Planning Board Minutes 10/21/08

MINUTES OF October 21, 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 Ullman

Anthony Kawalchuk Don Dunn, Alternate

Shane Ricks, Vice Chair

Robert Rominger

Leon Smith

Michael Baden

Also present were Town Planner, Tim Moot and Town Attorney, Mary Lou Christiana, Esq.

Pledge to the Flag.

PUBLIC HEARING

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.

Chairman Tapper stated that the towers located at 6140 Route 209 and 100 Airport Road where these antennas are proposed were already approved in November of 2007. These applicants are in front of the Planning Board for antennas on each of the towers and 12’ x 30’ equipment shelters to maintain antennas on each site.

Mr. Rhodes also stated that there were two towers that were previously approved on Route 209 and Airport Road. Verizon Wireless would be the anchor tenant on each of these towers and would put up 146’ level antennas. This would allow Verizon Wireless to provide coverage and end gaps in coverage areas. This would also be vital for emergency services and people of leisure as well. This was what was also said at the last meeting and there’s not much more to add.

Chairman Tapper noted that at the last meeting the Board didn’t think Planner review would be necessary, but since all property owners within 1,500’ were to be contacted as per our telecommunications law, the Board wanted to be thorough and not have any unnecessary delays. He noted that the poles are different colors. The Airport Road tower is galvanized and the Route 209 tower is brown. This was decided as part of the 2007 review for the towers. At the last meeting the Board discussed making the antennas match the poles.

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 that was previously submitted to the Board. The tops of the antennas would reach 150’.

Chairman Tapper noted that the Board received a comment letter from Town Planner, Tim Moot of Clark Patterson Lee.

PUBLIC HEARING

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. Moot stated that the application was adequate. His only question was what take Mr. Rhodes had on EMF (Electro Magnetic Field)?

Mr. Rhodes noted that that was a post construction requirement that Verizon would monitor and report it. It is federally regulated.

Mr. Frolly contributed that also need approval from the FCC. They can’t put more major equipment up without approval, but they aren’t required to report the EMF to the FCC. They can do it if requested to. It needs to be a cumulative test, so if another antenna goes up (which they will- the towers can hold 4 or 5 carriers) it wouldn’t be the same result as just the one antenna.

Mr. Rhodes stated that these are minimal emissions—less than 1%.

Chairman Tapper requested if they were to make any reports to the FCC, could the Planning Board be copied?

Mr. Frolly noted that they won’t request it. There are just too many sites to monitor.

At 7:15 Chairman Tapper opened the hearing to the public.

Mr. Rhodes noted that at the last meeting he believed the Board requested the black/gray color for the equipment shelters. The particular sample he brought to the last meeting is no longer available as that company went out of business. He was confident that he could find an equivalent color though.

Laura Finestone was recognized to speak. She questioned if her AT&T phone would get better reception from the Verizon Wireless antenna going up?

Mr. Frolly answered no. He suggested that Ms. Finestone place a call to AT&T and request that they put an antenna on the tower as well.

Mr. Rhodes contributed that the pole was constructed for multiple carriers.

Mr. Baden motioned to close the Public Hearing, seconded by Mr. Smith. No discussion.

Vote:

Tapper, Chairman- Yes Ricks, VC- Yes

Kawalchuk- Yes Smith- Yes

Ullman- absent Rominger- Yes

Dunn (alt.)- absent Baden- Yes

PUBLIC HEARING

At this time the Board went over Part 2 of the EAF as prepared by Mr. Moot of Clark Patterson Lee as follows (Part 2 was identical for both sites):

1. Will the Proposed Action result in a physical change to the project site? Yes, The project entails the construction of a small (360 sq ft) utility building on an existing gravel pad and the addition of wireless infrastructure on the existing towers. Neither of these additions are substantial enough to cause a negative impact on the site.

5. Will Proposed Action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity? Yes, The construction of a utility structure on the site will increase the amount of impervious surface. However, the size of the structure is only 12′ by 30′ (360 square feet) will have

very little impact on the entire site itself.

11. Will Proposed Action affect aesthetic resources? (If necessary, use the Visual EAF Addendum in Section 617.20, Appendix B.)

YES, The addition of wireless infrastructure on the existing tower will slightly alter the appearance of the tower. However, a visual EAF was previously submitted by the applicant and any issues were addressed.

20. Is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential adverse environment impacts? YES, With the addition of wireless facilities to the existing towers, it can be assumed that there will be some public comment against the construction due to health and visual concerns.

However, the applicant has provided EMF studies of the project and found that there will be no health-related impacts. A visual EAF was previously submitted, and any issues have been addressed by the applicant to minimize negative impacts of the tower’s appearance.

Mr. Rominger stated that he was a neighbor to the Airport Road site.

Mr. Ricks motioned to accept Part 2 of the EAF for the 100 Airport Road site. Seconded by Mr. Smith. No discussion.

Vote:

Tapper, Chairman- Yes Ricks, VC- Yes

Kawalchuk- Yes Smith- Yes

Ullman- absent Rominger- Yes

Dunn(alt.)- absent Baden- Yes

PUBLIC HEARING

Mr. Baden motioned for a Negative Declaration for the 100 Airport Road site. Seconded by Mr. Rominger. No discussion.

Vote:

Tapper, Chairman- Yes Ricks, VC- Yes

Kawalchuk- Yes Smith- Yes

Ullman- absent Rominger- Yes

Dunn(alt.)- absent Baden- Yes

Mr. Smith motioned to accept Part 2 of the EAF for the 6140 Route 209 site. Seconded by Mr. Ricks. No discussion.

Vote:

Tapper, Chairman- Yes Ricks, VC- Yes

Kawalchuk- Yes Smith- Yes

Ullman- absent Rominger- Yes

Dunn(alt.)- absent Baden- Yes

Chairman Tapper motioned for a Negative Declaration for the 6140 Route 209 Site. Seconded by Mr. Rominger. No discussion.

Vote :

Tapper, Chairman- Yes Ricks, VC- Yes

Kawalchuk- Yes Smith- Yes

Ullman- absent Rominger- Yes

Dunn(alt.)- absent Baden- Yes

The Board discussed making the decision at the next month, then decided to discuss conditions at this meeting and if they felt satisfied with them to vote on the antennas.

Mr. Jarvis, a member in the audience, spoke out of turn noting his contention for the Airport Road tower color. He referred to it as a “white rocket” stating that it was an eyesore.

Mr. Tapper stated that the reason they picked galvanized was because most of the views of that tower were from a lower angle and it would blend in more with the sky.

PUBLIC HEARING

The Board discussed the conditions and the following decisions for each site ensued:

Mr. Smith motioned to approve the 100 Airport Road antenna and equipment shelter based on the following conditions. Seconded by Mr. Baden. No discussion.

Vote:

Tapper, Chairman- Yes Ricks, VC- Yes

Kawalchuk- Yes Smith- Yes

Ullman- absent Rominger- Yes

Dunn(alt.)- absent Baden- Yes

CONDITIONS:

1. Applicant shall comply with all State and Local Building Codes and Fire Codes.

2. Placement of building must be in accordance with approved Site Plan prepared by Tectonic Engineering dated August 18, 2008. Any deviation from said maps shall require Planning Board review.

3. Color of equipment shed shall be dark gray.

4. Color of Antennas shall match color of existing pole (galvanized).

5. Building inspector shall verify the colors of the existing pole and antennas match.

6. Applicant shall comply with all FCC rules.

7. Special Use Permit shall be revoked if not exercised within one (1) year of the date of the signed decision as per Section140-32(D) of the Town of Rochester Zoning and Land Use Control Laws.

Mr. Baden motioned to approve the 6140 Route 209 antenna and equipment shelter based on the following conditions. Seconded by Mr. Mr. Rominger. No discussion.

Vote:

Tapper, Chairman- Yes Ricks, VC- Yes

Kawalchuk- Yes Smith- Yes

Ullman- absent Rominger- Yes

Dunn(alt.)- absent Baden- Yes

CONDITIONS:

1. Applicant shall comply with all State and Local Building Codes and Fire Codes.

2. Placement of building must be in accordance with approved Site Plan prepared by Tectonic Engineering dated August 18, 2008. Any deviation from said maps shall require Planning Board review.

3. Color of equipment shed shall be dark gray.

4. Color of Antennas shall match color of existing pole (brown).

5. Building inspector shall verify the colors of the existing pole and antennas match.

6. Applicant shall comply with all FCC rules.

7. Special Use Permit shall be revoked if not exercised within one (1) year of the date of the signed decision as per Section140-32(D) of the Town of Rochester Zoning and Land Use Control Laws.

DECISION

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 noted that Mr. de Jager submitted letter dated September 23, 2008 from Barry Medenbach, PE to the Health Dept. stating that the existing septic system was adequate for a 2 family dwelling. The Board is also in receipt of letter dated September 25, 2008 from James Rodden of the Health Dept. signing off on the adequacy of the septic system. Mr. de Jager also submitted photos for the Board.

Chairman Tapper then read a draft of the facts established at last month’s Public Hearing and the proposed conditions for the Board to consider:

Facts Established at Public Hearing:

1. Applicant seeks to renovate existing 1-family home into a 2 family home.

2. Project site is located on 11 De Jager Lane, in an R-1 Zoning District.

3. Project is permissible in an R-1 Zoning District with a Special Use Permit.

4. Total acreage of lot is +/- 4.6 acres.

5. Septic System needs to be inspected by a professional engineer and follow any recommendations in order to get Health Dept. approval.

6. There was no public comment at the Public Hearing.

CONDITIONS:

1. Applicant shall comply with all State and Local Building Codes and Fire Codes.

2. Applicant shall comply with all applicable sections of the Town of Rochester Zoning and Land Use Control Laws and Local Laws of the Town of Rochester.

3. Applicant must follow approved maps received dated August 13, 2008 as prepared by Elbert de Jager. Any deviation from said maps shall require Planning Board review.

4. Any expansion or change of use shall be applied for from the Town of Rochester Code Enforcement Office and Planning Board, as required.

5. Copy of Certificate of Occupancy shall be filed with the Planning Board Secretary within 30 days of receipt.

6. There shall be off street parking provided for as per section 140-36(E) of the Town of Rochester Zoning and Land Use Control Laws.

7. Special Use Permit shall be revoked if not exercised within one (1) year of the date of the signed decision as per Section140-32(D) of the Town of Rochester Zoning and Land Use Control Laws.

8. Applicant must obtain Health Dept. approval for septic and shall file same with the Planning Board Secretary within 30 days of receipt.

Mr. Kawalchuk motioned to approve the 2 family dwelling with the above mentioned conditions. Seconded by Mr. Ricks. No discussion.

Vote:

Tapper, Chairman- Yes Ricks, VC- Yes

Kawalchuk- Yes Smith- Yes

Ullman- absent Rominger- Yes

Dunn(alt.)- absent Baden- Yes

DECISION

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.

Chairman Tapper then read a draft of the facts established at last month’s Public Hearing and the proposed conditions for the Board to consider:

Facts Established at Public Hearing:

1. Applicant seeks approval to convert 2^nd floor of attached garage into a one bedroom apartment for rental purposes.

2. Project site is located at 812 County Route 6, in an R-1 Zoning District.

3. Project is permissible in an R-1 Zoning District with a Special Use Permit.

4. Total acreage of lot is +/- 5.3 acres.

5. Septic System was inspected by Barry Medenbach, PE and deemed to be adequate for the addition of the second residence.

6. Specific provisions of Building Code apply to apartment over garage.

7. There was no public comment at the Public Hearing.

CONDITIONS:

1. Applicant shall comply with all State and Local Building Codes and Fire Codes.

2. Applicant shall comply with all applicable sections of the Town of Rochester Zoning and Land Use Control Laws and Local Laws of the Town of Rochester.

3. Applicant must follow approved maps received dated August 11, 2008 as prepared by Richard Albert. Any deviation from said maps shall require Planning Board review.

4. Any expansion or change of use shall be applied for from the Town of Rochester Code Enforcement Office and Planning Board, as required.

5. Copy of Certificate of Occupancy shall be filed with the Planning Board Secretary within 30 days of receipt.

6. There shall be off street parking provided for as per section 140-36(E) of the Town of Rochester Zoning and Land Use Control Laws.

7. Special Use Permit shall be revoked if not exercised within one (1) year of the date of the signed decision as per Section140-32(D) of the Town of Rochester Zoning and Land Use Control Laws.

8. Applicant must obtain Health Dept. approval for septic and shall file same with the Planning Board Secretary within 30 days of receipt.

Mr. Rominger motioned to approve the 2 family dwelling with the above mentioned conditions. Seconded by Mr. Baden. No discussion.

Vote:

Tapper, Chairman- Yes Ricks, VC- Yes

Kawalchuk- Yes Smith- Yes

Ullman- absent Rominger- Yes

Dunn(alt.)- absent Baden- Yes

ZBA ADVISORY REQUEST

Robert Phillips, Jr.– 25’ Area Variance requested to construct garage, Friedlander Drive, Tax Map #68.13-3-5.100, R-1 District

Sue Ellen LeBarron was present on behalf of the application.

Chairman Tapper questioned if there was any reason why the garage couldn’t be moved away from the rear property line at all?

Ms. LeBarron noted that she went to the ZBA and they suggested rotating it 90 degrees to eliminate the need for the variance, but they would have to cut down a lot of trees to do that and they didn’t want to.

Chairman Tapper confirmed that the shed wasn’t attached to the home and that it was 12’ away?

It was.

Mr. Ricks questioned if it could go on the other side of the house?

Ms. LeBarron noted that they’d have to drive over the leach field and they didn’t want to do that. She also submitted letters from all the neighbors saying that they didn’t have a problem with it.

Mr. Ricks motioned for a favorable advisory for the variance in light of the fact that all of the neighbors were fine with it and the applicant stated that there was no other place to put the garage. Seconded by Mr. Kawalchuk. No discussion.

Vote:

Tapper, Chairman- Yes Ricks, VC- Yes

Kawalchuk- Yes Smith- Yes

Ullman- absent Rominger- Yes

Dunn(alt.)- absent Baden- Yes

DISCUSSION

MOMBACCUS EXCAVATING, Inc.- Discussion on Lead Agency for a Blue Stone Mine, off of Amanda Drive

Keith Kortright and his Attorney, Allison Coan, were present for the discussion.

Chairman Tapper gave a brief history of how this discussion came about. He noted that over the last two weeks The PB has had correspondence from the DEC regarding an application that Mombaccus Excavating has before the DEC. The DEC sent the PB Office 1 report and some maps and asked that we responded to their Lead Agency Request by October 19^th. The reports and maps were sent to Mr. Moot to look over and he asked if there was any way we could extend the DEC’s time frame for responding to the Lead Agency Notice as their deadline was prior to our Board meeting again. The DEC responded to Mr. Moot’s request for an extension and gave the Board until October 31^st to respond.

Chairman Tapper read letter dated October 10, 2008 from John Petronella of the DEC granting the PB an extension until October 31, 2008 to discuss the Lead Agency request at their October 21, 2008 meeting.

DISCUSSION

MOMBACCUS EXCAVATING, Inc.(cont’d)- Discussion on Lead Agency for a Blue Stone Mine, off of Amanda Drive

One of Chairman Tapper’s main concerns was that if DEC did get Lead Agency, what controls would the Board have over the project?

Mr. Baden would like to get more details on this application before the PB made any kind of decision.

Mr. Kortright noted that this was part of his property next to his home off of Rogue Harbor Road.

Town Attorney, Mrs. Christiana noted that DEC is always the Lead Agency in mining applications. If the PB challenged this, the DEC would fight it, and it is in her experience, they always win.

Ms. Coan noted that this was part of a +/-109 acre parcel.

Chairman Tapper wanted to hear Mr. Moot explain what controls the Board would still have if the DEC became Lead Agency.

Mr. Moot noted that the Board could request things they’d want to see and say to the DEC that they have growing concerns, but they would be relying on the DEC to take the PB’s concerns under advisement. The Board could request what ever they wanted, but the DEC didn’t have to comply with their requests.

Ms. Coan noted that this was all very preliminary and it was all conceptual at this point.

Mr. Moot stated that Mr. Kortright made a preliminary application and the DEC reviewed it and came up with a comment letter and Mr. Kortright made a second submission and the DEC responded on September 27, 2008 saying that it was still incomplete—missing 5 out of the 6 previously requested outstanding items.

Mr. Ricks questioned why they needed another mine?

Ms. Coan stated that it was really borrow pit. They don’t have a design plan at this time. They didn’t want to put the cart before the horse by getting into all of this with the PB when it really wasn’t at that stage yet. This was all conceptual as a part of building homes for his children in the future—who are really young.

Mr. Baden noted that in some of the letters from the DEC, they refer to it as a Blue Stone Mine and some refer to it as Sandstone.

Mr. Kortright believed that Sandstone was a type of Blue Stone.

Mr. Ricks stated that in the DEC correspondence, it says that the material from this mine or borrow pit as they called it would be transported to Mr. Kortright’s other mine on Rochester Center Road to be processed.

Mr. Kortright confirmed this noting that they would be doing that unless they could pull out slabs of Blue Stone.

DISCUSSION

MOMBACCUS EXCAVATING, Inc.(cont’d)- Discussion on Lead Agency for a Blue Stone Mine, off of Amanda Drive

Mr. Kawalchuk questioned if the DEC was just going to become Lead Agency anyway, wasn’t this discussion just futile?

Mrs. Christiana answered yes & no.

Mr. Kawalchuk wanted to know if the Town Attorney had ever seen a Planning Board win a Lead Agency dispute against the DEC?

Mrs. Christiana answered that she had never seen one.

Mr. Baden stated that he has seen it happen.

Chairman Tapper noted that the Board has had a lot of public comment when the PB has just rubber stamped it and signed off on the Lead Agency request in the past to the DEC. Especially in this case when from what has been said, it appears that a Special Use Permit is going to be necessary. Having the PB request Lead Agency, doesn’t necessarily mean that we will challenge a refusal from the DEC for it, but it is stating the Board’s opinion that we want it and we want to be involved.

Mrs. Christiana noted that if the DEC wants Lead Agency and the PB want it, and neither side backs off then it goes to the Commissioner. As an involved agency, the PB could supply comments to the DEC.

Mr. Baden wasn’t comfortable with making any kind of determinations without defining what the criteria would be if it were 1,000 tons or more.

Mr. Moot suggested that the PB could request an EIS (Environmental Impact Statement) be required of the applicant. It would be much more proof than just checking ‘no’ on an EAF (Environmental Assessment Form).

Mr. Baden noted that they didn’t have a lot of information on this project.

Mr. Ricks agreed. If it was over 1,000 tons, they’d need a Special Use Permit, but the Board doesn’t have that information.

Mr. Moot again suggested that the Board request an EIS be required by the DEC of the applicant. They don’t have to listen to the PB, but the PB can request it.

Mr. Baden stated that it is written in DEC law that not only do they not have to act on comments or requests, but they don’t even have to consider them.

DISCUSSION

MOMBACCUS EXCAVATING, Inc.(cont’d)- Discussion on Lead Agency for a Blue Stone Mine, off of Amanda Drive

Mr. Baden motioned for the Town of Rochester Planning Board to seek intent for Lead Agency. Seconded by Chairman Tapper. No discussion.

Vote:

Tapper, Chairman- Yes Ricks, VC- Yes

Kawalchuk- No Smith- Yes

Ullman- absent Rominger- Yes

Dunn(alt.)- absent Baden- Yes

Mr. Baden noted that the Board motioned for it, and then they could discuss their reasons to put into a letter later in the meeting.

CONTINUED APPLICATION REVIEW

MARK RHENBORG & IAN MERKEL– Subdivision Approval for lot line adjustment in Granite Estates Subdivision, Sidney Street & Minnewaska Trail, Tax Map #s84.7–19.2 & 17

Mr. Rehnborg was present on behalf of his application.

Chairman Tapper requested Town Attorney, Mrs. Christiana, attend this meeting for this application. She was also present.

Mr. Rehnborg stated that he had his surveyor remove the note and proposed right-of-way to go through Mr. Merkel’s property. That future easement would end upon Ian Merkel’s property. This was part of a stipulation between Mr. Rehnborg and the rest of the people on Sidney Street and the lot line adjustment is a condition of that as well. He believed what the Board was asking in their questions to the Town Attorney, were to clarify ownership of the deed gore between Mr. Merkel and Mr. Rehnborg’s property as they were each going to take ownership of parts of it and if the Board could just eliminate a right-of-way in a subdivision.

Mrs. Christiana noted that this subdivision was in the old Granite Estates Section 2. It was one of the Town’s first subdivisions. The map shows access over the Rehnborg property, which wasn’t a part of this subdivision. But the access is shown on the map. It’s not in any deed and there is no record of how it was granted and it was never built. Essentially it is a paper road. Harry Purcell was the property owner at the time and there is no record of acceptance, but the PB allowed accessed outside of the subdivision through someone’s property. The people on Sidney Street claim they have a right-of-way over Mr. Rehnborg’s parcel and they are saying by changing this lot line adjustment, they’d also like to change the right-of-way. This can be changed if something new comes to light. It would need a Public Hearing and have to notify every owner in the subdivision. It can be a part of the lot line adjustment application, but it needs to be addressed. The Board just can’t eliminate a right-of-way off of a previously approved subdivision map.

Mr. Rehnborg recalled that it was in the minutes and there was a discussion on it and whether or not Sidney Street would become a Town Road or whether it would be private.

Chairman Tapper questioned where the new right-of-way was proposed. He didn’t see it on the map.

CONTINUED APPLICATION REVIEW

MARK RHENBORG & IAN MERKEL(CONT’D)– Subdivision Approval for lot line adjustment in Granite Estates Subdivision, Sidney Street & Minnewaska Trail, Tax Map #s84.7-1-19.2 & 17

Mr. Rehnborg noted that they weren’t proposing a new right-of-way.

Chairman Tapper questioned if this application was just to shuffle acreage back and forth between himself and Mr. Merkel?

Mr. Rehnborg answered, yes. It was also making the deed gore go away.

Mrs. Christiana stated that a note on the map should indicate that the Board is making no representation of ownership in regards to the deed gore. The map should also have notes on it referencing the original subdivision noting the change to the right-of-way. If Mr. Rehnborg was confused, he could have his attorney and/or surveyor contact her.

Mr. Baden motioned to set the Public Hearing for November 18, 2008 pending the revisions of the map by November 5, 2008 and that all property owners within the Granite Estates Section 2 subdivision are notified of the change to the right-of-way. Mr. Rominger seconded the motion. No discussion.

Vote:

Tapper, Chairman- Yes Ricks, VC- Yes

Kawalchuk- Yes Smith- Yes

Ullman- absent Rominger- Yes

Dunn(alt.)- absent Baden- Yes

CONTINUED DISCUSSION

MOMBACCUS EXCAVATING, Inc.- Discussion on Lead Agency for a Blue Stone Mine, off of Amanda Drive

The Board discussed reasons to put in a letter to the DEC on why they wanted to be Lead Agency. They came up with the following reasons to be included in a letter to be drafted by Mr. Baden and circulated to members of the Board for their comments:

· Application has been classified by DEC as incomplete. How can DEC make a SEQRA determination on an incomplete application—especially since its still missing 5 out of the 6 required items previously requested by DEC?

· Amanda Drive is a private dirt road which connects to a narrow (undersized) road- Rogue Harbor, which connects to Cherrytown Road, which itself already has heavy traffic involved operations (Pine Grove and Camp Rov Tav) that have made the road a source of contention with the public for years. Amanda Drive is very far from the main roads and therefore a significant amount of roads and “neighbors” will be affected by the truck traffic.

· In one of the letters the PB received from the DEC, it mentioned 30-40 loads, but does not specify if that is per day or per month or per year. (again—another unknown, which makes it difficult for the Board to make an informed decision)

· The Mine is 9.5 acres, which curiously is .5 acres from the 10 acre trigger for a Type 1 Action

CONTINUED DISCUSSION

MOMBACCUS EXCAVATING, Inc.(cont’d)- Discussion on Lead Agency for a Blue Stone Mine, off of Amanda Drive

· The existing mining permit for the existing mine where Mombaccus is going to crush the material after its been transported from the proposed Amanda Drive location will also need to be amended to reflect the addition of these materials to this location.

· Close to State Land (MLC recommended not using this as a reason for the Town to be Lead Agency as it would give the DEC all the more reason to deny the request).

· Mr. Moot advised urging the DEC that the Town would like to see a Full EIS to fully address concerns of the application by submitting actual proof (like reports and studies), instead of simply saying, “there won’t be an impact” by checking a box on the EAF. And also to request that the PB be involved and copied all information submitted to the DEC.

· The Town of Rochester has an extraordinary amount of mines for one town, and we’ve had 3 mines in front of the PB in a short amount of time and it’s always a great contention with the public. It needs to be reviewed.

· Mr. Rominger thought that if this was only to build two houses then there could be a time limit on the life of the mine.

ACTION ON MINUTES

Mr. Ricks motioned to accept the September 16, 2008 minutes. Seconded by Chairman Tapper. No discussion.

Vote:

Tapper, Chairman- Yes Ricks, VC- Yes

Kawalchuk- Yes Smith- Yes

Ullman- absent Rominger- Yes

Dunn(alt.)- absent Baden- Yes

OTHER MATTERS

CONTINUED DISCUSSION ON PLANNER THRESHOLDS

The Board discussed Mr. Baden’s proposal regarding thresholds for Planner Review based on previous discussions by the Planning Board:

Town of Rochester Planning Board

Proposed Thresholds for Professional Planner Review

Proposed Revision 10-21-08

The Town of Rochester Planning Board will require professional Planner Review for all applications which meet one or more of the following conditions.

1. A Subdivision application which will result in the creation of 5 or more lots.

2. A Site Plan or Special Use Permit application which will result in the creation or alteration of 4000 sq. ft. or greater building space.

3. An application which will result in the creation or expansion of:

a. A public or private road or the extension of an existing public or private road.

(Shared driveways may be granted a waiver from this requirement)

b. A central water or sewer system that services more than one lot.

OTHER MATTERS

CONTINUED DISCUSSION ON PLANNER THRESHOLDS (cont’d)

c. An amenity which is to be used jointly by more than one lot.

d. Any type of publicly dedicated facility.

4. An application which will require a NYSDEC Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) or will cause 1 acre or more of disturbance

5. An application which includes property in a certified State or Federal wetland or a designated FEMA Floodplain

6. An application which results in a Type 1 SEQRA declaration.

7. An application which requires approval by a Federal or State governmental agency

(i.e. FAA, NYSDEC, NYSDOT, etc.)

8. An application determined by the Planning Board, by resolution, to require professional review.

Along with an e-mail stating comments from absent member Anthony Ullman, the Board discussed these proposed thresholds and edited item number 2 by deleting the word “alteration” and excluding item number 7.

ADJOURNMENT

Mr. Baden motioned to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Mr. Kawalchuk. No discussion. All members present in favor.

As there was no further business, at 9:45PM, Chairman Tapper adjourned the meeting.

Respectfully submitted,

Rebecca Paddock Stange, Secretary