Planning Board Minutes 11/18/08

MINUTES OF  November 18, 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                                      Michael Baden                                           
        Anthony Kawalchuk                                               Don Dunn, Alternate                                     
        Shane Ricks, Vice Chair                                                                 
        Robert Rominger                                                                                                         
        Leon Smith      
        Anthony Ullman                                                                                                                                                                                                                   
Also present were Town Planner, Tim Moot and Town Attorney, Mary Lou Christiana, Esq.

 

Pledge to the Flag.
 PUBLIC HEARING
MARK REHNBORG/ INGRID PESSA & IAN MERKEL– Amendment to Granite Estates Section II Subdivision including Subdivision Approval for lot line adjustment and relocation of right-of-way to Minnewaska Trail, Sidney Street & Minnewaska Trail, Tax Map #s84.7-1-19.2 & 17, in an R-1 District of the Town of Rochester

 

Mr. Rehnborg was present and noted that his co-applicant, Mr. Ian Merkel, lived in Arizona and wouldn’t be able to attend this meeting. Mr. Rehnborg was acting on behalf of the application.

 

Mary Lou Christiana, Esq., Town Attorney, was also present at the request of the Planning Board.

 

Chairman Tapper noted that the applicant was here for a lot line adjustment where Mr. Rehnborg and Mr. Merkel were swapping a little property. There are also some legal issues as there was also a right-of-way on the map that was removed.

 

Mr. Rehnborg noted that there was a right-of-way on the Granite Estates 2 Subdivision map that went through his property (which is not part of the subdivision, but shown on the map as a bounding owner) from Sidney Street to Minnewaska Trail. He noted that it was never recorded as to ownership at all. Mr. Rehnborg believed that was why he was in front of the Board.

 

Mrs. Christiana noted that he was also getting Planning Board approval because by doing the lot line adjustment with Mr. Merkel, it changed the lines of the subdivision.

 

Chairman Tapper noted that the right-of-way was originally shown to go through Mr. Rehnborg’s property (through his existing dwelling) and on the first map submitted to the Board it showed the deletion of the right-of-way on Mr. Rehnborg’s property and showed an alternative location along the boundary of Mr. Rehnborg and Mr. Merkel’s property, being on Mr. Merkel’s property. Then Mr. Rehnborg submitted a second map taking the right-of-way off all together. Apparently that right-of-way is only shown on the map and it isn’t in anyone’s deeds, so in essence, someone just put a right-of-way over this property without putting it in the deeds and just put it on the map.
 PUBLIC HEARING
MARK REHNBORG/ INGRID PESSA & IAN MERKEL (cont’d)– Amendment to Granite Estates Section II Subdivision including Subdivision Approval for lot line adjustment and relocation of right-of-way to Minnewaska Trail, Sidney Street & Minnewaska Trail, Tax Map #s84.7-1-19.2 & 17, in an R-1 District of the Town of Rochester

 

Mrs. Christiana agreed with Chairman Tapper noting that there was nothing in the County Clerk’s office that showed that the prior owner’s down the chain of title to Mr. Rehnborg’s property ever gave a right-of-way to the developer’s of this subdivision. Maybe it was a handshake, but that doesn’t cut it. So, really, these people on Sidney Street have no right to cross Mr. Rehnborg’s property, because there was never any permission from the owner.

 

Mr. Rominger wanted to know if the Board was just amending the map to remove the right-of-way from the original map.

 

Mrs. Christiana noted that by doing the lot line adjustment, they were changing the lot lines to the original subdivision and that needed to be recorded as well.

 

Mr. Rominger questioned the deed gore. Was the lot line eliminating that? How was that issue resolved and what responsibility did the Board have?

 

Mrs. Christiana noted that on the decision, if this application were approved, the Board would put it in the decision that the Board would make no determination as to the ownership of that gore. The next issue is what happens because there is no right-of-way anymore. Under Subdivision Regulations now, and as they were when this subdivision was approved, they needed two means of ingress and egress, however there are provisions in the law that the Board can modify or waive subdivision requirements if the Board feels it is appropriate. In this case the original map shows that the right-of-way goes through the Rehnborg/Pessa property, it is a paper street and there’s been no use of it for the 40 years since this has been passed. It’s at the Board’s discretion as to if they want to waive another roadway.

 

Mr. Rominger questioned if there was any public comment about. The Board hadn’t yet heard from the people in the subdivision as to if they’d like to have that right-of-way in there as an option.

 

Mrs. Christiana agreed that the Board should keep the public comment in mind when deciding this.

 

Chairman Tapper displayed the original Granite Estates Subdivision Section 2 map for the Board showing the right-of-way going through the Rehnborg/Pessa property.

 

Mrs. Christiana noted that the Rehnborg/Pessa property wasn’t actually in the subdivision. This was one of the first subdivisions done by the Planning Board. It will be up to the Board after the Public Hearing whether or not they want to waive the need for that right-of-way or an alternative one. The Board would want to make sure they got the reason being the right-of-way hadn’t been used for the past 40 years into the record to support their determination should they decide to waive the right-of-way.

 

Mr. Rominger asked if there was a turnaround at Mr. Merkel or Mr. Rehnborg’s property now or not.

 

Mr. Rehnborg noted that there was an ‘L’ shaped turn around.
PUBLIC HEARING
MARK REHNBORG/ INGRID PESSA & IAN MERKEL (cont’d)– Amendment to Granite Estates Section II Subdivision including Subdivision Approval for lot line adjustment and relocation of right-of-way to Minnewaska Trail, Sidney Street & Minnewaska Trail, Tax Map #s84.7-1-19.2 & 17, in an R-1 District of the Town of Rochester

 

Chairman Tapper opened the hearing to the public.

 

Peter Villapol of 149 Sidney Street was recognized to speak. He was in attendance with some other neighbors on Sidney Street, the private road extension. He stated that prior to Mr. Rehnborg owning his property, he and his neighbors used to use that right-of-way and when Mr. Rehnborg built his house he eliminated that right-of-way. They tried to work it out amicably and personally, but it just didn’t work out. So, they both got lawyers and worked for quite sometime with their mutual attorneys to rectify this. They finally came to a signed settlement agreement, which is the reason for the lot line adjustment between the Rehnborg/Pessa property and Ian Merkel and rectifying the deed gore. The deed gore was found when Mr. Rehnborg’s property was surveyed along with an indication of the right-of-way. The settlement was that the deed gore would be split between Mr. Rehnborg and Mr. Merkel and the lot line adjustment would allow for a right-of-way on his property. They have visited with a local excavator and he said that he could put a roadway in there. Part of the settlement is that Mr. Rehnborg will give a certain amount of money to construct the roadway and Mr. Villapol will pay the rest. As the Board is aware, Sidney Street is good, Mary’s Lane is good, but when you get to the Sidney Street Private Road Extension, it is in poor condition. This is something that they were all accepting of because they bought their property because it is a private road, however it is quite a steep grade. His neighbors live here full time and they go to work every day. Mr. Markel has plowed the road for them for many years and they always work together to maintain it. However it occurs to them that that other entrance was of value, not only if you were going towards that direction, but also in cases of emergency– if there was too much bad weather or if an ambulance had to access it. They really felt strongly that that right-of-way was there. He did some research in years back. It was the intention of the Planning Board and the developer at the time. They feel very strongly about having this right-of-way for these reasons. They haven’t been able to work with Mr. Rehnborg to get it back on his property, so they’ve come to this settlement that when the lot line is revised the right-of-way will be placed on Mr. Merkel’s property.

 

Mr. Ricks questioned if where the lot line adjustment done on Mr. Merkel’s property was where they planned on placing the right-of-way? He then questioned Mrs. Christiana if the Board would be able to approve this lot line adjustment and the deletion of the right-of-way without showing a new right-of-way or showing one that was 15’ wide when the code calls for a 50’ right-of-way.

 

Mrs. Christiana noted that this was something the Board could modify if they felt it was adequate.

 

Mr. Villapol didn’t understand the difference between “right-of-way” and “road width”. This was cleared up. The right-of-way needed to be shown at 50’, but they could construct a 15’ road within that right-of-way if they wanted.
PUBLIC HEARING
MARK REHNBORG/ INGRID PESSA & IAN MERKEL (cont’d)– Amendment to Granite Estates Section II Subdivision including Subdivision Approval for lot line adjustment and relocation of right-of-way to Minnewaska Trail, Sidney Street & Minnewaska Trail, Tax Map #s84.7-1-19.2 & 17, in an R-1 District of the Town of Rochester

 

Mrs. Christiana noted that the question now is if the Board wants to approve this lot line adjustment without the applicant showing the alternate right-of-way that is intended to be placed on the Merkel property. If they didn’t do it all now, they’d have to come back and re-apply for the right-of-way and have another Public Hearing, or they could revise the maps to show it now and do it all at once. Were the neighbors comfortable with the lot line and then the right-of-way being on there at another time? The neighbors were making it clear that they wanted the right-of-way on the map before it was given final approval.

 

Mr. Villapol noted that the reason for the lot line is to put that right-of-way in. Their settlement stipulates that once the lot line adjustment is completed, then and only then do they get the money from Mr. Rehnborg to construct the right-of-way. He then came to the table and showed the Board where the right-of-way would be on Mr. Merkel’s property near the boundary line between the Merkel and Rehnborg property.

 

Mr. Ricks noted that he would like to see the new right-of-way on the map at one time or another.

 

Chairman Tapper questioned how the rest of the Board felt  about approving this application without the new right-of-way shown on the map.

 

Mrs. Christiana noted that the Board could close the Public Hearing and give preliminary approval and make it a condition to show the right-of-way before they give final approval. They could also hold another Public Hearing before final so the public could review the maps and make comments. She also noted that the map should reference that this is an amendment to Granite Estates 2.

 

Mr. Rehnborg wanted to keep the two issues separate. His part is to get the lot line adjustment done, and he is paying for the survey work. Once the lot line adjustment is taken care of, then it is the neighbor’s responsibility to take care of the right-of-way. He felt better about keeping these things in 2 moves instead of combining the issues. If something were to go wrong, he wouldn’t want it to affect his part of getting the lot line adjustment—that is all he is responsible for.

 

Chairman Tapper questioned if the Board had to get involved in the directives of the settlement of the law suit?

 

Mrs. Christiana noted that the Board didn’t have to get involved, but she did understand everyone’s concern.

 

Mr. Villapol noted that just getting the lot line adjustment wouldn’t resolve their issue. The issue was resolving the right-of-way. Mr. Villapol read statement dated November 18, 2008 from Mr. Merkel stating the reasons for the lot line adjustment, being the same as Mr. Villapol’s and their neighbors. Mr. Merkel noted that he used the right-of-way to access Minnewaska Trail prior to Mr. Rehnborg building his house in the middle of it.   He continued that the new right-of-way would be used by all who resided on the private road extension of Sidney Street.

 

Mr. Rehnborg stated that Mr. Merkel alleged that he used it.

 

 PUBLIC HEARING
MARK REHNBORG/ INGRID PESSA & IAN MERKEL (cont’d)– Amendment to Granite Estates Section II Subdivision including Subdivision Approval for lot line adjustment and relocation of right-of-way to Minnewaska Trail, Sidney Street & Minnewaska Trail, Tax Map #s84.7-1-19.2 & 17, in an R-1 District of the Town of Rochester

 

Mr. Ullman questioned if the lot line adjustment was contingent upon the right being constructed? Who took the risk incase there was some unforeseen obstacle and they couldn’t’ build it. Then the lot line would get re-shifted?

 

Mr. Villapol believed it was in the agreement.

 

Mrs. Christiana noted that the agreement was for Mr. Rehnborg to get the lot line adjustment taken care of and then after that…

 

Mr. Rehnborg interrupted and noted this was part of the reason he wanted to keep the issues separate.
Mrs. Christiana continued that there was a settlement between the neighbors themselves.

 

Mr. Kawalchuk questioned if the right-of-way on Mr. Rehnborg’s property was a road?

 

Mr. Rehnborg noted that it was a trail and they said it was blocked and chained off at one time. There are a lot of issues surrounding the prescriptive easements and if they were used or not. This is kind of a feud that he and Mr. Villapol inherited from the previous owners of their properties.

 

Mr. Ullman understood that it seemed logical for two separate steps. Mr. Rehnborg gets the lot line revision, and then the neighbors come back and get the right-of-way. It seems that the Board is faced with if they agree to take out the existing right-of-way, then the Board has a subdivision issue without having the two means of ingress and egress.

 

Mr. Kawalchuk questioned if this right-of-way was recorded in their deeds?

 

Mrs. Christiana noted that this was what the whole argument was about. It’s not recorded, but this hasn’t been determined by a judge. It’s a contention between Mr. Rehnborg and the neighbors and they’ve come to a settlement here on getting the lot line adjustment and then the right-of-way on Mr. Merkel’s property.

 

With that being said, Mr. Kawalchuk agreed with the two separate issues.

 

Mr. Rehnborg felt that it was more of a burden for him to be involved if the issues were to be combined. The neighbors can always come back and re-apply for the right-of-way. He wanted to satisfy his role in the settlement and be done with it.

 

Mr. Ricks noted that if they do it in two separate steps, the neighbors won’t be able to go to Mr. Rehnborg’s surveyor, because he paid for this map and it’s his map. So, if they wanted to apply for a right-of-way separate from this, they’d have to get all new survey work done for something that is already done.

 

PUBLIC HEARING
MARK REHNBORG/ INGRID PESSA & IAN MERKEL (cont’d)– Amendment to Granite Estates Section II Subdivision including Subdivision Approval for lot line adjustment and relocation of right-of-way to Minnewaska Trail, Sidney Street & Minnewaska Trail, Tax Map #s84.7-1-19.2 & 17, in an R-1 District of the Town of Rochester

 

Chairman Tapper noted that Mr. Rehnborg also wants to say that its two separate things, the lot line adjustment and the right-of-way, which is there problem, but their problem is caused by the house being built in the right-of-way. Chairman Tapper saw it as one thing that had to be approved–the lot line and right-of-way all together.

 

Mr. Villapol agreed with this.

 

Mrs. Christiana re-iterated that the determination of the legality of the right-of-way on Mr. Rehnborg’s property was never done. Instead, they came to a settlement to get the lot line revision for the purpose of putting the right-of-way on Mr. Merkel’s property.

 

Mr. Rehnborg re-stated that he wanted the issues kept separate because the law suit separates them. He knows this puts a burden on the Board, but having two separate applications would keep the issues separate.

 

Mr. Rominger noted that to the Board, and for the purpose of the Town, the right-of-way was on this map that was approved by the Town.

 

Mrs. Christiana noted that no one knows how the right-of-way got there.

 

Mr. Villapol questioned if the Board agreed on the lot line revision and the right-of-way doesn’t get resolved, their issue still hasn’t been resolved. Everything for the past few years that they’ve been having this problem would still be there. Is there anyway the Board can make them put the right-of-way on the map now?

 

Mr. Ullman noted that if they came back to the next meeting with the right-of-way on the map, they could get it all approved in one night.

 

Mr. Rehnborg wasn’t going to argue with it anymore.

 

Mr. Ricks stated that if they wanted to keep it separate, then they could.

 

Mrs. Christiana noted that if they did that, they would be amending the subdivision twice.

 

Chairman Tapper didn’t see the purpose of that.

 

Mr. Kawalchuk saw both Mr. Rehnborg’s and Mr. Villapol’s points.

 

Chairman Tapper recognized Christina Rogo of 52 Old Minnewaska Trail to speak. She noted that she has owned this property for 12 years and she has never seen anyone come in or out of Mr. Rehnborg’s property over the right-of-way that everyone is arguing about. She was also against putting in a right-of-way on Mr. Merkel’s property because she didn’t want all the traffic that it would create to go in front of her house. That property is all grass and she’s never seen anyone going in or out of there.
 PUBLIC HEARING
MARK REHNBORG/ INGRID PESSA & IAN MERKEL (cont’d)– Amendment to Granite Estates Section II Subdivision including Subdivision Approval for lot line adjustment and relocation of right-of-way to Minnewaska Trail, Sidney Street & Minnewaska Trail, Tax Map #s84.7-1-19.2 & 17, in an R-1 District of the Town of Rochester

 

Chairman Tapper noted that it was a subdivision road and the right-of-way would only be used for a handful of people, he didn’t think there would be an impact or an increase of traffic.

 

Gunnel Sprague was recognized to speak. She used to walk her dogs on Mr. Rehnborg’s right-of-way. Once in a blue moon she’d see a car use that right-of-way. Mrs. Rogo’s children have used that right-of-way to swim in Mrs. Sprague’s pool. This road won’t be a through road- there won’t be a lot of traffic. This is really about emergency access and in bad weather.

 

Anne Markel of Sidney Street was next to speak. She noted that it was a health and safety issue to her as well. Especially in the winter, there is a big hill that gets icy and dangerous.

 

Mr. Ricks motioned to close the Public Hearing. Seconded by Mr. Smith.

 

Mr. Smith wanted to know that since there was public input from people outside of the subdivision, would that put it more towards two separate issues than one?

 

Mrs. Christiana didn’t think so. This was an amendment to the subdivision.

 

Mr. Ricks motioned for an Unlisted Action under SEQRA. Seconded by Mr. Ullman. No discussion.
Vote:
Tapper, Chairman-       Yes                             Ricks, VC-              Yes                             
Kawalchuk-              Yes                             Smith-                  Yes                     
Ullman-         Yes                             Rominger-               Yes
Dunn(alt.)-             Absent                  Baden-          Absent

 

Mr. Ricks motioned for a Negative Declaration under SEQRA. Seconded by Mr. Ullman. No discussion.
Vote:
Tapper, Chairman-       Yes                             Ricks, VC-              Yes                             
Kawalchuk-              Yes                             Smith-                  Yes                     
Ullman-         Yes                             Rominger-               Yes
Dunn(alt.)-             Absent                  Baden-          Absent

 

Mr. Ricks motioned for Conditional Preliminary Approval on the amendment to Granite Estates Section 2 Subdivision including the lot line between Mr. Rehnborg and Mr. Merkel and the relocation of the right-of-way from Mr. Rehnborg’s property to Mr. Merkel’s property. Seconded by Mr. Ullman.
Conditions:
1. Remove the right-of-way through the Rehnborg property.
2. Eliminate Deed Gore.  
3.Property line adjustment between Rehnborg and Merkel.
4. Include 50’ right-of-way to run parallel to the East lot line of Mr. Merkel’s property adjoining Mr. Rehnborg’s property.
PUBLIC HEARING
MARK REHNBORG/ INGRID PESSA & IAN MERKEL (cont’d)– Amendment to Granite Estates Section II Subdivision including Subdivision Approval for lot line adjustment and relocation of right-of-way to Minnewaska Trail, Sidney Street & Minnewaska Trail, Tax Map #s84.7-1-19.2 & 17, in an R-1 District of the Town of Rochester

 

5. Map needs to show all the above for final approval.
Discussion:
Mr. Rominger didn’t think the Board could eliminate the deed gore.

 

Mrs. Christina agreed and would supply the language to the Board for final approval.  

 

Mr. Rominger wanted to know if the Board was putting language in as well as to why they were allowing the change of the right-of-way.

 

Chairman Tapper would do that in findings.

 

The Board agreed to strike #2 regarding the deed gore from the conditions.

 

Conditions:
1. Remove the right-of-way through the Rehnborg property.
2..Property line adjustment between Rehnborg and Merkel.
3. Include 50’ right-of-way to run parallel to the East lot line of Mr. Merkel’s property adjoining Mr. Rehnborg’s property.
4. Map needs to show all the above for final approval.
Vote:
Tapper, Chairman-       Yes                             Ricks, VC-              Yes                             
Kawalchuk-              Yes                             Smith-                  Yes                     
Ullman-         Yes                             Rominger-               Yes
Dunn(alt.)-             Absent                  Baden-          Absent

 

NEW APPLICATION PRESENTATION
MARIETTA HANLEY & CAROLINE CIRAULO– Site Plan Approval to construct 32’ x 80’ Building for Public Meetings, Conference Room, or Weddings, Tax Map# 69.4-2-1.320, ‘B’ & ‘F’ District

 

Ms. Hanley & Mrs. Ciraulo were present on behalf of their application. They explained to the Board that they wanted to construct a 32’ x 80’ barn to hold weddings. They were hoping to be able to rent more rooms this way. So far this month they have only rented 3.

 

Mr. Ricks questioned if they were proposing any bathrooms?

 

Ms. Hanley noted that they were thinking about adding bathrooms.

 

Chairman Tapper questioned if they would have a kitchen?
NEW APPLICATION PRESENTATION
MARIETTA HANLEY & CAROLINE CIRAULO (cont’d)– Site Plan Approval to construct 32’ x 80’ Building for Public Meetings, Conference Room, or Weddings, Tax Map# 69.4-2-1.320, ‘B’ & ‘F’ District

 

Ms. Hanley noted that they would not. They would have a pantry and a space for the caterers to set their things up, but they would not have a kitchen. The caterers would bring their own heating equipment. They wanted a big room that could serve many functions- maybe they could hold trainings or conferences during the week.

 

Mr. Ricks noted that they needed to know how many parking spaces they would have and show that on the site plan.

 

Ms. Hanley stated that they figured the space could hold up to 100 people and that would mean 40 or 50 cars.

 

Chairman Tapper questioned if this property was historic?

 

Ms. Hanley stated that it was not. They asked when they bought the place and were told no.

 

The Secretary, Mrs. Paddock Stange noted that she had contacted the Assessor’s Office and was informed that it was on the National Register of Historic Places.

 

Chairman Tapper noted that they would check with the Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation (OPRHP). He questioned if they had wetlands on their property?

 

Ms. Hanley noted that there weren’t any wetlands where they proposed to put the barn. There was a barn in this location in the past.

 

Mr. Ullman questioned how they would get to the barn? Would there be a path?

 

Ms. Hanley explained that they would expand the current bluestone patio and make a path to the barn.

 

Mr. Ricks noted that it needed to be shown on the plan. Lighting, pathways, parking—things like that needed to be shown on the site plan.

 

Mr. Rominger questioned if there was a tree line between the applicant’s property and the residence behind it?

 

Ms. Hanley had marked the trees on the plan that would be in front of the barn.

 

Mr. Ullman questioned if they proposed a way to keep the sound generated from a party from creating an impact on neighbors?

 

Chairman Tapper noted that the property is in a ‘B’ and ‘F’ District. The applicant had mentioned that the property did have wetlands on it. They’d need to show where they were on the plan and also fill out the EAF more completely.
NEW APPLICATION PRESENTATION
MARIETTA HANLEY & CAROLINE CIRAULO (cont’d)– Site Plan Approval to construct 32’ x 80’ Building for Public Meetings, Conference Room, or Weddings, Tax Map# 69.4-2-1.320, ‘B’ & ‘F’ District

 

Mr. Smith noted that if they were going to have bathrooms, they would need Health Dept. Approval, so they may want to get started on that.

 

Mr. Ricks noted that they should probably consult with an engineer to guide them through this process.

 

Chairman Tapper agreed with Mr. Smith that the UCHD (Ulster County Health Dept. ) should be involved as they would probably need a new septic. He questioned when they were proposing to construct?

 

Ms. Hanley believed in the spring when everything thawed out.

 

Mr. Ricks questioned what kind of construction the barn would be.

 

Ms. Hanley noted that it would be rustic- post & beam.

 

Town Attorney, Mary Lou Christiana, Esq., and the Chairman reviewed the code, wondering if a Special Use Permit would be needed instead of Site Plan Approval.

 

Mrs. Christiana noted that we didn’t have a conference center in the code. She believed that this would need to be listed as an additional use to the property and it would need to be put under, “any other use not listed herein”. This would require a Special Use Permit.

 

Chairman Tapper instructed the applicants that they should request to apply for a Special Use Permit from the Code Enforcement Office.

 

Ms. Hanley stated that they got a Special Use Permit from the Code Enforcement Office. They were actually rezoned for a motor lodge.

 

The Secretary corrected Ms. Hanley and explained that the applicants originally applied for a Zoning Permit in May of 2008 and their original proposal consisted of adding on rooms and a conference center—some of which was to be located in the Town of Marbletown. At that time the Code Enforcement Office indicated that a Special Use Permit would be needed to apply for a “motor lodge”. This was the only thing the Code Enforcement Office could find to classify their request under. Since that time, the applicants amended their Zoning Permit to apply for this proposal that is now in front of the Board for a 32’ x 80’ barn to hold weddings and conferences in. It would be entirely within the Town of Rochester also. Because of the changes to their proposal- the original Zoning Permit where they were told they would need a Special Use Permit to become a motor lodge, is now null and void.

 

The Board instructed the applicants that they should revise their site plan and EAF and re-submit to the Board before the Board would take any actions on this application.
ACTION ON MINUTES
Mr. Ricks motioned to accept the October 21, 2008 minutes with the revision of Mr. Kawalchuk’s vote for the Lead Agency discussion on Mombaccus Excavating changed from ‘Yes’ to ‘No’ to reflect Mr. Kawalchuk’s correct vote. Seconded by Mr. Smith. No discussion.
Vote:
 Tapper, Chairman-      Yes                             Ricks, VC-              Yes                             
Kawalchuk-              Yes                             Smith-                  Yes                     
Ullman-         Yes                             Rominger-               Yes
Dunn(alt.)-             Absent                  Baden-          Absent
OTHER MATTERS
CONTINUED DISCUSSION ON PLANNER THRESHOLDS

 

The Board discussed Mr. Baden’s proposal again 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 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.
        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 determined by the Planning Board, by resolution, to require professional review.

 

The Board felt that a letter should be drafted to the Town Board proposing these thresholds.

 

Chairman Tapper motioned to draft the letter to the Town Board, seconded by Mr. Rominger. All members present in favor.

 

ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Tapper motioned to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Mr. Ullman. No discussion. All members present in favor.

 

As there was no further business, at 8:40PM, Chairman Tapper adjourned the meeting.
                                                                        
                                                        Respectfully submitted,
                                                        Rebecca Paddock Stange, Secretary