MINUTES OF April 21, 2009 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 Vice Chairman Ricks.
PRESENT: ABSENT:
Melvyn I. Tapper, Chairman –7:30pm
Leon Smith
Michael Baden
Anthony Kawalchuck
Malena Callan, Alternate
Anthony Ullman
Robert Rominger
Pledge to the Flag.
CONTINUED APPLICATION REVIEW
MARIETTA HANLEY & CAROLINE CIRAULO– Site Plan Approval to construct 40’ x 120’ Pavilion, Tax Map# 69.4-2-1.320, ‘B’ & ‘F’ District
Ms. Ciraulo was present on behalf of the application along with her intern, Tanya, from SUNY Ulster.
Vice Chairman Ricks explained that this application was for a 40’ x 120’ pavilion to hold weddings and conferences and things of that nature. He also noted that it appeared to be about 40-50’ from the Town of Marbletown town line. He noted that he has had personal experience with a B & B where they held weddings and the band played until about 1a.m. It became a nuisance.
Ms. Ciraulo stated that they wouldn’t have parties that long. She was thinking 11p.m. would be the cut off. It would also be seasonal. They would also bring in portapotties, which is pretty standard in this type of thing.
Mr. Rominger questioned what the limit of people would be in the pavilion?
Ms. Ciraulo believed that they were going to try and keep functions to 100 and below. This would mostly be for the use of guests. If they were having a wedding, they would most likely be staying at the B & B as guests.
Mr. Baden motioned for a preliminary Type 1 Action under SEQRA and Intent for Lead Agency to be circulated to the following agencies: Marbletown, Ulster County Planning Board, NYS DOT, Ulster County Health Dept., and the OPRHP. Motion seconded by Mr. Rominger. No discussion.
Vote:
Tapper, Chairman- not yet present Ricks, VC- Yes
Kawalchuk- Yes Smith- Yes
Ullman- Yes Rominger- Yes
Calan(alt.)- not required to participate Baden- Yes
Mr. Baden questioned what the flooring would be? Concrete?
Ms. Ciraulo answered that she believed that it would just be grass.
CONTINUED APPLICATION REVIEW
10P5C– c/o Colin Houston, PLS, 2 lot subdivision, Project 32 Road, Tax Map # 76.4-3-15.115, R-1 District
Vice Chairman Ricks passed out copies of draft conditions for Conditional Final Approval.
The Board didn’t have any questions.
They went over Part 2 of the EAF.
Items #1 and #12 were checked as small to moderate by the Board. #1 referred to bedrock being on the site that would be avoided and #12 was in regards to archeological sites. This application had just completed a Phase 1 Archeological Survey that came back with minor findings that were recommended to be avoided during construction.
Mr. Rominger motioned to accept Part 2 as prepared by the Board. Seconded by Mr. Smith. No discussion.
Vote:
Tapper, Chairman- not yet present Ricks, VC- Yes
Kawalchuk- Yes Smith- Yes
Ullman- Yes Rominger- Yes
Calan(alt.)- not required to participate Baden- Yes
Vice Chairman Ricks motioned for a Negative Declaration under SEQRA as the project would not result in any large or important impacts. Seconded by Mr. Ullman. No discussion.
Vote:
Tapper, Chairman- not yet present Ricks, VC- Yes
Kawalchuk- Yes Smith- Yes
Ullman- Yes Rominger- Yes
Calan(alt.)- not required to participate Baden- Yes
Mr. Ricks motioned for Conditional Final Approval with the following conditions:
1. The historic foundation found on lot 2 as described by Joseph E. Diamond, Ph.D. in his SEQRA Cultural Resource Investigation dated 12/31/08 for this subdivision shall be sited on the final map and avoided during construction as recommended in this report.
2. Applicant shall submit to the Planning Board a signed and notarized Road Maintenance Agreement (RMA) by the property owner for a 50’ right-of-way to provide access for lots #1 and #2.This Agreement is subject to review by the Town’s Legal Advisor.
3. The Applicant hereby agrees to be responsible for all costs and expenses incurred by the Town in connection with the Road Maintenance 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.
4. The following notation shall appear on the final map which shall be submitted to the Planning Board prior to Final Approval: “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.”
5. The Chairman shall sign the maps once the above mentioned conditions are met.
6. Applicant shall file maps with the Ulster County Clerk within 60 days of Chairman’s signature.
7. Applicant shall return three (3) filed copies to the Town of Rochester Planning Board Secretary within 30 days of filing.
Mr. Ricks continued that #s 1 & 4 as indicated shall be shown on the final map. Motion seconded by Mr. Ullman.
Vote:
Tapper, Chairman- not yet present Ricks, VC- Yes
Kawalchuk- Yes Smith- Yes
Ullman- Yes Rominger- Yes
Calan(alt.)- not required to participate Baden- Yes
OPEN DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY
ELAINE ZUCCARDO– c/o Laura Putnam, Open Development Advisory to construct single family dwelling on +/-5.6 acre lot off of a 20’ right-of-way off of Stony Kill Road, Tax Map #77.3-1-21, R-1 District
Vice Chairman Ricks noted that the Secretary had tried several times to get in touch with the applicant, but the applicant hasn’t returned any calls, but the PB could still look at the maps and proceed.
The Board noted that there is a 100’ conservancy easement from the Stony Kill Creek.
Vice Chairman Ricks questioned the Road Maintenance Agreement that would need to be submitted? The Board had further questions, but didn’t feel they could proceed until the applicant could answer them, so they decided to postpone the advisory until the applicant could be present.
ZBA ADVISORY
FABIO CHIZZOLA & LAURA FERRARA– 2’ Area Variance for fence height, 215 Lower Whitfield Road, Tax Map # 68.4-5-12.1 & 12.11, R-2 District
Chairman Tapper arrived at the meeting. He asked the applicant to explain his situation.
Mr. Chizzola was present and explained that he operated an apple orchard known as Westwind Orchards at 215 Lower Whitfield Road. At the rear of his orchard the property abuts a residential neighborhood on Barry Lane and there are a lot of houses. His business is that of U-Pick and its organic and people come from all over and want a rural feeling and seeing those houses in the rear of his orchard doesn’t do that and this is why he is requesting 400’ of 8’ high fencing to block that view and separate the parcels. He presented pictures of the orchard and noted that they also keep bees and do ½ an hour classes with kids teaching them about bees. As the premise of his business is very natural, he’d like to further that by putting up the fence to block the view of the houses and keep it a more rural setting.
ZBA ADVISORY
FABIO CHIZZOLA & LAURA FERRARA(cont’d)- 2’ Area Variance for fence height, 215 Lower Whitfield Road, Tax Map # 68.4-5-12.1 & 12.11, R-2 District
Mr. Ricks questioned if the applicant was planning on using the Mettacahonts entrance to the property.
At this time Mr. Chizzola was not.
Chairman Tapper questioned if a 6’ fence would work?
Mr. Chizzola stated that it wouldn’t do it.
Mr. Ullman questioned if hedges would work?
Mr. Chizzola noted that his well only recharges at 1 gallon per minute and the area where he wants the fence is 400’ from the well and it would take a long time to grow and be a proper barrier.
Mr. Chizzola presented pictures of the area where he wants the fence and the garbage from the neighbors.
Chairman Tapper wasn’t thrilled with the request, but since seeing the pictures, he understood.
After further discussion Chairman Tapper motioned for a favorable advisory to the ZBA. Seconded by Mr. Kawalchuk. No discussion.
Vote:
Tapper, Chairman- Yes Ricks, VC- Yes
Kawalchuk- Yes Smith- Yes
Ullman- No Rominger- Yes
Calan(alt.)- not required to participate Baden- Yes
ZBA ADVISORY
THEODORE DEUTERMANN– 2’ side yard Area Variance for fence height, and 4’ front yard Area Variance for fence height, 246 Sammsonville Road, Tax Map # 76.1-2-1.1, R-1 District
Mr. Deutermann and Mr. Bean were present on behalf of their application. Mr. Bean and Mr. Deutermann purchased the property in the fall of 2008 and noted that they waited out the winter to see where the snow removal of Samsonville Road would affect a future fence on their property. He also noted that the headlights from Samsonville Road shine right into their house. It’s a busy road and their property slopes downward from the road, so a 4’ fence in the front and a 6’ fence on the sides wouldn’t be affective to block the headlights and traffic. They spoke with Highway Superintendent, Wayne Kelder and he recommended keeping the fence 15’ from the edge of the road. There’s also a lot of truck traffic on the road as well as there are nearby mines. They also have a young Labrador and they have an electric fence for him, but he has still broken it a couple of times and has run into the road. They have nieces and nephews that also visit and they spend their time in their front yard and worry about the kids as well. They love the old farm house and are currently renovating it. They also brought pictures for the Board to see what the height of the fence would look like. Mr. Bean continued that at the suggestion of the ZBA he contacted some people at the County office of works and no one had any concerns about it.
ZBA ADVISORY
THEODORE DEUTERMANN(cont’d)– 2’ side yard Area Variance for fence height, and 4’ front yard Area Variance for fence height, 246 Sammsonville Road, Tax Map # 76.1-2-1.1, R-1 District
Mr. Ullman didn’t like the idea of giving variances for fence height because he didn’t like going against the zoning for something like this. These reasons that are being given aren’t really unique, many people have same issues.
Mr. Bean noted that there wouldn’t be a gate at the driveway, it would be open.
Mr. Ricks motioned for a favorable advisory to the ZBA. Seconded by Mr. Smith.
Discussion:
Mr. Ullman didn’t hear a unique compelling reason to grant the variance. Mr. Ricks felt that the Zoning Code was a guideline and this is why they gave variances.
Vote:
Tapper, Chairman- Yes Ricks, VC- Yes
Kawalchuk- Yes Smith- Yes
Ullman- No Rominger- Yes
Calan(alt.)- not required to participate Baden- Abstain
ZBA ADVISORY
HOWARD JARVIS– 32 sq ft. Area Variance for sign size, 4736 Route 209, Tax Map #69.3-2-17.110, ‘B’ District
Mr. Jarvis was present on behalf of his application. He explained that he has a sign to advertise his
construction business on his parent’s property on Route 209 over by Twiggy’s.
Chairman Tapper noted that he has driven by and noticed that the North side of the sign is covered.
The Planning Board viewed the site plan submitted by Mr. Jarvis.
Mr. Ricks noted that the current sign law is often the subject of contention in the Town. It’s hard to
enforce it on one person when everyone else is in violation. If you count all the signs on the PX,
they are technically in violation. You have to do what you have to do to stay in business. He
wondered how many other people in the Town had a 4’ x 8’ sign with only one side showing?
Other Board Members agreed that both sides should be allowed to be used.
Mr. Kawalchuk motioned for a favorable advisory. Seconded by Mr. Baden.
Vote:
Tapper, Chairman- Yes Ricks, VC- Yes
Kawalchuk- Yes Smith- Yes
Ullman- No Rominger- Yes
Calan(alt.)- not required to participate Baden- Yes
ZBA ADVISORY REQUEST
JEFF & JODI SUBEH– 30’ Area Variance requested for side yard setback to construct garage, 55 Markle Road, Tax Map # 68.13-2-49, R-1 District
Mr. & Mrs. Subeh were present on behalf of their application.
Mr. Subeh noted that they wanted to build a 24’ x 36’ three bay garage on the side of their property and they are looking for a 30’ area variance in order to build it 10’ off of their line. Their driveway is narrow and it would be unsafe to back out onto the road. The ZBA suggested moving it closer to the screened in porch, but he felt it would be too close and not allow the screened porch to get any sunlight and he was afraid of moisture build up as a result of the shade.
Mr. Ricks questioned if he thought about attaching it to the house?
Mr. Subeh noted that would mean they’d have to get rid of their screened in porch.
Mr. Ricks noted that they have a decision from 1996 where Mr. Subeh’s father went for a nearly identical variance and was denied by the ZBA.
Chairman Tapper read the decision noting that he was denied but granted a 12’ variance to build 28’ off of the property line.
Mr. Subeh noted that they had letters of support from neighbors.
Mr. Ullman questioned if the garage was going to be 24’ x 24’ or 24’ x 36’? The Zoning Permit and ZBA application information didn’t match.
Mr. Subeh noted that it was a mistake that he would correct.
Chairman Tapper questioned if the applicant had an alternative plan?
Mr. Subeh noted that he honestly did not want the garage closer to his screened porch.
Mr. Ricks figured that the garage would be 34’ from the screened porch by viewing the applicant’s site plan. He didn’t think there would be enough room to navigate vehicles in and out of the garage the way the applicant had it set up on paper. It would make more sense to move the garage back and closer to the house and have the doors face the road. Mr. Subeh should stake the proposed location for the garage out and test it. He didn’t think this was going to work. As long as the ZBA has good cause to believe that there is another place to put this garage, they are going to deny the application.
Because there appeared to be other options that the applicant hasn’t explored, Mr. Baden motioned for an unfavorable advisory to the ZBA. Seconded by Mr. Ullman. No discussion.
Vote:
Tapper, Chairman- No Ricks, VC- Yes
Kawalchuk- No Smith- No
Ullman- Yes Rominger- Yes
Calan(alt.)- not required to participate Baden- Yes
ACTION ON MINUTES
Chairman Tapper motioned to accept the minutes of February 17, 2009 and March 17, 2009. Seconded by Mr. Ricks. All members present in favor.
OTHER MATTERS
LETTER TO DEC RE: MOMBACCUS EXCAVATING PROPOSED AMANDA DRIVE BLUE STONE MINE
Chairman Tapper noted that Mr. Baden wrote a letter to the DEC regarding Amanda Drive for the Board to consider sending.
Mr. Baden noted that he spoke with Town Attorney, Mary Lou Christiana, and she said that during SEQRA it would be appropriate for the Board to send comments to the DEC now.
The Board discussed the radius to be considered for dust control. Mr. Tapper felt ½ mile would be sufficient. That would cover anyone a mile away as well.
Mr. Ricks stated that the DEC is going to look through the letter and do what they want with it.
Mr. Baden noted that it was up to the Board to point out their concerns and it was up to the DEC to find the solutions to those concerns.
Chairman Tapper wanted to know how Mr. Baden came to refer to Camp Rov Tav as a community service?
Mr. Baden noted that religious areas are classified as community services by Real Property.
Chairman Tapper had a hard time with saying that it’s a concern of the wear and tear on the roads that the trucks use. Isn’t that covered under their highway taxes?
Mr. Baden was only saying that it was something to look at. Mr. Baden saw Mrs. Christiana at a Town Board meeting and asked her that now the DEC was determined to be Lead Agency what was the PB’s next step? And She said that now was the time for the Board to comment on SEQRA. They would wait for the DEC to have a complete application before the Board held their Public Hearing, but now was the time to send SEQRA comments to the DEC.
Mr. Smith felt that it was redundant to send comments to the DEC now and then basically send the same comments after the PB holds their public hearing.
Mr. Baden clarified that the letter would be comments on SEQRA and the public hearing would be comments regarding the application. The DEC is under no obligation to act on any of the concerns they are sent.
Mr. Ricks motioned for Chairman Tapper to check with Mrs. Christiana on Mr. Baden’s letter and then for the Chairman to revise the letter and forward it to all PB members for comments before it is sent to the DEC. Seconded by Mr. Rominger.
Discussion:
On Page #2 delete the 3rd bullet regarding the radius and in the last bullet to delete the last clause. They were approving the letter on principle. If Chairman Tapper decided to revise things, it would be fine as long as the Board was in agreement.
Vote:
Tapper, Chairman- Yes Ricks, VC- Yes
Kawalchuk- No Smith- Yes
Ullman- Yes Rominger- Yes
Calan(alt.)- not required to participate Baden- Yes
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Baden motioned to adjourn, seconded by Chairman Tapper. No discussion. All members present in favor.
As there was no further business, at 9:55 Chairman Tapper adjourned the meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
Rebecca Paddock Stange, Secretary