Planning Board Minutes August 2010

MINUTES OF August 18, 2010 Regular MEETING of the Town of Rochester PLANNING BOARD, held at the Town Hall, Accord, NY.

Vice Chairman Ricks called meeting to order at 7:00 PM.

PRESENT: ABSENT:

Shane Ricks, Vice Chairman Melvyn I. Tapper, Chairman

Robert Rominger Malena Calan (alt.)

Leon Smith

Michael Baden

Anthony Ullman

Also present was Tim Moot, Town Planner from Clark Patterson Lee.

As Chairman Tapper was not present, Vice Chairman Ricks Chaired the Meeting

Pledge to the Flag.

PUBLIC HEARING

REAL ESCAPES PROPERTY, LLC- c/o Simone Harari, Body of Truth Spa, Special Use Permit as per 140-42 of the Town of Rochester Zoning Ordinance for expansion of existing spa facility to include parking area, gym, additions to main house and office, outdoor event pavilion, and sauna building, Kyserike Road, Tax Map #69.4-2-2, AR-3 District.

Mr. Medenbach, engineer was present on behalf of this application along with Curt Sutherland, Architect and Simone Harari, Applicant.

Mr. Baden questioned if there were any changes to the site plan?

Mr. Medenbach noted that they moved the proposed entrance as instructed by the Ulster County Highway Dept. in their correspondence dated June 28, 2010. Also the County Planning Board questioned handicap access. Mr. Medenbach noted that the site is quite level and they provided for handicap access to the primary building and throughout the site.

Vice Chairman Ricks questioned if the Accord Fire Dept. had responded yet in regards to the suitability of the facility’s entrances and access roads for service by emergency vehicles.

Mr. Medenbach noted that they had not received a response yet. He had heard that it was possible that Fire Chief, William Farrel, was on vacation.

Vice Chairman Ricks noted that from reviewing the revised plans the applicant added the requested spruce trees and the correct number of parking spaces included on the plan.

Mr. Baden requested that they go over the Planner Comments from Mr. Moot of Clark Patterson Lee dated August 16, 2010.

PUBLIC HEARING

REAL ESCAPES PROPERTY, LLC (cont’d)- c/o Simone Harari, Body of Truth Spa, Special Use Permit as per 140-42 of the Town of Rochester Zoning Ordinance for expansion of existing spa facility to include parking area, gym, additions to main house and office, outdoor event pavilion, and sauna building, Kyserike Road, Tax Map #69.4-2-2, AR-3 District.

Mr. Moot questioned how the applicant planned on proceeding in regards to letter dated August 4, 2010 from the NY State Office of Parks and Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) where they comment that in their opinion that the proposed additions to the main house (Sahler House) will have a substantial negative impact upon this historic resource. They felt that the architect tried to remain sympathetic to the historic features however that the size of the additions and deck are too large to be located adjacent to the Sahler House without resulting in detrimental effects on the property. They recommended either smaller additions or new buildings removed from the historic structure. The other proposed new structures appeared to be appropriate and in keeping with eh existing scale, building materials and site accommodations.

Mr. Medenbach noted that the building was applied for by the applicant and placed on the National Register of Historic Places. It is the practice of the OPRHP to instruct applicants not to increase the size of the building by 1/3, so they don’t like how big it is. He also wanted to point out that the OPRHP is just an advisory to the Board as noted by Mr. Kenneth Markunas from the OPRHP in his letter. The Planning Board makes their own decision. The applicant went above and beyond in her planning to keep it looking historic.

Mrs. Harari noted that she spoke with Mr. Markunas on the telephone regarding this letter. She noted that the OPRHP would keep the house as historic, but in speaking with Mr. Markunas they like everything about the proposal except for the size of the additions. They feel it is a visual impact because it is above 30% increase in size.

Mr. Moot just wanted to recommend to the Planning Board to keep OPRHP comments into consideration.

Mr. Medenbach disagreed with OPRHP feeling that the size of the building was an impact. The one who was impacted was the applicant not being able to get the use out of the structure that she wanted. No one was harmed by a larger addition.

Mr. Rominger questioned if there were any other significant changes to the building other than size?

Mrs. Harari noted that their goal was to keep the main house standing as it was unaffected by the additions. Mr. Markunas went online and was impressed with how they restored the interior of the building.

Mr. Sutherland displayed colored elevations from different angles of the buildings for the Board and public to view.

Mrs. Harari noted that across the river there was an historic house that added on and they used a technique called a “hyphen” between additions and historic structures to break it up so that the main historic structure stood on its own. They did this here by breaking up the additions and the main house with glass rooms.

PUBLIC HEARING

Mr. Moot noted that they are still waiting to see the reply from the UC Hwy Dept. in regards to the revised proposed entrance. Also #4 of Mr. Moot’s comment letter addresses the need for the Ulster County Health Dept. to approve the new public water supply and also that the well siting radii includes 100 ft of ownership, 200 ft of control and the 200 ft radius as shown is off the subject property.

Mr. Medenbach responded that he has dealt with the UCHD on many public water supply applications and they never have a problem with the radii being off of the subject property. Especially in this case, the Rondout Valley School is the bounding owner. The UCHD has seen a set of plans and they are waiting for at least a Negative Declaration to start their own approval process. Also- the UC Hwy Dept. shouldn’t have a problem with the revised entrance because they are the ones that told them they needed to put it there.

Mr. Moot asked that the applicant copy the Town with any NOI correspondence so that the Board has it on file. Mr. Moot also questioned the potential for small weddings and events.

Mr. Medenbach noted that the applicant has not held a wedding at this site yet, but they may have something in the future. If it falls under the thresholds for a ‘mass gathering’ which he believed was more than 75 people, they would need to get permits from the UCHD and the Code Enforcement Office. They don’t want to prohibit the possibility of weddings, but it’s not a major factor in their application.

Mrs. Harari noted that she doesn’t intend to hold weddings, but she doesn’t want to be prohibited from doing it if the situation arises.

Vice Chairman Ricks questioned what the maximum size of a wedding would be based on the size of the pavilion and the parking? 100 people max?

Mr. Medenbach wasn’t really sure as he hadn’t calculated anything on that because it’s not really something that they are looking at this time. He does note that the applicant wouldn’t want a large amount of people there.

Mr. Rominger noted that they could make the special events use contingent on the rules in the code regarding Bed & Breakfast special events.

Vice Chairman Ricks noted that sometimes they have to be careful about what they open up here in regards to special events. He had a Bed & Breakfast near him and they held weddings that became a nuisance to him. They went on to all hours of the night and the music was often very loud.

Mr. Baden noted that the new code addresses that in Section 140-35. They could make it a condition that they follow the Bed & Breakfast rules for special events.

Mr. Medenbach noted that he had held his own daughters wedding on his own property and had over 200 people. They brought in Johnny on the spots and there were no problems.

PUBLIC HEARING

Vice Chairman Ricks instructed the Board to review Part 2 of the EAF as drafted by Medenbach & Eggers.

Medenbach & Eggers had checked question 1. Will the Proposed Action result in a physical change to the project site? As Yes, small to moderate impact under the example: Construction on land where the depth to the water table is less than 3 feet.

The Board discussed this and Mr. Moot’s comment letter also agreed that there was an impact, but it was not small to moderate, they checked off that it was a potential large impact that could be mitigated by project change.

Mr. Medenbach commented that it would be mitigated by building during a dry period.

The Board also checked off the example: Construction that will continue for more than 1 year or involve more than one phase or stage. This was checked as small to moderate.

Under #3, Will Proposed Action affect any water body designated as protected? (Under Articles 15, 24, 25 of the Environmental Conservation Law, ECL). The applicant checked, Yes- under Other Impacts, “Phase II Pond expansion and construction of sauna structure within DEC 100’ wetland adjacent area. This was checked as a small to moderate impact. The Board agreed with the applicant’s assessment of small to moderate.

Under #12, Will Proposed Action impact any site or structure of historic, prehistoric or paleontological importance? The applicant checked this item off as small to moderate under the example, “Proposed Action occurring wholly or partially within or substantially contiguous to any facility or site listed on the State

or National Register of historic places.”

Mr. Moot and the Planning Board agreed that this was a potential large impact and checked it as such and that it was able to be mitigated by project change, which is the architecture of the building keeping sympathetic with the historic structure.

Under Part 3, the Board filled it out noting that:

1. Will the Proposed Action result in a physical change to the project site? Yes, this would be mitigated through construction during dry season, silt fencing and construction also requires NYS DEC approvals.

12. Will Proposed Action impact any site or structure of historic, prehistoric or paleontological importance? Yes, the additions on the historic structure will exceed 30% and be at 51% of the existing historic structure. This will be mitigated by architectural design sympathetic with the original structure.

PUBLIC HEARING

Mr. Rominger motioned for a Negative Declaration under SEQRA on the project based on the review of Part 2 and Part 3 of the EAF. Seconded by Mr. Ullman. No discussion.

Vote:

Ricks- Yes Baden- Yes

Ullman- Yes Rominger- Yes

Smith- Yes Tapper- Absent

Motion carried.

Mr. Baden motioned to direct the Planning Board Secretary to publish the Negative Declaration in the ENB as per SEQRA Laws as this is a Type 1 Action. Seconded by Mr. Rominger. No discussion.

Vote:

Ricks- Yes Baden- Yes

Ullman- Yes Rominger- Yes

Smith- Yes Tapper- Absent

Motion carried.

At 7:45 PM, Vice Chairman Ricks motioned to open the hearing to the public.

Mr. Medenbach explained the application for the public. He noted that this property was located on County Route 6 across the street from the Rondout Valley High School’s open athletic fields. This property is 20 acres although Mrs. Harari also owns contiguous lands. The property has an existing Special Use Permit for using the house as a spa and they are proposing to expand the spa and office and put in a barn, which will be a gym, an outside pavilion for meditation and a sauna. They are going to expand the parking and add spruce trees. The entrance is going to change from its existing site as the County Hwy Dept. is requiring this due to poor site distance at the existing location. They will have to close off the existing driveway. The septic is new and there will be a new public water supply, which will comply and be approved by UCHD regulations. They are treating the run off from the buildings and parking area through rain gardens where water will be pulled and stored there and eventually flow into the wetlands. This is a NYS DEC wetland and they are also seeking permits to expand the pond.

Vice Chairman Ricks requested that the architectural renderings for the proposed buildings be displayed for the public to view.

Curt Sutherland, Architect went through the elevations for the different buildings. He noted where the original historic structure was and showed where the additions would be coming off and how they would be connected by the ‘hyphen’ rooms that they had earlier discussed, kind of like green houses. He kept the scale of the buildings similar to the existing structures and showed the handicap access. He noted that the main building stretches out in an east to west direction. It seems long, but otherwise they kept in harmony with the existing neighborhood. The other larger structure that is nearer to the road is the gym, which was configured to appear as a barn. He showed the smaller buildings as well- the office and sauna. The office currently existed in the center

PUBLIC HEARING

of the property and they are adding a 10’ expansion and continuing the existing roofline. This is a minor addition. The sauna is a his/hers type of a set up where the floor plan has two entrances- one for the men’s side

and one for the women’s side. This will be located near the future pond expansion so that when people were done swimming, they could go to the sauna. This building would have the appearance of a stone house on the property.

At this time the Vice Chairman questioned if there was public comment.

Dan Feldman and Andra Maguran live in the home to the right of the site plan. They had a number of questions and comments.

First, Mr. Feldman noted that this is listed as an Expansion of Use. Given the scale and intended use, the proposal seems to be more like a change of use. The original Special Use Permit was for a membership club and this seems to go beyond that.

Mr. Baden noted that this would be a question to the Code Enforcement Office as it is the CEO’s determination, not the Planning Board’s. To question that Mr. Feldman would need to go through the ZBA for an interpretation of the Code Enforcement Officer’s Determination.

Vice Chairman Ricks noted that this expansion offers the same services, but have expanded some.

Mr. Feldman commented that weddings were not typical of a spa.

Mrs. Harari disagreed noting to the Board that Buttermilk Inn was a spa in Milton and they did weddings regularly.

Mr. Medenbach also stated to the Board that weddings were typical at spas.

Mr. Feldman commented on the fact that there were overnight guests staying there now. Wouldn’t this be a new use that includes people staying overnight?

Mrs. Harari noted to the Board that it was used as that before.

Mr. Feldman continued that this was in a Residential Agricultural District and that this use was more suited for a Business District. This does change the nature of the neighborhood. When Mr. Medenbach asks in regards to the size of the building and the OPRHP’s claim that it is a Negative Impact, ‘who is it hurting?’—Mr. Feldman is hurting from it. Mr. Feldman was also uncertain as to whether or not this was actually a non conforming use or it wasn’t allowed in this district?

Mr. Moot noted that this is a non-conforming use, however that can be addressed by means of a Special Use Permit, which is the process that this Board is going through right now.

PUBLIC HEARING

Mr. Feldman noted that he had a conversation with the applicant where she noted that they are going to close off the existing entrance, which is how Mr. Feldman currently accesses his property. If she does this, he will have no way to get into his property. This should be addressed as a part of the plan.

Vice Chairman Ricks questioned if Mr. Feldman had a legal Right of way over the lands of Mrs. Harari? Or did he just use it through ‘good will’?

Mr. Feldman replied that for at least the past 5 owners it has been used in ‘good will’.

Vice Chairman Ricks questioned if it was correct as it was depicted on the plan that Mr. Feldman owned 60’ on Kyserike (County 6) Road?

Mr. Feldman answered yes.

Vice Chairman Ricks stated that since he didn’t have a legal right of way of Mrs. Harari’s lands she didn’t have a legal obligation to let Mr. Feldman use it.

A member from the public, Ruth Bendelius questioned if this was a right by use situation?

Mr. Baden noted that a right by use only pertained to public use. This was private.

Mr. Ullman noted that this was not within the Board’s review.

Mr. Feldman continued that the use has been fine up until now, but now it will be considerably larger and he read Section 140-39, Rights to Continue Non Conforming Uses: It is the purpose of this Article to limit the injurious impact of non-conforming uses, buildings, lots and structures on other adjacent properties within a particular district and the community as a whole, while recognizing that alterations, continuations and extensions of non-conforming uses, buildings or structures may not be contrary to

the public interest or the general purpose of this Zoning Law, when failure to allow such alteration, continuation or extension would itself lead to neighborhood or district deterioration.

Mr. Feldman continued and noted that the applicant has stated that construction of the project will take a year- that is a definite impact to other adjacent properties, which is him.

Vice Chairman Ricks noted that the project is in two phases—and most of the time it takes about 6 months just to build a house, so a year for this project is reasonable.

Mr. Feldman questioned if the hours of operation were to change? Would there be any nighttime activity?

PUBLIC HEARING

Mrs. Harari addressed the Board noting that they were open by client need as they are now. The spa is most likely to have hours from 9am to 9pm. She also wanted to remind everyone that this was a business that focused on creating a serene environment and would be extremely peaceful. She noted that they would have to see what kind of following the gym generated, but she would anticipate those hours being 6 or 7am to 9pm. It would be based on what the market is using.

Mr. Baden noted that the Board was not allowed to condition hours of operation.

Mr. Ullman noted that in some cases Planning Board’s have been able to do that.

Mr. Baden wasn’t aware of any court cases that this had been upheld, but he believed Mr. Ullman to be correct.

Mr. Feldman questioned if the Planning Board was going to require a traffic impact study?

Vice Chairman Ricks reminded everyone that this application has been reviewed by the Town Planner, Tim Moot from Clark Patterson Lee and the Ulster County Planning Board as well as the Ulster County Highway Dept. and no one has indicated that one is warranted.

Mr. Feldman questioned how much water will be used by the expansion and if it would affect his own water source.

Vice Chairman Ricks noted that no one can ever tell what will affect what as we are unaware of the water pathways underground, but the usage of how much water that is to be used has been calculated by Medenbach & Eggers to be 900 gallons per day at peak times. Also, everyone has a right to a well.

Mr. Feldman questioned if there would be any lighting at night after 9pm?

Vice Chairman Ricks noted that there would be some security lighting, down shielded so as to not create a glare.

Mr. Medenbach noted that there was currently night time lighting down the driveway and walkways.

Mr. Feldman read from Article 6, Non Conforming Uses again noting that “It is the purpose of this Article to limit the injurious impact of non-conforming uses, buildings, lots and structures on other adjacent properties…” He re-iterated that this was a project more suited for a business district, not a residential one. This proposed expansion impacts the value and character of his property.

Vice Chairman Ricks recalled Mr. Feldman coming before the Board a number of years ago for a permit. What was that?

Mr. Feldman noted that he has a home occupation permit for workspace. He also has a home and apartment.

PUBLIC HEARING

Mr. Baden had a question in regard to lighting? Was there going to be lighting on the proposed sign that was to be relocated by the road?

Mrs. Harari answered that there was lighting on the existing sign, so yes.

Vice Chairman Ricks questioned if Board Members felt that the hearing should be left open?

Mr. Baden felt that they should definitely get a response back from the fire dept. before they closed it.

Vice Chairman Ricks was curious about over night guests. He viewed the original Special Use Permit Decision from the Planning Board and it doesn’t mention anything about them even in the facts established at the public hearing. He read through the County PB comments from the original 2003 application for the spa. #2 under the County’s non binding comments of 12/3/03 state: “The term “Club Membership” as defined in the Town of Rochester zoning statute refers to “an organization catering exclusively to members and their guests or premises and buildings for recreation or athletic purposes, which are not conducted primarily for gain, provided that there are not conducted any vending stands, merchandising or commercial activities, except as required generally for the membership and purposes of such club. “ The planning board may wish to consider whether or not this application truly fits this definition as a special permitted use within the R-1 Zone.” It seemed to Vice Chairman Ricks that this was defined as more of a non profit club in the code.

Mr. Baden noted that because this is a non conforming use, the new definition of a spa may not apply.

Mr. Medenbach noted that this decision to send it to the Planning Board as an expansion did not come lightly to the Code Enforcement Officer. If anyone, even the Planning Board is questioning his determination, it should go to the ZBA.

Mr. Baden noted that they may not be legally permitted to have overnight guests.

Mr. Medenbach noted that they were up front with the CEO and noted that they would have overnight guests, but the CEO didn’t want to classify this as a hotel.

Mr. Baden noted that in the applications before our board there is nothing written in them about having overnight guests.

Mr. Medenbach noted that they operated like this before.

Mr. Baden noted that they may not have been permitted to do that.

The Secretary went through the original file and found the minutes to the original application’s meetings.

Mr. Ricks read through the minutes:

PUBLIC HEARING

From November 18, 2003-

Mr. Ricks commented that being that this was a residence and is proposed to move to that of a business, has the Applicant looked into any issues concerning the septic?

Mr. Medenbach noted that they would get the proper sign off from the Ulster County Health Dept. (UCHD).

Mr. Ricks questioned if anyone will continue to live at the site in question? Will part of it be kept as a residence?

Ms. Harari answered that they will probably keep a bedroom or two. Her brothers still come and visit.

Mr. Medenbach commented that Ms. Harari has also considered having rooms for overnight guests, maybe in the future.

Ms. Harari continued, a lot of the time they get bridal parties that want facials and a place to get ready. She doesn’t want to exclude the possibility of an overnight situation maybe similar to that of a Bed and Breakfast. She will only be selling products related to what the business will entail. Ms. Harari noted that she has a floor plan, but she didn’t submit it to the Board. She had a copy at the meeting that she displayed for the Board explaining what the areas will be designated.

Mr. Ricks asked that Ms. Harari submit a floor plan for the record depicting what rooms will be used for what services.

T/ Rochester Planning Board -12- November 18, 2003

Minutes of Regular Meeting

NEW APPLICATION PRESENTATION

REAL ESCAPES PROPERTY, c/o SIMONE HARARI (cont’d):– Special Use Permit for Membership Spa

Mr. Kawalchuck wanted confirm that this would not be a permanent year-round residence. It would be a business where an employee or the owner would come in the morning to begin the day and leave when the business day is done? If someone were to stay overnight, they would be all alone?

Ms. Harari explained that she really hasn’t gotten that far in the planning. She doesn’t really see the business being that of an overnight one. More likely someone would just rent the room for a day to get ready for something. Mr. Medenbach suggested for her to think of everything possible that she would ever want to be included in the business and to put it in the Application to bring in front of the Board at one time.

Vice Chairman Ricks then read from the January 20, 2004 minutes:

At this time the Chairperson asked what the frequency of traffic might be expected to be.

Mrs. Harari noted that most people could be at the spa from one (1) to several hours. They might come two (2) or three (3) at a time in the same car. The traffic is very little and most people are coming from Route 209 into the first entrance. About five (5) people could be treated at one time. The staff would arrive in the morning and leave in the afternoon. There wouldn’t be traffic coming and going all day. The hours of operation haven’t been formally determined yet. She also noted that she had indicated on the Application that she may have people stay over in two (2) guest rooms. An example would be bridal parties.

Mr. Medenbach noted that because the guest rooms would be in a number less than five (5) and there were to be less than 10 occupants, they wouldn’t have to comply with fire codes even though the rooms were on the second floor.

T/ Rochester Planning Board -18- January 20, 2004

Minutes of Regular Meeting

CONTINUED APPLICATION REVIEW

REAL ESCAPES PROPERTY c/o SIMONE HARARI-(cont’d): Special Use Permit for membership spa,

Chairperson Carney noted that the Board had forwarded the Application and Site Plan to the Ulster County Health Dept. for any comments and has received nothing. She continued that the proposed use appeared to be low impact.

The Board discussed the number of parking spaces and commented that 19 spaces seemed excessive for this business, but because they are determined by the amount of square footage, they are required. The Site Plan also indicates that the parking area will be gravel.

Mr. O’Halloran motioned for a Negative Declaration, seconded by Mr. De Graw. All in favor, no discussion.

Mr. O’Halloran motioned to grant a Special Use Permit, seconded by Mr. De Graw. All in favor, no discussion.

Mr. Baden noted that he would go into the Planning Board office and read through the 2003 file to get a better sense of what went on as the decision doesn’t really tell much.

The Board agreed to continue the public hearing and get a letter to the Town Attorney to clarify the expansion of a non conforming use along with which definitions to review this by along with clarifying whether or not overnight guests were ever permitted.

Mr. Baden motioned to continue the Public Hearing at the PB’s September 21, 2010 meeting. Seconded by Mr. Ullman. No discussion.

Vote:

Ricks- Yes Baden- Yes

Ullman- Yes Rominger- Yes

Smith- Yes Tapper- Absent

Motion carried.

NEW APPLICATION PRESENTATION

WAYNE KELDER– Flying Field, Special Use Permit, Lower Whitfield Road, Part of Tax Map #68.4-4- 16 & 17, AR-3 District

Mr. Kelder was present and noted that he went through all the proper channels, Town Board, DOT, FAA, and he got their go ahead, and now he was back in front of the Planning Board for his Special Use Permit. Mr. Kelder stated that he was requesting a grass air strip that is 40’ x 1,100’. He had originally requested larger than he needed, but he was clear that the plans that he had submitted which reflected the smaller size of 40’ x 1,100’ was what he was requesting. No grading will be necessary, it’s a fairly level location—enough so that you can take off and land the same way.

Mr. Ricks questioned if Mr. Kelder were to have his application approved would he FAA come out and inspect the grass air strip?

Mr. Kelder noted that after the Planning Board approves the application the FAA would give them an identification number.

Mr. Moot noted that there were power lines on the edge of lot 2 that needed to be taken into consideration when taking off and landing.

Mr. Ricks noted that Lot 2 was very swampy.

Mr. Moot noted that that may be the mitigating factor. Lot 2 is vacant now, but because it is a potential building lot on either side, should there be a restriction or an acknowledgement on the plans?

Mr. Kelder noted that to put building stipulations on the plan would be premature now. Those restrictions would be to whoever bought the property. They would have to take the airstrip into consideration.

Mr. Moot agreed that on the lot with the swamp on it, it shouldn’t be a problem, but on the other lot—

Mr. Kelder noted that the FAA looked at this already and didn’t have a problem.

Mr. Ullman noted that the FAA looked at it from an airspace standpoint, but there is a much broader impact than just on the adjoining lots. They aren’t looking at lot lines here.

Mr. Kelder noted that there would be no hanger and no storage of fuel.

Mr. Ricks noted that Mr. Kelder should label and designate an area for plane parking on the plans.

Mr. Baden questioned what would need to be cleared to install the airstrip?

Mr. Kelder noted that he could land an aircraft there today. They had already taken out a line of trees and the rest is a clear meadow.

Mr. Moot noted that Central Hudson usually puts the orange balls on their power lines near aircraft sites.

Mr. Kelder was aware of this.

NEW APPLICATION PRESENTATION

WAYNE KELDER (cont’d)– Flying Field, Special Use Permit, Lower Whitfield Road, Part of Tax Map #68.4-4- 16 & 17, AR-3 District

Mr. Baden noted that they could condition the installation of the orange balls on the power lines as a part of approval.

Mr. Ricks noted that they should include the aviation security plan of Mr. Kelder’s in the approval.

Mr. Baden noted that this needed to be referred to the Ulster County Planning Board as it was in a County Agricultural District.

Mr. Ullman noted that he saw this application as an Unlisted Action with significant impacts.

Mr. Baden motioned to refer the application to the UCPB and to include the security plan. Seconded by Mr. Rominger. No discussion.

Vote:

Ricks- Yes Baden- Yes

Ullman- Yes Rominger- Yes

Smith- Yes Tapper- Absent

Motion carried.

Mr. Baden motioned for an Unlisted Action with the Town of Rochester Planning Board as Lead Agency under SEQRA. Seconded by Mr. Smith. The Board noted that any agencies that would be involved, already were and have been contacted.

Vote:

Ricks- Yes Baden- Yes

Ullman- Yes Rominger- Yes

Smith- Yes Tapper- Absent

Motion carried.

Mr. Ricks, Vice Chairman motioned to schedule the Public Hearing for September 21, 2010. Mr. Baden seconded the motion. No discussion.

Ricks- Yes Baden- Yes

Ullman- Yes Rominger- Yes

Smith- Yes Tapper- Absent

Motion carried.

The Board advised the applicant that revised plans would need to be received as soon as possible for them to be able to refer this application to the County and meet their deadlines. The applicant needed to list where the swamp was, mark the utility lines, and mark surrounding houses.

OTHER MATTERS

Mr. Baden noted that the Town Board had discussed goal planning and having a meeting with the Planning Board Chairman to discuss this further, but it hasn’t yet happened.

MINUTES

The July 20, 2010 minutes were tabled until the next meeting.

ADJOURNMENT

Mr. Ullman motioned to adjourn, seconded by Mr. Rominger. No discussion. All members present in favor.

As there was no further business, at 9:15 PM, Vice Chairman Ricks adjourned the meeting.

Respectfully submitted,

Rebecca Paddock Stange, Secretary