MINUTES OF June 19, 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 Anthony Ullman
Shane Ricks
Robert Gaydos-7:30PM
Robert Godwin, Alternate (not required to attend)
Nadine D. Carney, Vice Chair
Anthony Kawalchuk
Melvyn I. Tapper
Pledge to the Flag.
The Chairman introduced the Board to the audience. Also present was Town Planner, Jan Johannessenn, from the Chazen Companies.
MODIFICATION OF PB DECISION#1989-12 QUEENSMONT SUBDIVISION
WILLIAM DAMBERG– modify PB Decision #1989-12, Queensmont Subdivision to eliminate a ‘conservation easement’ on lot 2 of Queensmont Subdivision
Mr. Damberg was present along with his surveyor, Terry Ringler.
The Chairman noted that what happened here was that Mr. Ringler did some very good investigative work. He found that the conservation easement that is depicted on the map was never conditioned, nor was it filed either with the County or with the DEC. Also Mr. Ringler submitted letter dated June 6, 2007 and explained what was required for a conveyance of an easement, which did not take place. This was forwarded to the Town Attorney and the Town Attorney stated that he believed that the Conservation Easement on the map was sufficient enough to keep it as a requirement although is unquestionably a better practice to list all conditions on the approval itself as well as on the map, however since the purpose of the easement is not advanced by the condition, he believed that the PB could revisit this matter and modify the original approval to eliminate this condition. There is case law authority for a PB to revisit a prior action or modify a prior determination where there is a material change in circumstances or where there is new evidence presented. Under the circumstances he felt that the PB could ask the applicant to submit an application to modify the prior subdivision approval to eliminate the conservation easement because it does not achieve the intended purpose. So that’s what the Board is doing. Mr. Damberg submitted another application because they have to hold a Public Hearing. That’s why the subdivision application for the 2 lots will have to wait for Conditional Preliminary Approval until the July meeting, so that everything is in sync and resolved.
Mrs. Carney motioned for an Unlisted Action under SEQRA with an Uncoordinated Review. Seconded by Mr. Ricks.
Vote:
Fornal: Yes Ricks: Yes
Tapper: Yes Carney: Yes
Ullman: Absent Kawalchuk: Yes
Godwin: Not requested to participate Gaydos: Yes
T/ROCHESTER Page 2
MINUTES OF MEETING June 19, 2007
MODIFICATION OF PB DECISION#1989-12 QUEENSMONT SUBDIVISION
WILLIAM DAMBERG(cont’d)– modify PB Decision #1989-12, Queensmont Subdivision to eliminate a ‘conservation easement’ on lot 2 of Queensmont Subdivision
Mr. Tapper was confused about the 2 separate applications.
The Chairman explained that one application was to amend the 1989 decision for Queensmont Subdivision and the other was for his 2 lot subdivision.
Mrs. Carney motioned to schedule the Public Hearing for July. Seconded by Chairman Fornal. No Discussion.
Vote:
Fornal: Yes Ricks: Yes
Tapper: Yes Carney: Yes
Ullman: Absent Kawalchuk: Yes
Godwin: Not requested to participate Gaydos: Yes
Mr. Tapper wanted to confirm that the reason that they were able to re-apply to get this note for the conservation easement taken off of the map, was because it wasn’t filed correctly? He thought the map was filed with the Ulster County Clerk.
Mr. Ringler explained that the filing of a map isn’t the conveyance of property or rights. In order for real property rights, such as an easement or deeded ownership to transfer, there has to be a grantor and grantee. A person has to sell or give something and another person has to accept it. There’s no individual, Town or entity that has accepted this conservation easement as stated on the map. The map isn’t a transfer of property rights.
Mr. Ricks questioned that back when the PB originally approved this subdivision, who owned the property at that time?
The Secretary noted that Maple Dale, Inc. was the applicant.
Mr. Ricks continued—when Maple Dale conveyed the property to Mr. Damberg, they didn’t convey an easement also? There was no easement in the deed.
Mr. Ringler confirmed this and noted that the deed just said that further subdivision would require PB Approval and that it was subject to any of the restrictions on the map, but the easement was never properly filed. Conservation easements are very specific by law. It has specific avenues it must follow. One of the things is that you just can’t say that you’re making a Conservation Easement without someone accepting that easement.
Mr. Ricks wondered if the applicants for the original Queensmont subdivision didn’t follow through with filing it as they were supposed to.
Mr. Ringler noted that it was never specified as to who was going to be the holder of that easement. Whether it was the Town or the State or some other public entity such as Open Space Institute.
Chairman Fornal noted that it should have been conditioned in the approval and it wasn’t.
T/ROCHESTER Page 3
MINUTES OF MEETING June 19, 2007
CONTINUED 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. Johannessen noted that most of his comments were satisfied from his June 14, 2007 comment letter. The EAF was in good shape and he felt that any outstanding comments could be made conditions of Preliminary Approval.
Mr. Ringler noted that they didn’t have the letters from the Health Dept. for the approvals, but they had Dean Palen’s Signature on the septic site plan. Both lots have approved septic designs.
Mr. Johannessen questioned if a copy of that could be supplied to the Board.
Mr. Ringler noted that they could have copies made and supply them to the Town and when they receive the written approval, they’ll submit that.
The Chairman opened the Continued Hearing to the public.
There was no public comment.
Mr. Ricks motioned to close the Public Hearing. Seconded by Mrs. Carney. No discussion.
Vote:
Fornal: Yes Ricks: Yes
Tapper: Yes Carney: Yes
Ullman: Absent Kawalchuk: Yes
Godwin: Not requested to participate Gaydos: Yes
Mrs. Carney motioned for a Negative Declaration. Seconded by Mr. Ricks. No Discussion.
Vote:
Mr. Ricks motioned to close the Public Hearing. Seconded by Mrs. Carney. No discussion.
Vote:
Fornal: Yes Ricks: Yes
Tapper: Yes Carney: Yes
Ullman: Absent Kawalchuk: Yes
Godwin: Not requested to participate Gaydos: Yes
Mr. Tapper was still confused. There would be new notes on the map that the old notes pertaining to the conservation easement have been removed?
Yes, the Board understood this to be the case.
T/ROCHESTER Page 4
MINUTES OF MEETING June 19, 2007
CONTINUED 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 his surveyor, Terry Ringler.
Mr. Johannessen noted that he is in receipt of the Part 3 EAF from Mr. Ringler.
Mr. Ringler noted that they have a verbal from the DEC that there are no endangered species on the property and would forward the letter to the Town once they received it.
The Chairman opened the Hearing to the public.
There was no public comment.
Mrs. Carney motioned to close the Public Hearing. Seconded by Mr. Tapper. No discussion.
Vote:
Fornal: Yes Ricks: Yes
Tapper: Yes Carney: Yes
Ullman: Absent Kawalchuk: Yes
Godwin: Not requested to participate Gaydos: Yes
Mrs. Carney motioned for a Negative Declaration. Seconded by Mr. Ricks. No Discussion.
Vote:
Fornal: Yes Ricks: Yes
Tapper: Yes Carney: Yes
Ullman: Absent Kawalchuk: Yes
Godwin: Not requested to participate Gaydos: Yes
Mrs. Carney motioned for Conditional Preliminary Approval with the following conditions:
The applicant shall submit Ulster County Health Department well and septic permit approvals for each lot.
The applicant shall submit Town of Rochester Highway Department driveway permit for access to Rochester Center Road
The applicant shall submit letter from NYSDEC confirming no endangered species.
4. Prior to final approval, location and results of tests made to ascertain subsurface
soil, rock, and groundwater conditions shall be provided.
5. The applicant shall indicate surface type for driveway.
The applicant shall pay in full his escrow account with the Town of Rochester Planning Board
The applicant shall place the following statement on the official plat according to the Town of Rochester Town Code § 75-4, “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.”
Mr. Tapper seconded the motion. No discussion.
Vote:
Fornal: Yes Ricks: Yes
Tapper: Yes Carney: Yes
Ullman: Absent Kawalchuk: Yes
Godwin: Not requested to participate Gaydos: Yes
T/ROCHESTER Page 5
MINUTES OF MEETING June 19, 2007
DISCUSSION/ REQUEST FOR 2ND 90 DAY EXTENSION ON CPA
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
Mrs. Carney motioned to grant the 2nd and final 90 day extension on Conditional Preliminary Approval. Seconded by Mr. Ricks. No discussion.
Vote:
Fornal: Yes Ricks: Yes
Tapper: Yes Carney: Yes
Ullman: Absent Kawalchuk: Yes
Godwin: Not requested to participate Gaydos: Yes
CONTINUED DISCUSSION
TAROH HOLDING– 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 on behalf of his application along with representatives, Ed Sprague of Medenbach & Eggers and Attorney, Peter Berger.
The Chairman apologized that he didn’t make extra copies for everyone of the following email correspondence dated March 6, 2007 between himself and the Town Attorney, but read it into the record:
To Rod Futerfas, Town Attorney from Chairman Fornal:
~
An application came in for a 3-lot subdivision. It’s currently an “I” zone (industrial) that was granted back in 1978. David O’Halloran claims that he’ll have three “I” zones on the otherside of this subdivision process. I said I didn’t think so as the code requires each separate use to gain “I” zone designation from Town Board (140-22 B). Upon further review, it appears the underlying~zone in question is actually an R-2 which doesn’t allow for “I” zone designation (which begs the question how it was designated in the first place; I asked for a copy of the 1969 Code which presumably was in force during the 1978 consideration of the original~”I” zone but have yet to receive it; M&E said they would supply copy of the relevant section).
~
So, the question is: Does subdividing one “I” zone into three~parcels~equal 3 “I” zones. If not, is it allowable to go to the Town Board for “I” zone designation on the two parcels that won’t have “I” zone designation (assuming one of the three new~lots will be able to retain the “I” zone designation). The use isn’t in question as two of the proposed lots have industrial type uses on-going. The third parcel is vacant.
~
Steve
Response from Rod Futerfas, Town Attorney to Chairman Fornal.
Steve:~
I think you’re on it.~ 140-22 definitely vests the power to create “I” zones exclusively in the Town Bd. according to the procedures in place.~ If someone wants to take prop in an “I” zone and further subdivide it into add’l properties they’ll require TB approval.
T/ROCHESTER Page 6
MINUTES OF MEETING June 19, 2007
CONTINUED DISCUSSION
TAROH HOLDING(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 that based on the above correspondence, the applicant could proceed with the subdivision and he would have 3 lots and when it comes down to considering road frontage and buffers and all that, it’ll have to be for 1 ‘I’ Zone and 2 R-2 Zones as there are different guidelines in the bulk regulations for these zones. That’s why the Board needs to know what the lots are going to be and as the Town attorney stated he felt that they’d have to go to the Town Board for ‘I’ Zone Designation, that means they revert to R-2 and R-2 doesn’t allow for ‘I Zone Designation. That’s the problem.
Mr. O’Halloran questioned what would happen to the other parcels that were already subdivided? They were here for a subdivision.
Mr. Berger confirmed that they could proceed with the subdivision, but as each lot is developed, they’d have to apply to the PB initially for a Special Use Permit and its sounds like the Board would reject it, saying that its not zoned for industrial uses and then they’d have to go to the ZBA for interpretation most likely and that’s the scenario that the Chairman is spelling out. But, laws have changed over time. This is a large area that has been designated as an industrial use. The Town’s Zoning Ordinance may now define it as a floating Zone, but the Town’s Zoning Map says that this is an Industrial Zone and is appropriate for Industrial Uses.
The Chairman noted that the problem was that in actuality there is also the “Sunset Provision” in the Code. And that is if it is not used for a year, which Mr. O’Halloran has stated on the record repeatedly, that those uses and Special Use Permits are long gone which means that it reverts back to an R-2.
Mr. Berger didn’t believe this to be correct. It was not his understanding that when the Town Board designates and identifies an area on the Zoning Map as Industrial, that has nothing to do with a “Sunset Provision”.
The Chairman stated that this language was in the “I” Zone. When you designate if the use ceases for one year, not only do you lose the Special Use Permit, you lose the Zone, it’s taken off of the map.
Mr. O’Halloran felt that they were referring to 2 different things. The Chairman was referring to a floating ‘I’ Zone. This was a designated ‘I’ Zone, just like an R-1 or R-2 and it was done in 1977. This is not a floating ‘I’ Zone.
Mr. Berger agreed with this adding that the Town’s Maps depicts this as an Industrial Zone.
The Chairman had no question about that and they had to abide by that. The question was did they get 3 on the other side of the subdivision? He just read the Town Attorney’s opinion. He didn’t think so. Chairman Fornal didn’t think so. The applicant does think so. So, they’ll go ahead with the subdivision and when they get to the end, he’ll let them all hash it out then. This was all he could offer. He definitely wanted input from everyone on the Board.
Mr. Ricks could see something like the Snapple place up in the middle of a residential area and it was designated a floating ‘I’ Zone up there and that would revert back. But this property has had Industrial uses through all the years.
T/ROCHESTER Page 7
MINUTES OF MEETING June 19, 2007
CONTINUED DISCUSSION
TAROH HOLDING(cont’d)– c/o Medenbach & Eggers, 3 lot subdivision at Old Mine Road, Tax Map #76.10-1-9.1, Industrial District
Chairman Fornal was still not convinced that this wasn’t a floating Zone. He’d have to go back to the master plan, but as he recalled, when they did they talked about Industrial Zones, they talked about that they were floating.
Mr. Berger wanted to talk about the future. The future is that the Town is creating new Zoning Districts and this area will be Industrial. What did they foresee the time line being on that?
The Chairman agreed stating that this will then be all moot. He thought maybe September if they adopt it.
Mr. Berger noted that in the future, if this is designated Industrial, it wouldn’t be a floating Zone. It would be created for Industrial Uses. As long as they meet the Zoning Ordinance requirements for size of lots, then they would be looking at 3 Industrial Uses.
The Chairman agreed and noted that Mr. O’Halloran has 9 acres and he couldn’t assure anything. His advice was to just wait. He couldn’t guarantee anything, but he felt it was much better to wait than to go this process. But ultimately, maybe it doesn’t really matter. This is going to be sticky because of what they have to work with. They have the opinion of the Town Attorney. He wasn’t sure what the outcome was going to be if they moved forward with the subdivision.
Mr. Berger questioned shouldn’t the Town Board and Planning Board be able to determine that? They make their application and what they are getting back is so ambiguous, they aren’t sure. So, normally if there is an interpretation that gets thrown at an applicant it gets thrown to the ZBA. This should be thrown to the ZBA. There was a Public Hearing that was scheduled and opened.
Chairman Fornal noted that it was scheduled and neither the applicant nor his representatives appeared for the meeting, so it was never opened.
Mr. Berger noted that they were at the point where they wanted to proceed with the subdivision. Could they be scheduled for a Public Hearing for July?
Mr. Ricks motioned to schedule the application for a Public Hearing at the July meeting. Seconded by Mrs. Carney. No discussion.
Vote:
Fornal: Yes Ricks: Yes
Tapper: Yes Carney: Yes
Ullman: Absent Kawalchuk: Yes
Godwin: Not requested to participate Gaydos: Yes
Chairman Fornal stated that this has been his position—that if the applicant could put something in writing to formalize their position—maybe it could be referred to the ZBA.
T/ROCHESTER Page 8
MINUTES OF MEETING June 19, 2007
CONTINUED DISCUSSION
TAROH HOLDING(cont’d)– c/o Medenbach & Eggers, 3 lot subdivision at Old Mine Road, Tax Map #76.10-1-9.1, Industrial District
Mr. Berger stated that their reaction to that is that this is the Town’s Attorney. The applicant is telling the Board what they want, they wrote to the Board. The Town Attorney was copied with Mr. Berger’s correspondence dated May 10, 2007.
Chairman Fornal noted that that position was that the Chairman was questioning that there was no ‘I’ Zone. The Chairman was not questioning that. The issue was what was discussed tonight. He asked again for the applicant to put this in a letter that this is what was discussed tonight that there is a problem with whether you get 3 ‘I’ Zones out of it or 1 ‘I’ Zone. That is the issue. He said that in his letter. Yes they do have an ‘I’ Zone and the Board has to honor that.
Mr. O’Halloran noted that this is not a floating ‘I’ Zone. And there position is very simple. They have an application before the Board. If they have an interpretation issue with the Town Attorney or Code Enforcement Officer, take it up with them, not with the applicant.
Mr. Berger felt that his letter said as much. He urged the Chairman to correspond with the Town Attorney and find out why they don’t end up with 3 ‘I’ Zones in the end.
The Chairman wanted to know if the Town Attorney wrote back the same thing that they weren’t going to get 3 ‘I’ Zones out of it, then they would challenge that to the ZBA. That would be fine. The Town Attorney already has the correspondence from Mr. Berger. The Chairman would ask him to respond. He didn’t think that the PB would challenge it and take it to the ZBA, he was pretty sure that was up to the applicant.
Mr. Berger noted that if it’s an interpretation, he wasn’t sure who did that.
Mr. Tapper wanted to know if Mr. Berger was going to get the interpretation from the Attorney and if the applicant was going to appeal it or take that interpretation to the ZBA—the ZBA’s advisor is the Town Attorney.
Mr. Berger felt that was fine. The Town has an advisor, Rod Futerfas, a competent Attorney. The Planning Board is going to get a letter from him. Just like an engineer, if he says, ‘do it this way’ and someone says, ‘no, we want to do it this way’ you’re going to make an independent decision. The PB is going to make a decision. The ZBA is going to make a decision and then hopefully they’ll get this all done before the Zoning Map is changed so this can meet their needs.
Mr. Tapper questioned if the ZBA can make an interpretation adverse to the Town Attorney’s interpretation.
Mr. Berger replied, of course. Even engineering consultants are not infallible.
Mr. Tapper questioned if the next step would be if the ZBA favored the applicant, then the next step would be…
Chairman Fornal wanted everyone to consider the worse case scenario. If the ZBA went with the Town Attorney—it’s still in the same boat. He would get a letter to the Town Attorney.
T/ROCHESTER Page 9
MINUTES OF MEETING June 19, 2007
CONTINUED DISCUSSION
TAROH HOLDING(cont’d)– c/o Medenbach & Eggers, 3 lot subdivision at Old Mine Road, Tax Map #76.10-1-9.1, Industrial District
Mr. Berger noted that if that letter is received in advance to the meeting, it wouldn’t hurt if they got a copy of it.
The Chairman agreed.
Mr. Tapper questioned if the ZBA can make an interpretation different from the Town Attorney, couldn’t the PB do that?
Everyone agreed.
Chairman Fornal noted that all everyone has been saying is how things should be done the way they’ve always been done. The Board’s never gone against the opinion of the Town Attorney. All he ever heard was, ‘well that’s what the Town Attorney said.’. But now it’s going to be different?
Mr. Tapper noted that he wasn’t finished speaking. He was going to continue to say that he’s always gone with the interpretation of the Town Attorney because if it’s a legal interpretation. That was his point—how can the ZBA go against the Town Attorney?
The Chairman noted that they can. The Board doesn’t know what they say.
Mr. Tapper felt that this was a reason why he thought different boards should have different Attorneys. The PB is sometimes at odds with the Town Board and therefore they should have their own Attorney.
Mr. Ricks noted that they are entitled to.
Chairman Fornal questioned whose budget that would come from?
Mr. Ricks didn’t see the difference was who they paid.
Chairman Fornal noted that the Town chooses an Attorney and they pay him. It might not be that simple.
Mr. Kawalchuk wanted to know the process on how the PB could get its own Attorney. And how to get an Attorney to be at the meetings to save time. This is the second time the applicant has been in with the same outcome.
The Chairman stated that he’s been saying the same thing for 4 months. If this is what they want to do, this is what they want to do. But, it’s not the PB’s fault that this is costing the applicant more money. If they didn’t want to listen and they want something to fall out of the sky according to what he wants, that’s not going to happen.
Mr. Kawalchuk understood what the Chairman was saying, but he didn’t see that there was much of a price difference between having an Attorney present and having them address these issues in writing.
Mr. Tapper felt that there was a difference, because they’d still have to go and research the questions—so that would take more time.
T/ROCHESTER Page 10
MINUTES OF MEETING June 19, 2007
ZBA ADVISORY REQUESTS
RUSSELL SCHWALL- 28’ Area Variance ,109 Stillerberg Strada, Kerhonkson, Tax Map# 67-3-3, ‘A’ Zone
Mr. Schwall was present on behalf of his application. He explained that he lives on Stillerberg Strada in the Quiet Mountain Estates Subdivision. He was requesting a 28’ area variance to construct his garage. Although he has 8 acres, it is very steep.
The Secretary brought the original subdivision map which showed the topography that confirmed its steep slope.
Mr. Schwall wanted to put the garage beside the house as it was the most logical location. Due to the locations of the well and septic and the steep grade of the property, the only place to put the garage was where Mr. Schwall was requesting or in front of his house. He also brought photos to display his hardship. He also brought a letter from his most immediate bounding owner that would be affected, Matthew Koehler stating that he had no objection to this location.
Mr. Gaydos questioned the proximity of Mr. Schwall’s proposed garage to his neighbor.
Mr. Schwall noted that his neighbor’s house was 125’ away and the neighbor’s garage was about 75’ away and the two garages would kind of be back to back. He noted again that he had a favorable letter from that neighbor.
Mr. Ricks believed that as long as the neighbor didn’t mind, he didn’t think it would be a problem.
Mrs. Carney motioned for a favorable advisory based on the neighbor’s understanding. Seconded by Mr. Kawalchuk. No discussion.
Vote:
Fornal: Yes Ricks: Yes
Tapper: Yes Carney: Yes
Ullman: Absent Kawalchuk: Yes
Godwin: Not requested to participate Gaydos: Yes
ZBA ADVISORY REQUEST
SOLLY AVI’-NOM- 17’ Area Variance, 8 Sieber Road, Kerhonkson, Tax Map# 59.7-2-3, ‘A’ Zone
Mr. Avi-Nom was present on behalf of his application and noted that the property is sinking on one side of the house and that’s the side that they want to get the variance for. He was requesting to improve the home and knock off the kitchen and extend the house all the way down. He wasn’t getting closer to anyone. The bedroom is small and is also sinking. His whole house is in the setbacks.
Mrs. Carney motioned for a favorable advisory based on the neighbor’s understanding. Seconded by Mr. Tapper. No discussion.
Vote:
Fornal: Yes Ricks: Yes
Tapper: Yes Carney: Yes
Ullman: Absent Kawalchuk: Yes
Godwin: Not requested to participate Gaydos: Yes
T/ROCHESTER Page 11
MINUTES OF MEETING June 19, 2007
OTHER MATTERS:
The Chairman wanted to clarify some accusations that were made against him. At the last meeting Mr. Gaydos charged Chairman Fornal of twisting information and he took exception to that. So, he went back the video tape and watched the meeting and he saw occasions where Mr. Gaydos felt that Chairman Fornal said that Mrs. Striano, Secretary of the Building Dept. and Mr. Davis, CEO were in agreement in regards to the Frank Kortright Mine Renewal issue. That they were in agreement with the position that the Chairman was outlining at that point. The fact of the matter is that there were 3 contexts involved. There was a conversation between Mrs. Striano and Chairman Fornal in which she absolutely agreed to the principle that the pre-existing use that changes is under the new code. There was a conversation between Mrs. Striano, Mr. Davis, and the Town Attorney and there were about 6 conversations between Chairman Fornal and the Town Attorney. So, while he was talking in that segment, he was going back and forth and referring to the different conversations, so he could see at some point that Mr. Gaydos thought that perhaps that Mrs. Striano and Mr. Davis were in agreement with Chairman Fornal that they needed a Special Use Permit for the original amount of property. They do agree in principal. He did go back and noted that he wasn’t spinning information, but seeing as there were several contexts, he could see where it might have been construed that way.
The other matter was also in regards to the Frank Kortright Application. Chairman Fornal stated that the Planning Board got turned by Mr. Kortright’s Attorney. 4 Senior members of the Board here voted to bypass the Public Hearing and to approve the application.
Mr. Gaydos noted that the Board had approved this application a year ago.
Chairman Fornal noted that every application that comes before the Board gets a Public Hearing. They go through the SEQRA process. Regardless of what the Attorney says about the DEC. The applicant didn’t come to the Board for nothing. They came to the Board for a Special Use Permit and under SEQRA, an application is not complete until there is the determination of significance. The Board has to go through the process. There has to be a Public Hearing, regardless if anything comes out or not. That is for every application—lot line adjustments, it doesn’t matter. Application comes in, it needs a Public Hearing. 4 senior members here… the Board has had 2 trainings on SEQRA.
Mrs. Carney noted that there was no SEQRA application made and there was none required and there was no site plan to review.
Chairman Fornal noted that the applicant was grudging. The Board asked for them to put in the applications and they kept refusing and refusing and the Public Hearing should not have been by passed. It has nothing to do with what was going to come out of it. And when Mr. Ricks made the statement that the business has been there since 1960. That is a wrong way to approach things. He could see the DEC saying that there were no changes. The Planning Board is here for the Town of Rochester and the people of Rochester. That means if there are new homes built—
Mr. Tapper interrupted and didn’t feel that the Board needed to be chastised.
Chairman Fornal noted that Mr. Tapper wasn’t here for that meeting.
Mr. Tapper agreed, but didn’t think that the Chairman needed to belittle the other members.
T/ROCHESTER Page 12
MINUTES OF MEETING June 19, 2007
OTHER MATTERS (cont’d):
Mr. Ricks made his decision and he stands by it.
Chairman Fornal noted that again, under SEQRA, with 2 trainings, that was what Mr. Ricks get out of SEQRA?
Mr. Ricks stated, yes. He made his decision. And so did Mrs. Carney and Mr. Gaydos and Mr. Kawalchuk.
Chairman Fornal felt the Board needed more SEQRA training then. To think that feeling that if an entity like the DEC were to come in and say there was no change to the application regardless of any changes in the Town, then that’s all right. That’s completely wrong.
Mrs. Carney noted that if someone built a house next to this piece of property, that doesn’t change the use of the property because there is a residence next door now, the use is still the same. The impact is still the same—the impact was there and is still the same. It may be impacting more people, but the impact was there. That’s not a change of the use of the property, just because residential development is occurring.
Mr. Ricks felt that it was just a formality to go through and bust somebody’s chops that has a mine.
Chairman Fornal stated that was absolutely not the case.
Mr. Ricks believed that it was the case and as far as he was concerned, every time there was a mining application the Chairman should abstain from it because he puts a special interest in trying to slow down and stop and give the people a hard time, every time. He was standing by this statement.
Chairman Fornal noted that he was still in that position about what he said about Mr. Kortright’s application. The way he looked at it, he gave him an opportunity and he didn’t take it, we’ll see what happens.
Mr. Tapper wanted to make a faux motion that the Board meet on Saturdays so that the Board’s ‘weekender’ could attend the meetings. This is the third meeting that Mr. Tapper was aware of out of six that he didn’t show up to.
Chairman Fornal didn’t think that Mr. Ullman missed 3 meetings, but he would check into it.
Mrs. Carney questioned where the Liaison was lately? She hadn’t seen him in a while.
Mrs. Carney motioned to accept the minutes dated May 15, 2007. Seconded by Mr. Gaydos. No discussion. All members present in favor.
Mr. Gaydos motioned to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Mrs. Carney. All members present in favor.
As there was no further business to discuss, at 8:05 PM Chairman Fornal adjourned the meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
Rebecca Paddock Stange, Secretary