MINUTES OF September 16, 2008 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 Chairman Tapper.
PRESENT: ABSENT:
Melvyn I. Tapper, Chairman
Anthony Kawalchuk
Anthony Ullman
Shane Ricks, Vice Chair
Robert Rominger
Leon Smith
Michael Baden
Don Dunn, Alternate
Pledge to the Flag.
PUBLIC HEARING
10P5C, C/O COLIN HOUSTON, PLS- 2 lot subdivision, Project 32 Road, Tax Map # 76.4-3-15.115, R-1
Mr. Chuck Holtz was present on behalf of Mr. Houston for the project.
Chairman Tapper noted that the applicant was supposed to contact the Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) for this application that has been pending since 2005.
Mr. Holtz noted that they have gotten a response from the OPRHP and they have said that since there have been an abundance of inquiries from applicants; they are only answering the inquiries from the Town Offices.
Mr. Ricks questioned if the property ended at the edge of the Stony Kill?
Mr. Holtz responded that it actually went across to the other side.
Chairman Tapper noted that the Board would follow up with OPRHP.
Chairman Tapper opened the hearing to the public.
Chairman Tapper recognized Louis Stella & Oksana Hitchcock who were bounding owners. Mr. Stella noted that their property was a part of this original subdivision that was done by Martin Tully back in the 90’s. Mr. Tully had told them when they bought their lot that is +/-5 acres that there would be no further allowance of subdivisions within this one that he created. He was concerned that this applicant had +/-16 acres and was going to put up something commercial or apartment buildings next to him.
Mr. Holtz noted that the applicant isn’t even planning on building on lot 2 at this time.
Mr. Stella wanted to know what was stopping a housing project from coming in.
Mrs. Hitchcock noted that when they bought into this subdivision they were told certain things like there would be no further subdivisions permitted and no more than one single family dwelling on each lot. She heard that there were 10 families coming in here and she wanted to know why the rules changed?
PUBLIC HEARING
10P5C, C/O COLIN HOUSTON, PLS (cont’d)- 2 lot subdivision, Project 32 Road, Tax Map # 76.4-3-15.115, R-1
Chairman Tapper noted that this is a +/-16 acre parcel. The applicants were proposing to split it into two lots that were approximately 4 acres and 12 acres in size. He wasn’t aware of 10 families building on the property.
The Secretary had brought the original subdivision map from the Planning Board Office. Mr. Ricks showed the public the original map and noted that it didn’t say anything about no further subdivision. Mr. Tully may have put restrictions like that into individual deeds that were sold, but this parcel has had its deed reviewed by our past Planners, The Chazen Companies, and there were no restrictions in the deed.
Mr. Holtz had the deed at the meeting and read through it and confirmed that there were no such restrictions.
Chairman Tapper noted to the public that there was no way of knowing what was to happen in the future. The applicants would need to come back to the Board for any changes or further subdivisions of this property and it would be reviewed should that occur.
Mr. Smith motioned to close the Public Hearing. Seconded by Mr. Rominger. No discussion.
Vote:
Tapper, Chairman- Yes Ricks, VC- Yes
Kawalchuk- Yes Smith- Yes
Ullman- Yes Rominger- Yes
Dunn(alt.)- not required to participate Baden- Yes
Chairman Tapper noted that the Board would contact the OPRHP and render their decision pending their comments. Should something come back where the Board felt it was substantial, they would re-open the Public Hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING
ELBERT DE JAGER- Special Use Permit for 2 family dwelling at 11 De Jager Lane, Tax Map # 77.1-2-32.100, R-1 District
Mr. de Jager was present on behalf of his application.
Chairman Tapper questioned if Mr. de Jager brought any photos of the 2 family dwelling as he said he would at the last meeting?
Mr. de Jager responded that he didn’t get them printed out yet, but he would. He was too preoccupied with the Health Dept. issue. He spoke with James Rodden of UCHD and he said that Mr. de Jager would need to hire an engineer to test the system to see if it was adequate and get a report to the Health Dept.
Chairman Tapper noted that the Board’s Secretary, Mrs. Paddock-Stange, also called Mr. Rodden from the Health Dept and he confirmed that all applicants for 2 family dwellings needed to contact him to see what he required. He then asked if there was a change to the existing building.
Mr. de Jager responded that there was not.
PUBLIC HEARING
ELBERT DE JAGER (cont’d)- Special Use Permit for 2 family dwelling at 11 De Jager Lane, Tax Map #77.1-2- 32.100, R-1 District
Mr. Tapper confirmed from the last meeting that each apartment would have separate hot water and electric.
Mr. Baden questioned if there would be separate entrances and if there were, were they existing?
Mr. de Jager responded that there were separate entrances and they were existing.
At this time Chairman Tapper opened the hearing to the public.
There was no public comment.
Chairman Tapper motioned to close the Public Hearing. Seconded by Mr. Smith. No discussion.
Vote:
Tapper, Chairman- Yes Ricks, VC- Yes
Kawalchuk- Yes Smith- Yes
Ullman- Yes Rominger- Yes
Dunn(alt.)- not required to participate Baden- Yes
Chairman Tapper noted that they would wait for the approval from the Health Dept. and in the meantime the applicant could drop off photos at the Planning Board Office.
PUBLIC HEARING
RICHARD ALBERT- Special Use Permit for 2 family dwelling at 812 County Route 6, Tax Map #77.2-3-21, R-1 District
Mr. Albert was present on behalf of his application.
Mr. Tapper questioned if the garage was already built?
Mr. Albert noted that everything is done except the siding.
Chairman Tapper read letter dated September 16, 2008 from Barry Medenbach, PE to the Attention of James Rodden at the Health Dept, stating that Mr. Medenbach inspected Mr. Albert’s system and he felt that it was adequate for the addition of the second residence.
Mr. Ricks questioned how many acres the parcel was?
Mr. Albert responded that it was +/-5.37 acres.
Mr. Tapper questioned what entrance would be used to enter the apartment?
Mr. Albert responded that the outside staircase would be used.
PUBLIC HEARING
RICHARD ALBERT (cont’d)- Special Use Permit for 2 family dwelling at 812 County Route 6, Tax Map #77.2-3-21, R-1 District
Mr. Kawalchuk noted that this added residence would need to follow specific provisions in the building code for a residence over a garage.
At this time Chairman Tapper opened the hearing to the public.
There was no public comment.
Chairman Tapper motioned to close the Public Hearing. Seconded by Mr. Kawalchuk. No discussion.
Vote:
Tapper, Chairman- Yes Ricks, VC- Yes
Kawalchuk- Yes Smith- Yes
Ullman- Yes Rominger- Yes
Dunn(alt.)- not required to participate Baden- Yes
Mr. Tapper noted that they would make the decision at the next meeting.
NEW APPLICATION PRESENTATION
HOMELAND TOWERS c/o Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless– SPA/SUP for 12’x30’ prefab equipment shelter adjacent to tower; antennas and appurtenant cabling on tower,100 Airport Road and Route 209 Tower Locations, Tax Map#s 69.3-2-37 & 76.1-3-17, R-1 Districts
Clifford C. Rohde, Esq. of Cooper Erving & Savage LLP was present on behalf of the application along with Ed Frolly of Tectonic Engineering.
Mr. Rhode explained that the two approved towers at the Airport Road and Route 209 locations are either up or about to be up soon and they want to put Verizon Antennas on each of these towers with an equipment shelter at each site.
Mr. Ricks questioned if any other antennas would be going up?
Mr. Rhodes didn’t know.
Mr. Frolly believed that there would be others in the future.
Mr. Ricks noted that there is a tower now on City Hall that is an AT&T tower and even up near the Samsonville area there is no reception. When the people from Homeland Towers were here last year for the tower approvals, they said that they’d be filling in a lot of dead spots up that way. Is this true? Would these areas further away from Route 209 get service now?
Mr. Rhodes directed the Board to look at tab 8 in the report that they submitted. It showed the coverage area that is existing and what is prospective. The four spots indicated by the orange color is the Kerhonkson (Route 209 Tower) coverage.
NEW APPLICATION PRESENTATION
HOMELAND TOWERS c/o Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless (cont’d)– SPA/SUP for 12’x30’ prefab equipment shelter adjacent to tower; antennas and appurtenant cabling on tower,100 Airport Road and Route 209 Tower Locations, Tax Map#s 69.3-2-37 & 76.1-3-17, R-1 Districts
Mr. Kawalchuk noted that that coverage is all relatively close to Route 209.
Mr. Frolly noted that this area is challenged by its hilly topography. Its not flat and the trees play havoc. Pine trees stop coverage.
Mr. Ricks noted that one of the Town’s larger fire houses is up in Samsonville and they were under the impression that they’d benefit by these towers for their emergency signals.
Mr. Frolly spent some time talking about inquiring if the fire dept would be interested in a tower on their land. If this was something the Town would want, Verizon might be interested.
Mr. Tapper questioned if Tectonic were the engineers for the Towers themselves as well as these Antennas?
Mr. Frolly responded that yes, they were.
Mr. Tapper questioned the details of the equipment shelter.
Mr. Rhodes noted that it was a prefab building. It was very sturdy on a concrete pad.
Mr. Tapper questioned what would happen for example if AT&T were to come in? Would they be able to use the storage building?
Mr. Frolly noted that no, they don’t share.
Mr. Tapper wondered if there was going to be enough room within the 3,000’ compound for each antenna that came in to have its own storage building. What if 4 antennas went up and they each had their own building? Would there be enough room for parking and maneuvering vehicles?
Mr. Frolly noted that the buildings were movable. He looked at the plans and was confident that they could easily fit 4 within the area allotted.
Mr. Rominger questioned the antennas and length of the arms?
Mr. Rhodes noted that there are 3 faces to the monopole and 4 antennas on each face. Two of them are 4’ and two are 8’. This was under tab 12 in the report.
Mr. Rominger wanted to confirm that there 3 sectors with 4 antennas per sector for a total of 12. Six were 4’ and 6 were 8’.
Mr. Rhodes noted that in tab 5 of the report you could see the vertical view.
Mr. Rominger wanted to know how far they came out.
NEW APPLICATION PRESENTATION
HOMELAND TOWERS c/o Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless (cont’d)– SPA/SUP for 12’x30’ prefab equipment shelter adjacent to tower; antennas and appurtenant cabling on tower,100 Airport Road and Route 209 Tower Locations, Tax Map#s 69.3-2-37 & 76.1-3-17, R-1 Districts
Mr. Frolly believed it to be about 10-12’.
Mr. Rominger questioned if the antennas would match the color of the pole?
Mr. Frolly noted that they come white and they could paint them to match the poles, but a lot of times the paint chips because they get a lot of wear from the sun and the wind and then they don’t look so good. It would ultimately be the Board’s decision.
Mr. Tapper didn’t believe that there was much the Board had to do but condition the colors. The towers themselves were the larger impact and they’ve already been approved, but under out telecommunications law, each antenna needs to come back for Planning Board review.
Mr. Rhodes displayed the equipment shelter (storage building) color choices for the Board.
Mr. Tapper asked if the Board’s Alternate, Mr. Dunn, had any questions he’d like to ask.
Mr. Dunn noted that he didn’t even notice when the airport road tower went up. He went to the transfer station and didn’t even notice it.
Mr. Tapper questioned if this would look like the antennas that you see on Route 209 in Kingston when you are going to the mall?
Mr. Ricks answered, no. Those are special communication towers, not cell towers.
Mr. Rhodes noted that the visuals are in tab 11 of the report.
Mr. Ricks questioned if the applicant considered the Scenic Byway under the visual EAF where it asks if any Government established foot trails exist.
Mr. Rhodes was not aware of one.
Mr. Baden explained that they could go to the Town’s website and there was a link where they could check into it. It is a State designated by way.
Mr. Tapper noted that the Accord and Kerhonkson reports and maps are basically the same.
Mr. Rhodes agreed that they were identical.
Mr. Tapper questioned who was responsible for the roads?
Mr. Frolly noted that Homeland Towers put in the roads to the Towers. They are only here for the antennas and equipment shelter, everything else has been done and approved.
NEW APPLICATION PRESENTATION
HOMELAND TOWERS c/o Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless (cont’d)– SPA/SUP for 12’x30’ prefab equipment shelter adjacent to tower; antennas and appurtenant cabling on tower,100 Airport Road and Route 209 Tower Locations, Tax Map#s 69.3-2-37 & 76.1-3-17, R-1 Districts
Mr. Tapper questioned if the applicants checked the conditions for the Homeland Towers to make sure that they will be in compliance with everything. He brought copies of the conditions and the applicants checked them over.
Mr. Rhodes noted that they wouldn’t be doing anything to violate the requirements.
Mr. Ullman questioned what the time line was to put the antennas up?
Mr. Frolly noted that they were ready to go as soon as they got their approvals.
Mr. Ricks motioned a Public Hearing for the 100 Airport Road and the 6140 Route 209 sites for the October meeting. Mr. Smith seconded the motion. No discussion.
Vote:
Tapper, Chairman- Yes Ricks, VC- Yes
Kawalchuk- Yes Smith- Yes
Ullman- Yes Rominger- Yes
Dunn(alt.)- not required to participate Baden- Yes
At this time the Board looked over the color choices for the storage building. They came to a consensus on gray.
Mr. Ricks questioned if the Board felt that the antenna colors should match the tower?
Mr. Kawalchuk noted that Mr. Frolly indicated earlier that the colors get pretty beaten up by the weather. What happens to the white color that it comes in?
Mr. Frolly stated that it stays the same.
Mr. Tapper questioned if the Board felt they should have planner review to make sure the process goes smoothly? Just to have Mr. Moot, Town Planner, look everything over?
The Board didn’t have a strong feeling one way or the other.
Mr. Ricks motioned for the Town of Rochester Planning Board to be Lead Agency for both sites. Seconded by Mr. Baden. No discussion.
Vote:
Tapper, Chairman- Yes Ricks, VC- Yes
Kawalchuk- Yes Smith- Yes
Ullman- Yes Rominger- Yes
Dunn(alt.)- not required to participate Baden- Yes
The Board noted that the Ulster County Planning Board needed to be referred to for the Route 209 site in Kerhonkson.
Mr. Hamilton and Mr. Schade were present on behalf of their application.
ACTION ON MINUTES
Mr. Baden made a motion to accept the minutes with the condition that they be revised to reflect Mr. Rick’s absence in one of the votes where the Secretary has him marked as voting “Yes”. Mr. Ullman seconded the motion. No discussion.
Tapper, Chairman- Yes Ricks, VC- Yes
Kawalchuk- Yes Smith- Yes
Ullman- Yes Rominger- Yes
Dunn(alt.)- Not required to participate Baden- Yes
OTHER MATTERS
Discussion on Planner Thresholds
Mr. Moot noted that he spoke with Kerry Ivers and Greg Bolner at Clark Patterson Lee. And they wanted to make sure that the Town knew that by reducing the acreage requirement for Planner Review, they may be encouraging more 2 acre subdivisions throughout the Town. He wasn’t sure if this was what the Town wanted.
Mr. Baden wanted to let the Board know that in the proposed new Zoning for the Town, there are more 2 and 3 acre zoning and not many 1 acre possibilities.
The following is an email from Tim Moot at Clark Patterson Lee received by the Planning Board office on September 15, 2008. The Planning Board requested Mr. Moot’s comments on changing the Planner Thresholds to 2 acres or 2 lots with 2 acres or less:
Hi Becky,
In response to the proposed planner threshold change we would offer the following comments:
We think it would be beneficial for the Town to leave some leeway by having a caveat stating something along the lines of ~”upon Town review of the sketch plan, planner review may be triggered based on one or more of the following conditions:
1) Site disturbance of 1 or more acres (NYSDEC SWPPP required)
2) Any publicly dedicated facility including but not limited to culverts, roads etc…
3) Town may want to determine other conditions… or open statement…
– We do not think the 6 or more lot requirement threshold should be changed.
– We still would be requesting that the initial escrow be increased to $750.00 (I still need to put together our letter of request)
Finally, we would warn that the threshold change could result in an overall planning change to the community, in that there could be an increase in the amount of 2 acre parcel subdivisions. It is unclear if this is what the Town wants to encourage.
I’ve included Greg Bolner and Kerry Ivers (one of our planners) in on the note in case they would like to elaborate on the proposed threshold change.
Chairman Tapper stated that part of the threshold for Planner Review being a 4 acre lot size could be seen as a punishment or an incentive for creating larger lots. He doesn’t agree with this size threshold. If someone had 5 acres that they wanted to split into 2 lots—it could be a very easy subdivision, but they would need Planner Review because of the lot size.
Mr. Kawalchuk agreed that one lot being 4 acres or less as a trigger for Planner Review wasn’t ideal. He felt that 2 lots less than 2 acres should be the trigger.
Mr. Baden agreed that he could see it changed. He’d also like to better define the Special Use Permit/ Site Plan Approval triggers, because sometimes we get applications that do not include buildings at all—and the trigger is based on new construction square footage. He suggested contacting our planner and getting feedback from him as well.
Mr. Baden and Mr. Ricks agreed that site disturbance would be a logical trigger.
Chairman Tapper requested the Board to think about this for the next meeting and the Board would come up with a formal recommendation to the Town Board.
DISCUSSION ON APPLICANTS PAYING FOR TOWN ATTORNEY ADVICE:
Mr. Baden questioned who paid for the Town Attorney’s time when the Planning Board seeks her advice on an application? For example, when a planner reviews an application, the Board has the applicant set up an escrow account to pay for the Planner’s services. Does or should the Board also do this with questions to the Attorney regarding specific applications? Especially regarding the Rehnborg lot line adjustment on Sidney Street. This seems to be a fairly self created problem and the Town Attorney is doing a lot of research specific to this application.
Chairman Tapper wasn’t sure. The law for professional review isn’t limited to just planners. He believed it included all types of professionals including attorneys.
Mr. Rominger felt that the Town was responsible, because they didn’t have the legal expertise to answer some of Mr. Rehnborg’s application’s needs. So the Board is seeking the legal opinion, not the applicant.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Smith motioned to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Mr. Baden. No discussion. All members present in favor.
As there was no further business, at 9:05PM, Chairman Tapper adjourned the meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
Rebecca Paddock Stange, Secretary