Planning Board Minutes 08/21/07

MINUTES OF August 21, 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 Shane Ricks Robert Godwin, Alternate (not required to attend) Robert Gaydos

Anthony Ullman

Melvyn I. Tapper

Nadine D. Carney, Vice Chair

Anthony Kawalchuk

Pledge to the Flag.

PUBLIC HEARING

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 and explained that she lived on Countryman Lane, and was the last house on this dead end road. Her intentions were to turn the existing machine shed into a stable and build a fence and have a paddock for her horse. She has spoken with the neighbors and they had no objections and there weren’t any neighbors behind her. The rail trail was her other bordering neighbor.

Chairman Fornal opened the hearing to the Public Hearing.

There was no public comment.

Mrs. Carney motioned to close the Public Hearing. Seconded by Mr. Tapper. No discussion.

Vote:

Fornal- Yes Tapper- Yes

Carney- Yes Gaydos- Absent

Ricks- Absent Ullman- Yes

Kawalchuk- Yes Godwin, Alt- not required to participate

Chairman Fornal noted that they received a referral response from the Ulster County Planning Board that there was NO COUNTY IMPACT. The EAF was not an issue at all.

Mrs. Carney motioned for a Negative Declaration in accordance with SEQRA. Seconded by Mr. Ullman. No discussion.

Vote:

Fornal- Yes Tapper- Yes

Carney- Yes Gaydos- Absent

Ricks- Absent Ullman- Yes

Kawalchuk- Yes Godwin, Alt- not required to participate

T/ROCHESTER Page 2

MINUTES OF MEETING August 21, 2007

PUBLIC HEARING

BETH GLACE (cont’d)– Special Use Permit for horse on less than 3.1 acres, 11 Countryman Lane, Tax Map # 76.2-3-7, R-1 District

Chairman Fornal read the proposed resolution into the record for the Board to consider as follows:

To grant a Special Use Permit for the keeping of one horse on less than 3.1 acres as provided for in Section 140-20J(4) based on the following conditions:

1. There shall be no more than one horse allowed

2. Manure storage shall be enclosed to prevent odor impact.

3. The horse shall be adequately sheltered, fenced and otherwise maintained so as not to create a nuisance to surrounding properties and shall be maintained in a sanitary manner.

4. This Special Use Permit (SUP) shall run with the property and only be considered expired should the use cease for a period of one year, at which time, without further notification by the Planning Board and/ or Code Enforcement Office, said SUP shall become null and void.

This decision would run with the property and not the life of the horse.

Mrs. Carney motioned To grant a Special Use Permit for the keeping of one horse on less than 3.1 acres as provided for in Section 140-20J(4) based on the following conditions:

1. There shall be no more than one horse allowed

2. Manure storage shall be enclosed to prevent odor impact.

3. The horse shall be adequately sheltered, fenced and otherwise maintained so as not to create a nuisance to surrounding properties and shall be maintained in a sanitary manner.

Discussion:

The Board agreed that manure should be stored in a structure with 3 sides and a roof.

Motion seconded by Mr. Ullman.

Vote:

Fornal- Yes Tapper- Yes

Carney- Yes Gaydos- Absent

Ricks- Absent Ullman- Yes

Kawalchuk- Yes Godwin, Alt- not required to participate

PRE-APPLICATION PRESENTATION

SANDRA COHEN– Willow Ridge Farms, LLC, 5161 Route 209, Special Use Permit to build indoor riding arena to teach private riding lessons and exercise horses, Tax Map #76.2-2- 26.120, R-1 District

Mr. Ullman wanted to disclose that he uses the same riding instructor and the Cohen’s and would follow the instructor, should the instructor move to this site.

Allan Cohen, Sandra Cohen’s husband was present along with contractor, Alby Leony.

Mr. Cohen read through the following letter dated August 17, 2007

T/ROCHESTER Page 3

MINUTES OF MEETING August 21, 2007

PRE-APPLICATION PRESENTATION

SANDRA COHEN (cont’d)– Willow Ridge Farms, LLC, 5161 Route 209, Special Use Permit to build indoor riding arena to teach private riding lessons and exercise horses, Tax Map #76.2-2-26.120, R-1 District

August 17, 2007

Members of the Town of Rochester Planning Board:

This letter supplements my preliminary application for a Building Permit for Willow Ridge Farms LLC. On August 21, 2007, I would like to meet with the Planning Board to understand the details that will be required to obtain the proper legal permits. I have asked my husband, Alan Cohen, to meet with you on my behalf to discuss my project, since I am working that evening in New York City.

Since the proposed project affects a very small portion of the lot and disturbs no existing trees, water or interior roads, I would like to request a waiver from the Planning Board of any of the checklist requirements that require detailed engineering studies.

My project consists of three phases.

Phase 1. The Code Enforcement Officer has determined that Phase 1 does not require Planning Board approval or special use permit. Create level area for private riding ring to exercise horses outdoors. This area is shown on the preliminary site map. I have received building approval for this from the Code Enforcement Officer. It requires a small amount of flat land, approximately 80 feet by 200 feet.

Phase 2. Lease farm and existing barn to tenant, for the purpose of conducting riding lessons and horse boarding. Expected use is about 12 horses, 8 owned by tenant and 4 boarders.

Phase 3. Construct a covered ring onto of outdoor ring, to permit horses to be exercised in inclement weather and at night. NYS Licensed Engineer will provide the architectural plans for the proposed construction, approximately 70 feet by 160 feet. The covered ring will sit exactly on top of the 80 x 200 foot space created now in Phase 1 above.

Scope of the Project:

This project site is already an existing horse facility off Route 209. The proposed use is keeping with the agricultural nature of the area. The tenant’s business use will be for private riding lessons on horses owned by the students, or by the instructor. No trail rides, pony rides or public use is planned. I plan to lease the facility to farm managers, Julie and Leslie Harris, who are long-time residents of Kerhonkson/Accord. Julie and Leslie have conducted similar business in Ulster County for nearly 20 years. This is an extremely small business run by the experienced horse trainers and riding instructors.

The facility includes a pre-existing, center-aisle 17 stall horse barn in the center of approximately 22 acres of meadows and fenced fields for horses, plus the proposed riding ring. Willow Ridge Farms LLC purchased 10 of these 22 acres in 2006 for the express purpose of continuing its existing equestrian use. Willow Ridge Farms LLC will lease the additional 12 acres from contiguous existing lands owned by Sandra and Alan Cohen, for purposes of horse turn-out and grazing, but no changes are proposed to those acres. Both of these properties were purchased from the “Leon and Beth Smith subdivision” approved by this Planning Board in 2006. On these properties, Leon Smith previously conducted a horse business of raising racehorses for racing and sale, and to the belief of Willow Ridge Farms, also boarded some horses on occasion.

T/ROCHESTER Page 4

MINUTES OF MEETING August 21, 2007

PRE-APPLICATION PRESENTATION

Harmony of Proposed Use in Neighborhood

Agricultural Use. It is expected that the project will be welcomed by residents of the Town of Rochester, since equestrian use involves healthy, outdoor, family activity. The proposed use involves no destruction of trees and no change to the existing water or plumbing. The buildings are not visible from Route 209.

No Nearby Homes. Friendly Neighbors. The area of the proposed project is surrounded by hay fields, paddocks and existing horse barns and fenced meadows. The covered riding arena will be established approximately 1,000 feet from the nearest private residence and buffered behind the existing stable building and tree line. The two nearest landowners are (1) Sandra and Alan Cohen, the owners of Willow Ridge Farms, who own the parcel containing the blue house visible from Route 209 (2,000+ feet from proposed project), and (2) Leon and Beth Smith, who share an access road, Trotter Lane, with Willow Ridge Farms and who own a home on the neighboring 30 acres (about 1,000 feet from proposed project). Leon Smith, who sold the property to Willow Ridge Farms in full cooperation with the planned use, even suggested the proposed site for the covered riding ring. The rental tenants in the blue house are eagerly awaiting the additional horses to graze on this beautiful property.

Nearly No Traffic. The planned equestrian use creates no noise, and the planned traffic is extremely small. It is expected that the daily vehicular traffic will consist of six to eight cars using an existing interior, paved driveway with occasional use of Trotter Lane. Additionally, there will be one weekly delivery of hay or sawdust by truck.

Manure Storage. Manure storage will be arranged for the required distance from any lot line, as requested by this Planning Board. Manure will either be spread on the hay fields or hauled away regularly.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Sandra Cohen

Willow Ridge Farms LLC

Chairman Fornal noted that this is coming into the Board at a time when the code is proposed to change. He let the applicant know that this use may only require Site Plan Approval and not a Special Use Permit, but that is to be determined once the new code goes into effect.

Mr. Cohen indicated that they would access this site by Private Road, Trotter Lane. There is also an internal road that goes all the way back. They wouldn’t be using the older barn. They would use it more for storage. It would need significant work to be horse ready.

Mr. Tapper questioned if there would be riding shows as a part of this application?

Mr. Cohen stated that there may be some school shows with 15 cars at most. The proposed trainers have operated out of Dutchess Equestrian, Golden Acres, and Snug Harbor.

The Chairman wasn’t sure if NYS DOT would be required for Access. He also questioned the request for a variance?

T/ROCHESTER Page 5

MINUTES OF MEETING August 21, 2007

PRE-APPLICATION PRESENTATION

Mr. Cohen noted that it was hard for them to tell what the code said for how far it would be, but it looked like 50’. And their current barn is 42-46’ from the current lot line and the way that the arena needs to be set up is attached to the barn with a walkway. Its also best located here in regards to the way the land goes. This would make it +/-42’ from the line instead of the required 50’.

There was a question if this was considered front yard or side yard because of the 2 roads involved. Mrs. Carney felt that this would be considered a front yard because it fronts a road. You can have 2 front yards as far as setbacks go if you have more than one side of your property that is bordered by a road.

Chairman Fornal noted that being that its considered the front yard, a 60’ setback is required. The new code allows the code to do a 10% difference to try to avoid giving variances, but that would mean 54’ set back. He told the applicant that they could go through a variance, but that would add significant time to the process, but that was up to them. He also noted that if they came in under the new code that they may have to combine their 2 lots to fit the acreage per horse ratio that they are requesting.

Mr. Cohen believed that the existing stable was about 100’ long by about 35’ in width.

Mrs. Carney noted that because this parcel has been subdivided, it no longer carried the old use for an old business that was on it. She also noted that they would need a new survey certified to the applicants especially if they are going to be requesting variances and things.

The Chairman questioned if there were any 15-20% slopes on the property?

Mr. Cohen noted that they didn’t have any slopes like that in the project or property area. He noted that 90% of this area is flat and one of the reasons they want to do this project where they are proposing it.

Mrs. Carney noted that they also are showing that they’d like a waiver for drainage and disturbance areas. They would just need to show that their disturbance is less than an acre.

Chairman Fornal noted that they’d have to look into traffic impacts generated by the shows, so they’d probably have to consult with NYS DOT.

Mrs. Carney noted that this is basically a commercial use. It may not be open to the general, but it would be a public use and would have to go to the Health Dept., and DOT and circulate SEQRA. She also had concerns being that there are so many horses there that there would be employees there to maintain them. There would need to be facilities for these employees, so they would have to consult the Health Dept. for that.

Mr. Cohen noted that the front barn had a functioning bathroom.

Mrs. Carney noted that they could submit something based on the number of employees that they would have or the square footage of usage.

T/ROCHESTER Page 6

MINUTES OF MEETING August 21, 2007

PRE-APPLICATION PRESENTATION

Chairman Fornal questioned if they would need curb cuts.

Mrs. Carney felt that maybe because it wasn’t a high impact use witch would generate a lot of traffic everyday the DOT may waive it. They may want detail from what’s there regarding site distance and that kind of thing.

Mr. Ullman questioned what they would have in terms of parking?

The applicant answered that in front of one of the barns there was an area for about 20 cars with adequate turn around space.

Mrs. Carney indicated that this should be shown on the plans. They could show phasing on the plans.

Mr. Ullman questioned if the applicant had a timeline for this project?

The applicant answered that they were anticipating the completion of all the phases for next spring.

CONDITIONAL FINAL APPROVAL

ANTHONY JARVIS– 3 lot subdivision in the Jacob Gray Subdivision, Rochester Center Road, Tax Map # 68.3-3-6.130, R-1 District

Chairman Fornal noted that the applicant has met all of the conditions for Conditional Preliminary Approval.

Chairman Fornal motioned for Conditional Final Approval 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 Rochester Center Road

3. The applicant shall submit letter from NYSDEC confirming no endangered species.

4. Prior to final approval, subsurface soil, rock, and groundwater conditions shall be provided.

5. The applicant shall indicate surface type for driveway.

6. The applicant shall pay in full his escrow account with the Town of Rochester Planning Board

7. 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.”

8. The Chairman shall sign the maps once the above mentioned conditions are met.

9. Applicant shall file maps with the Ulster County Clerk within 60 days of chairman’s signature and return 3 filed copies to the Town.

Mrs. Carney seconded the motion. No discussion.

Vote:

Fornal- Yes Tapper- Yes

Carney- Yes Gaydos- Absent

Ricks- Absent Ullman- Yes

Kawalchuk- Yes Godwin, Alt- not required to participate

T/ROCHESTER Page 7

MINUTES OF MEETING August 21, 2007

ZBA ADVISORY REQUEST

JON VAN WAGENEN– c/o Dennis Van Wagenen, Cliff Road, 68.2-2-12, discussion on appeal of CEO Denial for building permit based on Highway Superintendent Determination, ‘A’ District

Dennis Van Wagenen explained that his son Jon, purchased a lot on Cliff Road- 61 Cliff Road. This lot is at least 100 years old. In the mean time his son has put in the driveway, the electric, he has Board of Health approval, approved house building plans. They submitted for a building permit and the building inspector denied it because the Highway Superintendent didn’t issue a driveway permit and because he didn’t issue a driveway permit because he doesn’t have jurisdiction over private roads. The driveway already exists because there’s a portion of Cliff Road from where it is Town maintained to where it becomes private. Cliff Road has existed for at least 100 years and it went through to the Town of Marbletown to Bone Hollow Road. The Town of Rochester maintains about the first 600’. The remaining road is not maintained by the Town. It’s a private dirt road with about 10 or 12 houses on it that he can tell. His son’s property has a right-of-way to that road, which he has a right to use. So, at the transition between the Town part and the private portion exists. So, that driveway cut already exists. So, they have an appeal in front of the ZBA for that reason. However, there’s also the reason of the State Law 280a, which will probably be another denial because the property does not border on a public road. So, in that case he would need a designation of Open Development by the Town. He did send a letter to the Town Board in that regard and did receive an answer back from Rod Futerfas, Town Attorney. The supervisor indicated that she also contacted the Zoning Board as well for input. He did not see that input. The letter from the Town Attorney indicated that they weren’t interested in designating it an Open Development area and that they would prefer a Road Maintenance Agreement among all the people that live on that road, which is great, but almost impossible to get or function under.

Chairman Fornal questioned if the Town Attorney’s letter mentioned about 280a(3) in terms of an appeal?

Mr. Van Wagenen answered yes. And that would be in front of the ZBA as well. That hasn’t been rejected yet for 280a.

The Secretary noted that this parcel went through this process already. Not with this applicant, but the person who sold his son this land 2 years ago went through this process and that’s where this all came from.

Chairman Fornal noted that this was where this was all coming from.

Mr. Van Wagenen noted that his understanding was that this law was on the books since 1950 and the reason was to make sure that a building isn’t built that cannot be properly serviced by emergency vehicles. Cliff Road is not a great road, however it is suitable for emergency vehicles and he doesn’t believe that that determination has been made. The Highway Superintendent has made a judgement on the condition of the road. And it has been improved since that first time around.

Mrs. Carney apologized, but at this time she needed to leave. She did convey some of her comments to the Chairman prior to the meeting and maybe he could include them.

Mr. Vanwagenen noted that it has to be determined if it is suitable for emergency vehicles. He believed it was and he had some background in the area to make that statement. The Town has to make that judgement.

T/ROCHESTER Page 8

MINUTES OF MEETING August 21, 2007

ZBA ADVISORY REQUEST

JON VAN WAGENEN(cont’d)– c/o Dennis Van Wagenen, Cliff Road, 68.2-2-12, discussion on appeal of CEO Denial for building permit based on Highway Superintendent Determination, ‘A’ District

Chairman Fornal noted that before the ZBA is the determination by the CEO and he is predicating his decision on the fact that the road has not been improved and there are the letters from the Highway Superintendent. That’s where the current ZBA action stands. The Applicant is appealing that action. As he understands it, there is still 280a(3), which he didn’t know for a fact, but it would seem that if he could get verification from the different emergency agencies—like the police and the rescue squad saying that its passible and he does have 25’ right-of-way, then he may be able to approach it on that appeal. This appeal is against the determination of the CEO in this instance.

Mr. Tapper noted that the only problem is the road and if the Board gets a letter from the Highway Superintendent saying that he doesn’t recommend that any other houses are built on it, he felt the Board was kind of locked into that determination.

Mr. Ullman noted that the road didn’t meet Town Specifications.

Mr. Van Wagenen noted that it was an existing road though.

Mr. Tapper stated that this was a Town Official’s opinion, just like they take the Town Attorney’s opinion.

Mr. Van Wagenen asked the Board to read the letter that Mr. Kelder sent to his son, this past May, that he had no jurisdiction over a private road.

The Secretary noted that Mr. Kelder was responding for a request from this applicant for a driveway permit and he doesn’t issue driveway permits on private roads. This property had previously gone for Open Development and this was previously in front of the Board and the Town has a checklist for Open Development and part of that Checklist is for the applicant to get the determination on the condition of the road from the Highway Superintendent and that was what happened. It was nothing to do with a driveway permit.

Chairman Fornal noted that this was a tough situation and the Board would vote on it, but he really saw this as something that they couldn’t…

Mr. Van Wagenen asked if the Town expected his son to maintain and improve ¾ of a mile of road.

Chairman Fornal noted that this was just one option. The other option was what the Town Attorney suggested or try for a Variance through 280a(3). He wouldn’t recommend that the Board go against the CEO determination.

Mr. Van Wagenen requested to have this in the PB’s advisory to the ZBA.

T/ROCHESTER Page 9

MINUTES OF MEETING August 21, 2007

ZBA ADVISORY REQUEST

JON VAN WAGENEN(cont’d)– c/o Dennis Van Wagenen, Cliff Road, 68.2-2-12, discussion on appeal of CEO Denial for building permit based on Highway Superintendent Determination, ‘A’ District

Mr. Ullman felt that there’s a future to look at. If the road is in okay shape today, doesn’t mean it will be tomorrow. He’s not sure the fire dept. saying that it was passable to day would hold any barring over the future condition of the road.

Mr. Striano was a member of the audience and noted that he’s lived up there for over 20 years. And the road is treacherous in the winter. There was no RMA in order.

The Chairman noted that speaking with a member of the audience was out of order, but they would hear Mr. Striano to get to know the situation a little better.

Mr. Striano noted that the properties have been there for a long time. There have been no new homes built there since before zoning existed in the Town . The only homes built on that road have been replacements of already existing residences. The problem is that the road is a safety hazard for the residents that are there. And until something is done it’s a catch 22. What the answer is, he didn’t know. He’s been maintaining it himself with many dollars and lots of hours and help from no one else. He pays an employee to sand the hill in the winter with himself before he can go to work. And the main thing is a safety issue and that should be the Board’s concern.

Mrs. Van Wagenen noted that one of the things he suggested to the ZBA was to establish a special tax district where all the land owners get together to get the road fixed. They need some help from the Town in order to facilitate that. He was aware that Sages Loop and Barry Lane were both done this way.

Chairman Fornal felt that this is something that should be looked into.

Mr. Striano noted that this was tried in the past and never resolved. The road itself is about a mile long and the problem is that the other end of it is owned as a private driveway, so there is no access at the other end.

Mr. Tapper questioned if the applicant was aware of the situation when he bought the property?

Mr. Van Wagenen was aware that the road wasn’t that great, he thought that the previous owner was trying to subdivide. He could see a potential problem there, but for a lot that is over 100 years old, he didn’t foresee a problem. They knew that the road was in poor condition and his son has the equipment to get in and out and he would be able to work with the other owners there, but he thought that there were only a couple people who did work on the road.

Mr. Striano was one of them and noted that he had to do the work if he wanted to get out and go to work in the morning. Mr. Van Wagenen’s parcel was a lot further up the road than his house was and he had a lot more to deal with.

T/ROCHESTER Page 10

MINUTES OF MEETING August 21, 2007

ZBA ADVISORY REQUEST

JON VAN WAGENEN(cont’d)– c/o Dennis Van Wagenen, Cliff Road, 68.2-2-12, discussion on appeal of CEO Denial for building permit based on Highway Superintendent Determination, ‘A’ District

Mr. Van Wagenen noted that the situation exists for everyone that is there right now. That situation doesn’t go away if his son doesn’t build a house. He felt the Town had some responsibility to it.

Chairman Fornal motioned to uphold the denial of the CEO and find a better way to attempt this maybe through 280a(3).

Mr. Ullman didn’t feel that showing that the road was passable now meant anything because it didn’t address the future. If the road is in such lousy condition, it will continue to degrade over time.

Mr. Tapper felt that if the road needed improvements, the applicant would have to fix them, or else he wouldn’t be able to access his lot.

Mr. Kawalchuk felt that the Town Board should find a solution to this. How could there be 12 acres that you couldn’t build a house on? It shouldn’t be the PB and it shouldn’t be the ZBA. He was sure that taxes had to be paid on this. Who would think that you could buy 12 acres with houses above it below and to the side of it and not be able to put up 1 dwelling?

Chairman Fornal noted that could be another venue- to write a letter to the Town Board to have the Town take over the road.

Mr. Van Wagenen has never heard of this 280a State Law in his carreer in this area. It is a very obscure state law that has come to light in the past few years. Its an existing lot and its typical that it wouldn’t be a problem. Its 12 acres—which is well over the threshold of zoning now.

Mr. Kawalchuk felt that maybe it was buyer beware, but it was 12 acres.

Mr. Ullman felt that if you were buying a lot on a road that was in bad condition going in, he would ask what the deal was with the road before he purchased it.

Mr. Van Wagenen wasn’t complaining about the condition of the road.

Chairman Fornal reiterated his motion to advise the ZBA to uphold the CEO’s Denial.

Seconded by Mr. Ullman.

Vote:

Fornal- Yes Tapper- No

Carney- Left early Gaydos- Absent

Ricks- Absent Ullman- Yes

Kawalchuk- No Godwin, Alt- not required to participate

Vote was 2-2.

T/ROCHESTER Page 11

MINUTES OF MEETING August 21, 2007

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. Dawson was present on behalf of his application to give the Board an update.

Chairman Fornal noted that this application has had 2 extensions for Conditional Preliminary Approval and will expire on September 17, 2007. So, the Board would make a motion for Conditional Final Approval this evening, but the conditions will also need to be met by September 17, 2007.

He read the following resolution to the Board to consider:

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 Section/Phase One (Lots #2-4, 20-22) only and all conditions shall be met by September 17, 2007 or the CPA expires and the entire process will have to be redone. Section/Phase Two (Lots #5-9, 14-15, 19) and Section/Phase Three (Lots #10-13, 16-18) shall each be required to have a separate application submitted for approval with the understanding that, barring any substantial changes, SEQR requirements have been met and there are no segmentation issues. For each separate ensuing application, a short form EAF will be required and a public hearing will be held. Upon gaining Conditional 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 each subsequent Final Approval will be modeled on those below but specific to section/phase and lot numbers being applied for.

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 providing 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 Section/Phase One road completion or same must be completed.

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 being granted.

Applicant shall submit to the Planning Board a signed and notarized Road Maintenance Agreement (RMA) by the property owner with a 50′ Right-Of-Way to provide access for Section/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 Section/Phase One lots # 2-4 and 20-22. This Agreement is subject to review and approval by the Town Attorney.

A legal authority/instrument (e.g., Home Owners’ Association, Land Trust, etc) shall be established and shall be responsible for RMA for maintenance/upkeep and Stormwater maintenance/repairs. Said authority shall submit documentation, or legal instrument shall be submitted, that establishes subsequent responsibility for RMA and Stormwater maintenance and repair/upkeep as well as the Drainage Easement Agreement 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 per 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.

T/ROCHESTER Page 12

MINUTES OF MEETING August 21, 2007

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 and Certificate of Occupancy.

Applicant must comply with Chazen comment letters dated August 9, 2006 and August 4, 2006 as well as June 6, 2007(attached).

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 and shall file declaration of covenants, easements, and restrictions with the Ulster County Clerk.

18. 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.The Chairman shall sign the maps once the above mentioned conditions are met.

19. The Chairman shall sign the maps once the above mentioned conditions are met.

20. Applicant shall file maps with the Ulster County Clerk within 60 days of Chairman’s signature and return 3 filed copies to the Town.

Mr. Dawson noted that he wasn’t done with all of the conditions at this point. All of the monies have been paid and he was currently finishing up the road. They are also in the process of going back and forth with the Ulster County Health Dept. to get the plans approved.

Mr. Tapper motioned to accept the above read motion. Seconded by Mr. Ullman.

Vote:

Fornal- Yes Tapper- Yes

Carney- Left early Gaydos- Absent

Ricks- Absent Ullman- Yes

Kawalchuk- Yes Godwin, Alt- not required to participate

NEW APPLICATION PRESENTATION

HOMELAND TOWERS, LLC– c/o Snyder and Snyder, Special Use Permits/ Site Plan Approvals for 100 Airport Road (Property owned by Town of Rochester, Tax Map #69.3-2-37, R-1 District) and Route 209 (Property owned by Town of Rochester, Tax Map 76.1-3-17, R-1 District), for wireless communication facilities consisting of 150’monopole within 3,000 square foot compound on each site

Robert Gaudioso of Snyder and Snyder and Manny Vicente, President of Homeland Towers were present on behalf of the application.

Chairman Fornal noted that the applicants have been dealing with the Town Board for quite a while now. Certain sections of Chapter 130 have been waived and given the go ahead. He has also asked the Town Attorney about Section 130 because it is being stricken from the new code. The new code will require that the applicants will not be required to submit anything other than what they have. In fact it would be a Site Plan Approval, not a Special Use Permit. He has to double check with the Town Attorney.

Mr. Tapper noted that the new code isn’t passed yet.

Chairman Fornal was aware of this, but didn’t want the applicants going full till until they have that question resolved. If Chapter 130 was going to be kept, they would go along with it, but its going to go in as a separate different chapter. He felt that the new code was less onerous. The new code time frame was September, probably before the next meeting. Jan has been in touch. He says he wants to arrange a site visit.

T/ROCHESTER Page 13

MINUTES OF MEETING August 21, 2007

NEW APPLICATION PRESENTATION

HOMELAND TOWERS, LLC (cont’d)– c/o Snyder and Snyder, Special Use Permits/ Site Plan Approvals for 100 Airport Road (Property owned by Town of Rochester, Tax Map #69.3-2-37, R-1 District) and Route 209 (Property owned by Town of Rochester, Tax Map 76.1-3-17, R-1 District), for wireless communication facilities consisting of 150’monopole within 3,000 square foot compound on each site

Mr. Gaudioso wanted to know if they could do a site visit with a balloon test at the same time. They were thinking to do the balloon test in the second week of September, which would be the 15^th and 16^th. One of the Agreements they had was that the balloon test would be done on two consecutive weekend days of 4 hours each. They have their staff available on both of those days with the flexibility in case of rain or inclement weather to back up automatically on the 29^th and 30^th of September. He didn’t think that would interfere with any holidays and that would give the flexibility of having it on the 15^th and 16^th and having built in back up dates.

Chairman Fornal was questioning the time frame for the Public Hearing.

Mr. Gaudioso noted that when he spoke to Mr. Johannessen it was before he received the comment letter from Chazen dated August 16, 2007. They wanted to try and respond to these comments, and they want to do the balloon test and they want to give the Board the visual renderings. He wanted the Board to have an opportunity to do those things. He didn’t think the September 18^th meeting would work. They were leaning towards going to the October 16^th Public Hearing date so they don’t rush things and can respond properly.

The Chairman agreed that they had to have the balloon test done prior to the Public Hearing, so in case of inclement weather, it would be a good idea to hold it in October.

Mr. Gaudioso already conveyed to Mr. Johannessen that if there was any reason to keep the Public Hearing open, they wouldn’t have a problem with it. He noted that the only thing that was really outstanding in regards to Chazen’s August 16, 2007 comment letter was that he talked about driveway profiles and they were hoping the Board would agree to hold off until the building permit stage.

Chairman Fornal noted that they also mentioned about the structural engineer?

Mr. Gaudioso noted that that was actually waived by the Town Board until the building permit stage. They do have to do the full structural. Once the site is approved, then they will do the full structural drawings of the foundation and the tower, which costs a quite a bit of money and for the Town’s approval at the building permit stage.

Mr. Vicente noted that in order to design the foundation properly, they have to send soil conditions to the manufacturer because the foundation is designed specifically on the soil conditions of that location. They basically have to have the okay from the Town in regards to the site before they do that.

Mr. Tapper questioned what the weight was equivalent to? A couple story building?

T/ROCHESTER Page 14

MINUTES OF MEETING August 21, 2007

NEW APPLICATION PRESENTATION

Mr. Gaudioso noted that its not, but the design for the foundation is more dependant on the soil conditions or else it won’t be done properly. They have filed the request to the DEC with some information on the trucks that would go up the mostly existing access drive. They do have to extend it a little bit towards the end. DEC has to approve any improvements on the Town property. So, they submitted that to them. (this was specific to the Airport Road Transfer Station site). He requested that the Board contact them prior to the balloon test with any locations that they desire to see the balloon test from. He spoke to Mr. Johannessen and wanted to make a map prior to the balloon test of these locations.

Chairman Fornal knew that they would definitely want the 2 scenic overlooks on Route 44/55. He would email the other Board members to get their requests as well.

Mr. Gaudioso noted that the balloon test would be from 8-12 pm on Saturday and Sunday, September 15^th& 16^th. They knew they had to put it in a newspaper of general circulation, which would be the Freeman. The wind is less in the morning, later in the day the wind picks up and that can make it less accurate. He brought an extra copy of the Route 209 Application for the Ulster County Planning Board recommendation.

Mr. Kawalchuk questioned if higher was always better for towers?

Mr. Vicente noted that it wasn’t. It was really dependent on the topography and layout of the land. In a valley, you actually want to be in the center.

Chairman Fornal noted that he would contact the other Board members to see if they were interested in attending the site visit. If there was a quorum, they would have to advertise it as a meeting.

Mr. Gaudioso questioned if the Board was okay with waiving the road profiles until the building permit stage. The roads were existing, they would just extend them a little. If they have to do them now, they have to do some surveying and its always hard to get surveyors. They’d have to get one now if that was the case. Normally they put in a 12’ wide gravel drive. The one driveway at the Transfer Station is essentially there, it just needs to be extended a little. The other one at the Route 209 site was a sand pit, they would stabilize a road and gravel it. The carriers go to the Tower about once a month for routine maintenance with a 4 wheel drive vehicle. There isn’t a lot of traffic.

Chairman Fornal requested that they submit that request in writing for the Board to entertain.

Mr. Gaudioso’s concern was that if they needed a surveyor to do this, then they would need to get them out there in the next week or 2 weeks to get it done in time to get the plans there by the September meeting.

Chairman Fornal felt that having the driveway profile done at building permit stage could be acceptable.

T/ROCHESTER Page 15

MINUTES OF MEETING August 21, 2007

NEW APPLICATION PRESENTATION

Mr. Gaudioso noted that he would work with Mr. Johannessen in the next month, the Board would take care of the Ulster County Planning Board referral, and he would circulate the notice in the paper for the balloon test. Everything else is pretty straight forward. They don’t need to circulate. Its an unlisted action and the only agency involved is the Town. They’ll have the Public Hearing on the 18^th of October 2007.

ACTION ON MINUTES

Mr. Ullman motioned to accept the minutes of July 17, 2007. Seconded by Chairman Fornal. No discussion. All members present in favor.

OTHER MATTERS:

Chairman Fornal noted that the Town Board requested an advisory on the proposed Zoning and Subdivision Code and the Zoning Map under Local Law # 4 of 2007. He asked if the Board had any comments. He suggested that Board members forward him their comments within the next week and he would do a cover letter and supply it to the Town Board. He also suggested that everyone attend the Public Hearing for it as well.

Mr. Tapper knows that the stuff at the end has really been rushed through. Did Mr. Fornal feel that they have really enough time to really work out all the kinks and this is the finished product? He wouldn’t object to another moratorium.

Chairman Fornal noted that he felt it was far beyond what we were currently using.

Mr. Ullman didn’t feel that the code was consistent with SEQRA regulations in regards to screening and buffering. In the Subdivision Regs, they should be consistent with SEQRA.

Chairman Fornal tended to think that the Board could do those things under SEQRA and noted that maintenance districts were also an oversight.

Chairman Fornal motioned to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Mr. Tapper. All members present in favor.

As there was no further business to discuss, at 8:45 PM Chairman Fornal adjourned the meeting.

Respectfully submitted,

Rebecca Paddock Stange, Secretary