MINUTES OF May 15, 2007, 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 Melvyn I. Tapper
Shane Ricks
Robert Gaydos
Robert Godwin, Alternate (not required to attend)
Nadine D. Carney, Vice Chair
Anthony Ullman
Anthony Kawalchuk
Pledge to the Flag.
The Chairman introduced the Board to the audience.
PUBLIC HEARING
WILLIAM DAMBERG– proposed 2 lot subdivision in the Queensmont Estates subdivision off of Queens Hwy, Tax Map #68.1-4-2
Mr. Damberg was present along with his representative, Terry Ringler.
Mr. Ringler explained that this was 8 ¾ acres that was being split into 2 lots. It is part of the approved Queensmont subdivision.
The Chairman opened the Hearing to the public.
William Clayton was recognized to speak. Mr. Clayton was the bounding owner and was in favor of the subdivision.
Mr. Ringler noted that the right-of-way to lot 1 goes through Mr. Clayton’s property and is a part of the approved Queensmont Subdivision.
Mrs. Clayton noted that their lot is lot 1, so should Mr. Damberg’s be 2a and 2b?
Mr. Ringler noted that theirs was lot 1 of the Queensmont subdivision and this was lot 1 and 2 of Mr. Damberg’s subdivision.
T/ROCHESTER Page 2
MINUTES OF MEETING May 15, 2007
PUBLIC HEARING
WILLIAM DAMBERG (cont’d)– proposed 2 lot subdivision in the Queensmont Estates subdivision off of Queens Hwy, Tax Map #68.1-4-2
Mrs. Carney motioned to keep the Public Hearing open as the 30 day comment period had not yet expired. Mr. Gaydos seconded the motion. No discussion.
Fornal: Yes Ricks: Yes
Tapper: Absent Carney: Yes
Ullman: Yes Kawalchuk: Yes
Godwin: Not requested to participate Gaydos: Yes
Mr. Ricks noted that the letter received from the DEC really didn’t answer any questions about the easement. Were they going to send further information? They wanted to know what the reasoning was for the easement.
Mr. Ringler noted that an easement has to be a transfer between 2 entities. There has to be a written conveyance. The term ‘conservation easement’ on that map is just a term. It was a reservation that was held back by the Town of Rochester for that area. The easement has to be accepted and conveyed for a legal transaction. That hasn’t happened, so there is no legal conservation easement. There is a notation on a map that this land shouldn’t be disturbed. There is no instrument creating it and the Town of Rochester never accepted a deed of conveyance for that easement and that’s part of what has to happen for an easement to actually exist. So, technically there is no conservation easement. Its poor wording on a map. What the previous PB did was make a reservation of that land. The only documentation that exists is this plat with this note on it.
The Chairman wanted this put in writing to clarify.
Mr. Ringler noted that the legal access to cross the stream was all done by the prior subdivision and approved by the Town of Rochester Planning Board. Mr. Damberg will have to get a stream crossing permit if he needs that in order to get his building permit. So the whole issue with this right-of-way or using the new driveway shouldn’t be an issue for the subdivision of this second lot.
Mrs. Carney can see the DEC’s point of view that the land that there has been land disturbed in creating this existing driveway and creating another driveway and disturbing more land plus the protected stream they are looking to minimize the disturbance.
Mr. Ringler noted that the Town Attorney stated that there was no case law.
The Board then reviewed Chazen’s review letter dated May 11, 2007. Part 1 of the EAF had been satisfied. Mr. Johannessen had discussed comments with Mr. Ringler on the phone already.
The Board then reviewed Part 2 of the EAF.
T/ROCHESTER Page 3
MINUTES OF MEETING May 15, 2007
PUBLIC HEARING
WILLIAM DAMBERG (cont’d)– proposed 2 lot subdivision in the Queensmont Estates subdivision off of Queens Hwy, Tax Map #68.1-4-2
#1 IMPACT ON LAND
Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site? Yes. Construction on land were bedrock is exposed or generally within 3 feet of existing ground surface. Potential Large Impact. Project can be mitigated by project change.
#5 IMPACT ON WATER
Will proposed action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity? Yes. Proposed Action requires use of a source of water that does not have approval to serve proposed project action. Potential Large Impact. Project can be mitigated by project change.
Proposed Action will allow residential uses in areas without water and or sewer services. Potential Large Impact. Project can be mitigated by project change.
IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD
#19 Will proposed Action affect the character of the existing community? Yes. Proposed Action will cause a change in the density of land use. Potentially Large Impact. Cannot be mitigated by project change.
Mr. Ringler was in agreement that he would prepare Part 3 for the next meeting.
Mrs. Carney noted that the Board would like the letter from Mr. Ringler regarding the conservation easement and Mr. Damberg should continue looking into the Stream crossing with the DEC. The Right to Farm note should be on the map and Health Dept. approval was needed for lot 2.
PUBLIC HEARING
ANTHONY JARVIS– 3 lot subdivision in the Jacob Gray Subdivision, Rochester Center Road, Tax Map # 68.3-3-6.130, R-1 District
Mr. Jarvis was present along with representative, Terry Ringler. Mr. Ringler explained that Mr. Jarvis has proposed 3 lots on Rochester Center Road. They are open fields. This is in a residential area with small sawmills and mining in the area about 1,000 feet or more away.
Chairman Fornal opened the Hearing to the public. There was no comment.
Mrs. Carney motioned to close the Public Hearing. Seconded by Mr. Gaydos. No discussion.
Vote:
Fornal: Yes Ricks: Yes
Tapper: Absent Carney: Yes
Ullman: Yes Kawalchuk: Yes
Godwin: Not requested to participate Gaydos: Yes
T/ROCHESTER Page 4
MINUTES OF MEETING May 15, 2007
PUBLIC HEARING
ANTHONY JARVIS(con’td): 3 lot subdivision in the Jacob Gray Subdivision, Rochester Center Road, Tax Map # 68.3-3-6.130, R-1 District
The Board reviewed Chazen’s comment letter dated May 11, 2007. The DEC confirmation stating that there were no endangered species on the property was still outstanding. He also noted that the Ag Data Statement was fine, although it was lacking a map which Mr. Ringler already noted he would supply.
The Board went over Part 2 of the EAF.
#5 IMPACT ON WATER
Will proposed action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity? Yes. Proposed Action requires use of a source of water that does not have approval to serve proposed project action. Potential Large Impact. Project can be mitigated by project change.
Proposed Action will allow residential uses in areas without water and or sewer services. Potential Large Impact. Project can be mitigated by project change.
IMPACT ON AGRICULTURAL LAND RESOURCES
#10 Will the proposed action affect agricultural land resources. Yes. Construction Activity would excavate or compact the soil profile of Ag land. And The proposed action would irreversibly convert more than 10 acres of Ag land or, if located in an Ag District more than 2.5 acres of Ag land. Both items were checked Potentially Large Impact. Cannot be mitigated by project change.
IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD
#19 Will proposed Action affect the character of the existing community? Yes. Proposed Action will cause a change in the density of land use. Potentially Large Impact. Cannot be mitigated by project change.
Mr. Ringler was in agreement that he would prepare Part 3 for the next meeting.
Mr. Johannessen wanted the limits of disturbance to be revised as per his comment letter dated May 11, 2007.
Mr. Ringler would provide a typical driveway detail as per Mr. Johannessen’s comment letter dated May 11, 2007.
T/ROCHESTER Page 5
MINUTES OF MEETING May 15, 2007
CONTINUED APPLICATION REVIEW
VICTOR VAN BORKULO– c/o Taconic Designs, 6 lot subdivision, Millbrook Lane, Tax Map #
76.002-2-6.411 R-2 District
Mr. Ricks recused himself.
Mr. Cellas, from Taconic Designs, was present on behalf of the application.
Mr. Johannessen noted that Chazen was done reviewing this application and has signed of on the Stormwater.
Chairman Fornal noted that the applicant has requested a waiver from condition #5 of Conditional Preliminary Approval:
1. 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.
He noted that they had submitted a Road Maintenance Agreement and Drainage Maintenance Agreement that was reviewed and accepted by the Town Attorney. He was not sure if the Town Attorney reviewed this document as an acceptable HOA. And, even though an HOA is not required by the Town’s Code he has been advised by the Town Attorney that the Board is within their right to require one.
The Board suggested having the Town Attorney look at the Applicant’s submitted RMA/DMA to verify that it has the appropriate language for the HOA as acceptable to the Town Attorney.
The Board then reviewed conditions for Conditional Final Approval and the following motion was made:
Mrs. Carney motioned for Conditional Final Approval seconded by Mr. Gaydos with the following conditions:
1. A Home Owner’s Association (HOA) or other such legal authority/instrument, reviewed and approved by the Town’s Legal Advisor, shall be established and be held responsible for RMA and Stormwater maintenance/repairs.
2. The Applicant hereby agrees to be responsible for all costs and expenses incurred by the Town in
3. connection with the Road Maintenance Agreement, Stormwater Maintenance Agreement, and HOA; 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.
4. The Planning Board Chairman shall sign the maps once the above mentioned conditions are met.
5. Applicant shall file maps within 60 days of chairman’s signature and return 3 filed copies to the Town
The Board continued to discuss the HOA as Mr. Cellas questioned why it wasn’t waived.
They believed that it was worth asking the Town Attorney if this language was already included in the RMA/DMA that he had reviewed and found acceptable.
T/ROCHESTER Page 6
MINUTES OF MEETING May 15, 2007
CONTINUED APPLICATION PRESENTATION
FRANK KORTRIGHT– c/o Medenbach & Eggers, Special Use Permit for Renewal of Mining Permit, Rochester Center Road, Tax Map #68.3-2-14, R-1 District
Mr. Kortright was present along with representatives, Ed Sprague from Medenbach & Eggers and Dominic Cordisco, Mr. Kortright’s attorney.
Mr. Ricks rejoined the Board.
The Chairman thanked Mr. Cordisco for his letter dated April 30, 2007. He noted that he would have loved to go through it, however the PB’s job tonight was to set the Public Hearing for renewal.
Mrs. Carney made a motion to set the Public Hearing. Seconded by Mr. Gaydos.
DISCUSSION:
Mr. Cordisco asked to speak before the Board voted. He was not aware that a Public Hearing would be required for a renewal.
The Chairman noted that there is no language in the Town’s Code that differentiates a renewal and a Special Use Permit. Public Hearings are required for every action—even lot line adjustments.
Mr. Cordisco understood this and noted that Mr. Kortright had a Public Hearing for a Special Use Permit just 9 months ago. This is a renewal and was approved months ago.
Mr. Ricks never recalled having a Public Hearing before for a renewal, so there was no precedent for doing one.
Chairman Fornal noted that the applicant was asking for a Special Use Permit and since there was no language in the Code, then the PB is required to hold a Public Hearing.
Mr. Ricks didn’t think this applied to a renewal.
The Chairman questioned where it was stated in the Code that renewals were exempt from Public Hearings?
Mr. Ricks didn’t have it in front of him.
Mr. Cordisco stated that the Board didn’t need to follow the procedure for granting the Special Use Permit for a renewal.
Chairman Fornal wanted to know where the renewal language was in the Code and the Board would abide by that.
Mrs. Carney confirmed that there was no change or site plan submitted for change to the site plan.
Mr. Cordisco verified this—there was nothing different this time around. It’s like getting a driver’s license renewed. You go and get your driver’s license renewed, but you don’t have to take your driver’s test every time that you apply for a renewal and this is what Chairman Fornal was implying.
T/ROCHESTER Page 7
MINUTES OF MEETING May 15, 2007
CONTINUED APPLICATION PRESENTATION
FRANK KORTRIGHT(cont’d): c/o Medenbach & Eggers, Special Use Permit for Renewal of Mining Permit, Rochester Center Road, Tax Map #68.3-2-14, R-1 District
Chairman Fornal had a hard time making the comparison.
Mr. Cordisco understood, but noted that the Code does require that the term of the permit runs with the DEC Permit.
The Chairman agreed and stated that the Board is here obviously for some reason. If the applicant didn’t need something, he wouldn’t be here. What the applicant needs is a Special Use Permit Renewal and there is no language in the Code to differentiate. So what the Board has is a Special Use Permit process. And they are going to go through it, which consists of a Public Hearing and then a vote on the renewal on the application at the conclusion.
Mr. Cordisco felt it was highly irregular and not necessary to require a Public Hearing for a renewal when the Board just had a Public Hearing less than 9 months ago. There is nothing that’s changed. The only thing that is causing the applicant to come before the Board is that the DEC permit runs for 5 years and it happens to be up for expiration. So, they have applied both to the Town and to the DEC for renewal. Nothing on the plan has changed, so requiring another Public Hearing, he wasn’t sure what that process served.
Chairman Fornal didn’t know if it served any process other than the Code.
Mr. Cordisco noted that there was nothing in the Code about renewals other than renewals run with the term of DEC permits.
Chairman Fornal agreed and noted that as far as that was concerned when the DEC permit expires, so does the Town’s Special Use Permit, so the Board needs to go through a Special Use Permit renewal process which is what?
Mr. Cordisco noted that the Special Use Permit process is to consider whether or not any changes have occurred and if there have been no changes then the Board should act on the renewal of the permit without any further delay and this was laid out in his letter of April 30, 2007 regarding the State Administrative Procedures Act. That renewals should be acted upon promptly.
The Chairman knew this and noted that this was for the DEC.
Mr. Ricks felt the Board members should take a poll to see what each member thought.
Chairman Fornal noted that they weren’t going to poll the Board on what the Code required.
Mr. Ricks noted that the Code doesn’t say that a new Public Hearing had to be held or that a renewal had to go through the whole Special Use Permit process.
Chairman Fornal wanted to know why the applicants just don’t send a letter asking for the Board to sign off on the renewal rather than having them re-apply?
T/ROCHESTER Page 8
MINUTES OF MEETING May 15, 2007
CONTINUED APPLICATION PRESENTATION
FRANK KORTRIGHT(cont’d): c/o Medenbach & Eggers, Special Use Permit for Renewal of Mining Permit, Rochester Center Road, Tax Map #68.3-2-14, R-1 District
Mr. Cordisco noted that they did, but the first time they did that they weren’t allowed on the Board’s agenda and he believed that this was the third month that they have tried to get this resolved.
Mr. Ricks noted that these have happened over and over before and nobody ever came in for one of these. They’ve always been automatically renewed in the Code Enforcement Office.
Mrs. Carney had one question. Since there wasn’t a site plan or any changes or a SEQRA process, what would the Board do with the information from the Public Hearing? Just put it on record?
Chairman Fornal stated that the DEC’s point of view, nothing has changed. That’s understood. From the Town’s point of view, suppose a whole housing complex moved in—for the Town there is a change. In fact, there has just been a subdivision before the Board where there are 3 additional houses going in on Rochester Center Road and there was another one that was just built, so that makes 4 additional houses in the area.
Mr. Cordisco supposed that by the time they go to a Public Hearing that maybe those homes would be occupied and those people could come out and speak. He would agree that if there were changed circumstances that a Public Hearing would be warranted, but he felt that it’s very clear that since the 9 months that they’d been here that nothing had changed and there is no need for a Public Hearing. It was as simple as that.
Chairman Fornal didn’t feel comfortable with that because he didn’t think that was the process. He didn’t like polling the Board on process, because that’s not what it’s really about.
Mr. Ricks felt that there wasn’t a clear written law and there wasn’t anything from the Attorney saying, yes you have to do it.
Mr. Cordisco felt it was within the Board’s discretion to require a Public Hearing or not.
Mrs. Carney noted that they don’t have many Special Use Permits that have time frames.
Mr. Ricks knew that with the Camp Ground that they wanted a renewal every year and wanted a dollar for every campsite—you fill out a piece of paper and send in the $400 and your done. If a subdivision moved in next door it wouldn’t have any effect on it. It’s an existing business and has been there since the 1960’s. He just thought an issue was being made because it was mining.
Mr. Gaydos stated that they’ve renewed mining permits for years and never had Public Hearings.
The Chairman’s point was that he didn’t know if what was done in the past was correct. Mr. Cordisco is saying that it’s not correct.
Mr. Cordisco was saying that he felt it was within the Board’s discretion to hold a Public Hearing and he didn’t think it was necessary.
T/ROCHESTER Page 9
MINUTES OF MEETING May 15, 2007
CONTINUED APPLICATION PRESENTATION
FRANK KORTRIGHT(cont’d): c/o Medenbach & Eggers, Special Use Permit for Renewal of Mining Permit, Rochester Center Road, Tax Map #68.3-2-14, R-1 District
Mr. Gaydos wanted to know if Mr. Cordisco was saying it wasn’t correct or if Chairman Fornal was saying it wasn’t correct.
Chairman Fornal stated that Mr. Cordisco was saying it wasn’t correct to hold one.
Mr. Cordisco stated that to be fair, he believed that it was within the Board’s discretion to hold one if something
Had changed because it’s not spelled out in the Code and there is no process for renewal other than saying that they have to come in and apply for a renewal. This is not a question of whether or not it should have been granted in the first place.
Chairman Fornal agreed that this was just a process for renewal.
Mr. Ullman questioned if this required a Special Use Permit?
Mr. Cordisco noted that they obtained the Special Use Permit about 9 months ago. It’s not expired yet and they need a renewal.
Mr. Ullman wanted to clarify if it was the issuance of a new one or the renewal of an old one. The more he was reading here it said that the PB would have the power after a Public Notice and Hearing to provide a Special Use Permit. If it’s a renewal of an old one as opposed to the issuance of a new one, he would see Mr. Cordisco’s point.
Chairman Fornal noted that there was a change and that’s the time frames and that’s 5 years. It’s a literal change to the permit. He wasn’t being facetious, he was just saying.
Mrs. Carney still wanted to know what the Board was supposed to do with the information.
Chairman Fornal didn’t think they would do anything nor would any one show up.
Mrs. Carney was just saying if someone came and had a comment, what would they do? Just put it on file.
The Chairman believed that this would be what would be done.
Mr. Cordisco felt that this was a little interesting if someone did come out and was opposed to the application. He felt that he Board’s hands would still be tied.
Mr. Ricks stated that it was a big waste of time.
Chairman Fornal wasn’t talking about whether or not it was a waste of time, he was talking about if this was the correct process? Like it says in the part of the code that Mr. Ullman read, it just seems like a Public Hearing is required.
T/ROCHESTER Page 10
MINUTES OF MEETING May 15, 2007
CONTINUED APPLICATION PRESENTATION
FRANK KORTRIGHT(cont’d): c/o Medenbach & Eggers, Special Use Permit for Renewal of Mining Permit, Rochester Center Road, Tax Map #68.3-2-14, R-1 District
Mr. Ullman felt that if the renewal was issued without the proper process it may be invalid.
Mr. Cordisco did not agree that this was the process.
Mr. Ricks would have hoped that after the last 2 meetings that Mr. Fornal would have gotten a letter from the Town Attorney saying yes you have to do this, or no you don’t. Meanwhile all these people have come in for 3 meetings now for a big waste of time.
Mr. Cordisco noted that the Board asked him to write to the Town Attorney, Mr. Futerfas and he also spoke with him and he asked also that it be put in writing and if he had any additional concerns that he would respond.
Mr. Ricks noted that Mr. Futerfas never responded to the Board.
Nor did he respond to Mr. Cordisco.
Mr. Ullman still wondered if this was a renewal or the granting of a new permit. If it was a new permit than the statute says that there should be a hearing.
Mr. Cordisco noted that it wasn’t a new Special Use Permit and the Zoning Code only speaks to new Special Use Permits, it doesn’t set forth a process.
Mr. Ricks stated that the Board never did a renewal before.
Chairman Fornal noted that the Town Attorney has told him many times before that if its not clear that the applicant gets the benefit of the doubt.
Mr. Ullman didn’t feel that the Board hasn’t gotten a really clear view from the Town Attorney as to if a Public Hearing was needed.
Mr. Kawalchuk questioned what had been done in the past?
Chairman Fornal noted that they weren’t talking about the past.
Mr. Gaydos stated that protocol doesn’t count.
Mr. Kortright noted that he had come before the Board years ago for a renewal for a Special Use Permit for Howard Dunn’s Mine. He came before the Board and they asked if any changes were done and that was it and they granted a renewal of that Special Use Permit.
Chairman Fornal noted that if its invalid, they’d find that out.
T/ROCHESTER Page 11
MINUTES OF MEETING May 15, 2007
CONTINUED APPLICATION PRESENTATION
FRANK KORTRIGHT(cont’d): c/o Medenbach & Eggers, Special Use Permit for Renewal of Mining Permit, Rochester Center Road, Tax Map #68.3-2-14, R-1 District
Mr. Cordisco noted that if someone challenged it and the court finds that the Board needed to do a Public Hearing, he’s sure they would send it back for one. They’d be willing to take that risk.
Mr. Ricks motioned to renew the Kortright mine. Seconded by Mr. Gaydos.
Vote:
Fornal: Abstain Ricks: Yes
Tapper: Absent Carney: Yes
Ullman: Abstain Kawalchuk: Yes
Godwin: Not requested to participate Gaydos: Yes
Mr. Gaydos noted that Chairman Fornal even stated that the Town Attorney said to give the benefit of the doubt to the Applicant.
Chairman Fornal noted that if there was a benefit of the doubt, but maybe the language isn’t there to give that.
**MRS. CARNEY NOTED THAT SHE STILL HAD A MOTION THAT WAS NEVER ACTED ON FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR KORTRIGHT. FOR THE RECORD, SHE WAS WITHDRAWING IT.
CONTINUED APPLICATION REVIEW
Dawson Homes, Inc– subdivision to be known as Mount Laurel Estates, First Phase of 22 lots, Samsonville Road, Tax Map # 60.1-2-2 &3, ‘A’ District
Mr. Sprague of Medenbach & Eggers was present on behalf of the application. He noted that they have submitted final maps of phase 1. He noted that the road is roughed in.
Mr. Johannessen noted that the applicant hadn’t bonded the road yet, but he shouldn’t be doing any site work until they get Conditional Final Approval. There is still stormwater issues that haven’t been resolved. He also requested that they name the maps in ‘Sections’ instead of ‘Phases’ for approvals.
Chairman Fornal read a draft of a Conditional Final Approval to run the language by the Board to allow the applicant to achieve what they want without having to do the withdrawal. This wouldn’t be acted on tonight—Mr. Sprague should show this to Mr. Dawson:
Re: Mount Laurel Estates – Conditional Final Approval
Whereas the Town of Rochester Planning Board issued a Conditional Preliminary Approval (#2005-12SBD) which represents conceptual approval for the entire proposed subdivision, this Conditional Final Approval is for Phase(Section) One (Lots #2-4, 20-22) only. Phase Two (Lots #5-9, 14-15, 19) and Phase Three (Lots #10-13, 16-18) shall each be required to have a separate application submitted for final approval with the understanding that, barring any substantial changes, SEQR requirements have been met, that there are no segmentation issues and a public hearing will be held for each separate application. Upon gaining Conditional
T/ROCHESTER Page 12
MINUTES OF MEETING May 15, 2007
CONTINUED APPLICATION REVIEW
Dawson Homes, Inc(cont’d)– subdivision to be known as Mount Laurel Estates, First Phase of 22 lots, Samsonville Road, Tax Map # 60.1-2-2 &3, ‘A’ District
Preliminary Approval for each subsequent phase, the applicant will have six months with up to two three month extensions to complete the conditions for achieving final approval per phase.
CONDITIONS FOR PHASE ONE FINAL APPROVAL:
Ulster County Health Department approvals for water and septic will be required for Phase One lots numbered 2-4, 20-22.
Condition #1 shall be complied with prior to any parcel of the subdivision being transferred in any manner.
No Building Permit shall be issued until Condition #1 is complied with.
Applicant shall comply with Central Hudson requirements for utility service.
A cash bond, escrow account or other financial instrument approved by the Town Attorney shall be in the amount determined by the Town of Rochester Highway Superintendent for full cost of Phase One road completion.
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.
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 Phase One lots #2-4 and 20-22.
Applicant shall submit to the Planning Board a signed and notarized Drainage Easement Agreement by the property owner for Phase One lots # 2-4 and 20-22. This Agreement is subject to review and approval by the Town Attorney.
A legal authority (e.g., Home Owners’ Association, Land Trust, etc) shall be established and shall be responsible for RMA, Stormwater maintenance/repairs and the maintenance/upkeep of Conservation Easements. This authority shall submit documentation of establishment and subsequent responsibilities to the Town Attorney for review and acceptance.
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 Stormwater Maintenance/Repair Agreement; 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.
Recreation Fees in the amount of $1,600 ($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.
The following notation shall appear on the final map which shall be submitted to the Planning Board prior to Final Approval: “This property my 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 my involve insecticides, herbicides, pesticides, etc.”
Prior to the issuance of Final Approval, the escrow account must be paid in full.
Soil 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 shall be completed per phase prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy.
Applicant must comply with Chazen comment letters dated August 9, 2006 and August 4, 2006 (attached).
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. An Easement and Covenant Notice shall be filed with the Ulster County Clerk.
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 covenant, applicant must provide proof of such deed restrictions (and shall place on map) prior to final approval.
Prior to Final Approval, applicant shall eliminate 20′ right-of-ways listed as “Road up the Hill” and “Dug Road” as listed on map prepared by Medenbach & Eggers dated 8/30/06.
T/ROCHESTER Page 13
MINUTES OF MEETING May 15, 2007
CONTINUED APPLICATION REVIEW
Dawson Homes, Inc(cont’d)– subdivision to be known as Mount Laurel Estates, First Phase of 22 lots, Samsonville Road, Tax Map # 60.1-2-2 &3, ‘A’ District
The Chairman continued and noted that this allows the applicant to bond the road by section and also to get the Health Dept. approvals by section. This does have the applicant come in—but its right there in writing that as long as there is no change, SEQRA is done. Then all they’re coming in for is the Public Hearing because it’s a new application and each Section would get a full year. This way everything would be able to be satisfied.
Mrs. Carney questioned if SEQRA expired if this dragged on for a year?
Mr. Johannessen felt that SEQRA was done on the project.
The Chairman agreed that SEQRA was done on the whole project, so everything was upfront and there is no segmentation. By NYS Town Law Section 265 it gives 3 years to do all 3 phases.
Mr. Johannessen has concerns relative to the construction without Planning Board Approval and especially the SWPPP hasn’t been approved. To have the road going in without this stuff being finalized isn’t good.
Mr. Sprague stated that they had to rough the road in to get in there to do test holes and perc tests.
Mr. Johannessen then asked that the improvements on the lots not being applied for be turned off for the sections that are being applied for phase by phase. Also to show the temporary cul-de-sac—just to distinguish between what’s being approved and what’s not. He also recalled Barry noting that this was going to be a buffer and not a conservation easement—this needs to be clarified.
Mr. Sprague noted that Mr. Dawson was working on the Road Maintenance and Drainage Maintenance Agreement.
Mrs. Carney noted that something should be noted in the RMA & DMA that all of these lots in these phases will be added on.
CONTINUED APPLICATION REVIEW
TAROH HOLDINGS– c/o Medenbach & Eggers, 3 lot subdivision at Old Mine Road, Tax Map #76.10-1-9.1, Industrial District
Mr. O’Halloran was present along with representatives, Ed Sprague from Medenbach & Eggers along with his Attorney, Peter Berger.
Chairman Fornal noted that there has been a lot of ‘back and forth’ on this. There’s a question. First of all the letter from Mr. Berger dated………….. Chairman Fornal had a copy of his letter dated April 26, 2007 and in the second paragraph, he wasn’t contesting that Mr. O’Halloran has an ‘I’ Zone because it is on the map. The fact that what he offered in his letter…
Mr. Berger interrupted and noted that if it was important for the Chairman to review his letter as compared to Mr. Fornal’s position, that was fine. But if there is not an issue that it is an ‘I’ Zone, they’d be happy to proceed.
T/ROCHESTER Page 14
MINUTES OF MEETING May 15, 2007
CONTINUED APPLICATION REVIEW
TAROH HOLDINGS (CONT’D): c/o Medenbach & Eggers, 3 lot subdivision at Old Mine Road, Tax Map #76.10-1-9.1, Industrial District
Chairman Fornal noted that they are proceeding, but the issue is in the fact that the ‘I’ Zone according to the language of the Code—where he went to the Town Attorney and discussed this language in 140-22(B):
… ‘The use permit shall be limited to the one industry in accordance with the original application and permit.’
Mr. O’Halloran was questioning if this was referring to the Special Use Permit that they received after they changed it to an ‘I’ District?
Chairman Fornal was talking about the language in the Code.
Mr. O’Halloran noted that the Special Use Permit at that time was by a company known as North East Distributors and they’ve been long gone and this has nothing to do with the application.
Chairman Fornal wanted to clarify that the issue is that the position of the Town Attorney is that when you want an ‘I’ Zone or an ‘I’ use, you have to go through the ‘I’ process to establish a district. Now Mr. O’Halloran wants to subdivide. The fact that he subdivides does not create 3 new ‘I’ zone parcels. It creates 1 ‘I’ Zone with 2 underlying lots—which would be R-2 Zones.
Mr. Berger stated that if this is zoned Industrial- Chairman Fornal was referring to the Zoning Ordinance. Each proposed use is going to make an application based on this Zoning Ordinance. He was confused between subdivision Regulations and Zoning Ordinances as this was being applied for subdivision. He didn’t know how the Board was going to limit the number of Industrial Uses on property that’s zoned Industrial when there is a Zoning Ordinance that’s going to say it’s a completely different process. Its clear to the applicant that this is an Industrial Zone. So, they are making an application to divide that and then the new owner of one of the lots or Mr. O’Halloran is going to make an application under the Zoning Ordinance and if they have 3 conforming lots in the ‘I’ Zone, the Board is going to apply the Zoning Ordinance then. The Chairman is confusing Mr. Berger by responding to their subdivision application by looking at the Zoning Ordinance.
Chairman Fornal noted that what they have to do when the consider those lots they have certain regulations they have to follow, which in this case is Industrial. So they have to consider for parking—everything. So if there is going to be 1 ‘I’ Zone and 2 R-2’s those are different.
Mr. Berger still didn’t understand why there would only be 1 ‘I’ Zone issued out of the 3 lots being proposed.
Chairman Fornal further explained that there are 3 separate parcels. 2 will have uses and 1 won’t. ‘I’ Zones are a floating district.
Mr. O’Halloran felt that the district went with the land.
Chairman Fornal answered that this was a floating district, and the whole concept behind a floating district is to allow flexibility, but the pay off is that there are more performance standards and its all about impacts onto adjacent properties. So, this is granted as a floating zone.
T/ROCHESTER Page 15
MINUTES OF MEETING May 15, 2007
CONTINUED APPLICATION REVIEW
TAROH HOLDINGS (CONT’D): c/o Medenbach & Eggers, 3 lot subdivision at Old Mine Road, Tax Map #76.10-1-9.1, Industrial District
Mr. Berger questioned if all Industrial Zones throughout the Town were floating zones?
The Chairman answered yes.
Mr. O’Halloran noted that when you have a floating zone, the land then becomes that zone. Floating Zones can’t be removed.
The Chairman disagreed that if it’s not used for a year, such approval (Special Use Permit) is deemed null and void.
Mr. O’Halloran noted that they weren’t talking about the Special Use Permit. That’s separate.
The Chairman disagreed because there is a zoning designation and then a permit for the use, which Mr. O’Halloran says that he has. An ‘I’ Zone with a Special Use Permit to operate.
Mr. O’Halloran stated absolutely not. He doesn’t’ have that under Taroh Holdings. There isn’t a Special Use Permit. Neither does Barra and Trumbore which used to be part of his parcel, so which one has the ‘I’ Zone? If the Chairman is saying that Mr. O’Halloran has it, then Barra and Trumbore don’t because that was already divided.
Chairman Fornal noted that there is a problem with that and the problem is the date. The official date on the map is 1977 and Mr. O’Halloran’s permit date is 1978.
Mr. O’Halloran noted that the next piece was subdivided back in 1983. What the Chairman is saying to him is that Mr. O’Halloran has a Special Use Permit for that—and he’s confused as to who has a Special Use Permit. He doesn’t. The process from his understanding is that the person went to the Town Board in 1977 to receive an ‘I’ District, which was approved by the Town Board. Then they had to go to the Planning Board for a Special Use Permit for a specific business and those were done a long time ago. Those businesses are long gone. So what’s left is ‘I’ Zone property and they were here today to divide that property. Which has already been done before.
Chairman Fornal noted that when Mr. O’Halloran stated that those original businesses are long gone—it should have kicked in where there is nothing there.
Mr. O’Halloran went to the Code Enforcement Office this week and asked for the Zoning for his property and they looked it up and they said its very simple. Mr. O’Halloran’s tax map number is actually on the official zoning map and specifically stating its an ‘I’ Zone. The Code Enforcement Office issues the Zoning the application and they confirmed it as ‘I’. They are here to proceed with the subdivision of the ‘I’ Zone to split those 3 lots which will also be zoned as ‘I’. There should be an issue with the Code Enforcement Office, not with Mr. O’Halloran .
Chairman Fornal noted that the issue is how the Board is supposed to deal with those 3 lots.
T/ROCHESTER Page 16
MINUTES OF MEETING May 15, 2007
CONTINUED APPLICATION REVIEW
TAROH HOLDINGS (CONT’D): c/o Medenbach & Eggers, 3 lot subdivision at Old Mine Road, Tax Map #76.10-1-9.1, Industrial District
Mr. O’Halloran noted that they are subdividing like any other piece of property. There is a planner at this meeting and Tom Shepstone confirmed as well that they are subdividing an ‘I’ Zone into 3 pieces and because that Zone goes with the land those 3 pieces are ‘I’ Zone property. The Chairman could pick pieces of language and confuse this and grab onto it, but he wasn’t going to get an answer from that because again he was just going to cause confusion.
Mrs. Carney wanted to know if the Board was just asking what was going to develop on lot 2? Because normally they have to show the building area and septic area with residential subdivisions?
Mr. O’Halloran noted that they were not going to proceed if they weren’t going to get 3 ‘I’ Zones out of this property.
Chairman Fornal stated that is what the Board needed in a letter for the Town Attorney, stating that position.
Mr. O’Halloran noted that he’s stated that position by submitting his application. His application is to subdivide an ‘I’ zone into 3 pieces.
Chairman Fornal understood this and this is what he brought to the Town Attorney and the interpretation that he got from the Town Attorney is that there will not be 3 ‘I’ Zones out of this parcel.
Mr. O’Halloran noted that they didn’t receive an interpretation from the Town Attorney. They had something that stated the ‘Town’s’ position. He is really confuse and he’s really been recommended not to ask the following question, but he was asking this Planning Board. Who is the Town’s position?
Chairman Fornal noted that Mr. O’Halloran was at the last meeting where they had this conversation. Its obviously that there is some conflict in regards to interpretation. At that time the Chairman said that the would talk to the Town Attorney and that’s what he did.
Mr. Ricks just felt that if there was a letter from the Town Attorney this would clear it up.
Chairman Fornal stated that this is the information that they got from Mr. O’Halloran’s information which he submitted to the Town Attorney and the Town Attorney came back with this advise for the Board. The Town Attorney noted that if the applicant had a position that they wanted an absolute response to…
Mr. Berger interrupted and noted that this letter asked that they were applying for a subdivision of an Industrial Lot.
Mr. Johannessen was under the impression that there was an existing Special Use Permit for this parcel.
Mr. O’Halloran stated that this was irrelevant.
Mr. Johannessen saw it differently now that he sees that the property is ‘I’ Zone since the 1970’s and he’s subdividing it. He doesn’t see how that’s different than anything else. He thought that there was a Special Use
T/ROCHESTER Page 17
MINUTES OF MEETING May 15, 2007
CONTINUED APPLICATION REVIEW
TAROH HOLDINGS (CONT’D): c/o Medenbach & Eggers, 3 lot subdivision at Old Mine Road, Tax Map #76.10-1-9.1, Industrial District
Permit involved. The applicant would have to come back for a Special Use Permit or Site Plan Approval for a proposed use.
Mr. Berger noted that this would be the case. There was 1 Light Industrial Use proposed right now.
Mr. Ullman questioned what this was zoned prior to being an ‘I’ Zone.
The Chairman answered B-2.
Mr. Berger didn’t feel that was relevant.
Mrs. Carney questioned that all the Board needed to know was how to proceed to approve a buildable lot, was this correct?
Chairman Fornal noted that yes, the Board needed to know how to approach it. If some of these lots were going to be underlying R-2—that is different than an ‘I’ Zone. This is the question. He wished that the applicant would just indulge him and put this down in writing so it could be forwarded to the Town Attorney.
Mr. Berger thought that this was what they did.
Mr. Gaydos didn’t understand why it would be anything other than an ‘I’ Zone if ‘I’ Zone property was subdivided.
Chairman Fornal answered that because ‘I’ Zones are floating districts. The language says that each individual use gets 1 ‘I’ Zone.
Mr. Ullman didn’t read the statute that way, but if this is the interpretation of the Town Attorney, then this is the final say. The other point that he wanted to make was that its said that if the approved kind of light industrial use ceases to exist for a period of one year or more, such approval shall also be deemed null and void, such area shall be subject to the prior district regulations and the Town Clerk shall change the Zoning Map accordingly(140-22G.(6)(b)) So, if B-1 or B-2 allows what he wants to do then he can do it.
Mr. Berger wanted to clarify that the official map and Code Enforcement Office—everyone’s understanding is that this is Zoned Industrial and the Chairman is saying that it isn’t?
The Chairman was not saying that.
What Mr. Ullman stated that if you go by the map its listed as Industrial and he doesn’t see a problem with Mr. O’Halloran doing what he wants to do. If it turns out that the Code Enforcement Officer looked at this issue and didn’t realize that the use had ceased for a year, and made a mistake, he could go back and look at it and change it back to the underlying district.
Mr. Berger could assure the Board that the Code Enforcement Office isn’t going to be able to change the map.
T/ROCHESTER Page 18
MINUTES OF MEETING May 15, 2007
CONTINUED APPLICATION REVIEW
TAROH HOLDINGS (CONT’D): c/o Medenbach & Eggers, 3 lot subdivision at Old Mine Road, Tax Map #76.10-1-9.1, Industrial District
The Town Board creates Zoning Districts.
Mr. Ullman corrected himself saying that the Town Clerk would change it back. Would Mr. O’Halloran care if it went to the underlying district?
Chairman Fornal noted that the problem was that R-2 doesn’t allow for Industrial Use.
Mr. Berger noted that he would write to the Town Attorney to straighten this out.
Mrs. Carney felt that all correspondence that gets submitted to the Town Attorney needs to be first submitted to the Planning Board and then the Board forwards it to the Town Attorney.
The secretary confirmed that Mr. Berger submitted his letter to the PB and it was copied to Mr. Futerfas, but the PB office just received it on this date.
Chairman Fornal noted that that letter didn’t really state their position of keeping the 3 ‘I’ parcels.
Mr. O’Halloran stated that this is what he stated when he came here 3 months ago.
Chairman Fornal stated that this is what the Town Attorney wanted to see.
Mr. O’Halloran wanted to know what was keeping him from proceeding with 3 ‘I’ Zones at this point? He had a Planning Board in front of him, a Town Code Enforcement Office identify the parcel as ‘I’ Zone and there is an application in front of this Board to subdivide into 3 ‘I’ Zones. What is preventing him from moving forward now.
Mr. Berger noted that if this is the process that Chairman Fornal says needs to take place, Mr. O’Halloran presented this application 2- 3 months ago and when everyone’s frustration level reaches the point that an attorney has to attend on behalf of an applicant—attorney’s aren’t really necessary for applications before the Board, but if these things happen the Chairman really needs to look at his procedure because its frustrating and this is no way to run a PB.
Chairman Fornal noted that as was stated there was an interpretation discrepancy at the first meeting. The Chairman said he would go to the Town Attorney, which he did. He informed Mr. O’Halloran of what the results were. He didn’t like the results and then there has been this back and forth. So, this isn’t really part of the process. The process now is for the applicant to submit what their position is, the Board will forward it to the Town Attorney and he will respond to it. That’s it.
Mr. O’Halloran’s frustration isn’t whether he gets 2 ‘I’ Zones out of it or 2 ‘B’ Zones. It’s a nominal piece of property. His frustration is that this stuff happens without the Planning Board making the decisions.
Chairman Fornal responded that for him to bring the information to the Attorney this isn’t a Board decision.
T/ROCHESTER Page 19
MINUTES OF MEETING May 15, 2007
CONTINUED APPLICATION REVIEW
TAROH HOLDINGS (CONT’D): c/o Medenbach & Eggers, 3 lot subdivision at Old Mine Road, Tax Map #76.10-1-9.1, Industrial District
Mr. O’Halloran interrupted and stated that to send him an offer?
Chairman Fornal noted that that was not an offer. If Mr. O’Halloran did that again, the Chairman would take offense to that. Mr. O’Halloran was sitting there in a public meeting.
Mr. O’Halloran wasn’t referring to that, he was referring to the letter dated April 26, 2007 where the Chairman is offering him 1 ‘I’ Zone and 2 R-2 Zones. He wanted to know what about the rest of the Board members.
Chairman Fornal clarified and stated that was the position of the Town Attorney.
Mr. O’Halloran stated that the Town Attorney wasn’t on the Board.
Chairman Fornal agreed but stated that the Town Attorney is the legal interpreter. He again instructed the applicant to get a letter stating his position to the Board and the Board would forward it to the Town Attorney and they would get further clarification.
Mr. Ricks felt that the Town Attorney should write a letter on any question so the whole Board can see it.
Mrs. Carney agreed that if the Chairman asks a question, he needs to be given a written response.
The Chairman stated that as long as they didn’t get reprimanded for spending money on needless things.
Mr. Ricks noted that the Town Attorney’s already telling the Chairman, so why can’t he write it down so everyone could see it?
The Chairman stated that he shared the information.
Mr. Gaydos felt that the Chairman puts twists on things.
The Chairman was telling exactly what was said from the Town Attorney.
Mr. Gaydos noted that just last month the Chairman stated to everyone at the meeting that Jerry Davis and Brenda were adamant about Frank Kortright and that they agreed.
The Chairman didn’t say adamant—he said they had a discussion.
Mr. Gaydos continued and noted that it turns out that they were adamantly against it. The Chairman put a nice little twist on it to make it sound like it was what they wanted. Ask anyone that was here.
The Chairman felt that it was what Mr. Gaydos heard. They should go back to the video tape and watch it.
Mr. Gaydos liked the idea and then felt they should ask Jerry Davis and Brenda.
T/ROCHESTER Page 20
MINUTES OF MEETING May 15, 2007
CONTINUED APPLICATION REVIEW
TAROH HOLDINGS (CONT’D): c/o Medenbach & Eggers, 3 lot subdivision at Old Mine Road, Tax Map #76.10-1-9.1, Industrial District
Chairman Fornal stated exactly what he said and that was that they had a conversation with Rod and that is the agreement.
Mr. Gaydos stated that this is why Mr. Ricks wanted letters in writing from the Town Attorney, because sometimes things don’t come out the way they are said.
Mr. Ricks felt that this was like the game telephone. Information gets mixed up along the way.
Mrs. Carney felt that letters would actually save the Town money because now they have to go back to the Town Attorney for the same question.
The Chairman asked Mr. Ricks if he thought that the applicant should be supplying what their position was in writing to get a response back in writing?
Mr. Ricks stated that 3 months ago they wanted 3 lots.
Mrs. Carney felt that the Board should give the Town Attorney the whole application package and let him see that the applicant wants 3 ‘I’ Zones.
Mr. Ricks noted that the Chairman goes to the Town Attorney for everything anyway, so he might as well just write it up and get it to the Board members. If Mr. Ricks was an applicant he would be upset over this back and forth stuff. Its stupid. Now applicants feel like they need to bring attorney’s and they cost them $300 an hour when this stuff could have been solved with one letter.
Mrs. Carney felt that if that’s a district, they should be able to subdivide within that district.
Chairman Fornal saw this from a planning point of view. The planning point of view is that the overlay district is not a typical district. Its not like the ‘A’ Zone or the R-1 Zone. It’s a special district. That special district is all because of impacts to adjacent properties and therefore it makes perfect sense that you have an Industrial Zone that 1 use can cause up all these parameters is applied to 1 area—1 lot.
Mr. Ricks understood, but didn’t agree with the Chairman’s interpretation.
The Chairman stated that this was the Town Attorney’s position.
Mr. Kawalachuk wanted to know why the Town Attorney wasn’t here at these meetings? Its obvious the Board needs him here. What was the reason? Was it a money thing? Its costing the applicants.
Mr. Ricks agreed, the applicants are spending all their money on attorneys.
The Chairman felt that this was a personal decision that they make.
Mr. Kawalchuk felt that everything goes back to the Attorney anyway.
T/ROCHESTER Page 21
MINUTES OF MEETING May 15, 2007
CONTINUED APPLICATION REVIEW
TAROH HOLDINGS (CONT’D): c/o Medenbach & Eggers, 3 lot subdivision at Old Mine Road, Tax Map #76.10-1-9.1, Industrial District
The Chairman stated that he told Mr. O’Halloran to put it in writing, but he’d rather argue about it. He accused the Chairman of picking a fight. He’s not picking a fight.
Mr. Ricks stated that he said what he wanted to do in his initial application.
The Chairman understood this, but Mr. O’Halloran then gets an interpretation didn’t like it, so now he needs to put in writing what his position is and what he expects. He could have done this from the beginning.
Mr. Ricks felt that the Board should have proceeded unless the Attorney said they legally couldn’t. Otherwise they should just proceed and not play all the games back and forth. Its ridiculous.
Chairman Fornal sees it was developed into a game.
Mrs. Carney knew that there were uses on some of the proposed parcels and you can’t take those uses away from those buildings.
Mr. Ullman noted that Mr. O’Halloran stated that the old use that was permitted ceased long ago and technically it should have been reverted at that time back to the original district.
Mr. Ricks noted that it was one big property. It was a pipe factory and it burned down. And then across the street the granite counter top guy is there.
The Chairman stated that the fact of the matter is that when you go back to the record there is no record of the ‘I’ zone being created.
Mr. Ricks stated that its on the official Zoning Map.
This was just like his property. It says on the official Map how far back it goes.
Mr. Ullman felt that the Town Attorney should be here if the Town can afford it.
Mr. Ricks stated that the worst case scenario the Board could have proceeded tonight and set the Public Hearing for the June meeting.
The Chairman stated that Mr. O’Halloran had a Public Hearing that he never showed up and his representatives never showed up either.
T/ROCHESTER Page 22
MINUTES OF MEETING May 15, 2007
ACTION ON MINUTES OF MEETING
Mrs. Carney motioned to accept the minutes of the April 17, 2007 meeting. Seconded by Mr. Gaydos.
No discussion.
Vote:
Fornal: Yes Ricks: Yes
Tapper: Yes Carney: Yes
Ullman: abstained Kawalchuk: Absent
Godwin: Not requested to participate Gaydos: Yes
The Chairman noted that the Ulster County Planning Board Training for June 14, 2007 is approved.
Mr. Gaydos motioned to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Mr. Ullman. All members present in favor.
As there was no further business to discuss, at 8:30 PM Chairman Fornal adjourned the meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
Rebecca Paddock Stange, Secretary