 9
MINUTES OF MEETING September 19, 2006
CONTINUED APPLICATION REVIEW
DAWSON HOMES, Inc.(cont’d)- subdivision to be known as Mount Laurel Estates, 22 lots
Mrs. Carney motioned for Conditional Preliminary Approval based on the 18 conditions read into the record and discussed at this meeting. (as listed as follows):
1. Applicant shall submit to the Planning Board, prior to submission of map for Final Approval, an Approval for lots # 1-22 by the Ulster County Health Department.
2. Condition #1 shall be complied with prior to any parcel of the subdivision being transferred in any manner.
3. No Building Permit shall be issued until Condition #1 is complied with.
4. Applicant shall comply with Central Hudson requirements for utilities and submit proof of such to the Planning Board prior to Final Approval.
5. Prior to Final Approval, the road must be completed or a cash Bond posted. Bond amount to be determined by the Planning Board after discussion with the Town of Rochester Highway Superintendent.
6. Road shall be named and name shall be approved by the Ulster County Real Property Tax Service Agency and shall be filed with the Planning Board prior to Final Approval.
7. Applicant shall submit to the Planning Board a signed and notarized Road Maintenance Agreement (RMA) by the property owner for a 50’ right-of-way to provide access for lots #1-22. This Agreement is subject to review by the Town’s Legal Advisor.
8. Applicant shall submit to the Planning Board a signed and notarized Stormwater Maintenance Agreement by the property owner for lots 1-22. This Agreement is subject to review by the Town’s Legal Advisor.
9. A Home Owner’s Association (HOA) shall be established and shall be responsible for RMA and~Stormwater maintenance/repairs. Said~HOA~creation documentation~and subsequent responsibilities~shall be subject to review and acceptance by Town’s legal advisor.~
10. The Applicant hereby agrees to be responsible for all costs and expenses incurred by the Town in connection with the Road Maintenance Agreement, Stormwater Maintenance Agreement, and Home Owner’s Association; including but not limited to, preparation of said agreements, engineering costs and attorney fees and inspection by the Town Superintendent of Highways. The Applicant acknowledges and agrees that said engineers, attorney and Highway Superintendent are acting on behalf of the Town and in addition, the Applicant may, if he so desires, obtain his own attorney or engineer. Said costs and fees shall be submitted to the Planning Board Secretary not less than ten (10) days prior to Final Approval.
11. Recreation Fees in the Amount of $1,700.00 ($100 per lot over 5 lots) shall be deposited with the Planning Board Secretary not less than ten days prior to submission of maps for Final Approval. Sec. 125-19 of the Code of the Town of Rochester.
12. The following notation shall appear on the final map which shall be submitted to the Planning Board prior to Final Approval: “This property may border a farm, as defined in Chapter 75 of the Town of Rochester Code. Residents should be aware that farmers have the right to undertake farm practices which may generate dust, odor, smoke, noise, and vibrations and which may involve insecticides, herbicides, pesticides, etc.”
13. Prior to the issuance of Final Approval, the escrow account must be paid in full.
14. Phasing as per Section 125-8~(C-2) of the Code of the Town of Rochester shall be according toSoil Erosion and Sediment Control and Construction Sequence (received from Medenbach &Eggers, September 6, 2006) consisting of~~Phase 1A: Lots 2-4; Phase~1B: Lots 20-22; Phase 2A: Lots 5-9; Phase 2B: Lots 14-15, 19; Phase 3A: Lots 10-13; Phase 3B: Lots 16-18
15. Applicant must comply with Chazen comment letters dated August 9, 2006 and August 4, 2006(attached).
16. Prior to Final Approval,~conservation easement(s) shall be stipulated~on final maps as~per location and with proviso that same must be~maintained in perpetuity as well as be included in deed descriptions. Applicant must provide proof of such deed inclusions prior to final approval.
17. The following notation shall appear on the final map which shall be submitted to the Planning Board prior to Final Approval: “No further subdivision without Planning Board approval ” unless same is stipulated in deed covenant. If applicant prohibits any further subdivision via deed~covenant, applicant must provide~proof of such deed restriction prior to Final Approval.
18. Prior to Final Approval, applicant shall eliminate~20’ right-of-ways listed as “Road up the Hill” and “Dug Road”~as show on map prepared by Medenbach & Eggers dated 8/30/06
T/ROCHESTER Page 10
MINUTES OF MEETING September 19, 2006
CONTINUED APPLICATION REVIEW
DAWSON HOMES, Inc.(cont’d)- subdivision to be known as Mount Laurel Estates, 22 lots
Motion seconded by Mr. Striano.
Vote:
Fornal: Yes Ricks: Yes
Tapper: Yes Carney: Yes
Striano: Yes Kawalchuk: Yes
O’Halloran: Not requested to attend Gaydos: Yes
CONTINUED APPLICATION PRESENTATION
10P5C-, c/o Colin Houston, PLS, 4 lot subdivision, Project 32 Road, Tax Map # 76.4-3- 15.115, R-1 District
Ashley Sanders of North Engineers was present on behalf of the application.
Mr. Johannessen reminded the Board that the Board had initially reviewed this application a year ago. Previous Planner, Nancy Vlahos, reviewed it at the time. He went back through the file and noted that the Planning Board circulated intent for Lead Agency, but never had another meeting to declare it. He also noted that the Highway Superintendent determined that this was on a Town Portion of Project 32 Road.
Mr. Tapper questioned if there had been any changes since then?
There had not—only more detail had been added to the plan.
The Board reviewed the original subdivision map as this proposed subdivision was a part of the filed subdivision by Martin Tully.
Ms. Sanders clarified that access to lot 4 was a proposed 50’ right-of-way to a woods road. Lots 1 & 2 are existing gravel driveways. There is no known Road Maintenance Agreement.
Mr. Johannessen questioned why there weren’t any improvements or details provided for lots 3 & 4?
Ms. Sanders replied that they only proposed septic systems for lots 1 & 2 because they weren’t proposing to build on lots 3 & 4 right now. She was under the impression that Health Dept. Approval was only for lots less than 3 acres.
The Board informed her that Health Dept. Approval was required for lots under 5 acres. Not 3 acres.
Mr. Johannessen informed Ms. Sanders that improvements and Health Dept. Approval would need to be submitted for lots 3 & 4. Also, private road specs would need to be followed and displayed to the Board.
Mrs. Carney noted that all right-of-ways needed to be 50’.
Ms. Sanders noted that the existing right-of-ways were not 50’.
Mr. Johannessen noted that the Code would require those existing right-of-ways to meet Town Specs.
T/ROCHESTER Page 11
MINUTES OF MEETING September 19, 2006
CONTINUED APPLICATION PRESENTATION
10P5C(cont’d)-, c/o Colin Houston, PLS, 4 lot subdivision
Mrs. Carney noted that if there was another person who had a right-of-way on this property there would need to be a maintenance agreement.
Mrs. Carney motioned for Intent to be Lead Agency with a Coordinated Review. Also to type the action as Unlisted.
Mr. Johannessen believed that the Board had already declared its Intent for Lead Agency.
The Secretary confirmed this. They circulated the intent in June of 2005, but the applicant had not returned for the Board to declare Lead Agency. This was their first meeting since that time.
Mr. Johannessen felt that re-circulating it might not be a bad idea. The Board agreed.
Motion seconded by Mr. Tapper.
Vote:
Fornal: Yes Ricks: Yes
Tapper: Yes Carney: Yes
Striano: Yes Kawalchuk: Yes
O’Halloran: Not requested to attend Gaydos: Yes
At this time the Board reviewed Chazen’s September 15, 2006 review letter.
Mr. Johannessen believed that the Board had agreed on 2% contours in areas of improvement. That should be shown on lots 3 & 4 as well.
Ms. Sanders was confused with the EAF section of the review letter and was not aware that this was the first time that the EAF had been reviewed.
Mr. Johannessen clarified how the letter corresponded with the questions of the EAF for Ms. Sanders.
The Board suggested that the applicant submit a revised copy of the EAF because she didn’t need to answer these tonight.
Ms. Sanders noted that this has always been 4 lots, but the lines have changed a little to be able to accommodate septics and wells. Ms. Sanders stated that she would give this information to Colin Houston and he would address them.
T/ROCHESTER Page 12
MINUTES OF MEETING September 19, 2006
NEW APPLICATION PRESENTATION
JAMES DENNIN– subdivision approval for 4 lots off of Airport Road, Tax Map #69.3-1-17.1, ‘A’ District
Surveyor, Terry Ringler and Carol and James Dennin were present on behalf of this application.
Mr. Dennin indicated that he and his wife had +/- 7.2 acres that he wanted to subdivide for his kids.
Mr. Ricks noted that lot lines usually come to the center of the roads. He saw that the area in the cul-de-sac would be connected to his lot (lot 1). It was okay to do it this way, but the parcel with the trailer, would be paying taxes for the whole road instead of each of the lots sharing the cost. The construction of a driveway is less expensive than a private road and they may want to consider a Driveway Maintenance Agreement instead of a Private Road Maintenance Agreement.
Mr. Johannessen noted that this was a pretty preliminary plan at this point. There aren’t any house locations or anything shown. He did notice that there is a site directly across the street that is on the National Register of Historic Places which would cause this to be a Type 1 Action. Also a couple of the lots don’t meet the minimum requirements for lots to be 160’.
Mrs. Carney noted that she has dealt with the Office of Parks & Recreation in regards to adjacent National Historic sites. The State has really cut back on their responses and they have requested that the Lead Agency or Town to request additional information. When Mrs. Carney’s firm has represented applicants they have provided the information to the Town and the Town just puts it on their letter head and sends it out.
Mr. Johannessen agreed with Mrs. Carney. They are understaffed and have streamlined their process. Any time a Planning Board asked an applicant to request information from the Office of Parks, they would generate the same response which would require the applicant to do a Phase 1 survey which is costly and unnecessary. So, they came up with mapping on their website that addresses Archeo sensitive areas and National Register surveys.
Mrs. Carney understood this, but noted that they ask that the Town request the additional information.
Mr. Dennin noted that the site that the Board is referring to is a ¼ mile down the road. The only thing across the street from him is a corn field.
Mr. Johannessen asked if the property lines were next to each other?
Mr. Dennin noted that they were about 25’ from each other, but the Historic house was about ¼ mile away.
Mr. Johannessen read in the SEQRA Regs where it talks about contiguous Historic sites and how SEQRA defines “contiguous”, which was fairly loose.
Mrs. Carney stated that it wasn’t the end of the world for a Type 1 Action to happen. It definitely meant that Part 1 of the EAF would need to have a coordinated review, but it was nothing to be nervous about. It was just another step. The applicant should prepare the documents for the Town to send to the Office of Parks.
T/ROCHESTER Page 13
MINUTES OF MEETING September 19, 2006
NEW APPLICATION PRESENTATION
JAMES DENNIN(cont’d)– subdivision approval for 4 lots off of Airport Road
Mr. Ringler noted that the whole road is a right-of-way to the 3 lots. Which dimensions does the Town define that as?
Mr. Johannessen noted that the Town Code defines it as the middle.
Mr. Ringler noted that they could fix it wit no problem.
The Board advised the applicant to bring back the revisions and they would get on the next agenda.
Mr. Johannessen noted that the application had down that this was ‘A’ and it is actually in an R-1 District. The regs are the same. This is also in an Ag District which in itself might trigger a Type 1 Action. When you convert a certain amount of land into residential.
PRE-APPLICATION PRESENTATION
ORCHARD AT TOWNER FARMS, LLC– c/o Mike Taylor, Special Use Permit for Retail Fuel Oil/ Propane, office and show room, welding supplies retail, fuel storage for refilling delivery trucks, Route 209, Tax Map # 77.1-2-5, ‘B’ District
Mike Taylor was present on behalf of Orchard at Towner Farms, LLC (Combined Energy) along with Engineer, Ralph Lane and Attorney, Michael Morriello.
Mr. Lane presented a sketch map that was put together for this Pre-Application Presentation to give the Board an idea of their proposal. The site is roughly 200 yards down from the intersection of Whitfield Road and Route 209 (The Coddington property). Mr. Lane continued, that a lot of the property was going to remain relatively untouched. Behind the metal barn they were looking at putting in the driveway area and 2 sets of tanks. The first set would be (2) 3,000 gallon LP Propane tanks and in the back they were looking at putting in (2) oil tanks, one of which they were looking to use for bio fuel and the other one would be for regular fuel oil. The project disturbance would probably be less than an acre. They are making it a point to make sure that all of the tanks stay within 50’ of the property lines. As displayed on the maps, they want to screen the entire area, so it will pretty much mask the site of the tanks themselves. For all intents and purposes, when you look off of Route 209, you’re not really going to see the tanks in the back, you’re just going to see the existing house and existing garage. The garage and house will be utilized for the business and it will be renovated so that they mach each other and are aesthetically pleasing off of the road. Whether they do that architecturally with a new building or whether they renovate—it’s something that they are still deciding and working out now. At this point they are just feeling the Board out and trying to get an idea of where they need to go from here.
Mr. Ricks questioned if the oil tanks would have full containment?
Mr. Taylor answered yes. They would have above ground containment as well as the loading area. Each tank would be 30,000 gallons.
Mr. Gaydos questioned how they would compare to the size of the tanks that Suburban Propane had in Kerhonkson on Route 209?
T/ROCHESTER Page 14
MINUTES OF MEETING September 19, 2006
PRE-APPLICATION PRESENTATION
ORCHARD AT TOWNER FARMS, LLC(cont’d)– c/o Mike Taylor, Special Use Permit for Retail Fuel Oil/ Propane, office and show room, welding supplies retail, fuel storage for refilling delivery trucks
Mr. Taylor stated that they would be the same tanks for the propane—a little lower to the ground though.
Mr. Gaydos questioned the loading for the LP. It would be at the same pavilion for the oil tanks?
Mr. Lane noted that there was a gated enclosure for that.
Town Planner, Mr. Johannessen, questioned if there would be trucks on site?
Mr. Taylor noted that there would be about 3 trucks that would park in the barn on the property that was displayed on the sketch and a propane truck would probably park behind the metal garage or there about.
Mr. Taylor stated that they were meeting with an architect this month to discuss whether or not they could make the existing house functional by renovating it with a show room for their gas fire places and cast iron stoves. But if the architect didn’t think it was feasible, they would make a new structure, probably in the same area.
Mr. Ricks questioned if they located the flood plain on the property?
Mr. Lane noted that he would identify the flood plain. He also noted that the electric fence was existing.
Mr. Moriello noted that this was just a Pre-Application meeting and it was obvious that they would have to have a detailed submittal and deal with more SEQRA and EAF issues then. On the Historic inquiry, OPRHP won’t do anything with private applicants. They will only answer if the Town sends them a letter. So, what they usually do is draft up a letter from the Town Planning Board questioning if there are any substantially contiguous Historic Properties to this site. The only map that they take is a USGS map. The requirements are very specific.
Mr. Johannessen noted that he wasn’t a stormwater expert, but he believed that there was a new Industrial SPEDES Permit that has come out?
Mr. Lane wasn’t aware of that. If this whole property had 15,000 square feet of disturbance, that would be a lot.
Mr. Johannessen imagined that they would need to show that if there was a leak that they were containing that stormwater on the site.
Mr. Taylor explained that the tanks themselves are enclosed within self contained steel dykes.
Mrs. Carney also offered that they would need NYS DEC approvals as well and will be involved for the whole tank installation.
Mr. Johannessen questioned about the trucks? What if there was a leak from a truck? He was currently reviewing a very similar application in another Town and it was a requirement for underground storage incase there was a fuel leak.
T/ROCHESTER Page 15
MINUTES OF MEETING September 19, 2006
PRE-APPLICATION PRESENTATION
ORCHARD AT TOWNER FARMS, LLC(cont’d)– c/o Mike Taylor, Special Use Permit for Retail Fuel Oil/ Propane, office and show room, welding supplies retail, fuel storage for refilling delivery trucks
Mr. Lane noted that he has had to do catchment basins in the loading area before.
Mr. Taylor added that the truck could actually be parked in the loading pavilion and the loading pavilion would be drained to a tank that was 110% the size of the largest capacity of any tank and truck.
Mr. Johannessen would take a look at the Industrial SPEDES Permit. He was pretty sure that there was a new one that came out and he wasn’t sure if it was in draft form or adopted, but It specifically talks about what will be considered an industrial use.
Mr. Moriello questioned if it was applicable to projects that were under 1 acre of disturbance because the GP01-2 states that 1 acre is the threshold.
Mr. Johannessen wasn’t sure.
Mr. Moriello noted that he would check into it.
Mr. Taylor noted that they weren’t talking oil/water separators, where they were having any outside storage where you would have to have an oil/water separator SPEDES on this. Everything is self contained. If there was any spill it would go into a catch tank.
Mr. Tapper questioned if it was okay to store LP tanks in the same area as fuel oil?
Mr. Taylor replied that it was and you needed to have at least a 10’ distance between them. They have a loading pavilion which is a structure and you have to be at least 50’ from a structure. They also have to go through the NFPA (NYS Fire Prevention Agency) who regulates combustible liquids as well as flammable liquids and NYS office of Fire Prevention and Control overseas that NYS as well as the local jurisdictions.
Mr. Tapper noted that this is a high volume traffic area with Whitfield Road and Lucas Avenue coming onto Route 209 right in that general vicinity. There’s a convenient store and Tony Kawalchuk’s engine repair/ equipment place. He would think that some sort of traffic study might be warranted in that area to see if they had any suggestions to minimize any dangers in that area.
Mr. Ricks questioned if they planned on using both existing entrances?
Mr. Taylor didn’t think they were going to take any away, but noted that they would consider the Board’s recommendations.
Mr. Ricks questioned if this was all going to be fenced in.
Mr. Taylor wasn’t totally sure yet and this was one of his questions for the Board. They were planning on at least fencing in the ends of the propane tanks where the pumps and the valves were. The loading pavilion is an enclosed pole building with locks and everything so that you couldn’t have access to the valve. They weren’t
T/ROCHESTER Page 16
MINUTES OF MEETING September 19, 2006
PRE-APPLICATION PRESENTATION
ORCHARD AT TOWNER FARMS, LLC(cont’d)– c/o Mike Taylor, Special Use Permit for Retail Fuel Oil/ Propane, office and show room, welding supplies retail, fuel storage for refilling delivery trucks
thinking of fencing in the whole property as they thought this would make it look more industrial. All the access to the valves were going to be within a chain linked fence for the propane and the fuel tanks themselves would be enclosed in the pole barn. The DEC regulates that.
Mr. Ricks questioned if Suburban Propane being completely fenced in was really for security?
Mr. Taylor replied yes, but Suburban Propane was a 1960 metal structure and its out in your face and that’s not what they are looking to construct. If the Board wanted the whole place fenced, they would do it, but aesthetically… he didn’t think it would look good. As far as security, all of the control valves will be secured. They were going to put up a gate—a tube gate or some sort of gate up by the barn so there wouldn’t be any access.
Mr. Ricks questioned where would the installation tanks be stored?
Mr. Taylor responded that it would be a minimal amount and it would probably be to the left of the propane tanks.
Mr. Gaydos questioned if Mr. Taylor had another site?
Mr. Taylor had 3 additional sites. There was one in Liberty, NY that was built in 1932. One in Dingman’s Ferry, PA. And one in Thompsonville, NY. They don’t do any cylinder maintenance out of this proposed branch. That would all be out of the Liberty, NY branch.
Mr. Ricks questioned if this was the same company that purchased Wexler Pools?
Mr. Taylor replied, yes.
Mr. Tapper questioned how far back the tanks were.
Mr. Lane answered that the Sketch was at a 40’ scale.
Mr. Taylor noted that if the Board wanted the property double screened, then they’d do it. The tanks would be horizontal and as low to the ground as possible and they even liked to paint them darker colors to blend them in. the diameter of the oil tank would be 12’ in diameter and the propane tank would be 11’ off the ground and a 9’ diameter. He’s learned over the years that its best to blend in. The Suburban Propane is very out in the open. He’d like to conceal the tanks and make an attractive display focusing towards the retail of fireplaces and stoves. The more it fits into the community the better.
Mr. Gaydos noted that he back of this property from front to back it slopes to the back and he knew for a fact that this was pretty wet and boggy property. He questioned what were the intentions to set the tanks. Its wet.
T/ROCHESTER Page 17
MINUTES OF MEETING September 19, 2006
PRE-APPLICATION PRESENTATION
ORCHARD AT TOWNER FARMS, LLC(cont’d)– c/o Mike Taylor, Special Use Permit for Retail Fuel Oil/ Propane, office and show room, welding supplies retail, fuel storage for refilling delivery trucks
Mr. Lane noted that there was a drainage ditch that came off of Route 209 and in recent events there has been a lot of water in the area. He doesn’t know what the drainage quality is exactly.
Mr. Gaydos noted that it wasn’t good. A car sinks up to its rear bumper.
Mr. Taylor noted that the driveway that they put in will definitely be stabilized with stabilization fabric.
Mr. Johannessen questioned if this was wetland?
Mr. Gaydos didn’t believe so. They currently mow it, but you can’t drive a car in there after its rained for 2 days.
Mr. Taylor explained that the tanks were set on engineered piers.
Mr. Striano also didn’t feel that there would be any way that they could bring a truck in there without upgrading the site.
Mr. Lane noted that they would make sure that the driveway would be able to support the delivery trucks.
Mr. Striano questioned Mr. Taylor if he had purchased this piece of property.
Mr. Taylor stated that they were in contracts with the Coddingtons.
Mr. Ricks questioned how many people they would employ?
Mr. Moriello stressed again that they were aware that this project would require a very detailed site plan and review. Traffic, landscaping…
They have designed the layout right now so that there is plenty of room for trucks to maneuver to get the product.
Mr. Taylor felt that they would hire about 5 or 6 people. 2 or 3 truck drivers. In a couple of years he could see employing 10 people at this location.
Mr. Moriello just saw this map for the first time tonight and he had a question for Mr. Taylor. The existing drives—were there 2 ways in and out?
There were.
Mr. Moriello questioned how the Board felt about 2 driveways compared to 1?
T/ROCHESTER Page 18
MINUTES OF MEETING September 19, 2006
PRE-APPLICATION PRESENTATION
ORCHARD AT TOWNER FARMS, LLC(cont’d)– c/o Mike Taylor, Special Use Permit for Retail Fuel Oil/ Propane, office and show room, welding supplies retail, fuel storage for refilling delivery trucks
Mr. Ricks felt that NYS DOT would want it reduced to 1 access and they would want it widened way out for tractor trailers.
Mr. Taylor wanted to tackle to the aesthetic value of everything. He really wanted to make something that contributed to the community. He was not interested in metal sided industrial type buildings. Mr. Taylor was from Monticello and he knew what undesirable buildings could look like. He would rather make something nice. He’s selling a very generic product, so the nicer it looks the better it is for him. He’s definitely trying to hide all of the tanks as much as possible. His company is probably the most regulated when it comes to safety features that one would see. Its not 1960, you can’t get away with anything any longer. Besides his own insurance companies, State Fire, OSHA, EPA, and NYS DEC are on top of them. There are fail safes for fail safes after fail safes. They try to eliminate any possibility of human error.
Mr. Ricks questioned what the largest danger that could happen with that.
Mr. Taylor noted that the changes in the NFPA are drastic in the last 10 years. A BBQ grill in someone’s back yard is 10 times deadlier than one of these propane tanks. These have housekeeping, rules, and inspections.
Mr. Moriello noted that Mr. Taylor was going to hire a consultant to put a report together on things like that—safety issues and laws and regulations that apply.
Mr. Taylor noted that in addition to owning his business he was the Chairman for the NYS Propane and Gas Association Emergency Response Training Committee. Last weekend he was at the Montauk Falls State Fire Training Academy training Fire Depts. So, he is informed on safety.
Mr. Moriello noted that they would also request that the Fire Dept. be made an interested agency under SEQRA and the police dept. as well.
Chairman Fornal asked the Board to require to have the Town Planners, The Chazen Companies, review this application.
Mr. Moriello noted that they would expect that and they weren’t going to have this application together and ready to submit for quite some time.
Mr. Tapper questioned if this was affected by the moratorium.
The Secretary noted that the moratorium was only for commercial buildings larger than 20,000 sf and subdivisions over 4 lots.
Mr. Moriello questioned if there was a standard escrow amount that Chazen required for these things.
Mr. Johannessen felt that he they could submit their application and he could review it and give a better estimate then.
T/ROCHESTER Page 19
MINUTES OF MEETING September 19, 2006
ZBA ADVISORY REQUEST
MOUNTAIN VIEW STABLES, Inc– c/o Jerome Ferro, Use Variance for Animal Feed Store (Retail) in an R-1 District, De Jager Lane, Tax Map #77.1- 2-33.112
Chairman Fornal explained that Mr. Ferro elected not to proceed with this advisory at this time. Mr. Ferro has property in an R-1 District that he wanted to use for a retail feed store. The ZBA had a Pre-Application Discussion with Mr. Ferro and Mr. Ferro disclosed that the property was Ag Exempt in a State Ag District. The question came up if Mr. Ferro would need a use variance as the use would remain agricultural? The Town Attorney was consulted and contacted the Association of Towns. The Association of Towns concluded that nothing in this nature would supercede the local zoning ordinance which says that this type of use is prohibited in an R-1 District. Mr. Ferro would need to proceed with his Use Variance.
ZBA ADVISORY REQUEST
CHARLES & SANDRA RANDALL– +/-28’ Area Variance for insufficient lot width, Berme Road, Tax Map #76.4-2-28.230, R-1 & ‘F’ District
The Secretary noted that Mr. Randal split his +/-3.7 acres into 2 pieces and filed it with the County in March of 2006. Mr. Randall came to the Building Dept. last week to get a letter saying that the split was okay. The Building Dept. saw that one of the parcels only had +/-137’ of lot width and therefore he would need to go to the ZBA for an area variance.
The Board noted that there was a lack of information regarding the placement of wells and septics. They didn’t see a way to fix the problem other than granting the variance.
Mr. Ricks motioned for a favorable advisory for this variance, seconded by Mr. Kawalchuck. No discussion.
Vote:
Fornal: Yes Ricks: Yes
Tapper: Yes Carney: Yes
Striano: Yes Kawalchuk: Yes
O’Halloran: Not requested to attend Gaydos: Yes
ACTION ON MINUTES
Mrs. Carney motioned to accept the minutes of August 15, 2006. Seconded by the Chairman. No discussion. All members in favor, except for Mr. Gaydos who was not present for the August Meeting.
OTHER MATTERS
Chairman Fornal noted that drafts of the Comprehensive Plan were available to pick up at the office. This was not an Advisory for the Planning Board, but if any members wanted to forward their comments to the Chairman he would get them in.
Mr. Gaydos motioned to adjourn. Seconded by Mrs. Carney. All members present in favor.
As there was no further business to discuss, Chairman Fornal adjourned the meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
Rebecca Paddock Stange, Secretary