MINUTES OF February 15, 2011 Regular MEETING of the Town of Rochester PLANNING BOARD, held at the Town Hall, Accord, NY.
Chairman Baden called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM.
PRESENT: ABSENT:
Michael Baden, Chairman Shane Ricks, Vice Chairman
Melvyn I. Tapper Leon Smith
Robert Rominger Anthony Ullman
Fred O’Donnell
Mr. Moot, Town Planner from Clark Patterson Lee, arrived at 8:00PM.
Chairman Baden noted that the Board would be taking a roll call attendance from now on at the beginning of the meeting to get the attendance into the record. The Secretary will call out each Board Member’s name and do the same for any roll call vote from now on. It is a common practice and it’s also at the Attorney’s recommendation.
ACTION ON MINUTES
Chairman Baden announced that he has scheduled the minutes to be done at the beginning of the meeting from now on.
Mr. Tapper motioned to accept the minutes from December 21, 2011 seconded by Mr. O’Donnell. Chairman Baden noted that he wasn’t at the meeting, but he did listen to the tape so he was going to vote for it.
Vote:
Baden: Yes Tapper: Yes
O’Donnell: Yes Rominger: Yes
Ullman: Absent Ricks: Absent
Smith: Absent
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Training:
Chairman Baden reminded the Board Members that they needed 4 hours of training a year and 2 within the first 6 months of being a new appointee. The Secretary has circulated information on Orange County Trainings. He hasn’t attended any yet, but he has heard that they are good and they are free.
ANNOUNCEMENTS (CONT’D)
SEQRA Update:
Chairman Baden noted that there is a new SEQRA Handbook that came out in the Fall of 2010. There is a copy in the PB Office and it is available online.
The DEC is updating the SEQRA Forms. There are draft forms online to view now. This is the first time the Long Form has ever been updated and it’s the first time since the 90’s that the Short Form has been updated. They are accepting comments through April 8, 2011. The Short Form is now a little longer and will be able to be used for more applications, and the Long Form is much longer, but wouldn’t need to be used for as many applications.
CONTINUED APPLICATION, SEQRA DETERMINATION, & PUBLIC HEARING
HILLARY THING, (Aaron Rice Owner)- Site Plan Approval Service Establishment for Acupuncture & Herbal Medicine Practice, 4937 Route 209, Accord, Tax Map #77.1-2-11, ‘B’ District
Ms. Thing was present on behalf of her application.
Chairman Baden noted that this application had been scheduled for a Public Hearing at the Planning Board’s January Meeting, but it was cancelled due to inclement weather. This application has not been in front of the Board since its December Meeting. The applicant submitted revised site plans showing the new driveway, new signage, and detail and she notated the total square footage to be used. The Board received County Planning Board Comments Referral review dated 1/5/2011 which were advisory comments with two recommendations. One was that further approval may be needed from the County Health Dept. as this is a change in use of the building. The other comment was that the lighting needed details. Chairman Baden noted that the lighting was shown on the plans and that the Town Planning Board has required proof of adequacy of the existing septic system.
Chairman Baden further noted that there is an error in regards to the name being listed as “Meadow Lane” on the site plan. The Planning Board received letter dated 2/8/2011 from Wayne Kelder, Highway Superintendent stating that the road is a Town Maintained Road. It is not on any Town Inventory, but has been maintained by the Town for the last 23 years. It is a road by use and is unnamed, but referred to as “Denkensohn Road”. Chairman Baden instructed the applicant that she would need to revise her plans to reflect this. Chairman Baden also noted that he had spoken to Mr. Kelder and although the Highway Dept. discourages double access onto roads, because these were existing he didn’t have a problem with them.
At this time Ms. Thing submitted a letter dated 1/21/2011 from Brinnier & Larios, PE stating that the septic system was adequate for the proposed use. Ms. Thing continued to note that at the last meeting the Board questioned the intentions for the uses of the barns. She has spoken to Mr. Rice, the property owner, and he is going to use them for storage for plumbing supplies.
Chairman Baden questioned if Ms. Thing was still only proposing to utilize the downstairs for her business?
CONTINUED APPLICATION, SEQRA DETERMINATION, & PUBLIC HEARING
HILLARY THING, (Aaron Rice Owner) (CONT’D)- Site Plan Approval Service Establishment for Acupuncture & Herbal Medicine Practice, 4937 Route 209, Accord, Tax Map #77.1-2-11, ‘B’ District
Ms. Thing noted that since the last meeting she has been approached to sublet a room upstairs for massage therapy. She questioned if it wasn’t more appropriate to calculate the parking as per the standards for offices instead of commercial. For office space the parking is 1 spot for every 200 sf. This would come out to 7.5 parking spaces and she is proposing 8, so this would work.
Chairman Baden questioned how many treatment rooms would there be?
Ms. Thing noted that she would have a private room upstairs and a “community” acupuncture room downstairs with 5 tables in it. She noted that she couldn’t use both rooms at once, so she felt that 8 parking spaces would be sufficient. The massage therapist is going to see 1 client at a time.
Mr. Tapper questioned if Ms. Thing could use all 5 tables downstairs and have a client upstairs at the same time?
Ms. Thing noted that she doesn’t schedule the sessions at the same time, so no.
Mr. Tapper noted that 8 parking spaces would be sufficient.
Chairman Baden noted that the parking section in the Code was really set up to be flexible because each application has different circumstances.
No one on the Board had a problem with requiring 8 parking spaces.
At this time the Board reviewed Part 2 of the Short EAF. All items were checked as ‘no’; therefore Part 3 didn’t need to be filled out.
At 7:20PM Chairman Baden opened the Hearing to the public.
There was no public comment.
CONTINUED APPLICATION, SEQRA DETERMINATION, & PUBLIC HEARING
HILLARY THING, (Aaron Rice Owner) (CONT’D)- Site Plan Approval Service Establishment for Acupuncture & Herbal Medicine Practice, 4937 Route 209, Accord, Tax Map #77.1-2-11, ‘B’ District
At 7:20PM Mr. Tapper motioned to close the Public Hearing seconded by Mr. O’Donnell. No discussion. All members present in favor.
Vote:
Baden: Yes Smith- Absent
Tapper: Yes Ricks- Absent
Rominger: Yes Ullman- Absent
O’Donnell: Yes
Motion carried.
Chairman Baden noted that the applicant will need to revise the plan to reflect the correct square footage being applied for and the road name will need to be changed.
At this time the Board went over the Draft Facts Established.
Facts Established by the Planning Board:
- The parcel location is 4937 Route 209, Tax Map#: 77.1-2-11
- The parcel is in the Town of Rochester ’B’ zoning district.
- The parcel is +/- 1.3 acres.
The parcel is within 500’ of a County Agricultural District.
The parcel is owned by Aaron and Kathryn Rice. The applicant is Hillary Thing.
- The parcel has road frontage on Route 209 (a State Road), Lucas Turnpike (a County Road), and an unnamed Town maintained Road referred to as Denkensohn Road. The parcel has existing driveway access onto Route 209 and Denkensohn Road.
- The parcel contains an existing house and two barns.
- The parcel has existing private water supply and individual septic.
- The applicant has applied for a change of use from Residential to Acupuncture and Herbal Medicine Practice.
The application was referred by the Code Enforcement Office for Site Plan review for SERVICE ESTABLISHMENT.
The applicant is renting the house.
The applicant will utilize the ground floor for the practice. The upstairs will be for storage and personal use.
There will be no exterior improvements.
The applicant agrees to close the driveway onto Route 209.
The applicant will place two new roadway signs on the parcel.
The Board would add the Brinnier and Larios 1/21/2011 letter submitted this evening stating the adequacy of the septic. And #12 would be revised to reflect adding the upstairs office and subletting an office.
Chairman Baden questioned if the applicant would be removing the old sign out on Route 209?
CONTINUED APPLICATION, SEQRA DETERMINATION, & PUBLIC HEARING
HILLARY THING, (Aaron Rice Owner) (CONT’D)- Site Plan Approval Service Establishment for Acupuncture & Herbal Medicine Practice, 4937 Route 209, Accord, Tax Map #77.1-2-11, ‘B’ District
Ms. Thing was not sure. She could just take the signage part off of the posts.
The Board reviewed the draft conditions.
The Town of Rochester Planning Board grants the Site Plan Approval for Service Establishment for Acupuncture and Herbal Medicine Practice situate at 4937 Route 209 and Town Maintained Road known as Denkensohn Road, Tax Map #77.1-2-11, and in a ‘B’ District of the Town of Rochester. Approval was adopted on February 15, 2011 with the following conditions, by the following vote:
CONDITIONS:
- Applicant shall comply with all Local, County, and State Codes.
- All existing conditions and improvements depicted on the Site Plan map dated XX-XX,2011; including, but not limited to, structures, parking, grading, landscaping, lighting, stormwater, water, sewer, and signage; shall be completed or a bond established as per §140-56 of the Town of Rochester Code prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy by the Code Enforcement Officer. There shall be no deviation from the approved Site Plan except as may be permitted pursuant to §140-52 of the Town of Rochester Code.
- The Site Plan shall remain effective, as an authorization to establish the use, for a maximum of one year from the date of approval unless the Planning Board shall have granted an extension in writing pursuant to §140-52 of the Town of Rochester Code.
- The use of Service Establishment shall be for the existing house ground floor area only. Any additional use of the property shall require Code Enforcement Office determination.
- Applicant shall secure Ulster County Health Dept. approval or a letter of certification from a licensed engineer for septic and water supply and submit a copy to the Planning Board prior to the Chairman’s signature on the Site Plan.
- Applicant shall permanently close the Route 209 driveway access prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
- There shall be no on-street parking. All parking shall be in designated spaces only. Applicant shall designate one parking spot as “Handicapped” and display identifying signage.
- Applicant shall consult the Town of Rochester Highway Superintendent prior to installation of the two roadway signs for exact placement to insure adequate and safe site distances.
- Any and all fees due to the Town of Rochester involving this application must be paid in full prior to the Chairman’s signature on the Site Plan.
The Board agreed that #4 would be modified to add the existing space to be used as mentioned at this meeting.
Mr. Tapper believed that #6 should be clarified. How should the Route 209 entrance be permanently closed? Is a chain good enough?
Chairman Baden noted that Dr. Elliot had blocked an access using 3 huge planters.
CONTINUED APPLICATION, SEQRA DETERMINATION, & PUBLIC HEARING
HILLARY THING, (Aaron Rice Owner) (CONT’D)- Site Plan Approval Service Establishment for Acupuncture & Herbal Medicine Practice, 4937 Route 209, Accord, Tax Map #77.1-2-11, ‘B’ District
Mr. Tapper noted that it would be up to the CEO.
Mr. O’Donnell noted that a chain would be good for fire emergency access.
Mr. O’Donnell noted that in condition #7, that everything should be taken out after the word, “handicapped”. There are laws that provide for the signage requirements.
Mr. Rominger motioned for Site Plan Approval based on the above conditions and modifications as discussed. Seconded by Mr. O’Donnell. No further discussion.
Vote:
Baden: Yes Smith- Absent
Tapper: Yes Ricks- Absent
Rominger: Yes Ullman- Absent
O’Donnell: Yes
Motion carried.
NEW APPLICATION PRESENTATION
JOHN DAWSON/ CROSS RIVER PROPERTIES– Lot Line Improvement, Rose Drive, Tax Map #s 76.5-2-13.1, 8.1, & 15, R-1 Zoning District
Mr. Dawson was present on behalf of his application. He explained that he is combining +/-1.5 acres owned by himself with +/-4.81 acres owned by Cross River Properties. He is also doing a lot line adjustment on the westerly end of the property as he resides on the bounding property to these two lots in question and wants to give himself more land for a buffer between himself and the properties that are being combined.
Chairman Baden noted that this falls under a Lot Line Improvement. He checked the language on the map versus the language in our code being: Section 125-18(C) “These plans are acknowledged by the Town of Rochester, and for recording purposes only, to represent an exempt lot improvement in accordance with Section 125-18 of the Town of Rochester Subdivision Regulations. No subdivision approval is required or given.”
Chairman Baden noted that this involves 3 lots in total– 2 are owned by one party, the other is owned by a separate party. The Board has a letter of authorization from the other party, Cross River Properties, authorizing Mr. Dawson to act on their behalf in regards to the application.
NEW APPLICATION PRESENTATION
JOHN DAWSON/ CROSS RIVER PROPERTIES (CONT’D)– Lot Line Improvement, Rose Drive, Tax Map #s 76.5-2-13.1, 8.1, & 15, R-1 Zoning District
Mr. Rominger motioned for a Type 2 Action under SEQRA. Seconded by Mr. O’Donnell. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden: Yes Smith- Absent
Tapper: Yes Ricks- Absent
Rominger: Yes Ullman- Absent
O’Donnell: Yes
Motion carried.
Mr. O’Donnell motioned to approve the lot line adjustment as shown on the map entitled, “Survey Map Showing Lot Line Improvement Between John Dawson and Cross River Properties, LLC” dated February 3, 2011 as prepared by Medenbach & Eggers. Seconded by Mr. Rominger. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden: Yes Smith- Absent
Tapper: Yes Ricks- Absent
Rominger: Yes Ullman- Absent
O’Donnell: Yes
Motion carried.
NEW APPLICATION
JAY FEINBERG c/o Alan Madnick- Site Plan Approval for Recording Studio, Route 209 Tax Map #77.1-1-24.131, ‘B’ District
**Chairman Baden apologized and noted that he was changing the order of the agenda a little bit by having the Jay Feinberg/ Alan Madnick application prior to the Streamside Estates Subdivision Review because the Board’s consultant, Tim Moot, from Clark Patterson Lee wasn’t scheduled until 8:00PM for the Streamside Estates Subdivision Application.
Jay Feinberg and Barry Medenbach, PE were present on behalf of the application.
Mr. Tapper questioned why this application is under different names? Sometimes it’s referred to as “Belliman Commercial”. Why was it called that if Madnick owns it?
Mr. Feinberg stated it was because that was the name of Mr. Madnick’s LLC.
Chairman Baden noted that everyone was probably very familiar with this property as it has been in front of the Board many times in the past couple of years.
NEW APPLICATION
JAY FEINBERG c/o Alan Madnick (CONT’D)- Site Plan Approval for Recording Studio, Route 209 Tax Map #77.1-1-24.131, ‘B’ District
Mr. Medenbach wanted to discuss what the applicant wanted to do. There were some suggestions by Jerry Davis, Code Enforcement Officer (CEO) who said, “hey if you want to get this through quickly- don’t expand the parking lot like you were going to do because this use doesn’t require the additional parking..” So, his office rushed this application to get it before the Board. What he really wanted to discuss tonight was what they really wanted to do here. They want to find a tenant and this has been going on and on and on. Right now they have someone who wants to lease it for one year. It’s the Vinci Farm people and it would fit under the definition of ‘recording studio’ in the Zoning Law. They want to move in pretty quick. He looked at the original permit and they felt that the CEO could look at this and say that it was the same use and they already have Site Plan Approval and he would just allow it, but he wouldn’t. He said that they needed to come before the Planning Board. So, Mr. Medenbach made a new application to allow the recording studio. He just submitted a map showing just the existing conditions. Not a map that the Planning Board approved. He just wanted to get on the agenda to get moving. Since then he discussed it with his clients and they don’t want to forfeit the approval that they had. They are quite willing to build a parking lot. They were going to build it last year, but they got some really high estimates and with the economics and that. They finally got someone on who is going to do it as soon as the weather breaks—he thinks it is Frank Kortright. They feel that they do need the parking. So, what they are really asking is if they can just amend the existing Site Plan Approval to allow this additional use. At the same time he looked at the code and what they have in Principal Permitted Uses in this Zone – the actual permit says—“Site Plan Approval to convert a warehouse and existing retail showroom area to retail and service establishment, non-auto, conversion for future business tenants to include parking and expansion and lighting.” So, Mr. Davis, CEO looked at it and said, ‘retail and service establishment- that’s it, that’s all you’re approved for’. In the same group of Principal Permitted Uses, you have recording studios—you also have offices, low impact retail and service establishment, gifts/antiques/craft shops—and he thought what they would ask the Board was to amend the existing permit to allow these other uses which none of them have any more impact than what they originally went through. That will give them some flexibility in renting this building out to different businesses.
Mr. Rominger’s only concern was if this was the same group that was already using it- temporarily? Because it was his impression that when they were using it they had cars parked all along Route 209 and all over the lawn.
Mr. Medenbach answered, yes, these were the same people and that was why they wanted to expand the parking lot.
Mr. Feinberg agreed that two times that happened.
Mr. Rominger noted that it wasn’t a matter of how many times, but if they are planning on using it more permanently than just a monthly rental you could assume that it would happen on a more frequent basis.
Mr. Feinberg noted that that would be addressed in the lease.
Mr. O’Donnell questioned what their intentions were—to become a recording studio?
Mr. Medenbach noted that in the definition he believes they call it a ‘sound studio’. They actually build sets in the building and store materials and then they do some filming in those temporary sets.
NEWAPPLICATION
JAY FEINBERG c/o Alan Madnick (CONT’D)- Site Plan Approval for Recording Studio, Route 209 Tax Map #77.1-1-24.131, ‘B’ District
Mr. O’Donnell noted that it seemed to be the problem with the parking when they were doing filming- there were 20-30 cars parked along the highway.
Mr. Rominger didn’t think there was any issues with noise or anything like that it was just the parking was the problem.
Mr. Medenbach noted that they had a couple of trucks taking up all the space in the parking lot so no one had any place to park other than the street. He didn’t think it was really thought out. They could have made an agreement to park in the Grange that was near by, but people just parked along the street. If they go into the one year lease, if they sign it—they are waiting for PB approval to do that—but they will put a condition in the lease that they have to get parking off the street.
Mr. Feinberg stated that they already know that that isn’t going to happen again.
Chairman Baden noted that the difference that he sees between a retail and service establishment and this type of business—it’s a business that he works in and he knows it very well—they are going to have more trucks park in the parking lot than you would have for a general retail and service establishment for a period of time. There are going to be trucks that sit there for a while—not delivering and leaving.
Mr. Tapper questioned if even with the new parking it would be enough to contain all of those cars that overflowed onto Route 209? They may not even have enough room in the approved parking.
Mr. Feinberg noted that it’s a similar thing of that to the occasion the Church has their BBQ—
Mr. Tapper stated that that wasn’t the point.
Mr. Feinberg continued that it wasn’t a situation where they were doing this on an every day basis. This is a situation that happened twice in 6 months.
Mr. Tapper stated that Mr. Feinberg’s rationale really wasn’t appropriate. Because it happened twice—
Mr. Medenbach tried to clarify the point that Mr. Feinberg was trying to make – the way the business works is that they are in there everyday building and doing things and then after about a month of preparations they’ll have one day of filming.
Mr. Tapper stated that what happened, happened, and they don’t have to rationale what happened. They have to move forward. Mr. Tapper has no problem with this moving forward. If they have the parking to do it, that’s fine.
Mr. Feinberg was trying to make one simple point—that it is not an every day event in that operation of the building. He just wanted to be clear.
NEW APPLICATION
JAY FEINBERG c/o Alan Madnick (CONT’D)- Site Plan Approval for Recording Studio, Route 209 Tax Map #77.1-1-24.131, ‘B’ District
Mr. Tapper couldn’t speak for other members, but he didn’t think anyone would have a problem with what they were doing. If they could make arrangements for the overflow parking to go somewhere else- that would be good.
Chairman Baden’s concern was that the parking that they were approved for was all for cars. It doesn’t have any allowance for any trucks.
Mr. Medenbach stated that they had the loading area up above.
Chairman Baden noted that that would take one truck.
Mr. Medenbach agreed that if the PB put a condition on the site plan that there be ‘no on street parking’. He didn’t think anyone had a problem with that.
Chairman Baden thought that was probably a condition of the existing approval.
Mr. Medenbach stated that there were no restrictions regarding Parking on Route 209 in the conditions. In response to a Member stating that it was illegal to park on Route 209, Mr. Medenbach noted that it may be, but they may not have all parked illegally.
Mr. O’Donnell stated irregardless of it being illegal, it was hazardous. If they know they are going to have these big events they should have some arranged alternative parking spots and the ability to bring them in on those particular days.
Mr. Rominger felt that they could simply address it by saying, ‘no on street parking’. Then they have to do it or the State Troopers will be there.
Chairman Baden viewed the approval from 2010. He agreed with Mr. Medenbach that it did not condition against parking on Route 209. That was an oversight. He noted that they were talking about signing a one year lease. He asked the Board what they felt about conditioning that it needs to be renewed so that if they see that it is an issue they’d have to come back for a renewal and the parking could get addressed there. He wasn’t sure if they could renew a site plan.
Mr. Tapper didn’t think that would be necessary. He felt that if they have occasions again where 30 cars are parked along side the road he felt that the State Police would have something to say about it—the Town’s CEO would probably say something about it… and they could close it down themselves.
Chairman Baden noted that the other thing is that this has been referred to the PB as a new application as a change of use, so he wasn’t sure if they could legally just amend the existing decision.
Mr. Tapper noted that they would have to appeal the CEO’s decision.
NEW APPLICATION
JAY FEINBERG c/o Alan Madnick (CONT’D)- Site Plan Approval for Recording Studio, Route 209 Tax Map #77.1-1-24.131, ‘B’ District
Mr. Medenbach noted that they have an application and they have this site plan. They will take the applications away that they just made and go back to the originally approved site plan and ask to amend that decision.
Chairman Baden thought they would still need to refer it to the County as its in the Ag District and on Route 209. It’s a new application, so the PB is bound to refer it.
Mr. Medenbach disagreed noting that it’s an amendment to this approval.
Chairman Baden was confused—so Mr. Medenbach was going to re-apply as an amendment to the existing approval to add additional uses under one permit?
That was why Mr. Medenbach was at this meeting. To discuss the best way to handle this. He felt that this was the simplest way- to just amend the permit that they have.
Chairman Baden noted that if that was how the CEO sends it to the PB… he’d also want to find out from the Town Attorney on that before they said yes or no. Right now that’s not how the CEO has referred it to the PB. Right now its referred as a change of use, a new application.
Mr. Medenbach stated that the reason he did that is because he thought it would be quicker.
Chairman Baden noted that there is another option—to extend the existing approval. They wouldn’t be forfeiting the existing approval if they asked the PB to extend it.
Mr. Medenbach noted that his question is whether or not the PB even has to do this because it is a use permitted by right that’s simply part of site plan approval and that’s what they have. All the specific uses they are asking for are on that list. To him this is borderline whether or not they really need to come here. He believed that the CEO had the ability to make that decision himself and he chose not to. He said quite clearly to Mr. Medenbach, “no, I want the PB to look at this”. Okay, so now they are in front of the PB and it brings it up another threshold and then to say that they have to go back to the CEO—who didn’t want to deal with it—the CEO wanted the PB to deal with it.
Mr. Tapper noted that the CEO dealt with it as a new application that needed to be referred to the PB based on what was submitted by the applicant.
Mr. Medenbach stated that the CEO did that because he thought that it would be quicker. The other thing the CEO said was that with the recording studio the parking wouldn’t need to be expanded- the parking that was there is adequate. The applicant disagrees with that and believes that they do need more parking and they are quite willing to expand that.
Mr. Tapper questioned if the applicant received a violation on that?
Mr. Medenbach stated, no.
NEW APPLICATION
JAY FEINBERG c/o Alan Madnick (CONT’D)- Site Plan Approval for Recording Studio, Route 209 Tax Map #77.1-1-24.131, ‘B’ District
The Secretary stated, yes- it went to Alan Madnick, the owner.
Mr. Medenbach and Mr. Feinberg didn’t see one.
The Secretary also noted that she has spoken to the CEO many times about this and the CEO was under the position that the parking with the recording studio was a problem and needed to be expanded. Maybe Mr. Medenbach misunderstood or the CEO misspoke, but Mr. Davis, CEO has made his opinion clear many times that it did need to be improved. That Mr. Medenbach said that surprised her.
Chairman Baden agreed and said that he spoke with the CEO yesterday and asked what he felt the issues were. The CEO stated that the parking was an issue.
Chairman Baden noted that the problem is that it has been applied for and referred as a change of use. The applicant has submitted a new map, the PB can go ahead and review what was submitted, which doesn’t show the change in parking. He felt that the Board was in agreement that they needed to improve the parking, so if they start with this new project they would need to change what they were proposing in terms of parking. Or the applicant could go back to the CEO and ask him for what they are actually asking for.
Mr. Medenbach noted that they wanted an amendment to the existing approval. He didn’t have a problem doing that.
Mr. O’Donnell questioned what the Code called for and if they met that. The example of the Church was used when they had a function—and the thing with that is that they have provided for parking across the street.
Chairman Baden noted that the parking was based on what the PB felt the use was. If it was and Industrial use the parking was 400 sf per space. If they felt it was a commercial use it was 175 sf per space. Its up to the PB to use the parking chart and determine what is required. There is another section in the Code where the applicant can give the PB a number and state their reasons why they think that number is sufficient. One of the things that was done in this new code to be more flexible because one size doesn’t fit all.
Mr. Feinberg noted that in the same token they tried to come in with a proposal for the most likely type of tenant when they went through the process last year. And they said, okay- it’ll probably be retail and some warehousing. They had absolutely no idea that it would ever be used for recording. So its kind of like unless you know in advance who your tenants are going to be it is kind of hard to pin down exactly what they are asking for. A year from now he could be coming back looking for an industrial use because it is possible that someone who’d want to do light manufacturing may want to take the building over a year from now when the lease is up. This is kind of a moving target and they don’t have something to aim at. It’s not like Mr. Madnick is trying to get away with something, they just had no idea that these people were going to ask. They originally said that they were going to be there for 3 months. They were in and out and it was nothing . Now all of a sudden they want it for another 3 months and now a year.
NEW APPLICATION
JAY FEINBERG c/o Alan Madnick (CONT’D)- Site Plan Approval for Recording Studio, Route 209 Tax Map #77.1-1-24.131, ‘B’ District
Chairman Baden can only speak for himself, but he didn’t feel like they were trying to get away with anything, but he felt that they do have to address the parking situation and make sure that what they are considering is going to be adequate.
Mr. Feinberg agreed and noted that the tenants were totally out of place having cars all over Route 209. That was totally unforeseen on the part of the landlord and himself. He heard about it. His phone was ringing off of the wall. That will never happen again. He’ll make sure it’s in the lease.
Chairman Baden noted that they would need a new drawing asking what they are actually wanting.
Mr. Medenbach noted that they don’t want to change the site plan at all- they are only asking to add ‘recording studio’ and maybe some other similar permitted uses to the decision. They don’t want to change the site plan. He will resubmit the approved site plan. There are a group of uses that all have the same kind of impact. He will resubmit to the CEO and ask that the conditions of the original approval be amended to allow the other uses he mentioned. He was aware that it started the process all over again. They didn’t have a choice.
Chairman Baden noted that he couldn’t answer this, but he’d have to confer with the Attorney for the Town if they had to refer an amendment to the County PB. As far as if they need to re-refer to DOT, he didn’t think they’d have to, but he needed to double check. In terms of giving the most options for use, what they are now proposing seems like the better way to go. What he would do is include in the application all of the permitted uses that he would want considered and say that this site plan fits these permitted uses.
Mr. Tapper noted that the parking should reflect the most intensive use.
Mr. Medenbach noted that he was going to submit exactly what was approved. They have the area to accommodate the trucks.
Mr. Feinberg didn’t think that they used trucks on the days that they actually filmed at the building.
Mr. O’Donnell noted that they do—those trucks are like mobile dressing rooms—they do have them onsite. There were also catering trucks in front of the building.
Chairman Baden noted that they also bring in all of the lighting equipment in trucks to essentially have a mobile warehouse so they can get the things when they need them. There are probably- depending on the size of the number of people involved in the shooting—there are potentially 10 or 12 trucks. There is an impact there on a day like that where it wouldn’t seem like they would have any available parking for cars.
Mr. Tapper questioned if the approved site plan and improved parking plan was going to make enough area to take care of that?
NEW APPLICATION
JAY FEINBERG c/o Alan Madnick (CONT’D)- Site Plan Approval for Recording Studio, Route 209 Tax Map #77.1-1-24.131, ‘B’ District
Chairman Baden felt that it would. They could also make a condition that on days when the studio is used for shooting—and it would help if they made an alternative arrangement to park overflow vehicles somewhere else. It would be good to come in with a plan.
Mr. O’Donnell noted that they also needed to make sure that if anything happened that the Fire Dept. and emergency vehicles were able to get in to protect the structure should something happen. If they jam that thing packed full- they will have a problem.
Chairman Baden agreed noting that they would need to maintain the aisles—just for that purpose. The applicant knows that they have to go back to the CEO and they would go from there.
Mr. Feinberg asked why the CEO sent him to this meeting then? If he has to go back and start over?
Chairman Baden noted that the applicant was referred to the PB from the CEO because the applicant applied for a change of use from what they were approved for to that of a recording studio. It was a new application and the procedure to do so. The CEO looks at what is presented and acts on it. That’s what the applicant presented. The PB can only review what was presented and referred by the CEO. Essentially we are having a Pre-Application
Conference because we are discussing a different application.
Mr. Feinberg wanted to re-cap. At the moment they have no right to use it as a recording studio and cannot use it without permits?
Chairman Baden noted that that was up to the CEO.
Mr. Feinberg noted that that was fine. They don’t need to use it for that purpose for a couple of months but they do want to start building sets soon. In another 30-45 days they want to start that and he wants to be able to let them use the building.
Chairman Baden stated that was up to the CEO. The PB isn’t the enforcing body, they are the reviewing body.
CONTINUED APPLICATION
STREAMSIDE ESTATES- Major Subdivision for 7 lots, Cherrytown Road, Tax Map #67-2-
43.14, AR-3 District
Chairman Baden stated that where they have left off is that they have submitted and circulated intent to be Lead Agency. The Board has not heard back from UCHD or DEC. We did hear back from the OPRHP regarding the archeological study that had previously been done on the property and that it was adequate. The Board also received advisory comments from the Town’s Historic Preservation Commission (HPC), The Town’s Environmental Conservation Commission (ECC) and Town Highway. The HPC brings up the fact that when this property was in front of the PB for a different application in 2003 that there were arrow heads found on the property, and the possibility of burial grounds. They had no concern however because this was looked into previously and a study done and neither were a concern by the State. The ECC noted that they felt a hydrologist should be consulted regarding this plan. Since that time of that comment, the Town’s consultant from Clark
CONTINUED APPLICATION
STREAMSIDE ESTATES (CONT’D)- Major Subdivision for 7 lots, Cherrytown Road, Tax Map #67-2-
43.14, AR-3 District
Patterson Lee (CPL), Mr. Moot, has assured the PB that they do have hydrologists on staff that are looking at this.
Mr. Medenbach questioned if the ECC said why a hydrologist should be consulted?
Chairman Baden noted that they said that potential downstream effects are too great for anything other than expert analysis.
Mr. Medenbach noted that when they proposed the Streamside Mobile Home Park back in 2003 they submitted a detailed Flood Plain Analysis and it was submitted to the PB’s engineer at that time and it was reviewed and accepted. That record should be available. They shouldn’t have to pay for another engineer to review that study. Its not a flood hazard area on the FEMA Maps. Its just a large stream that can potentially have floods. Its not in a designated flood hazard area, so it was not identified as FEMA as being an area of special flood hazard.
Mr. Moot noted that they didn’t dwell on the flood plain, but weren’t there steep slopes and wetland areas downstream?
Mr. Medenbach noted that they haven’t seen a copy of the ECC’s comments.
The Secretary noted that this application hasn’t had a meeting since the Board received it and she wasn’t instructed to release their comments.
Chairman Baden gave Mr. Medenbach a copy.
Chairman Baden noted that they have UCPB comments dated 10/6/2010. This application has not been in front of the Board since then to discuss it. The UCPB has issued required modifications.
The Secretary noted that they went over that already with the applicant. That is what triggered the applicant’s submittal of the alternate sketch plan showing a conservation subdivision layout.
Chairman Baden recalled that. Mr. Medenbach submitted the alternate layout and Mr. Moot has gone over that.
Mr. Medenbach explained that at that October meeting they discussed the conservation development. He had explained verbally that they already condensed the building sites and developable areas as close as they could and clustering really isn’t going to be able to bring them any closer together because they have to meet all of the different sanitary setbacks with the wells and septics and they are kind of in as tight as they can already be. When doing the analysis it might give them another lot because they get the density bonus, so they don’t want the other lot and don’t want to do the conservation development for the simple reason that they don’t want to put all of the open area in a common open space. They’d rather have it put on each lot and have a conservation easement put on it. So, basically they protect that space and it makes the lots a lot more valuable so that if they own the house and own the land all the way down to the stream, and it’s not available for the neighborhood to
CONTINUED APPLICATION
STREAMSIDE ESTATES (CONT’D)- Major Subdivision for 7 lots, Cherrytown Road, Tax Map #67-2-
43.14, AR-3 District
wander around through their property, so they want to leave them in larger parcels. He didn’t see any real great benefit in protecting the environment by going with a cluster development and they hope that the PB agrees with that. They simply did this analysis to satisfy that requirement of the UCPB that they looked at it.
Chairman Baden noted that they did submit this to Mr. Moot for his review and he submitted comments dated 2/14/2011.
Mr. Tapper questioned if the contour of the land is such that Mr. Medenbach commented that he has to keep the setbacks between the septics and the wells and all of that. Is it because of the contour of the land that he can’t bring the lots closer together? Mr. Tapper wasn’t arguing, he was curious why.
Mr. Medenbach noted that, yes, because there are a lot of steep slopes and you can’t build septics on those and there is also the stream corridor. They put a setback from the stream so they didn’t have any construction and you can’t put a septic within 100’ of it either. They put a setback and said they wouldn’t build any houses within that 100’ buffer of the stream even though there is no legal requirement for a buffer. Its kind of self imposed, but they feel that it protects the corridor of that stream. And so you have road access and when you take the space between road access and those restricted areas, you only have so much land. Now when you put the house sites on there and the well and septics—and every septic has to be 100’ from every well- there isn’t a whole lot of room to move things around. You can’t just squeeze them closer together because of the sanitary setbacks. They are occupying as much of the space as they can. They would have to have common open space with a home owner’s association (HOA) with the conservation subdivision option. They want to avoid that because when you create an HOA with common ownership other than a road, it’s a big deal to file it with the Attorney General’s Office. It’s a very complicated expensive document and process. They will be creating an HOA for the road—but its different. There is a different provision in NY State for just roads. Once you include other common space- its treated like a corporation that you are buying stock in. It’s a big deal. He’s been through it and it takes a long time and a lot of legal fees.
Chairman Baden noted that they did also get a comment letter from the Accord Fire Dept. dated 2/9/2011. They basically made 4 comments. They want to make sure that the road is wide enough for fire apparatus to enter and exit. Also a paved access road to the pond with a dry hydrant and the cul-de-sac on lot 5 & 6 should be extended to lot 7. Mr. Moot has reviewed the revised plans as well as the alternate sketch.
Mr. Moot noted that in light of fairness, regarding the cluster development, the concept plan presented, they have steep slopes, they have flood plains and in CPL’s opinion it doesn’t really qualify as useable land which should be allocated as this conservation easement—its kind of protected in its own right of non useable land. When you read through the Codes, they are a little ambiguous on Cluster Development, but typically it’s a centralized water and/ or sewer system so that you can bring the buildings in closer and you aren’t relying on the areas required for individual septics, so through that concept you’d be looking at it in a different light. As Mr. Medenbach mentioned, once you get into public systems like that it can overly complicate the situation. So, that’s something to consider when considering this cluster plan—is it really a valid attempt and does the Board require a more valid attempt in reconfiguring putting forth a different theory and approach to providing public services.
CONTINUED APPLICATION
STREAMSIDE ESTATES (CONT’D)- Major Subdivision for 7 lots, Cherrytown Road, Tax Map #67-2-
43.14, AR-3 District
Chairman Baden’s own feeling was considering the lay of the land, you can’t have a community water and sewer. He thought you’d always end up with individual lot sewers and septics. He thought essentially what Mr. Medenbach has said in terms of the area required that this is probably the only other alternative way to do it.
Mr. Moot questioned what the plan was with the trailer park area? Was that just going to be trailers or were the trailers going to be gone?
Mr. Medenbach noted that that was a separate parcel.
Mr. Moot noted that part of the plan of this was the water supply well?
Mr. Medenbach noted that the applicant has to move the well—abandon it. It’s a shallow well that is probably getting the water from the stream. Its considered influenced by surface water and they have to put a special treatment on it and the UCHD would rather see a drilled well within to a confined aquifer and just develop a better public water supply—better protection from contamination. That well’s kind of targeted to be replaced anyway.
Mr. Moot noted that as far as the Accord Fire Dept. was concerned he wanted to be clear. Initially there was 24’ wide sections vs. 18’ wide. Mr. Medenbach re-iterated that they have narrowed everything to the 18’ width and he just wanted to make sure that whatever the Fire Dept. based their comment letter on that they were aware of that.
Mr. O’Donnell noted that they talked about this before where there is a certain point where every 1,000’ you have to create a pull off where you can have one truck pass another.
Mr. Medenbach noted that that is in regards to one lane roads.
Mr. O’Donnell noted that these trucks are very large- the reality is that they are as big as a tractor trailer. If you can’t pass two tractor trailers on that road you can’t pass two fire trucks.
Mr. Medenbach stated that you could—18’ wide you can pass two tractor trailers because they are legal lanes. This is a legal two land road. Many of the Town roads are only 18’ wide.
The reason why Mr. O’Donnell noted that this is in the State Code is because those roads were built 20-30 years ago and fire trucks today are built to complete different standards. Anything that is in front of the Board today should be taken into today’s consideration and in the future, not 30 years ago.
Mr. Medenbach noted that the Town has standards for roads and they do meet those standards. This road is 18’ wide and meets standards for two lane traffic.
Mr. O’Donnell stated that if Mr. Medenbach went to the NY State Code, he would find under Road Access that there is a part in there that addresses the pull off to the side.
CONTINUED APPLICATION
STREAMSIDE ESTATES (CONT’D)- Major Subdivision for 7 lots, Cherrytown Road, Tax Map #67-2-
43.14, AR-3 District
Mr. Medenbach requested that Mr. O’Donnell get that information to him. Every time they have to put a pull off because they have a single land driveway—this is wide enough for two vehicles to pass.
Mr. O’Donnell would go through his books at home and get the information to the Secretary.
Mr. Medenbach noted that he knew that the NYS Town Law says 18’ wide road is a legal two land highway.
He didn’t think that a pull off was needed.
Mr. O’Donnell noted that all they do with a pull off is basically make the road wide enough for one truck to pull to the side and another to pass it and then go back on the road… it may only have to be 150’ long and 30’ wide.
Mr. Medenbach noted that he has done that recently in the Town of Wawarsing where they had a 3 lot subdivision and there was an existing single lane 8’ wide driveway and they provided pull offs at the request of the Fire Dept. so that vehicles could pass every 500’. That was a single lane. In this case they have two lanes.
Mr. Tapper questioned how many feet this road was- more than 1,000’?
Mr. Medenbach didn’t know exactly- but more than 1,000’.
Chairman Baden questioned if it was a possibility given the fact that the trailer park is owned by this same owner to have these other lots- 5, 6, & 7 be accessed through the trailer park?
Mr. Medenbach noted that they would prefer not to do that. They have provided a connection so emergency vehicles could go right through—its not a dead end. They do not want to access those lots through the mobile home park—they wanted to access them through the new private road.
Chairman Baden questioned how they would make that connection for emergency vehicles? Would that be closed off some how?
Mr. Medenbach noted that they would put a break away chain on. Regarding the requested hydrant—he hasn’t spoken with his client about it yet, but he didn’t see that there would be any problem. They would put a dry hydrant from the pond down to the emergency connection road so they can use that for water.
Mr. Baum, Applicant, requested that his other land be referred to as a ‘mobile home park’ and not a ‘trailer park’.
Chairman Baden apologized.
Mr. Medenbach noted that the Fire Dept. also requested that they extend the road, he didn’t see any real benefit to that. That just adds more cost, more impervious cover. The PB has provision in their Code for that.
CONTINUED APPLICATION
STREAMSIDE ESTATES (CONT’D)- Major Subdivision for 7 lots, Cherrytown Road, Tax Map #67-2-
43.14, AR-3 District
Mr. Medenbach noted that what he needs from the Fire Dept. is for them to give him an actual width that they are looking for. The Town has a Code already for private roads. On this private road they could have up to 20 lots. It is a two lane road. He believed it was defined as a Minor Road.
Mr. Tapper questioned how difficult it would be to make the road wider.
Mr. Medenbach didn’t think it would be very difficult, but then someone would need to maintain it. Two fire trucks can pass each other on this road, easily.
Mr. Moot noted that this could be true—physically—but when you take in all of the considerations of hose and all the rest of that stuff—
Mr. Medenbach noted that they are just talking about vehicles getting in and out.
Mr. O’Donnell noted that it wasn’t cut and dry- you can’t just open a book and say – this is what’s going to happen—for one you have to maintain access to that dry well. That dry well may not serve the purpose, so they may have to shuttle water in from another spot so they may try and push it on that road. Every scenario is different.
Mr. Medenbach realized that, but in all fairness to anyone doing anything in the Town there needs to be a standard for people to follow. The Town has that standard—its 18’. Now if the Fire Dept. says, you know something, we don’t like that standard—well, then they need to put that number out there.
Mr. O’Donnell felt that they did that because every situation is different—what fits one may be overkill on the other and vice versa. If you take these trucks off the road, they will tip over.
Chairman Baden noted that the slope needs to be taken into consideration as well.
Mr. Medenbach wanted to resolve a couple of things at this meeting. For this Board to determine Lead Agency, determine that the cluster wasn’t necessary—when the Board wanted to have a Public Hearing, if they were even ready for one or did they want to make a Determination of Significance? If that’s the case maybe at the next meeting they could do the environmental review. He just wanted to keep the application moving forward. He questioned if someone new reviewed these plans at CPL?
Mr. Moot was going to say that some of the comments were duplicated because the Stormwater guy at CPL looked at the plans for the first time and reviewed the SWPPP.
Mr. Medenbach noted that someone from Mr. Moot’s office looked at this in August.
Mr. Moot stated that they never really went and did a technical review of the SWPPP, they did a cursory review for content. Now they started going through it and found problems.
CONTINUED APPLICATION
STREAMSIDE ESTATES (CONT’D)- Major Subdivision for 7 lots, Cherrytown Road, Tax Map #67-2-
43.14, AR-3 District
Mr. Medenbach noted that a lot of these things are things that just need to be explained.
Mr. Moot noted that the SWPPP did have two post development water shed maps instead of a pre and a post in the report—that’s simple…
Mr. Medenbach would take a look at all of that.
Chairman Baden wanted the Board to address the Conservation Subdivision option vs. the Subdivision that is being presented.
Mr. Tapper had one question—in Mr. Moot’s opinion, being that the land that is being set aside is unusable land anyway and it really isn’t for recreation, which is the plan for conservation subdivision and the fact that each lot has its own well and own septic system, so therefore they have to be spaced a little differently than if it were community well and sewer, so it does not lend itself to a conservation subdivision and that the original is the best way to go.
Mr. Moot would say so and he thought that was kind of what the applicant was pointing out. Although, he did want to point out because it was on a previous letter—lot #3 shows that septic field up hill and less than 200’ from the well, so he didn’t think that would work.
Mr. Medenbach noted that a lot of people say that if you are up hill you have to be 200’ away. That’s not what the Code says. The Code says that you have to be 200’ away if the run off from that septic system is in direct path to the well, so they would install the well so it would be a little high so that the run off from the septic wouldn’t reach the well head. That’s an issue that he goes through all the time with the Health Dept.
Mr. Moot noted that as long as the counter measures were acceptable because if not, they would be losing that lot.
Mr. Medenbach noted that they would just move things around to make it work. Generally they try to put the house between the well and the septic if the septic is up hill and it shields it.
Chairman Baden noted that a condition of approval would be Health Dept. approval anyway. That review is pretty much out of their hands anyway.
Mr. Moot just wanted to point it out because this subdivision is being applied for with X amount of lots and if they lose one it could set them back in the PB review process.
Chairman Baden questioned if anyone on the Board wanted to make a motion that they go with the conventional subdivision that was submitted as opposed to the conservation subdivision option?
CONTINUED APPLICATION
STREAMSIDE ESTATES (CONT’D)- Major Subdivision for 7 lots, Cherrytown Road, Tax Map #67-2-
43.14, AR-3 District
Mr. Tapper motioned to go with the conventional subdivision that was submitted as opposed to the conservation subdivision option. Seconded by Mr. O’Donnell. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden: Yes Smith- Absent
Tapper: Yes Ricks- Absent
Rominger: Yes Ullman- Absent
O’Donnell: Yes
Motion carried.
Chairman Baden noted that they would have to address this again because it was a required modification from the UCPB when and if they give final approval. He’d go back and read the referral to make sure they do it correctly.
Mr. Moot noted that related to the Stormwater, was the slope of the road and what they were using for material. It was kind of like a finer gravel—loose stone.
Mr. Medenbach noted that it wasn’t loose stone, it was Item 4. Item 4 is packed.
Mr. Moot knew what Item 4 was and their position was being concerned with the road washing out because of the slope.
Mr. Medenbach knew that there were roads in the Town that were built like that and fine. It was really a maintenance issue too.
Mr. Moot agreed that it was a maintenance issue, but its also related to Stormwater and erosion and what not and that is going to impact that.
Mr. Medenbach noted that they are complying with the Town’s standards and there are other roads in this Town and region as steep and in some cases steeper that don’t have paved surfaces.
Mr. Moot wasn’t saying that it needed to be paved—they were just pointing it out.
Mr. Medenbach noted that once its compacted it stays put pretty good. Any surface requires maintenance. Its his experience that pot holes are more prevalent where run off doesn’t run off the road so quick in flat areas.
Mr. Moot agreed but stated that they were in extreme conditions—cutting into steep slopes…
Mr. Medenbach stated that a lot of these roads are already graded- this road was actually roughed in by the previous owner about 15 years ago and they are following that grade. You can actually walk in here and see—the basics are there already.
CONTINUED APPLICATION
STREAMSIDE ESTATES (CONT’D)- Major Subdivision for 7 lots, Cherrytown Road, Tax Map #67-2-
43.14, AR-3 District
Chairman Baden felt that considering the emergency access issues they have to be fairly certain that in a storm they are going to have major run off and then the road isn’t accessible because—
Mr. Medenbach noted that they are designing a system—they are designing piping, meeting all of the State standards. The Town has roads around here that were built without any design standards, with inadequate pipes.
Chairman Baden didn’t disagree but noted that the Board wasn’t reviewing those roads, they were reviewing this.
Mr. Medenbach’s point was that they are going to size piping and ditching so that the road doesn’t flood—this is an engineered designed road so that there should never be an issue with water running down the road eroding it. They are designing this for up to a 100 year storm.
Chairman Baden noted that the road is clearly the biggest issue right now.
Mr. Rominger questioned if the Chairman could contact the Fire Dept. and get more specifics on this?
Chairman Baden stated that he would do that.
Mr. O’Donnell noted that another thing to look into is possibly using the lot #2 driveway as a pull off.
Chairman Baden noted that there is a new Fire Chief and there is a learning curve. He will write a follow up letter to the Accord Fire Dept. asking them to get the PB more specifics. Was the access through the manufactured housing part going to be two lanes as well?
Mr. Medenbach answered that it would remain one lane.
Mr. O’Donnell noted that that is a concern in regards to the dry hydrant and its maintenance and accessibility.
Chairman Baden questioned if they showed the school bus shelter on the plans as asked by the UCPB?
Mr. Medenbach noted that there is one with a wide pull off. They will identify it on the plans. He will also show another one near the new road.
Chairman Baden will contact the Fire Dept. to get definitive measurements.
Mr. Medenbach questioned what the next step was.
Chairman Baden felt that they should get a width of the road from the Fire Dept. before they schedule it for Public Hearing because it needs to be referred to the UCPB.
Mr. Medenbach pointed out that it was already referred to the UCPB.
CONTINUED APPLICATION
STREAMSIDE ESTATES (CONT’D)- Major Subdivision for 7 lots, Cherrytown Road, Tax Map #67-2-
43.14, AR-3 District
Chairman Baden thought that the Board should probably re-refer it to the UCPB… although they haven’t made any significant changes.
Chairman Baden noted that they referred SEQRA Lead Agency to the UCHD and DEC, neither replied.
A no response to the PB is that they are not interested in Lead Agency.
Mr. Tapper motioned for the Town of Rochester Planning Board to be Lead Agency. Seconded by Mr. Rominger. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden: Yes Smith- Absent
Tapper: Yes Ricks- Absent
Rominger: Yes Ullman- Absent
O’Donnell: Yes
Motion carried.
Mr. Tapper questioned if they could schedule the Public Hearing for March pending a response from the Fire Dept. since it doesn’t need to be referred to the UCPB again?
Chairman Baden noted that they could and if there were any questions they could hold it open.
Mr. Rominger motioned for a Public Hearing at the March 15, 2011 meeting. Seconded by Mr. O’Donnell. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden: Yes Smith- Absent
Tapper: Yes Ricks- Absent
Rominger: Yes Ullman- Absent
O’Donnell: Yes
Motion carried.
OTHER MATTERS
NEW STORMWATER REGULATIONS
Chairman Baden noted that he came across Stormwater Regulations that as of March 1, 2011 are changing. He had the Secretary email Mr. Moot to see what that means for the Board.
Mr. Moot noted that basically what he understood is that a lot of it has to do with the MS4 Regulations- which the Town isn’t. There is an alternate certification that is signed off by the municipality who now reviews the SWPPP and finds it to be in conformance with regulations. CPL has other Town’s that are not MS4, but they have written it into their codes that it is the design engineers responsibility to provide a similar certification basically certifying to the Town that it will comply.
NEW STORMWATER REGULATIONS (CONT’D)
Chairman Baden noted that he was going to the Association of Town’s meeting over the weekend and would look into it further.
APPROVAL FOR CHAIRMAN TO “PRE-REVIEW” APPLICATIONS FOR MISSING INFORMATION
A lot of applications that show up have a lot of information missing. What Chairman Baden would like from the Board in the form of a motion is to give him the ability to pre-review applications. He wouldn’t be looking for content—or if its an issue if the road needs to be 18’ or 24’—he wouldn’t be making those kinds of decisions—but if he sees that someone needs UCHD approval, they could start on it earlier. The goal is to try and help people and to keep the process moving and not hold up people over minor details. He would document in writing what he tells applicants and supply a copy to the Board.
Mr. Rominger didn’t have a problem with it, but since they only had a quorum they should probably wait until next month. He agrees that there is a lot of missing information.
Chairman Baden noted that unfortunately it falls a lot on the Secretary, and its not her job and she takes the abuse when the applicants challenge her asking why they need certain things. Maybe if it was coming from the Chairman or a member of the Board they would listen. He agreed to table it until they got more of the Board there.
SITE PLAN/SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION PACKET REVISION AND
LOT IMPROVEMENT/ NATURAL SUBDIVISION APPLICATIN REVISION
Chairman Baden noted that they had approved subdivision applications back in October. What he’d like to get done at this meeting is to approve the new Lot Line Improvement Applications and Site Plan and Special use Permit Applications.
They had their first use of the Lot Line Adjustment Application and it became really obvious that a Lot Line Improvement and subdivision are very different and have different questions.
The Secretary got a copy of Marbletown’s Lot Line Adjustment Application and Chairman Baden used it as a guide and modified it to fit the Town’s needs.
Chairman Baden noted that the Special Use Permit/ Site Plan Application is much like the subdivision application. The Checklist is straight out of the Code and is telling the applicant the process and what they will need. The current form doesn’t work with the new Code at all.
Mr. Rominger motioned to accept the revised Lot Line Adjustment Application and the Special Use Permit and Site Plan Approval Applications. Seconded by Chairman Baden.
Vote:
Baden: Yes Smith- Absent
Tapper: Yes Ricks- Absent
Rominger: Yes Ullman- Absent
O’Donnell: Yes
Motion carried.
BOARD NOTES
Chairman Baden noted that Mr. O’Donnell had been re-appointed to the Board and Councilwoman Lynn Archer was appointed as the new Liaison to the Planning Board at the February 3, 2011 Town Board Meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Tapper motioned to adjourn, seconded by Mr. O’Donnell. No discussion. All members present in favor.
As there was no further business, at 9:12 PM, Chairman Baden adjourned the meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
Rebecca Paddock Stange, Secretary
(accepted by TORPB on 3/15/2011)