MINUTES OF November 21, 2006, REGULAR MEETING of the Town of Rochester PLANNING BOARD, held at the Town Hall, Accord, NY.
Meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM by the Chairman, Steven L. Fornal.
PRESENT: ABSENT:
Steven L. Fornal, Chairman Robert Gaydos
Shane Ricks David O’Halloran, Alternate(not required to attend)
Frank Striano, Sr.
Anthony Kawalchuk
Melvyn I. Tapper, Vice Chair
Nadine D. Carney
Also present at the meeting was Town Planner, Jan Johannessenn, from The Chazen Companies.
Pledge to the Flag.
CONTNUED APPLICATION PRESENTATION
KEVIN MAHONEY– c/o Ken Treiling, PE, Subdivision Approval for 2 lots in the Queensmont Subdivision on Cedar Drive, Tax Map #68.1-4-5, ‘A’ District
Mr. Treiling was present on behalf of this application.
The Board went over comment letter dated November 16, 2006.
Mr. Johannessen noted that the applicant had submitted a revised EAF and most of the comments were addressed in this.
Mr. Treiling felt that the long EAF was more geared towards larger commercial projects and the short form was what should have been filled out for this project.
Mr. Johannessen explained that the long form was used for any type of project.
Mr. Treiling didn’t understand the question about ‘trips generated per hour’.
Mr. Johannessen explained that this question was asking for the average number of trips generated at peak hours. Generally for a single family house they say its 2 trips. The source for this information is the Institute of Transportation Engineers. Mr. Johannessen completed Part 2 of the EAF for the Board’s review. He suggested that the applicant provide the information for the Part 3. There were only a couple thresholds that would require this. He suggested that the Board have the Town Attorney to review the deeds associated with the proposed road widening strip. That could be a condition of approval.The second item was that the code requires that the applicant submit tests used to determine the subsurface soil and ground water conditions. Generally the Perc and deep tests would suffice. He asked Mr. Treiling to provide him with the approved septic plans from the Ulster County Health Dept.
T/ROCHESTER Page 2
MINUTES OF MEETING November 21, 2006
CONTNUED APPLICATION PRESENTATION
KEVIN MAHONEY(cont’d)– c/o Ken Treiling, PE, Subdivision Approval for 2 lots in the Queensmont Subdivision on Cedar Drive, Tax Map #68.1-4-5, ‘A’ District
Mr. Ricks noted that the Town automatically has a 25’ right-of-way over every property owners parcel. He didn’t understand the purpose of actually dedicating this to the Town?
Mrs. Carney agreed and didn’t think it made sense to dedicate this strip to the Town. The Board didn’t request this.
Mr. Treiling thought the Board asked for this. He would contact the surveyor’s office and ask them to remove that note from the plan.
At this time the Board reviewed Part 2 of the EAF and agreed to only discuss the items that were marked as potential impacts.
1. Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the Project Site? YES
Any construction on slopes of 15% or greater, (15 foot rise per 100 foot length), or where the general slopes in the project area exceed 10%. Yes the driveway is being constructed in an area with more than a 10% grade. The applicant would supply this information in Part 3.
5. Will Proposed Action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity? YES
Proposed Action will allow residential uses in areas without water and/or sewer services. Yes this is an unavoidable impact as there will be a new septic and a new well.
19. Will Proposed Action affect the character of the existing community? YES
Proposed Action will cause a change in the density of land use. Yes this is another unavoidable impact as there is a subdivision of land being proposed.
Mr. Johannessen reiterated that the applicant should address these impacts in Part 3. This is actually the Lead Agency’s responsibility, but the applicant often provides this as they have the specific information on how these items will be mitigated. Mr. Johannessen requested this for the next meeting so they could close out SEQRA with a Negative Declaration and the next step would be to give approvals after the Public Hearing.
Mrs. Carney motioned to hold a Public Hearing at its December Meeting. Mr. Striano 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: Absent
T/ROCHESTER Page 3
MINUTES OF MEETING November 21, 2006
CONTINUED 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, was present along with Mr. & Mrs. Dennin on behalf of their project.
The Board was in receipt of letter dated November 13, 2006 from the Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation stating that they had no concerns about this project.
The Board reviewed Part 2 as prepared by Mr. Johannessen.
1. Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the Project Site? YES
Any construction on slopes of 15% or greater, (15 foot rise per 100 foot length), or where the general slopes in the project area exceed 10%. Yes the driveway is being constructed in an area with more than a 10% grade. The applicant would supply this information in Part 3.
5. Will Proposed Action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity? YES
Proposed Action will allow residential uses in areas without water and/or sewer services. Yes this is an unavoidable impact as there will be a new septic and a new well.
10. Will the Proposed Action affect agricultural land resources? YES
Construction activity would excavate or compact the soil profile of agricultural land. Yes this is an unavoidable impact as even though this is residential, it is located in a County Agricultural District.
12. Will proposed Action impact any site or structure of historic, prehistoric or paleontological importance? YES
Proposed Action occurring wholly or partially within or substantially contiguous to any facility or site listed on the State or National Register of historic places. Yes
The Proposed Action would irreversibly convert more than 10 acres of agricultural land or, if located in an Agricultural
District, more than 2.5 acres of agricultural land. Yes
19. Will Proposed Action affect the character of the existing community? YES
Proposed Action will cause a change in the density of land use. Yes this is another unavoidable impact as there is a subdivision of land being proposed.
Mr. Johannessen requested that the applicant prepare part 3 to demonstrate how these items will be mitigated prior to the next meeting.
Mrs. Carney motioned to hold a Public Hearing at its December Meeting. Mr. Striano 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: Absent
T/ROCHESTER Page 4
MINUTES OF MEETING November 21, 2006
ZBA ADVISORY REQUEST
WILLIAM JANSEN– +/-15’ Area Variance for side yard setback for garage, 4 Rondout Lane, Tax Map#77.1-4-1, R-1 District
Mr. Jansen was not present for his application’s review.
The Board reviewed the application and Chairman Fornal noted that this applicant is asking for a +/-15’ variance for a side line setback.
The Board reviewed the site plan and all of the members were familiar with the site.
Mrs. Carney noted that this house was just built and the applicant should have planned better for the placement of the garage. This parcel is +/-4.5 acres so there should be quite a bit of room to place a house and a garage without needing a variance.
Mr. Striano agreed with Mrs. Carney.
Chairman Fornal noted that he felt that this was more of a preference rather than a hardship.
Mr. Striano motioned for a Negative Advisory to the ZBA. Mrs. Carney seconded the motion.
Discussion: Mr. Ricks noted that he should try and find another spot to place the house.
Mrs. Carney wasn’t fond of granting variances, especially to an applicant who just built their house.
Mr. Striano didn’t feel that there was a hardship, he felt it was poor planning and a self created hardship.
Mr. Tapper felt that there should be property rights.
Vote:
Fornal: Yes Ricks: Yes
Tapper: No Carney: Yes
Striano: Yes Kawalchuk: Yes
O’Halloran: Not requested to attend Gaydos: Absent
PRE-APPLICATION PRESENTATION
MARK RUSHFIELD– Special Use Permit for Bed & Breakfast, 1807 Berme Road, Kerhonkson, Tax Map #76.4-1-1.114
Mr. Rushfield was not in attendance.
Mrs. Carney noted that she would look into the provisions for Bed & Breakfasts for the next meeting.
OTHER MATTERS
Chairman Fornal noted that the Board has received a FOIL request from Grant & Lyons dated November 10, 2006 regarding the Combined Energy (Orchard at Towner Farms) Fuel Storage business. One of the neighbors has retained this law firm.
T/ROCHESTER Page 5
MINUTES OF MEETING November 21, 2006
OTHER MATTERS (cont’d):
Chairman Fornal also noted that there is a copy of the draft of the new Subdivision Regs in the Board Member’s files as well. This is all going to be presented at one time with Zoning starting around March with the Public Hearings. This is just for the Board Member’s to informally review to raise any questions they may have now.
Mr. Ricks wanted to know where this came from. The members of the committee didn’t write all of this.
Chairman Fornal noted that they started going over the Current Regs. And they basically decided that they were just going to dispose of those. Tom Shepstone, the Code consultant, came back with some examples and the committee worked with him.
Mr. Ricks noted that you wouldn’t see little people come in to do subdivisions anymore.
Chairman Fornal stated that all subdivisions that are proposed will come before the Board. Minor subdivision is anything that doesn’t require an improvement—they would have to have road frontage and all of that. Anything that needs an improvement like a road, that would be considered Major.
Mrs. Carney noted that right now you can subdivide as long as you have road frontage and you have 4 lots or less—and you don’t have to come in front of the Planning Board at all.
Chairman Fornal noted that it would only be 1 or 2 meetings for Minor. Conservation subdivisions aren’t proposed to be mandatory.
This doesn’t have anything to do with density. This is based on the ‘buildable acre’ concept. This is an adjustable acre track. There are examples in the Draft Regs. There may end up being some sort of a tax shift, but they still aren’t 100% sure. 1 acre parcels are still questionable as to whether or not they will be grandfathered in.
Mrs. Carney couldn’t believe that this could happen that someone whose been holding onto 1 acre for years is going to be told that now its not buildable? She couldn’t see this happening.
The Chairman advised the Board to forward any of their comments to him and he would let the Board know when the official advisory from the Town Board was requested.
Mr. Striano motioned to accept the minutes from the October 17, 2006 meeting. Seconded by Mr. Fornal.
Vote:
Fornal: Yes Ricks: Yes
Tapper: Yes Carney: Abstain
Striano: Yes Kawalchuk: Yes
O’Halloran: Not requested to attend Gaydos: Absent
Mr. Tapper questioned if there was anything that jumps out at anyone that is drastically different than what was existing?
Mr. Ricks noted that the whole proposed Subdivision Regulations were different.
T/ROCHESTER Page 5
MINUTES OF MEETING November 21, 2006
Chairman Fornal noted that it is different, but it is trying to be more clear in the language and procedures and time frames.
Mrs. Carney questioned if Rochester is going to be developing their own Stormwater district? There were a couple of things that she may have some comments on and wasn’t sure if the Town adopted their own Stormwater regulations or not.
The Chairman noted that he was amazed at how many private public water facilities there were in the Town.
Ms. Carney motioned to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Mr. Striano. All members present in favor.
As there was no further business to discuss, at 7:46 PM Chairman Fornal adjourned the meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
Rebecca Paddock Stange, Secretary