MINUTES OF August 25, 2009 Regular MEETING of the Town of Rochester PLANNING BOARD, held at the Town Hall, Accord, NY.
Chairman Tapper called meeting to order at 7:00 PM.
PRESENT: ABSENT:
Melvyn I. Tapper, Chairman Malena Calan (alt.)
Shane Ricks, Vice Chairman Leon Smith
Anthony Ullman
Michael Baden
Anthony Kawalchuk
Robert Rominger
Mr. Bolner from Clark Patterson Lee was also present on behalf of the Town.
Pledge to the Flag.
ZBA ADVISORY REQUEST
ROBERT HULL– AV for side yard setback for 2 car garage, 485 Stony Kill Road, Accord, Tax Map # 76.4-3-57, R-1 District
Chairman Tapper called the applicants forward to present their application. He questioned if they were requesting a 20’ side yard setback variance?
Mr. Hull answered that yes they were. His brother is the bounding property owner where the proposed 2-car garage would encroach.
Chairman Tapper questioned how far the garage was from its far corner to the property line? The garage isn’t perpendicular to the property line, so there might be less of a variance being requested at that point. This might be of interest to the ZBA. The applicant should check on this. He questioned how far the garage would be behind the house.
Mrs. Hull answered that it would be 12’ as instructed by the Code Enforcement Office.
Mr. Ullman questioned why the applicant needed the variance?
Mr. Hull noted it was because of the position of the septic and the leech field and a swamp in the back. There was nowhere else to put the garage. He then displayed a drawing of what the garage would look like. It was being bought from Grey’s Woodwork in Grahamsville, NY.
Mr. Kawalchuk motioned for a favorable advisory to the ZBA. Seconded by Mr. Ullman. No discussion.
Vote:
Tapper: Yes Ricks: Yes
Smith: Absent Kawalchuk: Yes
Rominger: Yes Ullman: Yes
Baden: Yes Callan, alt.: Absent
NEW APPLICATION PRESENTATION
DAWN MUELLER– c/o Peter Forsythe/ Rondout Valley Tees, Site Plan Approval to convert single family dwelling into retail space, 4966 Route 209, Accord, Tax Map # 77.1-1-13, ‘B’ District
Mr. Forsythe was present on behalf of his application. He noted that the building is a single story ranch in the Business District. It’s a vacant house and he wants to put a small retail business in. It’s across the Lucas Turnpike/ Route 209 intersection.
Chairman Tapper questioned if the building was going to be all retail or if it would be part manufacturing? If it was totally retail there would need to be more parking. How big was the building? One part of the application says 50’ x 25’ and another part of the application says 60’ x 25’. What were the dimensions of the building?
Mr. Forsythe stated that it was 50’ x 25’.
Chairman Tapper noted that the applicant would need 7 spaces, Ulster County PB approval would be needed and DOT approval for the entrance. The applicant would need to show the actual floor area for the retail part of the store and the parking would be based off of that.
Mr. Forsythe planned on making the retail space ½ of the building.
Chairman Tapper instructed the applicant that he needed to put more detail into his site plan—show where the septic and well was, where the entrance doors would be, lighting, signage, where any type of deliveries would be taken.
Mr. Forsythe noted that his main business is in New Paltz. He would transport things from that store himself in a truck—there wouldn’t be any tractor-trailer deliveries.
Mr. Baden noted that if the applicant were to do ½ of the building in retail that he’d need 4 parking spaces.
Chairman Tapper questioned if there would be parking for employees?
Mr. Baden searched the Zoning Ordinance for an answer.
Chairman Tapper questioned what was past the driveway?
Mr. Forsythe noted that it was lawn—vacant space.
Chairman Tapper questioned if it was feasible to put parking in the rear of the building?
Mr. Forsythe stated that there would be no other employees other than himself and his wife. How big did the parking spaces need to be?
Mr. Baden noted that they were required to be 9’ x 20’.
Mr. Ricks questioned if the applicant could put a couple parking spaces in the back and a couple in the front?
Mr. Forsythe noted that the well and septic were in the back.
NEW APPLICATION PRESENTATION
DAWN MUELLER(cont’d)– c/o Peter Forsythe/ Rondout Valley Tees, Site Plan Approval to convert single family dwelling into retail space, 4966 Route 209, Accord, Tax Map # 77.1-1-13, ‘B’ District
Mr. Ricks noted that this was why the applicant needed to show these things placed on the site plan. What would the other half of the building be?
Mr. Forsythe noted that it would be used for storage. There wouldn’t be enough room left for living space.
Mr. Baden suggested putting 2 parking spaces in the back for employees and 3 in front for customers.
Mr. Forsythe agreed that that could be done.
Mr. Baden noted that the NYS DOT will want to see details and will most likely need curb cuts. The applicant should consult with the DOT first and see if they require engineered plans or not. That will determine if the PB will require engineered plans.
Chairman Tapper requested that the applicant show what kind of landscaping or existing trees were on the property.
Mr. Forsythe noted that on the border of the Levine property line there is drainage and some trees and on the other side there is one tree on the corner.
Chairman Tapper questioned if there would be a display of tee shirts in the window?
Mr. Forsythe answered yes. But this would really be more of a place for customers to place orders. Manufacturing will happen off site.
Chairman Tapper also suggested taking pictures to give the Board a better picture of the application.
The Board advised the applicant to go and see what DOT would require first and that will determine what the Board will need to see.
Mr. Baden also noted that there is a possibility that the Zoning Code might change in the near future. The parking requirements may change a bit and landscaping requirements may change—there are provisions for the PB to be able to waive these things.
Mr. Ricks didn’t think there was any room for additional landscaping because the parcel was so small. They wouldn’t want to block any site distance.
NEW APPLICATION PRESENTATION
STREAMSIDE ESTATES, Inc.- Subdivision Approval for 9 lots, Cherrytown Road, Tax Map # 67-2-43.14, ‘A’ District
Mr. Sprague from Medenbach & Eggers was present on behalf of the application.
He believed that most of the Board was familiar with this property from a previous application on this land that was before the Board about 5 or 6 years ago for an expansion to an
existing mobile home park. Since that time the property has been separated. There is +/-46.91 acres where they separated from the mobile home park to put 9 lots on. Each lot will have
individual wells and septics and there will be a new access road for these lots.
Mr. Ricks questioned if the dotted line was the flood plain?
Mr. Sprague noted that yes that is what Medenbach & Eggers had delineated as the 100-year flood plain. There was an existing well for the mobile home park on the +/- 46 acres that
would be abandoned and a new well would be used on the mobile home park property.
Mr. Ricks noted that the review letter from Clark Patterson Lee had concerns with the cul-de-sac and the length of the road.
Mr. Sprague noted that the road is 2,100’ in length and the code only allows for 2,000’ in length. They could tweak the last lot to bring the road an extra 100’ out to make it comply.
Mr. Baden noted that if the new Code gets passed this will be in a 3 acre zone. There are 4 lots that are less than 3 acres that would need to be revised to comply.
Mr. Sprague was aware and noted that they may have to lose a lot or recalculate them.
Mr. Baden noted that any application considered complete by the Planning Board would be bound by the old (current) Code. Any application that hasn’t reached it to that point will be bound to the new Code.
Mr. Ricks thought that this put applicants in a tight spot. Once an applicant submits an application, they should be in under what is existing.
Mr. Kawalchuk also felt this was a little arbitrary—technically the Planning Board could ask for more information up until the end—so when would it be complete?
Mr. Ricks noted that this application needs a lot of work including a grading plan. The applicant should know if they need to comply with 3 acre zoning or not. He asked the applicant if they would consider putting an emergency access road through the mobile home park in case of fire or bad weather.
Mr. Sprague noted that he would consult with his client.
Chairman Tapper questioned if this was the same layout for the road in the previously applied for mobile home park?
Mr. Sprague noted that yes, it was. It was actually roughed in. It was designed to a 12% slope.
NEW APPLICATION PRESENTATION
STREAMSIDE ESTATES, Inc.(cont’d)- Subdivision Approval for 9 lots, Cherrytown Road, Tax Map # 67-2-43.14, ‘A’ District
Mr. Baden questioned how the road would be set up? A Home Owner’s Association?
Mr. Sprague wasn’t sure.
Chairman Tapper noted that because the lots have limited building area because of steep slopes and flood plains that the Board would need to see homes and septic location sites located.
Mr. Sprague noted that they went over Clark Patterson’s comment letter and that it is +/-46.91 acres.
Mr. Ricks questioned the road as indicated on Clark Patterson Lee’s comment letter under “Sketch Plan Preliminary Comments, (1):
The horizontal configuration of the proposed private road to the north appears to be problematic. Town Code subsection 125-20H recommends that the proposed private road intersect Cherrytown Road, which should be labeled on the plan, at a 90 degree angle. The propsed private road could intersect at no less than a 60 degree angle. However, it is currently shown at approximately a 30 degree angle.
Mr. Sprague noted that they could make it 90 degrees.
Mr. Baden noted that Cherrytown Road is really a steep slope where it meets the proposed private road.
Mr. Sprague noted that Mr. Kelder, Highway Superintendent signed off on the previously applied for road.
Chairman Tapper noted that the Planning Board will have to sign off on it as well.
Mr. Sprague noted that they would move the cul-de-sac and flag lot #7 to make the road comply.
Mr. Baden suggested that Mr. Sprague look through the proposed Subdivision Code.
Chairman Tapper was hesitant about it because everyone was positive that the last draft Code would go through and it didn’t.
Mr. Baden wasn’t making any guarantees.
They continued to go over the comment letter. #4- Mr. Sprague noted that yes, there will be protective easements around the stream. #5- there would be individual wells and septics. Medenbach & Eggers did their own delineation of the 100-year flood plain. #6-clarrified that the well on the subdivision land would be abandoned and would no longer service the mobile home park. #7- the applicant would submit a grading plan.
Mr. Sprague noted that the Office of Parks Recreation and Historic Preservation (SHPO) signed off on the property during the previous mobile home park application.
Mr. Baden noted that this is a new application. This application should be sent and ask SHPO to send a new letter stating that no further studies are required.
Mr. Bolner thought that this was a good idea.
NEW APPLICATION PRESENTATION
MOUNTAIN VIEW STABLES, Inc.- Subdivision Approval for 2 lots in the Mountain View Stables Subdivision, Lucas Avenue, Tax Map # 77.1-2-33.112
Mr. Ferro was present on behalf of his application. He explained that this is Section 4 of the Mountain View
Stables Subdivision. He was breaking +/- 128 lots into 2. one lot being +/- 28 acres and the remaining land
being +/- 100 acres. He’s breaking the barns and the paddocks from vacant land.
Mr. Baden questioned if Mr. Ferro knew if these parcels were in a County Ag District? Anything in the County Ag District is a Type 1 Action.
Mr. Bolner believed this statement to be correct. It may be exempt though—it should be checked.
Mr. Ricks motioned for a public hearing at the September 15, 2009 meeting. Seconded by Mr. Rominger.
No discussion. All members present in favor.
Mr. Baden noted that he would double check if this was in a County Ag District and they would Type it at the next meeting.
Mr. Baden motioned to send the application to the Ulster County Planning Board as this application is
on a County Road. Seconded by Mr. Rominger. No discussion.
Vote:
Tapper: Yes Ricks: Yes
Smith: Absent Kawalchuk: Yes
Rominger: Yes Ullman: Yes
Baden: Yes Callan, alt.: Absent
The Board would keep the public hearing open until they received the County Response and would Type the action at the next meeting.
ACTION ON MINUTES
Chairman Tapper motioned to accept the minutes for July 21, 2009. Seconded by Mr. Ricks. All members present in favor.
OTHER MATTERS
Mr. Baden let the Board know that the Town Board held a continued public hearing for the proposed Zoning and Subdivision Codes and it went well. There wasn’t a great deal of people that showed up—maybe 12.
Mr. Ricks questioned what went on at the Saturday meeting?
Mr. Baden noted that they clarified the proposed animal law for people and went over County feedback. The next continued public hearing would be September 3, 2009.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Ricks motioned to adjourn, seconded by Mr. Rominger. No discussion. All members present in favor.
As there was no further business, at 8:15 PM, Chairman Tapper adjourned the meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
Rebecca Paddock Stange, Secretary