MINUTES OF JuLY 17, 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 Nadine D. Carney, Vice Chair
Shane Ricks Anthony Kawalchuk-7:55
Robert Gaydos
Robert Godwin, Alternate (not required to attend)
Anthony Ullman
Melvyn I. Tapper
Pledge to the Flag.
Also present was Town Planner, Jan Johannessenn, from the Chazen Companies.
PUBLIC HEARING FOR 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 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.
The Chairman opened the Hearing to the public.
There was no public comment.
Mr. Ricks motioned to close the Public Hearing. Seconded by Mr. Gaydos. No discussion.
Vote:
Fornal: Yes Ricks: Yes
Tapper: Yes Carney: Absent
Ullman: Yes Kawalchuk: Absent
Godwin: Not requested to participate Gaydos: Yes
Mr. Ricks motioned for a Negative Declaration under SEQRA. Seconded by Mr. Gaydos. No discussion.
Vote:
Fornal: Yes Ricks: Yes
Tapper: Yes Carney: Absent
Ullman: Yes Kawalchuk: Absent
Godwin: Not requested to participate Gaydos: Yes
T/ROCHESTER Page 2
MINUTES OF MEETING July 17, 2007
PUBLIC HEARING FOR 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. Gaydos motioned to eliminate the “conservation easement” as noted on the map based on the following reasons:
1. The easement never was formally conditioned in the PB~decision.
2. The easement was never filed with Ulster County Clerk.
3. The easement was never filed with NYSDEC.
4. The purpose of the easement– to preserve the waterfall view –does not~achieve what was intended.~
Seconded by Mr. Ullman.
Vote:
Fornal: Yes Ricks: Yes
Tapper: Yes Carney: Absent
Ullman: Yes Kawalchuk: Absent
Godwin: Not requested to participate Gaydos: Yes
CONDITIONAL PRELIMINARY APPROVAL
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.
Chairman Fornal read the following proposed conditions into the record for Conditional Preliminary Approval:
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 Queens Highway
3. Prior to final approval, location and results of tests made to ascertain subsurface soil, rock, and groundwater conditions shall be provided.
4. All well and septic locations within 200 ft. of the subject site should be illustrated on the Plan; a note confirming the same should be provided.
Mr. Ricks made a motion for CPA with the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall submit Ulster County Health Department well and septic permit approvals for each lot.
2. The applicant shall submit Town of Rochester Highway Department driveway permit for access to Queens Highway
3. Prior to final approval, location and results of tests made to ascertain subsurface soil, rock, and groundwater conditions shall be provided.
4. All well and septic locations within 200 ft. of the subject site should be illustrated on the Plan; a note confirming the same should be provided.
Seconded by Mr. Gaydos. No discussion.
Vote:
Fornal: Yes Ricks: Yes
Tapper: Yes Carney: Absent
Ullman: Yes Kawalchuk: Absent
Godwin: Not requested to participate Gaydos: Yes
T/ROCHESTER Page 3
MINUTES OF MEETING July 17, 2007
CONDITIONAL PRELIMINARY APPROVAL
WILLIAM DAMBERG (cont’d)– proposed 2 lot subdivision in the Queensmont Estates subdivision off of Queens Hwy, Tax Map #68.1-4-2
The Chairman read the following proposed conditions for Conditional Final Approval into the record:
1. The applicant shall submit Ulster County Health Department well and septic permit approvals for each lot.
2. The applicant shall submit Town of Rochester Highway Department driveway permit for access to Queens Highway
3. Prior to final approval, location and results of tests made to ascertain subsurface soil, rock, and groundwater conditions shall be provided.
4. All well and septic locations within 200 ft. of the subject site should be illustrated on the Plan; a note confirming the same should be provided.
5. The applicant shall remove the “conservation easement” restriction from the map.
6. The applicant shall pay in full his escrow account with the Town of Rochester Planning Board.
7. The Chairman shall sign submitted maps once the above mentioned conditions are met.
8. Applicant shall file maps with the Ulster County Clerk within 60 days of Chairman’s signature and return three (3) filed copies to the Town.
Mr. Tapper felt that #4 and # 5 should be consistent and either both read “map” or “plan”. The Board agreed and changed # 4 to “map”.
Mr. Tapper motioned for Conditional Final Approval with the following conditions, seconded by Mr. Ricks:
1. The applicant shall submit Ulster County Health Department well and septic permit approvals for each lot.
2. The applicant shall submit Town of Rochester Highway Department driveway permit for access to Queens Highway
3. Prior to final approval, location and results of tests made to ascertain subsurface soil, rock, and groundwater conditions shall be provided.
4. All well and septic locations within 200 ft. of the subject site should be illustrated on the Map; a note confirming the same should be provided.
5. The applicant shall remove the “conservation easement” restriction from the map.
6. The applicant shall pay in full his escrow account with the Town of Rochester Planning Board.
7. The Chairman shall sign submitted maps once the above mentioned conditions are met.
8. Applicant shall file maps with the Ulster County Clerk within 60 days of Chairman’s signature and return three (3) filed copies to the Town.
No discussion.
Vote:
Fornal: Yes Ricks: Yes
Tapper: Yes Carney: Absent
Ullman: Yes Kawalchuk: Absent
Godwin: Not requested to participate Gaydos: Yes
T/ROCHESTER Page 4
MINUTES OF MEETING July 17, 2007
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.
Chairman Fornal noted that there was a problem. The maps that were submitted didn’t show 1 ‘I’ Zone and 2 R-2’s, so there won’t be a Public Hearing.
Mr. Berger was at a loss for words.
Mr. Sprague noted that they submitted maps for the Public Hearing.
Chairman Fornal stated that they didn’t show an accurate rendition of what was going to be shown to the public.
Mr. Berger questioned if that in the minutes? He didn’t recall that this was a condition.
Chairman Fornal noted that for months it has been stated that the applicant needs 1 ‘I’ Zone and 2 R-2’s. If the Board is going to have a Public Hearing, that’s what’s going to be shown on the map. If it doesn’t show it, then we’re not having a Public Hearing.
Mr. Berger noted that the Chairman was making a conclusion—
Chairman Fornal was going by what’s been talked about a billion times. The applicant has refused to do it and refused to fulfill the application requirements.
Mr. Berger felt that they should be civil, so he didn’t want the Chairman to say ‘a billion’ times. Because when they left here at the last meeting that was still an issue. It hasn’t been shown to the applicant that there is any right for the conditioned to be imposed.
Chairman Fornal agreed and stated ‘many’ instead of ‘a billion’ and noted that he offered that to Mr. Berger, which is the letter of—
Mr. Berger wanted to be able to speak without any interruptions. What their position has been from the get go is that they have a single large lot that is in the Industrial Zone. Their position has been from the get go that they have the right to create 3 lots that are all going to be designated Industrial as long as they comply with the Subdivision and Zoning Ordinance.
Chairman Fornal noted that he gave Mr. Berger the response from the Town Attorney as they’ve discussed that it was very clear that the way the code reads and the way it was interpreted by the Town Attorney and that Town’s position is that the applicant gets 1 ‘I’ Zone and 2 R-2’s. If Mr. O’Halloran wants 3 ‘I’ Zones, he has to go through the process which is to go through the Town Board to designate. That has been stated since the first time he put in the application, its been stated many many times. The applicant refuses to do that. He can have a position, but the fact of the matter is is that he was told what to submit and that’s what the applicant needs to do. If he wants to do something afterwards, pursue it—however he wants to, but the application requirements is to
T/ROCHESTER Page 5
MINUTES OF MEETING July 17, 2007
CONTINUED DISCUSSION
TAROH HOLDING– c/o Medenbach & Eggers, 3 lot subdivision at Old Mine Road, Tax Map #76.10-1-9.1, Industrial District
have an accurate map. That is not accurate. According to the Town’s position, there is no Public Hearing. When he submits that, then they’ll have the Public Hearing.
Mr. Ricks questioned if it was in writing somewhere that this is what the Board requested?
The Chairman noted that was last week.
Mr. Ricks noted that from the Board’s discussions, if there was something that the Town Attorney was telling the Chairman who was one person on the Board and there were all the other members and they’re not privy to any of that information. They asked for this stuff to be in writing to the members for them to see and read.
Chairman Fornal questioned Mr. Ricks if that was in the Code, that it had to be an accurate map of the proposed action? Its in the Subdivision Checklist and in the Subdivision Code.
Mr. Ricks noted that his understanding was that its an ‘I’ Zone and the Code Enforcement Office will determine what the Zoning is. Not the Planning Board.
Chairman Fornal noted that the Code Enforcement Office said it’s a subdivision, so the PB is reviewing a subdivision. He gets 1 ‘I’ Zone and 2 R-2’s.
Mr. Ricks didn’t see that in the Zoning or Subdivision Code anywhere and he specifically looked for it. If the Chairman could show that to him in the book—Could the Chairman do that?
Chairman Fornal answered that it was interpretive by the Town’s Attorney.
Mr. Ricks wanted to know where that was in writing?
Chairman Fornal noted that he gave it to Mr. Berger. It was an email. Very short, very sweet, there were 8 or 6 of them. And its just all much more back and forth and it comes down to the same issue. The applicant gets 1 ‘I’ Zone and 2 R-2’s. He can put that on the map and they’ll have a Public Hearing and he’ll get 1 ‘I’ Zone and 2 R-2’s and then he can do whatever he needs to do.
Mr. O’Halloran noted that the writing the Chairman was referring to was a casual email between the Chairman and the Town Attorney. He didn’t think there was any official correspondence to this Planning Board. The applicant wasn’t forwarded any additional correspondence addressing this with the Town Attorney.
The Chairman noted that its in the minutes all the way through. That’s what he’s been asked to do and if he doesn’t want to do it, well…
Mr. O’Halloran stated that this was the Chairman’s position as an individual on the Board and he respected that.
Chairman Fornal noted that apparently Mr. O’Halloran didn’t respect the position because he didn’t do it.
T/ROCHESTER Page 6
MINUTES OF MEETING July 17, 2007
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 understood from the end of the last meeting that this was an open issue that wasn’t going to be resolved, but they were going to move forward with the Public Hearing. He recalled that this was the determination at the last meeting. The Chairman stated that he didn’t know how the application would be dealt with going along.
Mr. Sprague agreed with this and further noted that Chairman Fornal made a reference about the new Zoning Code.
Mr. O’Halloran reiterated that there was no determination made at that meeting.
Chairman Fornal agreed, but noted that after that meeting the Board received a letter from Mr. Sprague dated June 29, 2007 stating what has been asked for. Fine. Then the Board gets the map and its not the same. That doesn’t show what they stated that they were going to do, which is 1 ‘I’ Zone and 2 R-2’s. So, that’s where it was left and that’s where its supposed to be and that’s what it has to be.
Mr. O’Halloran stated that they asked for a Public Hearing.
The Chairman was sorry, but until he fulfilled basic application requirements there wasn’t going to be a Public Hearing.
Mr. O’Halloran stated that they had their maps and a subdivision checklist and had the planner review it to see if there was anything that was missing.
Chairman Fornal noted that he was missing the ‘I’ Zone. Where was the ‘I’ Zone?
Mr. O’Halloran pointed to his piece of property on the map and noted that he had 3 ‘I’ Zones right here.
Chairman Fornal stated no, can’t do it.
Mr. O’Halloran noted that he went to the Code Enforcement Office and they asked for a determination from them and on the application asked for the Zoning. That’s the office that labels the Zoning so the Planning Board doesn’t get the wrong Zoning. This was in the original application where it is Zoned as Light Industrial. At which point they sent him to the Planning Board for a 3 lot subdivision. Its not a complicated process. He’s invested a lot of money into something very small and a lot of time and he was asking the Chairman to allow him to proceed through the subdivision checklist. They have been determined already by the Code Enforcement Office. If the Board has an internal issue with the Code Enforcement Office, he suggested that they take it up with the Town Attorney.
Chairman Fornal noted that the Code Enforcement Office said that there was 1 parcel in an ‘I’ Zone being subdivided into 3 parcels.
T/ROCHESTER Page 7
MINUTES OF MEETING July 17, 2007
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 stated that this was correct and this is where they stand.
Chairman Fornal has said all along—absolutely, but they were going to have 1 ‘I’ Zone on the other side of that with 2 R-2’s.
Mr. O’Halloran noted that the Chairman has said this, but he’s only 1 member on the Board.
Chairman Fornal answered that the Attorney has also stated this position. That’s the Town’s position.
Mr. Berger did get a copy of a letter where the Chairman begins, ‘Yo Rod.’ He was talking about the underlying Zone being R-2. Its not R-2. This is an ‘I’ Zone.
Chairman Fornal noted that it is an underlying R-2 Zone.
Town Planner, Mr. Johannessen noted that the map submitted by the applicant doesn’t show an ‘I’ Zone at all. The applicant’s map shows the parcel as being an R-2.
The Chairman wanted to know if that was what the applicant wanted? 3 R-2 Zones?
Mr. Berger didn’t answer the question and wanted to know why the Chairman was asking a question like that? He knew what the applicant wanted.
The Chairman asked the question because this was what was submitted. If the applicant wanted an ‘I’ Zone and 2 R-2’s that’s what needs to be submitted. If he wants 3 ‘I’ Zones—put 3 ‘I’ Zones on it—but he wouldn’t get a Public Hearing on that because that’s not accurate and the Town’s position is he will have 1 ‘I’ Zone and 2 R-2’s .
Mr. O’Halloran kept asking this question. Who was the Town?
Chairman Fornal replied that this was the Town Attorney’s position.
Mr. O’Halloran noted that the Town Attorney hasn’t addressed this to them as an applicant.
Chairman Fornal has submitted that.
Mr. Ricks asked 3 meetings ago to get something in writing from the Town Attorney stating that.
Mr. O’Halloran didn’t feel that ‘Yo Rod’ was an official letter.
Chairman Fornal stated that they have their answer and this was a waste of time going around and around. There is either an ‘I’ Zone and 2 R-2’s and have the Public Hearing.
T/ROCHESTER Page 8
MINUTES OF MEETING July 17, 2007
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 here tonight for his Public Hearing.
Chairman Fornal noted again that he didn’t have an accurate map and he wasn’t holding a Public Hearing without that.
Mr. O’Halloran wanted to know if he could ask the Board to make a motion to have his Public Hearing?
Chairman Fornal to him he was sorry, but Mr. O’Halloran was out of order.
Mr. Tapper had a couple comments to make. If he was interpreting it right, what they were asking for was an official letter from the Town Attorney either to the Board or the applicant saying that if this property is subdivided they get 1 ‘I’ Zone and 2 R-2’s.
Chairman Fornal sent an email to the applicant that stated this.
Mr. Tapper noted that an email is not an official letter. Something on the Attorney’s letter head…
So, the Chairman wanted to know if he put that email on letter head if that would suffice? It’s the difference between an email and letterhead?
Mr. Tapper noted that the Town Attorney’s signature isn’t on that email.
Chairman Fornal stated that this was his opinion. Is Mr. Tapper asking for his opinion?
Mr. Tapper felt it was apparent that the applicant would like this along with certain members of the Board to get an official letter stating the Town Attorney’s position.
If Mr. Tapper remembered, the Chairman asked the applicant to state their position and the Board would forward that letter to the Attorney for him to respond. That letter has not been forthcoming.
Mr. Tapper questioned if the applicant were to submit a map with 1 ‘I’ Zone and 2 R-2’s for a Public Hearing, aren’t they more or less conceding that that’s how it has to be?
The Chairman noted that the whole point is that the map doesn’t show the ‘I’ Zone at all. Mr. Johannessen confirmed this.
The Chairman stated that if they had 1 ‘I’ Zone and 2 R-2’s they could have the Public Hearing right now.
Mr. Tapper questioned if they were to submit that, wouldn’t they be conceding that that is what the application was for—which their not. They want 3 ‘I’ Zones. Mr. Tapper wondered if something could be put on the record that if either a map with 1 ‘I’ zone and 2 R-2’s or 3 ‘I’ Zones could be reviewed and that neither side was conceding their position until some kind of decision is made.
T/ROCHESTER Page 9
MINUTES OF MEETING July 17, 2007
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 wanted to have his Public Hearing.
The Chairman told him to hand in a good map.
Mr. O’Halloran noted that they were present, submitted maps—
The Chairman noted that they weren’t accurate maps.
Mr. O’Halloran noted that the map they have submitted is on the subdivision checklist and they have fulfilled the requirements.
Chairman Fornal did not agree with that statement.
Mr. O’Halloran believed that if they had a Public Hearing now and changed the map in the future, they’d have to have another Public Hearing.
Mr. Johannessen agreed, however if the Board had the Public Hearing and closed it then the Board would be forced to make a decision within 62 days and this doesn’t seem likely.
Mr. O’Halloran stated that this was only true if the Board closed the Public Hearing and he highly doubted that this Board would based on what’s going on right now.
Chairman Fornal felt that this was Mr. O’Halloran’s opinion. And the fact that the matter is that the public has a right—
Mr. O’Halloran stated that they wouldn’t ask for the Hearing to be closed at this meeting; they’d be happy to have it kept open.
Mr. Berger stated that what Mr. Sprague has done is revised the maps and it shows that its all zoned Industrial, which it is.
Mr. Johannessen stated that this was a different map (than he reviewed).
Mr. Berger continued that this seemed simple to subdivide what the official map describes as Industrial. He’s never seen anything like this and that’s why he doesn’t know what an underlay or overlay is.
Chairman Fornal stated that it was a very simple matter. Lot 1 would be an ‘I’ zone. The other 2 lots would be R-2. They’d go through the process and after, if there is a problem, the applicant can proceed from there. That has been stated for months now. Here we come to the Public Hearing, that’s what was stated. The Board received a letter from Mr. Sprague stating that this was what it was going to be here and now we get here and its not that way.
T/ROCHESTER Page 10
MINUTES OF MEETING July 17, 2007
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 didn’t know what was corresponded in between, but at the last meeting, Chairman Fornal had his personal position and the applicant had his—3 ‘I’ Zones. It was decided at the last meeting that it wasn’t going to be resolved here, but they would proceed with their Public Hearing in the mean time. Since he filed this application last year—
Chairman Fornal stated that it would be solved later, obviously in court if this is what Mr. O’Halloran wants to do. Otherwise Mr. O’Halloran should just fulfill the application.
Mr. O’Halloran believed that once Chairman Fornal looked at the simplicity of this that they would be granted approval.
Chairman Fornal had no doubt about that as long as the map was accurate and there was 1 ‘I’ Zone and 2 R-2 Zones.
Mr. O’Halloran stated that this was where they disagreed and that was just Chairman Fornal’s opinion and not the Boards.
Chairman Fornal stated that was then the time for Mr. O’Halloran to go through further mechanisms.
Mr. O’Halloran stated that this was when the Board makes a Board decision, not a unilateral decision. Mr. Fornal was the Chairman, but he didn’t run this Board.
Chairman Fornal stated that the Town Attorney interprets—
Mr. O’Halloran interrupted the Chairman’s statement.
The Chairman told Mr. O’Halloran that he was sorry, but Mr. O’Halloran was out of order and there would be no Public Hearing.
Mr. O’Halloran questioned if this was a Board decision?
Chairman Fornal stated no, that this was not a Board decision.
Mr. Ricks felt that Mr. O’Halloran came all the way in here—he then questioned who on the Board felt that there should be a Public Hearing?
Chairman Fornal told Mr. Ricks he was out of order and there would be no Public Hearing until they suffice the requirements.
Mr. Ricks didn’t care.
Chairman Fornal noted that it didn’t matter what Mr. Ricks said, this was about procedure.
T/ROCHESTER Page 11
MINUTES OF MEETING July 17, 2007
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. Ricks stated that this was what the Chairman told the applicant to bring last month and they did.
Chairman Fornal did not agree with this. He told them to bring a map with 1 ‘I’ Zone and 2 R-2’s. What was it that Mr. Ricks really couldn’t grasp?
Mr. Ricks stated that the Chairman never said that.
Mr. O’Halloran agreed that that wasn’t true.
Chairman Fornal has been stating that and it’s in the minutes all over the place.
Mr. O’Halloran stated that they have been disagreeing with Chairman Fornal’s position as its only his position and he is not a 1 man Board.
Chairman Fornal has showed the applicant that it is not his position, this is the Attorney’s position.
Mr. O’Halloran wanted to ask one more question.
The Chairman said, no, that this application was done for the evening.
Mr. O’Halloran questioned if he would be receiving a letter from the Town Attorney stating the Town’s position?
Chairman Fornal stated that they were on to the next Application presentation. Mr. O’Halloran’s time was done.
Mr. Ricks stated that the Board hasn’t even gotten that letter yet. This has all been a personal back and forth.
Mr. O’Halloran questioned if this was all a personal issue for the Chairman?
The Chairman sarcastically said that this was all a personal issue.
Mr. Ricks and Mr. O’Halloran wanted to know why they couldn’t get a letter from the Town Attorney?
The Chairman noted that as he had stated the applicant needed to state a letter with his position—
Mr. O’Halloran said no.
The Chairman said, fine, then this is it.
Mr. O’Halloran stated that they have the guidelines and the checklist.
T/ROCHESTER Page 12
MINUTES OF MEETING July 17, 2007
CONTINUED DISCUSSION
TAROH HOLDING– c/o Medenbach & Eggers, 3 lot subdivision at Old Mine Road, Tax Map #76.10-1-9.1, Industrial District
The Chairman stated that they weren’t meeting the subdivision checklist. They weren’t submitting it—where was the accurate map?
Mr. O’Halloran wanted the Chairman to read the subdivision checklist and tell him where he was required to send a letter from his attorney to the Town Attorney?
Chairman Fornal stated that it asked for a map with accurate bulk regs.
Mr. O’Halloran stated that they did that and submitted it based on the Code Enforcement Office. So, if Chairman Fornal disagrees with that, for him to please take it internally to the other depts..
Mr. Johannessen noted that there was a disagreement in the Zoning. Did they think it would be appropriate to seek guidance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for an interpretation?
Mr. O’Halloran asked if this could please be forwarded to them.
Mr. Johannessen stated that someone had to make a hard and fact decision on this.
Chairman Fornal stated that that is an interpretation to the Code Enforcement Office decisions.
Mr. O’Halloran said that the Code Enforcement Office has made a determination. Its Light Industrial.
Chairman Fornal suggested that they appeal that. He agrees—its Light Industrial.
Mr. O’Halloran stated that then they go to subdivision which they are doing. Did Chairman Fornal understand that he was holding them up due to a technicality?
Chairman Fornal was not holding them up on a technicality. It comes down to where Mr. O’Halloran has 2 R-2 Zones. They are not ‘I’ Zones.
Mr. O’Halloran began to state that he had gone to the Code Enforcement Office—
Chairman Fornal stated that this was done. On to the next application.
Mr. O’Halloran stated that the Code Enforcement Office signed their application. He has a signed application that says Light Industrial.
Chairman Fornal stated that Mr. O’Halloran was not fulfilling the application requirements as stated to Mr. O’Halloran and if he didn’t do this there wouldn’t’ be a Public Hearing. He didn’t know how much clearer he could make it and its been the same thing for months. 1 ‘I’ Zone and 2 R-2 Zones.
Mr. O’Halloran stated that the Chairman couldn’t tell him this.
T/ROCHESTER Page 13
MINUTES OF MEETING July 17, 2007
CONTINUED DISCUSSION
TAROH HOLDING– c/o Medenbach & Eggers, 3 lot subdivision at Old Mine Road, Tax Map #76.10-1-9.1, Industrial District
Chairman Fornal stated that this was where it goes down—yes he does tell him that. This is the way it is.
Mr. O’Halloran stated that this is a Board. They have to decide.
Chairman Fornal stated that this is procedure and procedure has nothing to do with the Board other than they’re supposed to follow them.
Was Chairman Fornal telling Mr. O’Halloran that the Board didn’t’ have to be here?
Chairman Fornal stated that the Board has to follow procedure. That’s what this is about.
Mr. O’Halloran reiterated that they’ve followed procedure. The Code Enforcement Office labeled it and now they are up to the subdivision checklist.
Chairman Fornal stated that Mr. O’Halloran wants 3 ‘I’ zones and only the Town Board can grant ‘I’ Zones.
Mr. O’Halloran stated that they’ve done that as well.
Mr. Berger wanted to know isn’t that section of the map ‘I’?
Chairman Fornal stated that the applicant was subdividing. So, only the Town Board can designate ‘I’ Zone properties. Mr. O’Halloran wants 3. The Planning Board doesn’t have that authority. It’s the Town Board that has that authority. That’s the way its written and that’s the interpretation. Mr. O’Halloran has been told that.
Mr. O’Halloran wanted to know what Chairman Fornal was going to do with the piece that he’s already subdivided out of there? He’s mentioned this at each meeting.
Chairman Fornal stated that Mr. O’Halloran had said that it was subdivided a year before he got his ‘I’ Zone designation. That was what was submitted.
Mr. O’Halloran disagreed with this statement saying that this was subdivided after they had a fire and was in the early 90’s. He doesn’t understand what he’s being held up for.
Chairman Fornal stated that Mr. O’Halloran had a difference of interpretation.
Mr. O’Halloran stated that he has an application signed by the Code Enforcement Officer that says its Light Industrial. From there he says go to the subdivision checklist. He went to the subdivision checklist, filled it all out, come before the Board and ask for a Public Hearing and gets no where.
The Chairman disagreed with this that Mr. O’Halloran didn’t do what he was supposed to. He didn’t put the correct bulk regs on the map.
T/ROCHESTER Page 14
MINUTES OF MEETING July 17, 2007
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 stated that he did and its Light Industrial—all the proposed lots. He resubmitted new maps—could he please have a Public Hearing next month with his new maps?
Chairman Fornal stated that if he had 1 ‘I’ Zone and 2 R-2’s.
Mr. O’Halloran stated that he has 3 ‘I’ Zones. He was asking the Board if he could have a Public Hearing next month with his submitted new maps?
Chairman Fornal stated hat the Town Attorney said no.
Mr. O’Halloran stated that the Town Attorney wasn’t at this meeting.
Chairman Fornal was saying it. Mr. O’Halloran wasn’t having a Public Hearing at this meeting, so he could either do what the Chairman said, put in a letter stating his position and then the Town Attorney will address that. Mr. O’Halloran doesn’t want to give a position, he just wants 3 ‘I’ Zones and he wasn’t fulfilling application requirements. This is basic.
Mr. O’Halloran noted that he has an engineer and an Attorney representing him, fulfilling this simple teeny subdivision of nothing and has all this work being done and the Chairman is telling him that he’s not fulfilling his application responsibilities?
Mr. Berger noted that they weren’t getting anywhere so it was time to leave the meeting.
Mr. O’Halloran felt that this was personal.
Chairman Fornal noted that it had nothing to do with it. Mr. O’Halloran was the one who was pressing it. All he had to do was put what was asked for on the map.
Mr. O’Halloran noted that the Chairman was telling him that he couldn’t have a Public Hearing. Chairman Fornal better have the Town Attorney at the next meeting. Mr. O’Halloran demanded this.
Chairman Fornal noted that Mr. O’Halloran wasn’t fulfilling application requirements and he found this situation unfortunate. He felt that if Mr. O’Halloran wanted to do it, he should have just done it and it could have been done by now.
Mr. O’Halloran reiterated that Chairman Fornal needed to bring the Town Attorney to the next meeting.
Chairman Fornal stated that he didn’t need the Town Attorney at the meeting. He didn’t need to be paid.
T/ROCHESTER Page 15
MINUTES OF MEETING July 17, 2007
NEW APPLICATION PRESENTATION
BETH GLACE- Special Use Permit for horse on less than 3.1 acres, 11 Countryman Lane, Tax Map # 76.2-3-7, R-1 District
Mrs. Glace was present on behalf of her application. She explained that she had a little more than an acre and the rail trail bordered one side of her property. There is a large existing barn on the property and she doesn’t want to change the footprint, but she just wants to take a storage area in the back and convert it to use the horse. This is near the back of the property.
Mr. Gaydos noticed where the rail trail was labeled. He noted that in the past they had specifically conditioned the Special Use Permit to be applicable to that particular horse and they had conditioned the permit to a 5 year term.
Mrs. Glace brought in a letter from neighbors, Ronnie and Dick Countryman who were in favor of the Special Use Permit.
Mrs. Glace noted that her property is only 100’ wide, so manure wouldn’t be able to be store outside (as there needs to be 100’ setback from all property lines for the outside storage of manure). She could put a small roof off of the barn and enclose 3 sides.
The Board agreed that would be good.
Mr. Ricks motioned for a Public Hearing. Seconded by Mr. Gaydos. No discussion.
Vote:
Fornal: Yes Ricks: Yes
Tapper: Yes Carney: Absent
Ullman: Yes Kawalchuk: Absent
Godwin: Not requested to participate Gaydos: Yes
Mr. Gaydos motioned for an Unlisted Action with an uncoordinated review. Seconded by Mr. Ullman.
No discussion.
Vote:
Fornal: Yes Ricks: Yes
Tapper: Yes Carney: Absent
Ullman: Yes Kawalchuk: Absent
Godwin: Not requested to participate Gaydos: Yes
This application would need to be referred to the Ulster County Planning Board because it is within 500’ of Granite Road which is a County Road.
T/ROCHESTER Page 16
MINUTES OF MEETING July 17, 2007
OTHER MATTERS:
The Chairman noted that in regards to Homeland Towers the Board has received letter dated June 29, 2007 from Tectonic Designs, the engineers for the project requesting the Town to look into any cultural or historic resources. Also for the Planning Board to weigh in on that.
Dawson-Mt. Laurel’s Estates Subdivision
Mr. Dawson submitted a final plan for the Board to review.
The Board reviewed it and found it acceptable. It would be further reviewed by Chazen along with the final touches on the Stormwater Management Plan.
Discussion on Taroh Holding 3 lot subdivision
Mr. Tapper didn’t see a problem with getting an official letter from the Town Attorney stating what the official position of the Town is. He really didn’t’ see what the problem would be with that.
Mr. Johannessen thought that this was actually talked about at some point.
Mr. Ricks noted that there are letters in the Member files regarding other applications where the Town Attorney has sent letters out.
Mr. Johannessen felt this same situation would repeat and a letter from the Town Attorney would be good.
Chairman Fornal noted that regarding the letters in which Mr. Ricks was referring to, those applicants came in and submitted a whole bunch of things. And this is what he asked from Mr. O’Halloran. State his position and the Town Attorney will comment on that position. The Chairman wasn’t going to characterize their position.
Mr. Gaydos didn’t want to argue, but he felt that Mr. O’Halloran has told the Board what he wants and if the Town Attorney wrote a letter saying that Mr. O’Halloran either got an ‘I’ or 3 ‘I’s or 1 ‘I’ and 2 R-2’s then they could go and fight about it. If the Town Attorney addressed a letter and said that all Mr. O’Halloran could get would be 1 ‘I’ and 2 R-2’s as he’s been told, now they could go a different direction, or can they have 3 ‘I’s? 3 meetings Mr. O’Halloran has been asking “who is the Town?” Mr. Gaydos felt that it was a shame that what happened publicly tonight. He didn’t feel like this request was out of line.
Mr. Tapper noted that if it took a motion…. He had to do stuff as Chairman that he didn’t want to do, but a majority of the Board wanted it done so he did it. And if it took a motion to get that letter then he’d make that motion.
Mr. ricks noted that the email between Chairman Fornal and the Town Attorney was now in the minutes, so he wasn’t sure if that was part of the record now.
Chairman Fornal noted that this was the point. Mr. Berger and Mr. O’Halloran got the email from the Town Attorney that said his position of 1 ‘I’ and 2 R-2’s and its clear.
T/ROCHESTER Page 17
MINUTES OF MEETING July 17, 2007
OTHER MATTERS:
Discussion on Taroh Holding 3 lot subdivision (cont’d):
Mr. Ricks read the following email between Chairman Fornal and Town Attorney, Rod Futerfas:
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.
He noted that 140-22 is about floating ‘I’ Zones, which was like the Alan Levine Snapple Place. That was a floating zone they designated. Now as far as he thought Taroh Holding’s property was a completely designated zone.
Mr. Johannessen noted that Mr. O’Halloran is saying that it was created as an ‘I’ Zone even before floating zones came into play in the Town.
Mr. Ricks agreed with this.
Chairman Fornal noted that according to the records, Mr. O’Halloran never got an ‘I’ Zone. That is a fact. But its on the map, so he’s entitled to one.
Mr. Ricks noted that 2 or 3 meetings ago there were old minutes in the files about this.
Chairman Fornal stated that right from the very first—the Secretary pulled all the minutes—
Mr. Ullman noted that in those minutes it said that they never followed through in doing that because they concluded it was business zoned anyway, so there was never an ‘I’ Zone designation.
T/ROCHESTER Page 18
MINUTES OF MEETING July 17, 2007
OTHER MATTERS:
Discussion on Taroh Holding 3 lot subdivision (cont’d):
Chairman Fornal agreed and stated that he never got an ‘I’ Zone designation, but it was on the map so he was entitled to one. That’s the whole point.
Mr. Ricks questioned that because its on the map and the map shows this particular parcel as being ‘I’—
Chairman Fornal stated that if it was subdivided, only the Town Board could—and this was the way it was written. He absolutely agreed that the language was badly written. However, the way its written, that’s the way its written.
Mr. Ricks felt the Attorney’s would fight it out.
The Chairman agreed and stated that all he had to do was put it on the map. The ridiculous part is that when the new code comes into effect—and Mr. O’Halloran knows this—he was sitting there and saw the map—its all ‘I’ Zone anyway and he’s going to have it. So, just come through—
Mr. Tapper didn’t understand why he would fight then.
Chairman Fornal stated that yes, Mr. O’Halloran was fighting and he has a whole other agenda going on and all he had to do was come in and it didn’t matter what he labeled the lots—just to fulfill what the Board asked for. Put it down and on the other side of the code he had 3 ‘I’ Zones. He knows that. He’s playing and he’s not going to get away with it. He’s going to go by what is there and the Town Attorney said so, so if he wants to play games, the Chairman was sorry, but he wasn’t going to get away with it.
Mr. Tapper questioned if the Board could get a letter or not?
Chairman Fornal stated no.
Mr. Tapper motioned to get an official letter from the Town Attorney.
The Chairman told Mr. Tapper he was out of order. There wouldn’t be a letter because as he said and as stipulated twice in the minutes, they asked Mr. O’Halloran to put his position in writing and it would be forwarded to the Town Attorney and he wouldn’t’ do it.
Mr. Ricks stated that Chairman Fornal couldn’t do that. The Board could make any motion they wanted and it can go to the Board.
Chairman Fornal stated that Mr. Ricks was wrong. If its out of order, then the member is out of order. He could go and take complete control and members couldn’t speak until he says so.
Mr. Ricks said that the Chairman could try it.
Chairman Fornal questioned if Mr. Ricks wanted him to go that route? He didn’t think so.
T/ROCHESTER Page 19
MINUTES OF MEETING July 17, 2007
OTHER MATTERS:
Discussion on Taroh Holding 3 lot subdivision (cont’d):
Mr. Ricks didn’t think so either.
Chairman Fornal stated that the point was that yes, you can be called out of order.
Mr. Ricks seconded Mr. Tapper’s motion to get an official letter from the Town Attorney.
Chairman Fornal stated that it wouldn’t go to the Town Attorney.
Mr. Tapper noted that when he was Chairman, he went to the Town Attorney and asked what his roles and functions were as Chairman. Could he do things on his own, etc? His function as Chairman was to run an orderly meeting, to take the correspondence and forward correspondence and basically handle day to day stuff. If members make a motion that they want something done, the Chairman doesn’t have the right to say no.
Chairman Fornal wondered if Mr. Tapper didn’t think he had a right to say ‘no’ if members wanted to by-pass code? If Mr. Tapper is going to make a motion like that, Chairman Fornal is going to call him out of order. Chairman Fornal does have that right.
Mr. Gaydos noted that Mr. Tapper wasn’t asking to by-pass code.
Chairman Fornal noted that Mr. Tapper just said that one of the roles of Chairman was to forward correspondence. He’s asked now, 2 or 3 times for correspondence to forward.
Mr. Tapper was asking for a letter from the Town Attorney stating the official position stating his official position on the Taroh Holding Subdivision—on whether he’s allowed 3 ‘I’ Zones or 1 ‘I’ Zone and 2 R-2’s or whatever the official position is. He really didn’t see what the problem was.
Chairman Fornal noted that they already got that. It was an email.
Mr. Tapper noted that an email is not a letter on his letter head with his signature on it.
So, Chairman Fornal wanted to know if Mr. Tapper was questioning the position or the ‘officialdom’?
Mr. Tapper stated that the applicant can’t challenge an email.
Chairman Fornal stated that they could challenge by going through the process and when they get to the other side—
Mr. Tapper noted that the applicant doesn’t want to submit a map that would concede their position.
Chairman Fornal agreed, so where does that get resolved? It was already discussed—by an Article 78 and that’s where he wants to go.
T/ROCHESTER Page 20
MINUTES OF MEETING July 17, 2007
OTHER MATTERS:
Discussion on Taroh Holding 3 lot subdivision (cont’d):
Mr. Tapper noted that it wouldn’t matter if it was an Article 78 or through the ZBA.
Mr. Johannessen stated that he couldn’t do that until a decision was filed.
Chairman Fornal agreed—so the applicant should go through the process and then go to the courts if that was their position.
Mr. Tapper stated again that this discussion could be over very quickly.
Mr. Tapper made a motion to get a letter from the Town Attorney officially stating what his position is on the Taroh Holding Development.
The Chairman called Mr. Tapper out of order and instructed the Secretary not to record it.
Mr. Tapper stated that the Chairman couldn’t do that.
The Chairman stated that we’ll see about that.
Mr. Tapper stated that the Chairman was really making this bigger than it had to be to get a letter.
Chairman Fornal agreed that it was being made into a bigger deal and said he’d do even better and ask the Town Attorney exactly what he said on his letter head.
Mr. Tapper and Mr. Ricks stated that this was all they wanted.
Chairman Fornal stated that they already had the position.
Mr. Tapper understood that, but it wasn’t an official position.
Chairman Fornal stated that he had attended these meetings for over a decade and he always knew that when someone put in a correspondence, then it would go to the Town Attorney with an official letter back. When it was just a question of what about this or what about that—the Chairman always went to the Attorney and came back and said, ‘This is what the Attorney said’.
Mr. Tapper agreed, but the applicant was challenging that.
Chairman Fornal stated that then they needed to put a letter into the Board. That’s all he was asking for. He’s asked 3 times for them to put a letter in stating their position that they want 3 ‘I’ Zones. And the Attorney will address that. All Mr. O’Halloran keeps saying is—‘well what about the Code Enforcement Office?’.
Mr. Tapper felt that Mr. O’Halloran was being stubborn for no reason and Chairman Fornal was being stubborn.
T/ROCHESTER Page 21
MINUTES OF MEETING July 17, 2007
OTHER MATTERS:
Discussion on Taroh Holding 3 lot subdivision (cont’d):
Chairman Fornal stated that he was being stubborn because he believed in procedure.
Mr. Tapper agreed, but didn’t think there was anything wrong with asking for a letter and he felt that Chairman Fornal’s procedure was wrong by saying that he wasn’t going to forward it, and that they couldn’t vote on the record and that it shouldn’t be in the minutes. The Chairman can’t say that it can’t be in the minutes.
Chairman Fornal was saying that he called Mr. Tapper out of order and he would get that letter. That’s what he’s doing.
Mr. Ricks noted that many times when Mrs. Christiana was the Town Attorney there was confusion and they didn’t know, so they said to the Secretary or whoever to ask the Town Attorney for her opinion and she would send back an opinion on her letterhead and give it to the Board and then they had something from the Town Attorney in front of them that said to follow this procedure. It was so simple and easy.
Chairman Fornal wouldn’t say that was many times, but again, they were making an issue of the fact and not the position. Was it the position or was it the fact that it wasn’t on letterhead?
Mr. Tapper said it wasn’t the position—because he would go along with the Attorney’s position, he just wanted it in writing.
Chairman Fornal asked if an email didn’t’ count?
Mr. Tapper stated that it counted for the board, but not for the applicant.
Mr. Ullman felt that this was just an issue of perception and by going to the Town Attorney and asking him for something would just help to move this along.
Chairman Fornal agreed and they will forward that letter to Mr. O’Halloran and his attorney so they could have it in plenty of time to make a map the way the Board needs it to have a Public Hearing next time.
Mr. Gaydos motioned to accept the minutes.
Discussion: Mr. Tapper noted that he had a correction on page 3. The second paragraph from the bottom: “Mr. Tapper was still confused.” He thought that maybe it could be reworded, like maybe “Mr. Tapper questioned…” Mr. Tapper seconded the motion. All in favor.
Mr. Gaydos motioned to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Chairman Fornal. 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