Planning Board Minutes Sept. 15, 2009

MINUTES OF September 15, 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 Anthony Ullman

Shane Ricks, Vice Chairman-7:10PM

Michael Baden

Anthony Kawalchuk

Robert Rominger

Malena Calan (alt.)

Leon Smith

Mr. Moot from Clark Patterson Lee was also present on behalf of the Town.

Pledge to the Flag.

PUBLIC HEARING

MOUNTAIN VIEW STABLES, Inc.-Subdivision Approval for 2 lots in the Mountain View Stables Subdivision, Lucas Avenue, Tax Map # 77.1-2-33. NY.

Jerome Ferro was present on behalf of his application.

Chairman Tapper noted that there have been no changes to the maps since Mr. Ferro’s first meeting. Was there a specific reason for doing this 2 lot subdivision to be known as Section 4 in the Mountain View Stables Subdivision?

Mr. Ferro explained that 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. The

barns and paddocks will be on the +/-28 acre piece and the +/-100 acres will remain as vacant land of

Mountain View Stables. The access to the +/-28 acre piece is from De Jager Lane and the access to

the +/-100 acres is off of Peninsula Lane. Peninsula Lane is a private road with an approved Road

Maintenance Agreement (RMA) from the Town.

At 7:05PM Chairman Tapper opened the Public Hearing.

A bounding owner to the application was present and was curious regarding the proposed acreages.

Chairman Tapper noted that there is currently a +/-128 acre piece that is going to be divided into 2 lots. One lot being +/-28 acres retaining the barns and paddocks and the remaining +/-100 acres that is vacant at this time.

Chairman Tapper continued that the Planning Board could not close the Public Hearing at this meeting because they were still waiting for the response from the Ulster County Planning Board.

PUBLIC HEARING

MOUNTAIN VIEW STABLES, Inc. (cont’d)-Subdivision Approval for 2 lots in the Mountain View Stables Subdivision, Lucas Avenue, Tax Map # 77.1-2-33. NY.

Mr. Baden motioned to keep the Public Hearing open and reconvene it at the October 20, 2009 PB meeting. Seconded by Mr. Rominger. No discussion.

Vote:

Tapper: Yes Ricks: not yet in attendance

Smith: Yes Kawalchuk: Yes

Rominger: Yes Ullman: Absent

Baden: Yes Callan, alt.: Not required to participate

A bounding owner from the audience questioned if these lots could be further subdivided?

Chairman Tapper noted that they could. Currently the whole Town is Zoned as 1 acre, which means that there is the potential for 1 dwelling for each acre of land. There are wetlands on this property, so that would need to be looked into in regards to that.

The bounding owner questioned what was the acreage of the wetlands?

Mr. Baden reviewed the map and noted that there was +/-34 acres of wetlands on the proposed +/-100 acre lot.

Chairman Tapper noted that it had been brought to his attention that this application did not need to be a Type 1 Action because it doesn’t exceed 25% of the thresholds under SEQRA. It can be an Unlisted Action under SEQRA.

Mr. Baden motioned for an Unlisted Action under SEQRA. Seconded by Mr. Smith. No discussion.

Vote:

Tapper: Yes Ricks: Yes

Smith: Yes Kawalchuk: Yes

Rominger: Yes Ullman: Absent

Baden: Yes Callan, alt.: Not required to participate

NEW APPLICATION PRESENTATION

BELLIMAN RETAIL c/o ALAN MADNICK– Site Plan Approval/ Special Use Permit for conversion

of 7,000 SF warehouse to Flea Market sales and conversion of 4,000 SF showroom to Auction Area,

Tax Map 77.1-1-24.131, ‘B’ District

Mr. Ricks arrived at the meeting at 7:10PM.

Mr. Sprague of Medenbach & Eggers and representative Mr. Stach were present on behalf of the application.

Chairman Tapper noted that the applicant submitted revised site plan showing revised parking area due to wetlands on the property. The application was forwarded to planner for review and the Board and the applicant have received Mr. Moot’s comment letter. Once the PB deems the application complete enough it will need to be sent to the UCPB for their referral response.

NEW APPLICATION PRESENTATION

BELLIMAN RETAIL c/o ALAN MADNICK (cont’d) – Site Plan Approval/ Special Use Permit for conversion of 7,000 SF warehouse to Flea Market sales and on conversion of 4,000 SF showroom to Auction Area, Tax Map, 77.1-1-24.131, ‘B’ District

Mr. Sprague noted that Medenbach & Eggers did a Stormwater analysis and found that they don’t need a retention pond because there is going to be no change in pre-construction and post-construction stormwater discharge. They are going to use existing wetlands on the property and the drainage point.

Chairman Tapper questioned if adding pavement when expanding the parking area would increase the stormwater run off?

Mr. Sprague noted that the applicant was planning to make the parking area gravel.

Mr. Baden questioned how much square footage of construction was there going to be for the additional parking? Less than an acre?

Mr. Sprague answered yes.

Mr. Rominger questioned if they were doubling their existing parking?

Mr. Sprague answered that the original parking consists of 19 spaces and they are increasing that by 36 spaces to equal 55 total spaces.

Mr. Moot noted that in the PB minutes a member noted that there were drainage problems in the past at this site?

Mr. Sprague noted that they looked into that and in the stormwater plan you can see the flow patterns.

Mr. Rominger stated that it rained a lot this past summer. Was there any flooding on the property?

Chairman Tapper recalled that the water had been coming over the road and causing freezing problems in the winter. This was a while ago.

Mr. Ricks believed that the problem was down further.

Mr. Baden agreed with Mr. Ricks.

Mr. Sprague stated that the water goes into the swale and the rest runs along the road in drainage ditches.

Chairman Tapper just recalled problems from the original applications for the Ulster County Carpet Store. He was just questioning if it was still problem.

Mr. Moot noted that the applicant maps out the wetland on the site plan. It’s typical to file a certification with the ACOE.

Mr. Sprague noted that the surveyor usually gets it certified. He’ll follow up on that.

NEW APPLICATION PRESENTATION

Chairman Tapper questioned what the ‘B’s stood for along the edges of the wetlands?

Mr. Moot noted that those were flag numbers for the wetlands.

Mr. Moot noted that in his comment letter dated 9/14/09, under site plan preliminary comments:

There were concerns from the Board regarding Stormwater and Drainage, What is the existing grade for the remainder of the site? There is only one existing topographic line on the entire site. Existing and proposed topographic lines should be shown at two-foot contours according to amendments to 140-9(A)21 (Local law 3-2005)

Mr. Baden suggested that the applicant show signage and lighting detail for their referral to the UCPB.

Chairman Tapper questioned if it was normal to let run off drain into a wetland?

Mr. Moot noted that they usually like to see a grass buffer before it gets to the wetland. It depends on how steep the fill makes the drop off from the parking lot to the wetland. The applicant may consider guide rails.

Mr. Baden noted that Mr. Moot touched on vendor parking in his 9/14/09 comment letter. Who knows how many vendors will show up? He was concerned that there wouldn’t be enough parking. Most vendors would show up in vans or trucks. He’d like to see a better estimate of the number of vendors.

Mr. Stach noted that they are most likely looking at more permanent vendors, so they wouldn’t be hauling loads of items every weekend—it would already be there, so they wouldn’t be loading up and backing out during business hours.

Chairman Tapper questioned the existing retaining wall on the site plan.

Mr. Sprague answered that he wasn’t so sure how high it was, but they were talking about taking it out and adding parking there.

Mr. Kawalchuk noted that there is no drainage ditch on the left side of the building. There is a detention pond that was constructed, but it is actually on Mr. Kawalchuk’s property. They put it in when they constructed the carpet store so that the water doesn’t come down to the building. He doesn’t believe its working, the pond isn’t functioning or if there are pipes, they aren’t working. It overflows.

Mr. Smith questioned if there was another pond as referred to by Mr. Kawalchuk, shouldn’t it be on the plan?

Mr. Moot answered that yes it should.

NEW APPLICATION PRESENTATION

Mr. Ricks remembered driving by and seeing a pipe with water coming out.

Mr. Moot noted that there is a raised bed septic system. He wanted to caution Medenbach & Eggers because raised beds tend to have life spans and they don’t know the extent of the previous usage. As there are set hours as indicated by the applicant, that should be taken into consideration for peak usage times.

Mr. Stach noted that there would be 20-25 vendors.

Mr. Rominger noted that even if the vendors don’t all come in trucks, that amount of people is still going to eat up a lot of the parking spaces.

Mr. Baden noted that they should consider 1 space per booth.

Mr. Rominger questioned as to how many trees were going to be put in?

Mr. Sprague answered that they were proposing 3 shade trees.

Mr. Baden questioned if the front was going to remain grass?

Mr. Sprague noted that it would.

Mr. Smith questioned if a reserve area for septic should be shown?

Mr. Moot agreed that it should.

Mr. Ricks noted that not having vendor parking shown for tonight’s meeting holds up sending this to the UCPB. The applicant was told they needed it at their last meeting. Where they going to have both the auction and the flea market operating at the same time? Because the applicant was indicating problems with finding the additional area to create vendor parking, would it be feasible the require only the needed parking for either the auction or the flea market area if it is stipulated that they must not both be in operation at the same time?

Mr. Stach noted that it is not his intention to run both the auction and the flea market at the same time because the auction is their main business and they wouldn’t want to draw customers away from their auction by having the flea market open for shopping at the same time. There might be some workers there at the same times, but the business won’t be operating at the same times. The Auction would operate on Tuesday and Friday evenings and the Flea Market would run during the day on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday.

Mr. Baden and Mr. Ricks agreed that they applicant would need to meet zoning and that would mean the required amount of parking spaces for the proposed floor area. The applicant is going to need to come up with additional parking spaces to comply.

Chairman Tapper questioned if the flea market would be open daily in the summer?

NEW APPLICATION PRESENTATION

Mr. Stach noted that it would not. It would only be weekends year round.

Mr. Ricks noted that the applicant needed to show a new parking plan to the Planning Board that was feasible. He didn’t believe that taking down the retaining wall was an option. It was holding up the septic.

Mr. Kawalchuk agreed that it would be poor planning to have the condition of one business being open at a time. If the business were to change, the applicant would need to re-apply and find those extra parking spaces in the future.

Mr. Ricks recalled they discussed the vendor parking spaces last time too. He didn’t understand why it wasn’t done for this meeting.

Mr. Sprague noted that they ended up having more wetland area than they originally thought.

Chairman Tapper questioned if because this was a change of use, would it need to go to the DOT for curb cuts?

The Board discussed it and agreed that it wouldn’t. The site had previously approved curb cuts that weren’t an issue. If it were a brand new place with new construction, then it would need to go.

Chairman Tapper questioned if there was enough room for two way traffic?

Mr. Sprague answered that there was.

Mr. Ricks noted that the next step in this application should be to schedule a Public Hearing, however there are too many things that the applicant hasn’t satisfied yet—for example the extra parking and items on Mr. Moot’s 9/14/09 comment letter—contour lines and showing the detention ponds and the reserve area for the septic shown.

Mr. Baden noted that they could schedule the Public Hearing for the October 20, 2009 meeting as long as Medenbach & Eggers makes the required revisions. The Public Hearing will need to be kept open though because the Board still hasn’t seen a complete enough application to send to the UCPB.

Mr. Sprague felt that they could get the maps revised in time.

Mr. Stach questioned if the Board would agree to have the parking in the front of the building?

Mr. Ricks didn’t like the parking in the front of the building. The building currently has nice aesthetics. That would take away from it.

Mr. Rominger would want to see more landscaping if that were to happen.

The Board noted that the well to the building was in the front.

NEW APPLICATION PRESENTATION

Mr. Moot stated that the applicant could pave over the well area to protect car seepage and run off.

Mr. Smith noted that he thought that parking was based on the amount of square footage, not the number of customers. How could the PB ask for more if it’s not required?

Mr. Baden noted that under 140-21(C) (A), it discusses parking specs for commercial uses. The vendors are considered employees.

Mr. Moot noted that the septic shape looked odd. Maybe they could pick up some spaces around there or behind it?

Mr. Sprague wasn’t sure.

Mr. Ricks thought that there could be a little dirt road leading behind the septic and designate that area up there as the vendor parking.

Mr. Ricks motioned for a Public Hearing at the October 20, 2009 PB meeting. Seconded by Mr. Baden. No discussion.

Vote:

Tapper: Yes Ricks: Yes

Smith: Yes Kawalchuk: Yes

Rominger: Yes Ullman: Absent

Baden: Yes Callan, alt.: Not required to participate

Mr. Baden motioned for an Unlisted Action under SEQRA. Seconded by Mr. Ricks. No discussion.

Vote:

Tapper: Yes Ricks: Yes

Smith: Yes Kawalchuk: Yes

Rominger: Yes Ullman: Absent

Baden: Yes Callan, alt.: Not required to participate

NEW APPLICATION PRESENTATION

AT&T, SUP/SPA-for equipment shelter adjacent to approved tower and collocate 6 antennas on approved tower, at 100 Airport Road and 6140 Route 209 Approved Tower Locations, Tax Map #s 69.3-2-37 & 76.1-3-17,R-1 Districts

Representative, Doug Migliaccio, of the Pyramid Network Services, LLC was present on behalf of AT&T for this application. He noted that the Town will receive payment from AT&T to collocate on the towers. The towers were originally under the ownership of Homeland Towers, and since the time that the towers were approved and after Verizon Wireless collocated last year, the towers have been sold to American Towers.

NEW APPLICATION PRESENTATION

AT&T, SUP/SPA (cont’d):for equipment shelter adjacent to approved tower and collocate 6 antennas on approved tower, at 100 Airport Road and 6140 Route 209 Approved Tower Locations, Tax Map #s 69.3-2-37 & 76.1-3-17,R-1 Districts

Mr. Ricks questioned if the AT&T storage shelter will match the Verizon ones that are already there?

Mr. Migliaccio noted that he brought pictures of the existing shelters and if the Town wants, they will do their best to match the colors. He was surprised that they needed to go through the same review as per the Town Code that the towers themselves went through.

Chairman Tapper questioned if AT&T needed to put down its own pad?

Mr. Migliaccio answered yes. One is for the emergency generator and one is for the equipment shelter.

Chairman Tapper questioned if there was room for another equipment shelter?

Mr. Baden recalled that they built the compound big enough for 4 or 5.

Chairman Tapper recalled that the people who put the towers up said that they would pay the Town X amount of dollars for the lease area. The more companies that collocate on the towers, the more money the Town gets?

Mr. Migliaccio answered yes. Pyramid represents every carrier but for Verizon. T Mobile and Cricket were on the way next to the Towers.

Mr. Rominger questioned how many carriers before the towers reached their maximum carrier load?

Mr. Migliaccio noted that once the available space fills up, the next carrier that comes in will request a variance to go higher.

Mr. Ricks motioned to schedule a Public Hearing for the Route 209, Kerhonkson site on October 20, 2009. Seconded by Mr. Smith. No discussion.

Vote:

Tapper: Yes Ricks: Yes

Smith: Yes Kawalchuk: Yes

Rominger: Yes Ullman: Absent

Baden: Yes Callan, alt.: Not required to participate

Mr. Ricks motioned to schedule a Public Hearing for the Airport Road, Accord site on October 20, 2009. Seconded by Mr. Smith. No discussion.

Vote:

Tapper: Yes Ricks: Yes

Smith: Yes Kawalchuk: Yes

Rominger: Yes Ullman: Absent

Baden: Yes Callan, alt.: Not required to participate

NEW APPLICATION PRESENTATION

Mr. Migliaccio noted that the AT&T antennae at the Route 209, Kerhonkson site will be painted to match the brown tower and the antennae at the Airport Road, Accord site will be galvanized to match that tower.

Mr. Moot questioned the reference in the EAF to ponds?

Mr. Migliaccio noted that the Homeland Towers applications referred to ponds and they essentially took their information from that as it is the same site.

Mr. Baden noted that the Route 209, Kerhonkson site had a pond and the Airport Road, Accord site did not.

Mr. Ricks noted that there would technically be two separate Public Hearings – one for each site.

Mr. Baden noted that the Route 209 Kerhonkson site application would need to be referred to the UCPB.

Mr. Moot suggested that the applicant do compile a quick response letter to respond to his 9/14/09 comments.

Mr. Baden motioned to refer the Route 209 Kerhonkson site application to the UCPB for their referral response. Seconded by Chairman Tapper. No discussion.

Vote:

Tapper: Yes Ricks: Yes

Smith: Yes Kawalchuk: Yes

Rominger: Yes Ullman: Absent

Baden: Yes Callan, alt.: Not required to participate

ACTION ON MINUTES

Mr. Baden motioned to approve the minutes for August 25, 2009 as amended by the Chairman. Seconded by Chairman Tapper. All members present in favor.

Vote:

Tapper: Yes Ricks: Yes

Smith: Yes Kawalchuk: Yes

Rominger: Yes Ullman: Absent

Baden: Yes Callan, alt.: Not required to participate

OTHER MATTERS

Mr. Baden reminded the Board that the Town Board was holding its 5^th public hearing for the proposed Zoning and Subdivision Codes on September 16, 2009 and training credits will be given. He continued to update the Board noting that SEQRA is complete and they have received the UCPB’s comments and have accepted most of it.

Mr. Baden also wanted to inform the Board that the Town’s Representative for the UCPB’s term is up this year and he is going to approach the Town Board and express his interest in applying for the position.

ADJOURNMENT

Mr. Baden motioned to adjourn, seconded by Chairman Tapper. No discussion. All members present in favor.

As there was no further business, at 8:20 PM, Chairman Tapper adjourned the meeting.

Respectfully submitted,

Rebecca Paddock Stange, Secretary