Planning Board Minutes July 2011

MINUTES OF July 12, 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.

Chairman Baden asked the Secretary for roll call attendance.

PRESENT: ABSENT:

Michael Baden, Chairman Leon Smith

Fred O’Donnell Shane Ricks, Vice Chairman

Robert Rominger Melvyn I. Tapper

Anthony Ullman

Also present:

Mary Lou Christiana, Town Attorney and Adam S. Paddock, Planning Board Alternate (seated in the audience).

Chairman Baden noted that he would be seating the Board’s Alternate, Mr. Paddock, at the table as a member to establish a quorum.

ANNOUNCEMENTS

Chairman Baden noted that in everyone’s packets there is a letter from the Ulster County Planning Dept. called ‘Visitability’. It was produced by the Center for Inclusive Design and Environmental Access and it deals a lot with accessibility of structures and it was given to the County PB members. Chairman Baden looked through it and there is actually a lot of pretty useful information in terms of how to review projects and how to think about access for elderly and handicapped and things like that.

ACTION ON MINUTES

Mr. Rominger motioned to approve the June 14, 2011 Minutes as corrected. Seconded by Mr. O’Donnell. No Discussion.

Vote:

Baden: Yes Tapper: Absent

O’Donnell: Yes Rominger: Yes

Ullman: Absent Ricks: Absent

Smith: Absent Paddock: Yes*

(*alternate seated to establish quorum)

Motion carried. 4 ayes, 0 nays, 4 absent

CONTINUED APPLICATION REVIEW, SEQR REVIEW, AND 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 Code for expansion of a non-conforming use membership club to include expansion of parking area, additions to main house and office, expansion of pond and landscaping, new construction of a gym/fitness barn, outdoor meditation pavilion, and sauna building, additions of septic systems and well, and removal of garage structure. Kyserike Road, Tax Map #69.4-2-2, ‘AR-3’ Zoning District

Ms. Harari and Mr. Medenbach, PE were present on behalf of the application along with Ms. Harari’s Attorney, John Cappello.

Chairman Baden noted that this application was determined a Type 1 Action under SEQRA and the TORPB is Lead Agency with Involved Agencies being the NYS DEC, UCHD, OPRHP, and UC DPW. Since that time it was brought to the Chairman’s attention that the applicant is applying to Ulster County Development Corporation (UCDC) for funding.

Ms. Harari noted that several months ago she started the process.

Chairman Baden continued to note that because the UCDC is a Governmental Agency, the TORPB has to include them as an Involved Agency, so they will need to make a motion tonight to circulate to them intent to seek Lead Agency, because they have to have that option if they so desire.

Mr. O’Donnell motioned to send a notice of intent to seek Lead Agency to the UCDC. Seconded by Mr. Rominger. No Discussion.

Vote:

Baden: Yes Tapper: Absent

O’Donnell: Yes Rominger: Yes

Ullman: Absent Ricks: Absent

Smith: Absent Paddock: Yes*

(*alternate seated to establish quorum)

Motion carried. 4 ayes, 0 nays, 4 absent

Chairman Baden noted that the Board has heard back from other Involved Agencies. After the last meeting the Board circulated the revised EAF and revised maps that were presented to the Board. There are copies in the member’s folders of the correspondence. In a letter dated July 11, 2011 Joseph R. Murray of the DEC responded that they have met with the applicant and the applicant’s consultant in regards to the pond expansion and wetland. The letter further notes that the applicant has successfully demonstrated that the project will in fact meet the weighing standards and by extension issuance standards. The letter continues that the Department will ensure that the project as currently proposed will minimize impacts to the wetland to the greatest extent practicable through conditions within the final permit. The DEC would not be able to move further with their permit process until the TORPB has issued a Negative Declaration.

Chairman Baden noted that the UCHD had left a phone message at the Planning Board Office on July 5, 2011 and they said that they have no comments. He had asked for the Secretary to make a note of this in the file and the PB members received this note in their folders as well.

CONTINUED APPLICATION REVIEW, SEQR REVIEW, AND PUBLIC HEARING

REAL ESCAPES PROPERTY, LLC, C/O SIMONE HARARI (cont’d)- Body of Truth Spa, Special Use Permit as per 140-42 of the Town of Rochester Code for expansion of a non-conforming use membership club to include expansion of parking area, additions to main house and office, expansion of pond and landscaping, new construction of a gym/fitness barn, outdoor meditation pavilion, and sauna building, additions of septic systems and well, and removal of garage structure. Kyserike Road, Tax Map #69.4-2-2, ‘AR-3’ Zoning District

Chairman Baden noted that the UCDPW corresponded with the TORPB in letter dated June 28, 2011. They had three comments which were:

The actual permit has already been issued for the new driveway as it was revised on September 17, 2010 and includes the restriction of the existing westerly drive to be a gated emergency access. As requested previously by the owner and stated in said permit, a gate shall be installed at the right of way line. If it is the intention to close the access it shall be removed and no gate will be required.
It was not clear as to where the construction access would be.
Trees, hanging branches, and brush need to be cut back and maintained to increase safety sight visibility when the new access is constructed.

Chairman Baden noted that #2 would need to be addressed.

In letter dated July 12, 2011, the OPRHP noted that they had no new comments and they reiterated their existing comments, which were it remains their opinion that the proposed additions to the Sahler House will have a substantial negative impact upon this historic resource although it is evident that the designer tried to incorporate the additions into the house in a sympathetic manner 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. We recommend either smaller additions or new buildings removed from the historic house. The other proposed new structures appear to be appropriate and in keeping with the existing scale, building materials and site accommodations.

Chairman Baden continued that the TORPB also resubmitted a referral to the UCPB and they came back with a “No County Impact” statement.

The revised EAF and plans were also referred to the Town’s Planner, Clark Patterson Lee. The Board received an email from Greg Bolner, PE, Principal Associate stating:

“It looks as if they made several minor changes to the site plan. Moved the well slightly to the West;

changed the configuration of the pond west of the proposed gym; put in catch basin and stormwater piping to manage the existing ditch along the west side of the property; moved the sauna (phase 2) out of the wetland buffer; changed the configuration of the expanded pond; and added a dock and stone patio in the buffer area.

None of these seem too significant.~ The biggest issue would be DEC approval of the expansion of the pond within the wetlands.”

At this point the Board reviewed Part 1 of the EAF; since the EAF had been amended several times over the course of the application review, Chairman Baden wanted to make sure that nothing slipped through the cracks. He looked it over and it appears that there may be a couple of places that the language didn’t get amended properly. He wanted to double check with the applicant.

The first place Chairman Baden saw was on Page 2, #8- “The proposal will utilize the existing entrance on County Route 6, Kyserike Road.” The applicant was building a new entrance, correct?

CONTINUED APPLICATION REVIEW, SEQR REVIEW, AND PUBLIC HEARING

Mr. Medenbach noted that was correct and should be amended.

Chairman Baden conferred with the Town Attorney that he could make the changes to the EAF based on this discussion and have the applicant initial where the revisions have been made. The Town Attorney agreed that would be fine.

Mr. Medenbach stated that he would rather make note of any changes that would need to be made and get the PB a clean copy in the following days after the meeting.

Chairman Baden noted that would be fine, just for the applicant to be sure that he get it to the Secretary in a timely manner so she could circulate it to the UCDC.

The next item that Chairman Baden questioned on the EAF was on Page 6, #7. This indicates that this would still be a two phased project.

Mr. Medenbach noted that they were looking to obtain all of the approvals now, but for construction it would probably be phased. As far as the environmental review, they had to do the whole project, so the environmental review is not being phased, so in that case for the purposes of the EAF it should be called a single phased project. The construction is going to be phased, which is quite typical.

Chairman Baden questioned for item #6 they were still anticipating 18 months?

Mr. Medenbach noted that it was really hard to say at this point. That would be enough time to build the buildings. They would expect that it would happen in that time. Obviously when they filled this out, they thought that they would be under construction now too, so things change.

The applicant was going to change the answers to #7, but the Town Attorney noted that this question should only be answered if it was a phased project, so they should actually be putting ‘n/a’ as it wasn’t applicable.

Chairman Baden questioned the number of parking spaces on page 5. The applicant has 39 parking spaces listed? Is that correct?

Mr. Medenbach recalculated this and the answer was actually 46 spaces and the EAF would be revised to reflect this.

Chairman Baden noted that the maximum vehicular trips estimated per hour were marked down as being 26- what was that calculated through?

CONTINUED APPLICATION REVIEW, SEQR REVIEW, AND PUBLIC HEARING

Mr. Medenbach answered that it was calculated through the Institute of Traffic Engineers Trip Generation Manual.

Chairman Baden stated that was exactly what the Code stipulated should be used.

Chairman Baden noted that on Page 8, the UCDC and UCDPW should be added to ‘Other Regional Agencies’. Everything else was on there.

Chairman Baden noted that the PB still needed to officially refer the application, map and revised EAF to the UCDC, but the Board received an email from the Lance Matteson of the UCDC of this date. Mr. Matteson noted that they were in receipt of the Body of Truth Site Plan and the EAF. Mr. Matteson also noted that the applicant would be making a submittal to the UC Industrial Development Agency– Chairman Baden stated that the UCIDA would also need to be listed under ‘Other Regional Agencies’ on Page 8 of the EAF and need to be contacted through SEQRA as well. Chairman Baden knew that the UCIDA was an ‘arm’ of the UCDC, but he would be comfortable with the Board submitting to both. Chairman Baden noted that the email goes on to say that neither the UCDC nor the UCIDA would seek to be Lead Agency. The Board would still need to officially send them the forms and get a reply back from them.

Mr. Rominger amended his earlier motion to circulate intent to seek Lead Agency to the UCDC to include the UCDC and the UCIDA. Seconded by Mr. O’Donnell. No discussion.

Vote:

Baden: Yes Tapper: Absent

O’Donnell: Yes Rominger: Yes

Ullman: Absent Ricks: Absent

Smith: Absent Paddock: Yes*

(*alternate seated to establish quorum)

Motion carried. 4 ayes, 0 nays, 4 absent

Chairman Baden questioned if the applicant had anything further to add prior to the opening of the Public Hearing?

Mr. Medenbach didn’t have anything to add other than what was going on with the DEC- and as it has already been discussed with the Board, the DEC can’t move forward until the Board does.

Chairman Baden agreed with this noting that the Board was all given copies of the notes of the conversations between the applicant and the DEC and it was actually very helpful in showing the Board how the issues will be mitigated.

CONTINUED APPLICATION REVIEW, SEQR REVIEW, AND PUBLIC HEARING

At 7:30 Chairman Baden opened the Hearing to the public. He stated that he would be asking the applicant to give a brief description of the project to the public. He wanted to remind members of the public that they were speaking to the Board Members and not the applicant and not to each other. If the public comment is in the form of a question, the Board will make an attempt to answer it. If they cannot, they will try to seek out an answer from the applicant, but if they cannot, he asked for the applicant to not involve themselves in the comments unless asked by the Board.

Mr. Medenbach noted that the site was +/- 20 acres and was situated on the North side of Kyserike Road, pretty much directly across the street from the athletic field for the central high school. The existing structure consists of a small garage and the existing dwelling. There were formerly some barns on the property that have since been removed. There was an addition on the building that was removed a couple of years ago. The proposal is to put the addition back on with some additional additions to expand the spa. Also there were plans to build another building which will be a recreational fitness building and then a meditation pavilion out in the back as well as a spa building that would have a sauna in it which will be located down near the pond expansion area, which is another part of this. He demonstrated on the plans where the existing pond was and where they planned to expand it noting that it will a little more than double it in size. This is what they are going to the DEC for. The plan that was previously approved had the spa over further south. The DEC asked them to move it uphill further, which is what they did and with that move they brought the septic tank and pump chamber up with it, but they still have the same disposal area that’s located directly north of the central house. They will be putting in a new well and a new parking lot as well as expanding the parking out on the western side of the property along Kyserike Road. There are some evergreens there now that screen it and they will be adding to that, so that the parking lot will be lower than the County Road and it will be predominantly screened, so that you won’t see it. They are also going to move the entrance. They are going to extend it and leave the existing access open for emergency access and have a gate put across the existing entrance. They were adding a small addition to the existing office. They were basically adding plumbing to it. There is a substantial amount of landscaping proposed. The property now is landscaped quite nicely. They have a Stormwater management plan that meets the State guidelines for Stormwater. They will be treating all of the runoff and all of the impervious areas as well as the parking area. The parking area will be gravel and all of that water will be treated before it goes into the wetlands, including the runoff from all of the buildings.

CONTINUED APPLICATION REVIEW, SEQR REVIEW, AND PUBLIC HEARING

Ms. Harari spoke and noted that one of the things that she wanted to point out was that she bought this property in 1972. She submitted photos from 1973 for the Board to view. These showed buildings that have since been taken down- one picture showed a house that was down by the pond. She also showed pictures of the existing house and the little red barn which is now the office. There was a large building behind it and there were more buildings on the property. She also wanted to show the Board that when they purchased the property and where the photo shows the existing deck end, there was an existing kitchen, family room, and laundry room- this picture is on the National Register. Basically, they are adding on a small addition to that side of the house because they are just replacing what they took down in 2008 by putting back kitchen to that side of the house. On the other side of the house they are just adding a couple of bedrooms or treatment rooms- however you want to call them. She displayed renderings of what the sauna building would look like- nothing would be seen when you look out over the hill- it will actually be tucked down behind the office and it will continue to look like a rolling hill if you are looking at it from any of the areas other than right in front of it- so that won’t be seen at all in terms of visual impact. She displayed a rendering of the gym (recreation building) which is going to replicate a big Dutch barn which will be historically correct as to what would have been there. She then showed the house from the side view that would be facing Mr. Feldman’s property and she further noted that in designing the additions they took into account all the historical significance. She was on the Board of the Friends of Historic Rochester when she put the house on the National Register and when they looked at the design for this, the way they mitigated was by putting in a hyphen, which was what was used at Bard College, which was the glass area, in order to put the kitchen back on the house, which was really necessary for operation at this time. Traditionally you will see a lot of historic homes that have two little wings that come off of the stone houses and that is pretty much what they have done in their design. She is very excited about serving the community in a nice way.

Chairman Baden called the hearing open to the public and recognized Dan Feldman who noted that he and his partner, Andra Maguran, live in the house shown on the plan adjacent to the property in question. They are the property immediately adjacent and closest to the proposed development and therefore they would be the most significantly impacted by it. A question that he would like the Board to ask either Mr. Medenbach or Ms. Harari- where his access is supposed to be, he now sees what looks like green grass, so he was wondering if he would still have access through the properties driveway?

Chairman Baden noted that as far as the Board was presented, that access was supposed to remain. He questioned the applicant if that had changed?

Mr. Cappello noted that they would review it and provide a response prior to the next meeting.

Chairman Baden noted that it is still shown on the site plan that the Board is reviewing.

Ms. Harari noted that she wasn’t taking away that road.

CONTINUED APPLICATION REVIEW, SEQR REVIEW, AND PUBLIC HEARING

Chairman Baden did understand that was how Mr. Feldman accessed his property, but because he has frontage on Kyserike Road, the Board can’t actually get involved in that—it’s between Mr. Feldman and Ms. Harari because Mr. Feldman has potential to have his own access. It wasn’t a deeded easement that he was aware of, so that is essentially a neighbor to neighbor issue. The Board isn’t going to be taking that into consideration.

Mr. Feldman noted that he understood that it was addressed by the Board before, so he wanted a clarification as to if it had changed and for the record he wanted to state that if that access is closed off that would mean that he would be forced by that action to construct a driveway which would be a significant expense.

Mr. Feldman’s next questions were about the scope of the project. There had been discussions about overnight guests—is that included in the scope of this project.

Chairman Baden noted that at this time the Board does not view that as part of the application. It was not presented in the initial application to the Board. There was great discussion during the last review by the Board about whether it was allowed under the previous approval or not. At that time the Board had come to the conclusion that it was not addressed in the approval, so it could not be added now, so that is essentially the answer to that.

Mr. Feldman’s next question was did the scope of this project include outdoor events for up to 200 people till 11pm, 16 events per year?

Chairman Baden noted that that was one of the Board’s conditions of approval previously. He couldn’t predict what the Board would or would not include in the conditions this time. There is in the proposal from his interpretation for outdoor events inside that pavilion. He questioned if the Town Attorney had looked into the application to see if that had been discussed?

The Town Attorney did not research the application for that information.

Chairman Baden noted that the Board would have to look through what was put into the original application, if it was – then it will be considered, if it was not- he couldn’t predict what the Board would do.

For the record, Mr. Feldman stated that to his knowledge, neither overnight guests, nor outdoor events, such as weddings or bar mitzvahs for up to 200 guests, 16 times per year, until 11PM were not included in the original application.

Chairman Baden noted that as far as the specifics of the outdoor events, the Board imposed those conditions based on the Town’s Code for Bed & Breakfasts. They used similar guidelines as to what the Bed & Breakfasts allowed. That’s where those specific numbers came from. The Board will just have to look to see if outdoor events were put into the proposal or not put in.

CONTINUED APPLICATION REVIEW, SEQR REVIEW, AND PUBLIC HEARING

Mr. Feldman wanted to clarify that a Bed & Breakfast was not being applied for?

Chairman Baden noted that it was not. The Board just used that standard because it was in their Code and to be consistent.

Mr. Feldman continued, he stated that because of the history of this project he was concerned about what might happen in the future. While none of these are in the current expansion application, he was wondering if the applicant had plans for anything like that in the future.

Chairman Baden noted that it would be a separate review by the Board. The Code Enforcement Officer would have to be applied to and he would have to make the determination if it was allowed or not or if it fit into the definitions and he’d have to refer it to the Board. Chairman Baden couldn’t really answer that—it wasn’t part of this application.

Mr. Feldman noted that he had prepared a statement and he had some additional questions. He would give the Board a copy that he had written. He would read from some of it and paraphrase the rest. As the Board knows, he opposes the granting of a special use permit for the expansion of the Body of Truth Spa. His motivation is simple. He believes it is an unfair infringement of his right to privacy. And, he believes it will adversely affect the value of his property.

Mr. Feldman believed that if the history of this project was looked at from its inception as a “home occupation”, it is hard to imagine that all of the phases were not planned in advance. To break it up the way the applicant has is in his opinion, a clear example of segmentation. Thus his questions about the future- he is asserting that this project has been segmented in order to facilitate a more streamlined process of approval that would not have heard if everything was presented from the beginning.

At this point Mr. Feldman stated that to allow any further expansion sets a precedent for the town which he believes is contrary to its best interests. While responsible development is desirable, the intrusion of commercial operations, especially one of such a significant scale sends the message to potential homebuyers that the sanctity of their private space is not protected even if they purchase property in a residential zone. The end result could be an erosion of the tax base that will undermine whatever benefits the town hopes to derive from allowing this project in its current location. In addition he believes allowing the project in its current location goes contrary to the town’s Comprehensive Plan and several of its zoning ordinances. He didn’t understand what the relationship of the Comprehensive Plan is—is this something the Board refers to? How does it come into play?

Chairman Baden noted that under NYS Law, as it exists now, when a Town redoes its Zoning, it must follow an established Comprehensive Plan. Previously when the Town’s Comprehensive Plan was established in the 60’s and the Zoning Laws were from the 80’s that mandate did not exist. Comprehensive Plans existed, but there was no mandate that your zoning had to match. Now under NYS Law, zoning laws are mandated to be consistent with comprehensive plans.

CONTINUED APPLICATION REVIEW, SEQR REVIEW, AND PUBLIC HEARING

Mr. Feldman continued and noted that the Town’s Comprehensive Plan states the following as a policy recommendation:

“Creating industrial and commercial zones in Town that provide places for home-based businesses to “graduate to” as they become more successful.”

Mr. Feldman’s interpretation of this, for example in the case of the Body of Truth Spa, because its become more successful and grown the Comprehensive Plan guides that it be moved to a commercial or an Industrial Zone, not put in a Residential Zone and obviously the reason is to mitigate the impacts of people living nearby.

He continued, the zones should be clearly defined and titles in local zoning law to reduce the potential for future conflicts that can occur when people unknowingly build or buy homes next to industrial areas.” In other words, if this development is approved it creates a de facto commercial area and sets precedent and when people buy property in the area and not realize that the precedent was set and the other commercial projects could follow. That is very, very dangerous.

The Comprehensive Plan States:

“Prevent intrusion of incompatible uses in residential areas.

Site new high intensity/high impact commercial and/or industrial uses along designated truck routes, as indicated in the land-use recommendations. This policy will help keep the noise or dust associated with such uses from unduly effecting residential areas.”

Mr. Feldman thought that the intent there was that a designated truck route would be something like Route 209 where residences are not and so to reduce the amount of noise of traffic of a commercial nature in a residential zone. Those were the important things stated Mr. Feldman that he found in the Comprehensive Plan. The problems that occur related to Zoning Code he is going to refer to very specifically.

The Town of Rochester Zoning Code specifically states under purposes:

Section 140-2Q. Preventing intrusion of incompatible uses in residential areas so as to ensure privacy for residents and their freedom from nuisances.

This is a provision of the Zoning Code and Mr. Feldman’s interpretation is that he is entitled to his right to privacy, which this is definitely an intrusion of, especially when they get to talking about how many vehicular trips there are going to be.

CONTINUED APPLICATION REVIEW, SEQR REVIEW, AND PUBLIC HEARING

Mr. Feldman continued: the Town of Rochester Zoning Code specifically states under Article 6, Nonconforming Uses and Structures: Section 140-39B. “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’s assertion is that if the Board denies this application it will not lead to neighborhood or district deterioration since the district will essentially stay as it is, which is very nice, but that to address this provision of the Code is would be to in fact limit injurious impact to this non conforming use to Mr. Feldman’s adjacent property, to his privacy, and the value of his property.

§140-39D. The protections extended by this Article to existing non-conforming uses, buildings, lots or structures, commonly known as “grandfathering”, shall not extend to any non-conforming activity occurring subsequent to the effective date of this law, as amended.

Mr. Feldman noted that this was a little bit complicated, but the way he understood it, is that the uses that were permitted in the original expansion of the home occupation are the only uses that can occur on this property. Everything else would be an illegal use. His question for the Board was what was their understanding under the previous expansion of the home occupation- what was the actual scope of the uses that were permitted on this property?

Chairman Baden noted that the approval that is on this property right now is that of a ‘Membership Club’. It was originally a home occupation that when it came before the Board in 2003 it was referred…

Mr. Feldman interrupted Chairman Baden and asked if a Membership Club was permitted to have commercial or retail operations?

Chairman Baden noted that the determination of how a project fits by definition is really not the Planning Board’s purview to review. That is when it is referred to them by the Code Enforcement Office and that is how they review it. He says, ‘this is this’ and in this case back then it was referred to the Planning Board as a ‘membership club’ and he then read the old definition in the previous version of the Zoning Code:

“Club Membership- an organization catering exclusively to members and their guests for premises and buildings for recreational or athletic purposes that are not conducted primarily for gain provided that they are not conducting any vending stands, merchandising, or commercial activities except as required generally for the membership purposes of such club.”

Mr. Feldman wanted to clarify stating that would mean dues or something like that. He stated that commercial activities would be the exchange of money, dues, maybe selling hats or tees shirts that show that you are part of the club? Is that correct?

CONTINUED APPLICATION REVIEW, SEQR REVIEW, AND PUBLIC HEARING

Chairman Baden noted that he couldn’t make that determination. This is the definition that the Board must use because this is a non conforming use.

Mr. Feldman asked if the Board could ask the applicant whether there were any commercial or retail activity going on currently or will be in the proposed expansion.

Mr. Cappello noted that the facilities that are being constructed would be for the purposes of the members of this spa. There have been a lot of conclusions made by the speaker of the public and the applicant will respond with a submission. He questioned if the Board was going to keep the hearing open? They would respond in writing so that there would be no misunderstandings, nothing misconstrued, or no conclusions made. They will submit a response in writing detailing the use that was approved in 2003 as it historically existed and has a right to continue to exist. They are requesting this Special Use Permit to expand it as it is permitted in the Code and they will explain again the reasons for the expansion and detail it and in detail how they believe they are meeting the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan and any rateables to encourage uses even in this zone under the current use such as resort hotels, so any statement that this was considered by the Town Board in adopting its Zoning and Comprehensive Plan for solely residential it is a conclusion that is not supported by the Town’s Code, so there is no misunderstandings, they will respond in writing.

Chairman Baden noted that the answer is that the applicant will respond in writing to the Board and the Board will read that response into the record before they close the Public Hearing and will give the public the opportunity again to speak about it.

Mr. Feldman continued his statement. He noted that he was quoting from the previous application and decision and the current application and decision regarding the expansion from the Home Occupation. Under membership club the specific uses are listed as counseling, massage, spa, facials, and acupuncture. Those were the uses that the Planning Board had approved to his recollection. If there was any dispute of that correct him. This was taken from the 2003 application. He would like the Planning Board to ask the applicant if there is currently a gym facility being operated. The reason for this is that the largest part of this proposes expansion is a 5,000sf gym that the applicant says is an expansion of the use, so he’d like to know what the current use is.

Chairman Baden noted that the expansion of a use doesn’t need to be a direct size expansion of something that is permitted. Within membership club there certainly could be a gym. It has to be something that is ordinary to that type of use. The Town’s Code does allow for expansion into other areas that do not currently exist. It is the logical progression that a business or that a project will expand. There is nothing that says that they can’t have any new addition that they don’t have currently. He didn’t believe that there was a gym there right now.

Mr. Feldman questioned if something like that is very specifically defined as another type of use in a different zone, but its not permitted in this one.

CONTINUED APPLICATION REVIEW, SEQR REVIEW, AND PUBLIC HEARING

Chairman Baden noted that Mr. Feldman was really asking hypothetical questions that were really the Code Enforcement Officer’s determination. The Board doesn’t get involved in that. They take what is referred to them and they review the project.

Mr. Feldman noted that those were his comments on general zoning. He would give the Board his full statement in writing at the end of the meeting. The other comments that he had were based on his review of the Environmental Assessment Form (EAF). He thought that there were some real problems with this especially since the Court basically annulled the Special Use Permit because a hard look wasn’t taken at this and he would like to point out some things.

On Page 3, item A9- “Is the site located over a primary, principal or sole source aquifer?” The applicant indicated, ‘no’. Mr. Feldman wanted to know how they knew that. Was there a study that they referenced? Shouldn’t that be included in the EAF so that they knew that was the case?

Mr. Medenbach noted that that question was referring to if a municipality had a sole source as well as supplying water to the community and are you over top of their aquifer? There are no community sole source facilities in the area.

Mr. Feldman questioned if that didn’t relate to the aquifer that the surrounding land owners are using?

Chairman Baden noted no- that was relating to a single source- not individual wells.

Mr. Medenbach continued and noted that if you looked at the geological maps for the region, there were no identified aquifers in this region. There was just some well data so they haven’t mapped any aquifers.

Chairman Baden wanted to point out that this property is outside of the Town’s boundary that the Town has set for the aquifer protection overlay.

Mr. Feldman continued with his review of the EAF noting that on Page 4, item A.11- “Does the project site contain any species of plant or animal life that is identified as threatened or endangered?” The applicant answers, ‘no’, according to the NYS DEC endangered or threatened species online resource. He believed that this was a completely insufficient resource. He has looked at it- it’s a list. He strongly encourages the Board to require an inventory. He noted that the cover page was entitled, “Significant Habitats in selected areas in the Town of Marbletown”. He knew that this was not Marbletown, but what was significant about this was that the type of ecosystems that are listed in this are the same as the ones that exist in the Town of Rochester and there are numerous threatened and endangered species listed in this and he thinks that the only way that this question could be answered accurately would be if a trained biologist was brought onsite and took an actual survey and inventory of the species of flora and fauna. This was a well documented area of case law for SEQRA Determinations that he didn’t feel should be overlooked.

CONTINUED APPLICATION REVIEW, SEQR REVIEW, AND PUBLIC HEARING

Page 5, item A.20, “Has this site ever been used for the disposal of hazardous or solid waste?” The applicant answered, ‘no’. The only reason he was contesting this item was because he knew the history of this property was that of a very, very big chicken farm. So, potentially there was the disposal of solid waste or hazardous material and he thought that the Town should require the applicant to have a soil study done to see whether or not that is the case.

Page 5, item B.1.g. , Mr. Feldman was stunned when he read this and he thought that this was incredibly significant in terms of what the impact of this was going to be. He wanted to enter the record with a big emphasis- 26 vehicular trips per hour! From he didn’t know how many there were now, but he lived and worked next door and he thought that there were maybe 4 or 5 per day. He stated that this illustrated the unprecedented scope of this expansion that should not be allowed.

Mr. Medenbach questioned, “what about the school?”

Mr. Feldman noted that he didn’t live right next door to the school.

On Page 6, B.16.a. “What is the amount of solid waste per month?” The applicant answered less than ½ a ton. Mr. Feldman noted with approximately 50 parking spaces with a potential of 100 people per day if each of those people generated only a .5 lb of solid waste, which isn’t very American, then that would be 1,500 lbs alone and that is a conservative estimate. He didn’t know what kind of bearing this would have on the Board’s determination, but he believed that this was an inaccurate estimate and he was curious to see if there was a particular way that this was arrived at?

Mr. Medenbach stated that there are standards. The Ulster County Research Recovery Agency provided data to the County Planning Dept. This isn’t the kind of facility like a residence that would produce more waste. People would come here to exercise and for health benefits, massages and things like that- they weren’t going to bring any waste with them to dispose of on the site. What will be generated on the site is very small.

Mr. Feldman continued to his next point. In the same section, Page 7, item 20. “Would the project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels?” The applicant answered ‘no’. Mr. Feldman’s question was how was this going to be possible with 26 vehicle trips per hour. Wasn’t that by virtue of traffic alone going to increase the ambient noise level? His contention was that the answer needed to be ‘yes’ instead of ‘no’.

CONTINUED APPLICATION REVIEW, SEQR REVIEW, AND PUBLIC HEARING

On Page 9C.3, “What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the present zoning?” The applicant answered, ‘individual determination based on particular business usages.’ He didn’t understand that and it sounded very, very vague and he thought that this was critical and that the Board should ask that this be addressed more specifically again so that they can understand what the future plans of this project might be.

Chairman Baden noted that they could address that right now. The property was +/-20 acres, so the maximum in 3 acre zoning would be potentially 6 distinct separate uses based on the 3 acre zoning. The uses allowed in that district could include camping resorts or RV Park, commercial recreation uses, golf courses, helicopter pads, non profit club or recreation, private air strip, resort, hotel, camp, ranch, or lodge. These are all special uses that would have to go through the Special Use Permit process, but they are allowed uses in that district.

Mr. Medenbach felt that this question was really more for when an applicant was requesting a zone change. They want to know what would be built under the current zone.

Mr. Cappello noted that it was really looking at the site and questioning what the maximum potential development could be compared to what was being proposed. If you look at the potential uses permitted under the new zoning, saw mills, places of worship, veterinarian office, animal hospital or kennel, commercial recreation use—which could potentially mean motorcycle racing, golf course or driving range, helicopter pads, manufactured housing… To analyze all of that when they aren’t permitting that would be—

Mr. Feldman wanted clarification—those uses mentioned couldn’t be an expansion of this, those would be new uses?

Chairman Baden stated that they would have to go back to the Code Enforcement Office. The key word there is potential.

The Town Attorney noted in another Town she works for they have an applicant who is putting in a retreat center and the maximum potential is actually 200 homes for that area.

Mr. Medenbach noted that every time he answers the question that way everyone argues saying that they would never approve that.

Chairman Baden noted that they are asking for whatever the maximum potential would be based on 3 acre zoning- what could they do with 20 acres.

Mr. Medenbach noted that he thought the bigger impacts come from some of the commercial uses.

Chairman Baden noted that would be fine.

CONTINUED APPLICATION REVIEW, SEQR REVIEW, AND PUBLIC HEARING

Mr. Medenbach noted that he would give a response for a hotel.

The Town Attorney noted that he could show 6 hotels because of the 3 acre zoning.

Mr. Feldman continued and noted on Page 9. C.3. “What are the predominant land uses and zoning classifications within a ¼ mile radius of the proposed action?” The applicant answered school, residential, commercial, and farms. Mr. Feldman didn’t believe there were any commercial land uses within ¼ mile of the project and he was wondering if the applicant had something in mind that proved him wrong. William’s Lumber was a ½ a mile from his house.

Chairman Baden noted that it says “zoning classification” how far off of Route 209 was the applicant?

Mr. Feldman noted that it says “uses” also. He was ½ a mile from Route 209.

Chairman Baden noted that there are Business District properties on Route 209.

Ms. Harari noted that those Business District properties border her property.

Chairman Baden noted that it was hard to tell a scale on the site plan, it may be slightly over a ¼ mile, but it is in close proximity.

Mr. Feldman just wanted to see that is absolutely accurate otherwise ‘commercial’ should not be listed. He would like to see some kind of a plan of that area of the Town with a ¼ mile radius drawn on it that shows that for a fact.

Chairman Baden noted that that Business District does go back 600’ from Route 209.

Mr. Feldman continued on Page 9C.8., “Is the proposed action compatible with adjoining/surrounding land uses within a ¼ of a mile?” Mr. Feldman stated that since he had an adjoining land use that was residential and that this will infringe on his right to property and degrade the value of his property, he believed the answer to that should be ‘no’ that it is not compatible to his adjoining land use.

Lastly Mr. Feldman commented on item on Page 10, item C.12., “Will the proposed action result in the generation of traffic significantly above present levels.” The applicant indicated, ‘no’. As Mr. Feldman mentioned before with 3 or 4 trips a day coming in and out of the property going up to 26 vehicle trips per hour- what is that times 8 hours in a day—208 vehicle trips per day- he didn’t see how that can be, ‘no’. That answer must be ‘yes’.

CONTINUED APPLICATION REVIEW, SEQR REVIEW, AND PUBLIC HEARING

Chairman Baden noted that question is not intended to be about that specific parcel. It is intended to be for the road that services it. That is a County Road. He didn’t know how many cars traveled that road or how many cars that road was designed to handle, but based on the fact that it is a County maintained road, it has a higher level of service than say a small Town maintained road.

Mr. Medenbach added that plus there is a school there- he bets they get 200 cars an hour in the morning.

Chairman Baden continued that the answer to the question is not looking at what that project increase percentage wise. Any use will obviously probably increase.

Mr. Feldman still said that it was significant and should be ‘yes’. Mr. Feldman was done with his comments.

Andra Maguran was recognized next to speak. Her question was about the maximum traffic trips per hour being 26. Mr. Feldman hypothesized that that number could be over an 8 hour period. She was wondering how 26 trips were arrived at. Was that a projection of the normal business hours or was that an average over 24 hours that at some point there could be 52 trips per hour and other times there could be 10.

Chairman Baden noted that there is a study that is done and that is listed as the maximum, so it will not exceed that according to that.

Mr. Medenbach noted that there is a manual called the Institute of Traffic Engineers that shows for different uses what the peak volume is. When they talk about peak volume they only measure like 15 minute intervals, but then you project it out to an hour—so you could have 7 vehicles in 15 minute intervals of time, and then no vehicles for the rest of the hour and still produce the result of 26 vehicles per hour because it’s the peak. It’s that small little interval when it peaks. It is certainly not an average. That peak would not sustain itself for probably not even an hour in this case. It might happen twice a day, which is quite difficult with a lot of businesses. Particularly with recreational facility- a lot of people may come in the morning and then a lot of people in the evening- so you may have two peaks. That peak is just a small interval of time. That’s into and out of the site. The analysis is done on the receiving highway which is the County Highway and in this particular place there is a substantial amount of traffic on that County Highway because of the regional school. He used to take his kids there and be in that traffic flow and there are hundreds of cars that arrive in a very short period of time to drop their kids off, or teachers coming to school- not to mention all of the buses that are really quite loud. The amount of traffic that goes in and out of that facility, which is directly across the street, is really substantial and their little piece of traffic is really insignificant compared to the background traffic.

Mr. Cappello noted that given its context of its use it is important to note that this isn’t a Blockbuster Video or somewhere where people drive in for 10 minutes and drive out where you constantly have traffic. This is somewhere when people make a trip in- they are usually there for an hour or more at least- so you are not getting a lot of quick turnover.

CONTINUED APPLICATION REVIEW, SEQR REVIEW, AND PUBLIC HEARING

Ms. Maguran continued that she wanted to add that Mr. Medenbach is correct that the high school generates a lot of traffic specifically in the morning and late afternoon, which he just said were also peak times for a recreational facility. At the corner of Kyserike Road and Route 209 there has been a traffic light installed recently. During the peak times of both the high school traffic and now the potential recreational facility traffic that could be make Kyserike Road merely impassable at certain times of the day. Ms. Maguran then noted that there are a number of different services offered at this spa what was the maximum number of guests who can be accommodated in all of these different services and facilities at one time?

Chairman Baden noted that that would be a question for the Code Enforcement Officer and it would be his determination based on public assembly law. Based on the size and access there is a chart that he uses to calculate the size. When he issues a Certificate of Occupancy, that number will be posted and stated at that time.

Ms. Maguran questioned when someone decides on how many parking spaces are needed for a place—is that based on 1 person per car or is it more like 4 people per car?

Chairman Baden noted that it is based on the Code. The Code has a parking chart based on the use and the Board established it based off of that. He believed that it was based off of 1 space per every 175’ plus employees.

Ms. Maguran questioned what defined membership and what were the requirements of membership at this spa?

Chairman Baden noted that was up to the applicant.

Ms. Maguran then questioned if friends and family members, according to this membership, would be also allowed to come in and use the facilities?

Chairman Baden noted that anyone who was a member would be able to.

Ms. Maguran continued- at the applicant’s discretion—anyone is isn’t a member, but say a family member of a member or a friend of a member—that is also up to the applicant’s discretion?

Chairman Baden confirmed this was also up to the applicant.

Ms. Maguran stated that she saw on the site plan that there was a pond expansion and there was a dock. Would members be permitted or prohibited from swimming in this pool? If they are permitted was the DEC aware of this and aware of the potential environmental impact from people swimming in it?

Chairman Baden didn’t think that that could condition that the pond couldn’t be swimmable. As far as he knew it wasn’t something that the Board had within their purview to add into their conditions.

CONTINUED APPLICATION REVIEW, SEQR REVIEW, AND PUBLIC HEARING

Ms. Maguran added – if swimming would be permitted it would obviously add to the ambient noise as the pond is a body of water.

Chairman Baden asked if anyone else wanted to speak. There were no other members of the public who wanted to speak. He then asked the Board to hold the Public Hearing open as they had to await the UCDC’s answer regarding Lead Agency.

Mr. O’Donnell motioned to hold the Public Hearing open and reconvene on August 9, 2011. Seconded by Mr. Paddock.

Vote:

Baden: Yes Tapper: Absent

O’Donnell: Yes Rominger: Yes

Ullman: Absent Ricks: Absent

Smith: Absent Paddock: Yes*

(*alternate seated to establish quorum)

Motion carried. 4 ayes, 0 nays, 4 absent

Chairman Baden noted that Mr. Medenbach should probably answer ‘yes’ on Page 7 of the EAF Where it asks if the project is asking for local funding.

CONTINUED APPLICATION REVIEW

OPEN SPACE INSTITUTE/GLORIA FINGER– Lot Improvement, Lawrence Hill Rd. and Rock Hill Rd., Tax Map #85.1-1-2.1 and Tax Map #77.3-2-17.111, ‘R-5’ Zoning District

Chairman Baden noted that they had taken this application up at last month’s meeting.

Sue Demskie from Brooks and Brooks Surveying was present on behalf of the application.

Chairman Baden noted that this was a lot line adjustment bordering the Town of Gardiner. Our Board sent notice to the Town of Gardiner to see if they had any comments. They forwarded a letter from them received today and they had no comment and thanked the Board for submitting it to them. The Chairman had reviewed the maps and confirmed that the resulting lots would meet the Zoning District Requirements and they have the legal access required and they have included in the notes the section of Code required, and the Planning Board Endorsement that the Town needs. Last year Gloria Finger gave a portion of the property to the OSI (Open Space Institute) and now they are giving further property.

CONTINUED APPLICATION REVIEW

OPEN SPACE INSTITUTE/GLORIA FINGER (cont’d)– Lot Improvement, Lawrence Hill Rd. and Rock Hill Rd., Tax Map #85.1-1-2.1 and Tax Map #77.3-2-17.111, ‘R-5’ Zoning District

Mr. Rominger motioned to approve the lot line improvement. Seconded by Mr. O’Donnell. No discussion.

Vote:

Baden: Yes Tapper: Absent

O’Donnell: Yes Rominger: Yes

Ullman: Absent Ricks: Absent

Smith: Absent Paddock: Yes*

(*alternate seated to establish quorum)

Motion carried. 4 ayes, 0 nays, 4 absent

NEW APPLICATION

ALEX LYPKA/ALEX LYPKA– Lot Improvement, 737 Queens Hwy., Tax Map #68.1-2-5 and Tax Map#68.1-2-11, ‘R-5’ and ‘R-2’ Zoning Districts

Chairman Baden noted that this was another lot improvement that was submitted to the Board. He noted that by our Code definition it is a Type 2 under SEQRA, so there is no SEQRA required.

Mr. Medenbach was representing the application. He knew very little about this application other than they had 2 parcels of land and they wanted to put the 2 existing homes on one lot- the mobile home and the house on the 10 acre parcel. The mobile home is on the whole large piece.

Chairman Baden noted that on the map the remaining parcel is not shown in its entirety, but if you look on the location plan, it is shown and that little piece is being taken off of the larger parcel to add to the +/-10 acres to create +/-12 acres and the +/-102 is the remaining lands of the +/-104 acres. The Chairman had the Secretary forward on a list of items that needed to be completed on the map for approval.

Mr. Medenbach noted that Mr. Eggers the surveyor just sent it in as a sketch. He still needed to do a survey.

Chairman Baden noted that a sketch plan was not required for a lot improvement, because the Board is not reviewing it as a subdivision. The Board is essentially just reviewing it to be sure that it meets the Zoning Requirements. He asked if this was part of an approved subdivision- he wanted to make sure the septic to the house that was being added to the +/-12 acre parcel was included on the revised lands of the +/- 12 acre parcel and didn’t remain on the +/-102 remaining acres. He just wanted it verified that the septics and reserve areas remained with the houses.

Mr. Medenbach noted that he would make an opinion that there was adequate space for reserves.

REQUEST OF EXTENSION OF TIMEFRAME TO COMPLETE SITE PLAN AS APPROVED

VINCI FARMS- Extend Site Plan Approval #PB 2010-02SPA approved June 15, 2010 for the conversion of an existing +/-40,000 sf barn into an indoor recording studio, 8 Old Pilgrim’s Way, Tax Map # 76.1-1-22.11, ‘AR-3’ Zoning District

Chairman Baden noted that the Board has received an extension request from Vinci Farms for the time frame to complete the site plan in the time frame as approved. The Board approved it in June of 2010. The Secretary had a copy of the conditions from the original approval. They are requesting to amend condition #6:

“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 as pursuant to section 140-52 of the Town of Rochester Zoning Ordinance.” The Chairman noted the one year approval would have been up on June 15, 2011. They had requested that the Board extend it. It is allowed under the Town’s Code. He submitted a letter to the Code Enforcement Officer, Jerry Davis, requesting the status of it. Mr. Davis replied and referred to it as a Special Use Permit, only because that was how Chairman Baden referred to it- it was an error on the Chairman’s part. Mr. Davis responded noting that the construction has been ongoing and the building permit expires on April 7, 2012 and when the construction was complete a Certificate of Compliance would be forwarded to the Planning Board. There were some compliance issues with the Building Dept., they are not varying from the plan, they just have not completed the work.

Mr. O’Donnell motioned to amend approval PB 2010-02SPA to extend condition #6 for another year. Seconded by Mr. Rominger. No discussion.

Vote:

Baden: Yes Tapper: Absent

O’Donnell: Yes Rominger: Yes

Ullman: Absent Ricks: Absent

Smith: Absent Paddock: Yes*

(*alternate seated to establish quorum)

Motion carried. 4 ayes, 0 nays, 4 absent

REQUEST FOR INTENT TO SEEK LEAD AGENCY – NEW PALTZ PLANNING BOARD

Chairman Baden noted that the Board received a request for an intent to seek Lead Agency from the New Paltz Planning Board for a subdivision of lands owned by the Smiley Brothers- Mohonk area. They sent an EAF and a description of the project. The lot continues into the Town of Rochester, but the Action is taking place in the Town of New Paltz- its on lands that border. He saw no reason why the TORPB would want to be Lead Agency on this.

Mr. Rominger motioned that the TORPB did not wish to seek Lead Agency, seconded by Mr. O’Donnell.

No discussion.

Vote:

Baden: Yes Tapper: Absent

O’Donnell: Yes Rominger: Yes

Ullman: Absent Ricks: Absent

Smith: Absent Paddock: Yes*

(*alternate seated to establish quorum)

Motion carried. 4 ayes, 0 nays, 4 absent

OTHER MATTERS

REFERRAL RESOLUTION RE: POLICY CHANGE

Chairman Baden noted that the Board Members had a resolution in their packets that he drafted regarding policies for the Planning Board. The Planning Board currently charges a general application fee that is established by the Town Board. All Site Plans are one fee, Special Use Permits are another fee, Subdivision are another fee. The applicants are charged for the cost of the Public Hearing notices and circulating notices to bounding owners. Applicants are not charged anything for referrals to other agencies. The reason he was bringing this up was because sometimes when the Board has to send hard copies of maps and huge packets the cost adds up very quickly, sometimes up to $70, $80, $90 on an application. He read the following resolution he prepared for the Board’s consideration:

RESOLUTION

WHEREAS, The Town of Rochester Planning Board (TORPB) is authorized to establish policies and procedures for the review of matters before the Board.

WHEREAS, The TORPB notes application fees for the review of matters before the Board have not been increased in a number of years and they desire to maintain application fees at the existing rates.

WHEREAS, The TORPB believes these application fees aid the Town of Rochester in the costs of the day to day operation of the Planning and Zoning office.

WHEREAS, The TORPB notes some specific applications before it cause additional expenses to the Town in the form of New York State legally mandated or TORPB desired referrals to other agencies or professionals.

WHEREAS, These referrals significantly aid the TORPB in gathering information in the review of matters before the Board.

WHEREAS, The TORPB will endeavour to transmit referral materials in electronic format whenever possible, however the materials are often required to be in printed format or the TORPB does not have the technology to create electronic formatting as in the case of plans.

WHEREAS, The TORPB is authorized under Town Code §125, Subdivision and §140, Zoning to seek reimbursement from the applicant for reasonable expenses for referrals as well as the expenses to the Town for the publication and notice of public hearings.

WHEREAS, The TORPB existing policy requires applicant reimbursement for the actual costs associated with the noticing of public hearings.

THEREFORE, LET IT BE RESOLVED,

Effective July 13, 2011, The Town of Rochester Planning Board establishes new policy:

“Applicants shall be required to reimburse the Town of Rochester for the actual costs to the Town for the reproduction and mailing of referral materials. An itemized accounting shall be provided to the applicant, if requested. This shall be an expansion to the existing TORPB policy requiring applicant reimbursement for the actual costs for the publication and notice of public hearings.”

Notice of this policy shall be included in application packets and posted on the Town Clerk bulletin board and on the Town website.

OTHER MATTERS

REFERRAL RESOLUTION RE: POLICY CHANGE (cont’d)

Chairman Baden motioned to approve the above read resolution. Seconded by Mr. Rominger.

Discussion:

Mr. Rominger thought it sounded reasonable.

OTHER MATTERS

REFERRAL RESOLUTION RE: POLICY CHANGE (cont’d):

Chairman Baden noted that it does increase the cost and they are setting precedent, but he thought that the alternative was to go back to the Town Board and ask them to look at the cost of the fees because to his knowledge they have not been raised since 2004.

Mr. O’Donnell questioned if this was a common trend among other towns?

Mrs. Christiana noted that in the other Town’s that she works for they make the applicant get the packets ready and send it out. If there is an application where there are a lot of maps and documents involved, other towns often have the applicant’s professionals take care of it.

Mr. O’Donnell would hate to see this Town be the first ones to do it and end up pushing people away because of it. But if it’s the trend that going on with everything else…

Chairman Baden noted that the reproduction of the materials isn’t going to be an issue. We usually tell the applicant that we need 10 copies of the maps and they just hand them to us. Where it does become an issue is with the postage in mailing these things out.

Mr. Rominger speculated that this would be associated with larger projects. It wouldn’t be like if someone was building a garage and they would get hit with $300 in postage.

Chairman Baden noted for example- the Body of Truth, the Board has probably sent out a dozen map packets already and they are paying the same Special Use Permit Fee as anyone else. On the smaller projects it isn’t going to impact someone. It just seems to him that the fee of the application itself is intended to pay for the Secretary’s time, for the Town Attorney- they don’t get charged for Town Attorney time. If we sign the policy of this date, anything that we send out from tomorrow on—and if the Board is more comfortable with thinking about this and tabling it, he was fine with that. If the Board wanted him to approach the Town Board for their comment, he would do that.

Mrs. Christiana thought that they may want to table this as there were 4 members absent from this meeting.

Mr. Rominger questioned if there was any way to get data together to see what the actual costs are?

The Secretary noted that she could ask the Town Clerk’s Office if they had that information. They were the office that collected the mail and put it through the postage meter.

OTHER MATTERS

REFERRAL RESOLUTION RE: POLICY CHANGE (cont’d)

Chairman Baden motioned to table the resolution until the next meeting. Mr. Rominger seconded the motion.

Vote:

Baden: Yes Tapper: Absent

O’Donnell: Yes Rominger: Yes

Ullman: Absent Ricks: Absent

Smith: Absent Paddock: Yes*

(*alternate seated to establish quorum)

Motion carried. 4 ayes, 0 nays, 4 absent

OTHER MATTERS

UPDATES ON APPROVED PROJECTS FROM THE CEO

Chairman Baden noted that after approaching the CEO regarding the Vinci Farms project status because of the requested extension it got him to thinking. He went to Mr. Davis, CEO and assured Chairman Baden that he looks at the conditions. He was reluctant to start an official quarterly report because he didn’t want to put a lot of additional work onto his Secretary. Chairman Baden understood this noting it would be more paperwork, but he was trying to establish a little more back and forth so the Board knows that they made an approval, say, 6 months ago—and now where does the applicant stand?

The Secretary noted that what she has seen from older files from years past, the Chairman would periodically question the status of x, y, z permits and that would trigger the CEO to give the PB a report on their status.

Chairman Baden noted to members that if they had a question regarding an approval that was done and they are curious and want to contact him, the Chairman could look into the status of individual projects.

Mr. Rominger questioned if the Board received any notifications of project completion in the form of C/O’s or anything?

Chairman Baden answered that the Board does not normally get that.

Mr. O’Donnell noted that would be a good thing to have.

Chairman Baden agreed noting that the Board spends a lot of time on the conditions and it would be nice to know that they were met.

The Secretary noted that a lot of times in past decisions it was the responsibility of the applicant to supply the PB with a copy of the C/O.

Chairman Baden noted that the Board could just ask the CEO to copy the PB Office with a C/O when it is issued.

OTHER MATTERS CONT’D

NARRATIVES FOR SUP/SPA’s

Chairman Baden noted that he has directed the Secretary after seeing the way the Town of New Paltz handled the Smiley Brothers’ application with a narrative. In our Code the applicants are supposed to supply a narrative telling the PB what they are doing and explaining exactly what they want. He is going to start requiring this for Special Use Permit and Site Plan Approval because then there won’t be any questions about what is being applied for. A map doesn’t show exactly what they are expecting to use the property for, so he is going to enforce that applicants supply a narrative telling the Board what their expectations are of the property and he thinks that will help the PB review and help eliminate questions down the road. That’s required in the Code.

OTHER MATTERS

BODY OF TRUTH PART 2 OF EAF

Chairman Baden wanted the Board to be prepared for going over Part 2 of the SEQRA for the Body of Truth as he anticipates the Board will fill it out. Take some time before now and then and look it over. The Board heard the public comment, so if anyone has any questions on any thing specific, don’t hesitate to send it to the Secretary.

Mr. Rominger questioned when the Board would get a response from the Public Hearing? It would probably help to get their answers to the comments.

Chairman Baden’s suspicion was that the Board would get a written response before the next meeting based on what was said at this meeting.

Mrs. Christiana noted that the Public Hearing could be closed and the Board didn’t need to make a decision right away.

Chairman Baden noted that because it is a Special Use Permit they could close the Public Hearing without having completed the SEQRA.

ADJOURNMENT

Mr. O’Donnell motioned to adjourn, seconded by Mr. Paddock. No discussion. All members present in favor.

As there was no further business, at 9:00 PM, Chairman Baden adjourned the meeting.

Respectfully submitted,

Rebecca Paddock Stange, Secretary

As approved August 9, 2011