Planning Board Minutes March 2011

MINUTES OF March 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 and asked for roll call attendance.

PRESENT: ABSENT:

Michael Baden, Chairman Fred O’Donnell

Shane Ricks, Vice Chairman

Melvyn I. Tapper

Robert Rominger

Leon Smith

Anthony Ullman

Also present was Town Planner, Timothy Moot; Planning Board Liaison, Councilwoman, Lynn Archer; and Planning Board Alternate, Adam S. Paddock.

ANNOUNCEMENTS

Introduce Alternate Member:

Chairman Baden introduced and welcomed the newly appointed Planning Board Alternate, Adam Paddock. Mr. Paddock was present in the audience.

Body of Truth has secured UCHD approval.

Ulster County Ag District Notice for anyone interested.

Ulster County Web Map now online at http://gis.co.ulster.ny.us/.

Trainings:

UCPB is sponsoring a ZBA training in New Paltz on March 30^th. There are a number of Orange County Trainings that are available. Dates have been emailed to Members. There is also a Dutchess County Training on Stormwater on March 29^th. UCPB is not going to be holding as many as they have done in the past as there are so many opportunities available.

NYS DEC Form Draft Updates on DEC website on their SEQRA Forms. The deadline to comment is April 8^th.

ACTION ON MINUTES

Mr. Tapper noted that there was a section in the minutes that was confusing. There were draft conditions that were listed and he thought that they were the ones that they had voted on.

Chairman Baden agreed that they were confusing. He’d look into whether or not they had to have them listed.

Mr. Rominger motioned to accept the minutes from February 15, 2011 seconded by Mr. Tapper.

Vote:

Baden: Yes Tapper: Yes

O’Donnell: Absent Rominger: Yes

Ullman: Yes Ricks: Yes

Smith: Yes

CONTINUED APPLICATION, SEQRA DETERMINATION, PUBLIC HEARING

STREAMSIDE ESTATES- Major Subdivision for 7 lots, Cherrytown Road, Tax Map #67-2-

43.141, AR-3 District

Mr. Medenbach was present on behalf of the application.

Mr. Moot from Clark Patterson Lee (CPL) was present on behalf of the Town as the consultant for this application.

Chairman Baden noted that there were some comment letters received that they still need to discuss with the applicant first.

Chairman Baden noted that the Tax Map number listed on the plans by the applicant were wrong and needed to be changed. Since the last meeting, the Board received a comment letter from the DEC dated March 7, 2011, a clarification from the Fire District dated February 24, 2011, and a letter forwarded from Chairman Baden to Mr. Medenbach dated February 24, 2011 regarding a new flood plain designation under FEMA than what is reflected on the maps. It’s a possible different footprint.

Mr. Medenbach noted that he did receive a letter from Chairman Baden and what had happened was that they had just used the old designation when they originally applied. In this particular area there is really no change. It is basically the same classification through this property, although he will update on the maps what the reference number. He also explained that when they were here for the mobile home park application, they conducted and submitted a detailed study to establish what those elevations would be. That was an engineering study that was submitted to this board and reviewed by its consultants and it was accepted. He has resubmitted that study and the flood plain limits shown on the map are an accurate certifiable study. They can use that study and they can go to FEMA to get elevation certifications to show the placement of buildings to show that they are above the flood plain. They do this quite often.

Mr. Moot noted that they took a look at the study, but CPL’s position is that FEMA acknowledges and accepts the study. It’s not up to CPL or the Board. They should issue a letter of amendment that they may amend the actual map. The applicant should send it to FEMA now to get it straightened out.

Chairman Baden asked the Town’s Attorney and she advised that the Town is bound to use the FEMA mapping as mapped unless…

Mr. Medenbach noted that the Town actually has a flood protection law that says that they can do what they just did.

CONTINUED APPLICATION, SEQRA DETERMINATION, PUBLIC HEARING

STREAMSIDE ESTATES (CONT’D)- Major Subdivision for 7 lots, Cherrytown Road, Tax Map #67-2-43.141, AR-3 District

Chairman Baden would have to ask the CEO about this. If Mr. Medenbach could submit to FEMA and get them to accept it, that’s what the Board would want to see.

Mr. Medenbach understood this.

Chairman Baden noted that the DEC’s response noted that they were looking at the old original drawings. They were submitted back in October. Their comments were generic saying that they needed to comply with SPEDES and if no other DEC permits were required, the submittal of the SWPPP to the DEC was not required. At this time there are no other DEC permits.

Mr. Medenbach followed up with his own response to DEC noting that they didn’t need any more DEC permits.

Chairman Baden noted that they all agreed on that. The next thing that the DEC says in their response is that a limit of disturbance line should be drawn on the site plan.

Mr. Medenbach noted that it is on the new site plan.

Chairman Baden noted that the Board submitted to them for comments back in October, so they reviewed one of the older plans. The Town copied them on the Notice of Hearing and that’s what probably spurred their comments.

Chairman Baden continued and noted that the DEC’s third comment was about the regulated stream that they are asking for a notice to be placed on the subdivision plan and in the deeds.

Mr. Medenbach was aware of this and didn’t have a problem with it.

Chairman Baden continued that the DEC also noted that lots 3, 4, 5, 6, & 7 are in the 100 year flood plain, which the Board just discussed and they said flood proofing measures should be required. The last comment is that they talk about cultural resources. The Board has been in contact with OPRHP and they have already submitted a comment letter back that no further review is necessary. That addresses all of the DEC’s comments. The next correspondence was from the Fire District with more details. They are requesting that the entrance road be 25’ wide for the first 200’. They are also asking that lot #2 be constructed with a 50’ pull off.

Mr. Medenbach was going to speak with the Fire Dept. directly to clarify what the width of the mentioned pull off should be. He didn’t think that they realized that this is a 2 lane road.

Chairman Baden wanted to add to the pull off in lot #2 that the portion should probably be included with the road so it gets maintained with the HOA. He just wanted to make sure that it didn’t become the homeowner’s responsibility to take care of the pull off.

Mr. Medenbach didn’t think that whatever they put there would go beyond the 50’ wide right of way. This was going to be a HOA for the road as well as the Stormwater.

CONTINUED APPLICATION, SEQRA DETERMINATION, PUBLIC HEARING

STREAMSIDE ESTATES (CONT’D)- Major Subdivision for 7 lots, Cherrytown Road, Tax Map #67-2-43.141, AR-3 District

Chairman Baden referred back to the Fire Dept’s letter. They wanted the standpipe extended from the roadway to the pond. Mr. Medenbach had already agreed to this in the last meeting. The Town Attorney gave the Board some comments as well. She said that the egress that is being proposed- the emergency access through the mobile home park that as the ownership of that parcel may change in the future, an easement needed to be granted to allow access through that property. She also mentioned that provisions needed to be made through the HOA for the roadway and the Stormwater basins, which is what was already discussed. In the Code for Preliminary Approval, it asks for an outline, not a detailed agreement. She also brought up the FEMA flood mapping saying that the Town is bound to follow it. He questioned what Mr. Medenbach’s thoughts were on the road, on the fire issues?

Mr. Medenbach would do whatever they wanted. They weren’t asking for anything unreasonable. He just wanted to get exactly what they wanted, so he would speak with them directly.

Chairman Baden questioned if Mr. Moot wanted to go over the SWPPP anymore? Did Mr. Medenbach have time to review the previous comments that were given at the last meeting?

Mr. Medenbach didn’t want to keep addressing revised plans piecemeal—he wanted to finish the Public Hearing and address all comments at once. The issue came up where there was a March 1^st filing for an NOI in which case you would have to comply with the new regulations. He spoke to the DEC about it and they said that if he had a completed design, and it wasn’t expected to change, even though they didn’t have Town Approval, they could file it. But if they change the plan for any reason, they would have to comply. They had designed this thing out over a year ago, so they had submitted for coverage under the old permit and he expects to get that. They will also address CPL’s comments.

At this time the Board went over the draft of Part 2 of the EAF as prepared by Mr. Moot.

1. Will the Proposed Action result in a physical change to the project

site? The Board answered, YES and checked ‘small to moderate’ and checked off the example, “Any construction on slopes of 15% or greater, (15 foot rise per 100 foot of length), or where the general slopes in the project area exceed 10%. They also checked off “other” and supplied the following comment: The project area is primarily forested with steep slopes located along the western portion of the site. These slopes make up approximately 1/3 of the site. The proposed development will remove approximately 7 acres of forested lands .

3. Will Proposed Action affect any water body designated as protected? (Under Articles 15, 24, 25 of the Environmental Conservation Law, ECL). The Board checked, YES and checked ‘small to moderate’ and checked off the example, “Developable area of site contains a protected water body.” Also checked was off was “other and supplied the following comment: A 100-foot buffer exists around Mombaccus Creek, a Class A (TS) waterbody located at the north end of the project area. No development is proposed to occur within this buffer area, but in some instances will be right at the edge of the buffer zone. In addition, portions of the project may be located in a FEMA-designated floodplain, according to the most recent floodplain mapping (effective 2009).

CONTINUED APPLICATION, SEQRA DETERMINATION, PUBLIC HEARING

STREAMSIDE ESTATES (CONT’D)- Major Subdivision for 7 lots, Cherrytown Road, Tax Map #67-2-

43.141, AR-3 District

5. Will Proposed Action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity? The Board checked, YES and checked ‘small to moderate’ and checked off the example,” Proposed Action will allow residential uses in areas without water and/or sewer services.” Also checked was off was “other and supplied the following comment: An additional stormwater pond will be constructed outside of the project area on adjacent property owned by the applicant as part of the stormwater management of the site.

6. Will Proposed Action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface water runoff? The Board checked, YES and checked ‘small to moderate’ and checked off the ‘other’ example and supplied the following comment,

“Additional impervious surfaces will be created as part of the project that may increase stormwater runoff.”

10. Will Proposed Action affect agricultural land resources? The Board checked, YES and checked ‘small to moderate’ and checked off the example, “ The Proposed Action would irreversibly convert more than 10

acres of agricultural land or, if located in an Agricultural District, more than 2.5 acres of agricultural land.”

12. Will Proposed Action impact any site or structure of historic, prehistoric or paleontological importance? The Board checked, YES and checked ‘small to moderate’ and checked off the example,“Proposed Action occurring wholly or partially within or substantially contiguous to any facility or site listed on the State

or National Register of historic places.”. Also checked was off was “other and supplied the following comment: Project located adjacent to Schoonmaker Stone House (96NR01074) and Terwilliger-Smith Farm (02NR04998).

15. Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems? The Board checked, YES and checked ‘small to moderate’ and checked off the example, “Other”, and supplied the following comment: An additional curb cut onto Cherrytown Road with access for 7 residential lots.

17. Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of the Proposed Action? The Board checked, YES and checked ‘small to moderate’ and checked off the example, “Other”, and supplied the following comment: There will be short-term construction related noise, which will pose minimal impacts to adjacent properties only.

19. Will Proposed Action affect the character of the existing community? The Board checked, YES and checked ‘small to moderate’ and checked off the example, “Other”, and supplied the following comment:The proposed subdivision and development will convert existing forested lands to residential properties. Development in the general vicinity consists primarily of low-density development; the additional housing proposed for this site will increase or give the perception of increased density with the existing homes and mobile homes immediately adjacent to the site. The general policy recommendations of the Town’s Comprehensive Plan (2006) calls for encouraging development in or near existing concentrations of development, especially in hamlets.

CONTINUED APPLICATION, SEQRA DETERMINATION, PUBLIC HEARING

STREAMSIDE ESTATES (CONT’D)- Major Subdivision for 7 lots, Cherrytown Road, Tax Map #67-2-43.141, AR-3 District

20. Is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential adverse environment impacts? The Board checked, YES and checked ‘small to moderate’ and checked off the example, “Other”, and supplied the following comment: Development and construction of dwellings on lands that contain steep slopes and in close proximity to Mombaccus Creek and its floodplain has the potential to cause some controversy.

Chairman Baden noted that there were not any large impacts identified. He asked if there was any disagreement with Board Members and what was just read? There was not any disagreement.

Mr. Ricks motioned for a Negative Declaration under SEQRA seconded by Mr. Smith. No discussion. Vote:

Baden: Yes Tapper: Yes

O’Donnell: Absent Rominger: Yes

Ullman: Yes Ricks: Yes

Smith: Yes

Mr. Tapper questioned the Stormwater basins—where they were located and who took care of them?

Mr. Medenbach pointed out on the map where the basins were located and noted that they would be covered under the HOA.

Mr. Tapper questioned where the Stormwater would go after it overflowed into the pond?

Mr. Medenbach noted that it would probably disappear into the ground before it got to the stream. That would only happen when we got heavy rains. The ground was very cobblely and gravelly there.

Mr. Tapper questioned it would flood at all?

Mr. Medenbach noted that they have improved the drainage about a year ago to keep that from happening. When they do the development they would improve it even more. They would use a combination of piping and ditches.

At 7:35 Chairman Baden opened the hearing to the public. He asked Mr. Medenbach to give a presentation of the project to the public.

CONTINUED APPLICATION, SEQRA DETERMINATION, PUBLIC HEARING

STREAMSIDE ESTATES (CONT’D)- Major Subdivision for 7 lots, Cherrytown Road, Tax Map #67-2-43.141, AR-3 District

Mr. Medenbach noted that the property was 46 acres. It was wooded and had frontage on Cherrytown Road. It was part of the old Tessler farm across the street and adjacent to the 16 unit Streamside Estates Mobile Home Park. The previous owner graded and roughed in a road off of Cherrytown and that would be the access that they would be utilizing to construct their private road. The private road will terminate in a cul-de-sac and there will be emergency access through the mobile home park. There were 7 building sites proposed. The Mombaccus Stream is a Class A Trout Stream and flows down through the rear of the property. They are going to create a conservation area which is basically the brown line on the map. There is an area of steep slopes that would be included in the conservation area that would prevent any further disturbance. This would be on 5 of the lots that would have stream frontage. All lots exceed the 3 acre requirement.

Chairman Baden recognized William De Graw who was a bounding owner to speak.

Mr. De Graw questioned if this property was already a separate lot or was it a combination of a couple of the lots?

Chairman Baden noted that there still were 4 parcels there, he believed that the larger parcel and this parcel were changed slightly?

Mr. Medenbach noted that there were 4 parcels and there was a modification done a couple of years ago to the division line. He showed how they reorganized the property around the mobile home park. It’s always been 4 parcels, so this has allowed the subdivision to be on a separate parcel and allows the mobile home park to stay on its own piece as well.

Mr. De Graw questioned if the 17 acres was adequate for 16 units?

Mr. Medenbach noted that this readjustment was done under the old zoning laws when the Town was one acre zoning.

Mr. De Graw questioned if the conservation being the steep slopes and the stream, if he considered adding the steep slopes along the roadway that were not part of the mobile home park and south of the roadway? Now would be the time to do that.

Mr. Medenbach noted that they did that on lot 1. He didn’t highlight it on the plan that he is showing, but that is included.

Chairman Baden confirmed this.

Mr. De Graw questioned if the new Stormwater Regulations were apart of this?

CONTINUED APPLICATION, SEQRA DETERMINATION, PUBLIC HEARING

STREAMSIDE ESTATES (CONT’D)- Major Subdivision for 7 lots, Cherrytown Road, Tax Map #67-2-43.141, AR-3 District

Mr. Medenbach noted that there have been a series of new Stormwater Regulations imposed by the State over the last 11 years and they comply with them up to the March 1, 2011 changes. He spoke with the DEC and they said, anyone who has a completed plan and files it before March 1^st, they don’t have to comply with the new regulations. They made that filing and verified it that even though they didn’t have PB approval, that it was all designed out and they weren’t expecting any changes to the plan. If there were changes to the plan, they wouldn’t have that coverage.

Chairman Baden noted that a majority of those changes is mostly for MS4 communities and we are not an MS4 community. As of 2009 the Town Code has stipulations for maintenance of Stormwater facilities that weren’t in there previously. It is significantly better than it was 4 or 5 years ago.

Mr. De Graw continued his comment noting that the pond area, being the drainage from the Stormwater- was that included in the Stormwater Maintenance Agreement and discharged out of the pond?

Mr. Medenbach answered, yes- all the way to the stream.

The last comment that Mr. De Graw had was in regards to the 100 year flood plain and he knew that when this was looked at years ago for the other proposal, these areas have seen water. They heard testimony from the public years ago that this area gets hammered with floods. Is that going to be taken into consideration from a design standpoint?

Chairman Baden noted that is why he brought up the mapping change in 2009 and according to the Town Attorney, the Town is obligated to follow that unless FEMA says differently.

Mr. Medenbach noted that the public comments that came out in the previous application which was the mobile home park, they were all referring to the massive flooding that had taken place and that is actually not on this property, it’s downstream. It’s where the Mombaccus Creek crosses Samsonville Road and the water would back up over large vast areas and Samsonville Road would overflow. That’s all down in that agricultural plan. This is up quite a bit higher and it’s an area where the stream has a pretty good grade to it, it’s not down flat—so the water moves from this site pretty quickly and as such doesn’t have this big broad flood plain that everyone talks about. Members of the public actually had pictures and you could see that it wasn’t this property.

Chairman Baden noted that just further down stream there is a Federal Wetland that is just away from this property. With the rain storms they had this past weekend, Chairman Baden had taken a ride down there himself and didn’t walk all the way to the stream, but took a quick walk around, but he did not see any significant areas of flooding. He was curious to see if was going to flood, because with this rain we’ve had, now would be the time and he didn’t see anything.

Troy Dunn, bounding owner questioned when the land was last surveyed?

Mr. Medenbach answered within the last 10 years.

CONTINUED APPLICATION, SEQRA DETERMINATION, PUBLIC HEARING

STREAMSIDE ESTATES (CONT’D)- Major Subdivision for 7 lots, Cherrytown Road, Tax Map #67-2-43.141, AR-3 District

Mr. Dunn questioned if they would be using that survey for this subdivision?

Mr. Medenbach noted that it would be updated for the final map.

Mr. Dunn questioned if the adjacent landowners would be notified when that survey takes place?

Mr. Medenbach stated that they generally don’t do that.

Mr. Dunn noted that would be something that would be nice. That way he would appreciate it so he could bring his current survey to make sure that they were on the same page. He would make that request as a neighbor.

Mr. Medenbach didn’t think that would be a problem.

Mr. Dunn noted that before he did anything with any of the parcels that he had he would always notify the adjacent land owner just out of courtesy because anytime he’s trekking on his line- he’d like to know whose on his property. That is a place where something can be nipped in the bud. He also noted in regard to flooding- this property does flood. He grew up on this land riding horseback here as a child. It floods. If they didn’t think it floods he’d take them back there and show them trees that were across last summer that is now gone. That tree was about 3 feet in the air and it’s gone. He’s up on this property everyday and it floods based on experience. He questioned if this parcel is in the Ag District?

Chairman Baden noted that a portion of it is in the Ag District.

Mr. Dunn questioned if it would be taken out of the Ag District?

Chairman Baden noted that it isn’t required. He didn’t know if there was a procedure to be taken out of it.

Mr. Medenbach noted that the County revises those maps as they see fit. It doesn’t mean anything unless you are actively farming it.

Mr. Dunn thought that the parcels would be too small to be in the Ag District.

Mr. Medenbach noted that they have taken big geographical areas regardless to the acreage and designated them into districts.

Chairman Baden noted that they do a 10 year update of maps, but every year individual parcels can request to be put into the Ag District.

Mr. Dunn questioned if a parcel wasn’t in the Ag District, if that parcel was sold, there was no disclosure about the Ag District? He wanted to make sure that if someone bought an adjoining lot, he wanted to make sure that it was disclosed that they were buying a lot next to a farm and farming activities.

CONTINUED APPLICATION, SEQRA DETERMINATION, PUBLIC HEARING

STREAMSIDE ESTATES (CONT’D)- Major Subdivision for 7 lots, Cherrytown Road, Tax Map #67-2-43.141, AR-3 District

The Secretary noted that the Town requires a right to farm note to be included on every subdivision map as a condition of approval.

Mr. Dunn noted that he was glad to hear about the conservation easement and asked for it to be described.

Mr. Medenbach noted that the whole details haven’t been worked out yet. They were only here for a preliminary approval. For Final Approval is when they would submit those documents. He wasn’t sure how they were going to do it- if it would be part of a map filing restriction. Basically it would restrict any construction or clearing in those areas. It would allow removal of dead and diseased trees.

Mr. Dunn liked that, but doesn’t feel it has fully been addressed and he’d be interested in getting a better understanding of it.

Chairman Baden noted that this isn’t a requirement of the Board, this is at the volunteering of the applicant. He agreed that the land with the easement is definitely challenged to be built upon. Its in their hands, the Town just has to make sure that it’s legally done correctly. The content is up to the applicant.

Mr. Tapper wanted to talk more about the conservation easements. Was there any other explanation of what Mr. Medenbach meant about conservation easement for the benefit of the public?

Mr. Medenbach noted that other than what he said, they are going to present a legal binding agreement that they will be presenting to the Board as their mitigation for any potential environmental impact.

Mr. Ullman wanted to clarify- the applicant was talking about a restrictive covenant…

Mr. Medenbach noted that this was where the Attorneys needed to decide how they wanted to see it. They’ve been doing it as a map filing note which runs with the land, it’s something that can’t be reversed. There may be a covenant restrictions document that may get filed with that- he’s not the lawyer, so he’s not entirely sure. There would be reference in the individual deeds to it.

Mr. Ullman noted that the key is what Mr. Medenbach already said, that there isn’t going to be any clearing or any building or anything other than maintenance of dead trees in these specific areas.

Mr. Tapper noted that every lot that is included in the conservation easement would have a house on it. So, the parcel that would have a conservation easement would have a house on it, and its just going to be no further subdivision?

Mr. Medenbach showed Mr. Tapper the map and explained further—they took out the buildable areas of the lots- the conservation easements are only on the unbuildable parts of the lots.

Mr. Ullman noted that each lot will have to have a particular meets and bounds in there descriptions that say where exactly the conservation easements are and what they entail. Each lot would have its own.

CONTINUED APPLICATION, SEQRA DETERMINATION, PUBLIC HEARING

STREAMSIDE ESTATES (CONT’D)- Major Subdivision for 7 lots, Cherrytown Road, Tax Map #67-2-43.141, AR-3 District

Mr. Tapper clarified- there is going to be a house- say on a 29 acre parcel- there will be an area for building, and the rest will be restricted? That’s what he’s trying to clarify for members of the public.

Mr. Medenbach answered yes. There will be no further subdivision or building and will be vacant.

Mr. Dunn noted that that was a better clarification.

Chairman Baden questioned if the Board thought the public hearing should be kept open because of the outstanding issues with the road?

Mr. Ricks didn’t think anything with the road was an issue at the public hearing.

Chairman Baden motioned to keep the public hearing open just because they didn’t have a finalized drawing- it’s still changing.

Mr. De Graw questioned what the issues were with the road?

Chairman Baden noted that they weren’t really issues. They got some clarification from the Fire District on pull off and road width since the last meeting. There were concerns with the width of the road from the Fire District, but they didn’t give us specific number of feet and the Board requested clarification and there will potentially be some changes to the roadway. He believed this was he only thing changing at this point. From his own perspective he would feel more comfortable holding it open.

A bounding owner, Frank Kortright, walked into the meeting and Chairman Baden asked if he had any questions. Mr. Kortright didn’t quite know what was going on so the Chairman explained that this was a public hearing for the 7 lot subdivision and showed Mr. Kortright the map. Mr. Medenbach explained the layout of the subdivision and where it was located.

Mr. De Graw urged the Board to be sure that the trailer park with 16 residences had adequate area for sewage and repairs in the future for existing systems.

Chairman Baden noted that the septic fields for these proposed homes are all on the individual proposed lots.

What Mr. De Graw was saying is that he understands that the subdivision is on its own parcel, and maybe it should have been addressed when the lines were originally changes a few years ago—but he wanted to make sure it was addressed that adequate field reserve or repair areas were available to the existing mobile homes.

Chairman Baden noted that between Preliminary and Final Approval, all that would have to be approved with the UCHD. If they come up with something that is an issue they will address it there.

Mr. Medenbach noted that all of those mobile homes have reserve areas already laid out.

CONTINUED APPLICATION, SEQRA DETERMINATION, PUBLIC HEARING

STREAMSIDE ESTATES (CONT’D)- Major Subdivision for 7 lots, Cherrytown Road, Tax Map #67-2-43.141, AR-3 District

Chairman Baden noted that once Preliminary Approval has been made by the Board, the applicant has 3 years to do the improvements and there are a couple of stipulations that that can be extended if necessary. Between Preliminary and Final Approval, all of those things- septic, water, Stormwater, roadway all that will have to be signed off on by various agencies.

Mr. De Graw wondered if the mobile home park would be looked at by the UCHD as it was a separate piece now?

Mr. Ricks noted that those are separate projects.

Mr. Medenbach noted that he believed that all of the mobile home septics had been replaced by Michael Baum and approved by the UCHD. And when they replaced them they also got the reserve system approved. These are relatively new systems.

Mr. Ullman noted that that isn’t relative to this project.

Chairman Baden motioned to hold the public hearing open based on the fact that there could be new submissions. Seconded by Mr. Rominger. No discussion.

Vote:

Baden: Yes Tapper: Yes

O’Donnell: Absent Rominger: Yes

Ullman: Yes Ricks: Yes

Smith: Yes

NEW APPLICATION

BELLIMAN LLC, c/o Alan Madnick, Special Use Permit to include additional Principal Permitted Uses: Gift, Antique, and Craft Shop, Low-Impact Retail and Service Establishment, Office, and Recording Studio, Amending Site Plan Approval [PB 2009-01SPA for use Retail and Service Establishment (non-auto)]5010 Route 209, Tax Map #77.1-1-24.131, ‘B’ Zoning District

Mr. Medenbach was present on behalf of the application.

Chairman Baden noted that on the agenda this is listed as “amend Site Plan Approval”. The Board was contacted by the CEO on this date noting that it was brought to his attention that additional permitted principle permitted uses requires a Special Use Permit. This is under 140-8. It does not change anything to the application. It just means that they are issuing a Special Use Permit as opposed to amending a site plan.

NEW APPLICATION

BELLIMAN LLC(cont’d) c/o Alan Madnick, Special Use Permit to include additional Principal Permitted Uses: Gift, Antique, and Craft Shop, Low-Impact Retail and Service Establishment, Office, and Recording Studio, Amending Site Plan Approval [PB 2009-01SPA for use Retail and Service Establishment (non-auto)] 5010 Route 209, Tax Map #77.1-1-24.131, ‘B’ Zoning District

Mr. Ullman was concerned because he felt that approving things conceptually is a little abstract. Its not like someone saying specifically what they want — and there is something concrete to look at. This seems generically saying what is good for any low impact retail establishment without regard for what will actually be put there in the future. He doesn’t feel that this is how a site plan is actually supposed to work. There is supposed to be something actual and concrete put in place and plans to reflect that. Otherwise he didn’t think the value of the site plan and improving everything in advance without having an actual project basically means, leaving “subject to site plan approval” out of the code.

Chairman Baden noted that the CEO will have to determine if the actual use meets these categories. The PB can condition the amount of square feet allowed as they did in the approval for the retail and service establishment. So, in speaking with the Town Attorney, she suggested doing one of two things- either condition it for the highest possible use or condition each use and say ‘this use is allowed this many square feet and so on…” and multiple uses are happening simultaneously then the CEO would have to determine that enough parking existed. The PB could put that in their conditions.

Mr. Medenbach noted that historically this is how its always been done—for example a shopping plaza where you have compartments—every time a tenant changed over they didn’t go to the PB for site plan approval. Site plans are typically parking, lighting, traffic, landscaping, maybe the look of the building. They are all pretty retail related with the exception of the recording studio. These are all similar business- they have similar site plan requirements- if you added something like automotive repairs—obviously that’s not part of it. The way he would interpret this law, if you went to the schedule under “Business Districts” and you went to “principal permitted uses” and there’s a little asterisk that says “needs site plan approval by the Planning Board”. He would interpret that that if he has site plan approval, he would be allowed any of those uses that he has a site plan approved for. It’s the CEO’s responsibility to see if that particular category in this list- does that meet the same criteria for parking, storage, etc—that’s an internal analysis of how the use is. Other wise, every time someone wants to rent this building, they have to come back to the PB, which is not a short process. They have lost tenants.

Chairman Baden noted that this was anticipated in the code for that very statement and it’s covered as a Special Use.

Mr. Medenbach noted that they aren’t asking for all of these uses at the same time- it’s not like a shopping plaza.

Chairman Baden noted that he was asking for multiple approvals. And it’s clear in the text that this would be a Special Use Permit. This would give them the most bang for their buck as they could potentially put more than one use in there at the same time if they go through this process- he didn’t anticipate a Special Use Permit taking considerable more time than a site plan would.

Mr. Medenbach was hoping for the Board to waiver the public hearing.

NEW APPLICATION

Chairman Baden anticipated that and the Town Attorney has advised that the Board doesn’t do that. He would put it to the rest of the Board for discussion- but the Attorney’s advice is not to waive the public hearing as there are other uses being proposed.

Mr. Medenbach noted that it was already determined by the CEO and this Board that those other uses don’t require different parking as long as they stay within the square footage requirements.

Chairman Baden noted that the Board hasn’t reviewed the site plan- the PB has to review the site plan with the uses now being proposes. It is the Town Attorney’s recommendation to schedule a public hearing on this. She goes further to say—

Mr. Ullman suggested that the Chairman not disclose the Town Attorney’s advice.

Chairman Baden noted that she asked that it not be shared in hard copy, but it was okay to discuss it.

He continued to note that the PB needs the applicant to withdraw the application submitted at the previous meeting so the PB can transfer the application fee to this application. We need a letter to officially do that. The PB also needs to amend the application to say Special Use Permit, not Site Plan.

Mr. Ullman asked that the new application be consistent- there have been several names associated with this.

Chairman Baden noted that if there are no proposed changes to the site plan that he did the math and 34 parking spaces would give the applicant 5,900sf for retail and services and he thinks it would be the same for the gift/craft shops and low impact retail. He sees the recording studio as being an industrial use and that would be one parking space for every 400 sf—so they could use the entire building for the recording studio. He noted that the applicant submitted a document dated February 24, 2011 from BCDF Pictures saying that on days that they are going to record at the building, that they have an agreement with Skate Time 209 to use their parking as overflow for the extra cars and to shuttle people over to the site. The Chairman discussed this with the Town Attorney and she stated that there needs to be an agreement between the applicant and Skate Time 209 and she should review it. He checked out the approved Skate Time 209 site plan and they have 17 more spaces than they were required to have, so he doesn’t see it physically being a problem. However, the Board does need to see a formal agreement between the applicant and Skate Time 209. He understands that the applicant is under time constraints, and it is his intention to see if the Board would be in favor of holding the public hearing at a workshop meeting on the 29^th of this month, but this document is something that they would need.

Mr. Medenbach didn’t believe that a formal agreement was necessary. There was much discussion on this topic. Members of the Board agreed that they agreement should be between the property owner and Skate Time 209—not the tenant. Mr. Medenbach felt that a formal legal document was overkill and would scare both parties out of the agreement.

NEW APPLICATION

Mr. Tapper felt that if the Board conditioned the approval to allow “No on street parking”, that this would be taking care of it. If there were cars parked along Route 209, the CEO or the State Police could be contacted and handle it.

Mr. Medenbach noted that it was legal to park on Route 209. He regretted sharing the overflow parking agreement and considered taking it off of the table as an option.

Chairman Baden stated that a recording studio is a very different use than all the other ones being considered. It’s a much more ‘truck intensive’ type of business. No where on the plan does the applicant show how he is going to accommodate all of these trucks.

Mr. Medenbach showed on the plans where trucks could park in the back.

Chairman Baden wasn’t convinced of this truck parking layout. He felt that tit would create a fire hazard if you filled up that area with trucks. The difference in the parking needs for the recording studio really needed to be addressed.

Mr. Ricks agreed with Mr. Tapper that the Board could cover this disagreement by conditioning “no on street parking”. That would cover the Town’s liability.

Mr. Ullman stated that if the Board sees a potential issue, they needed to deal with it. The applicant doesn’t have control over that.

Chairman Baden agreed noting that that Board has a responsibility to deal with the parking issue from a safety standpoint.

Mr. Medenbach re-iterated how time consuming and possibly deal breaking the requested legally prepared and reviewed parking agreement would be to his client.

Chairman Baden noted that they would condition the need for parking in designated spaces.

The Board discussed who would be available to attend a workshop meeting for this application for the purposes of holding a public hearing?

Mr. Tapper, Chairman Baden, Mr. Ricks, and Mr. Smith would be able to attend.

NEW APPLICATION

Mr. Ricks motioned to hold a workshop meeting on March 29, 2011. Seconded by Mr. Tapper. Mr. Ullman and Mr. Rominger were against this as they would not be able to attend and felt that the Board wouldn’t properly address the need for an offsite parking plan if they were not there to push the issue.

Vote:

Baden: Yes Tapper: Yes

O’Donnell: Absent Rominger: No

Ullman: No Ricks: Yes

Smith: Yes

Motion carried with a 4-2 vote.

Mr. Ricks motioned to schedule a public hearing for the Belliman Special Use Permit application as just discussed. Seconded by Mr. Smith. Mr. Rominger and Mr. Ullman held the same opposition as the above motion for the workshop meeting.

Vote:

Baden: Yes Tapper: Yes

O’Donnell: Absent Rominger: No

Ullman: No Ricks: Yes

Smith: Yes

Motion carried with a 4-2 vote.

NEW APPLICATION

IAN READ– Minor Subdivision for 3 lots, 4753 Route 209, Tax Map #69.3-3-27.200, ‘B’ Zoning District

Surveyor, Donald Brewer was present on behalf of the application. He noted that this is a 3 lot subdivision proposal. The applicant, Ian Read, lives at proposed lot #1. He’s looking at selling a lot to his brother and he wants to build on the other piece and to do that he’s looking to sell a lot to pay for the building.

Chairman Baden noted that Mr. Read came before the Board last year for a Pre-application Presentation and at that time the Board asked him to explore using the adjacent private road- Pine Ridge Lane. There is a provision in the Code that instructs applicants coming off of 44/55 and Route 209 to explore the potential of sharing existing accesses when possible to limit the number of accesses coming out onto these state roads. Was this proposed driveway that was providing access to these 3 lots existing?

Mr. Brewer answered, yes. He has already spoken with DOT and they have given their standard entry design.

Mr. Ricks noted that the front parcel has a house on it on 209? That’s not part of this subdivision—but Mr. Read’s driveway goes over that property?

NEW APPLICATION

IAN READ– Minor Subdivision for 3 lots, 4753 Route 209, Tax Map #69.3-3-27.200, ‘B’ Zoning District

Mr. Brewer answered, Yes- it has an easement mentioned in the deed.

Chairman Baden asked that the applicant shows the house on the parcel with the Route 209 frontage and how it is accessed. Does that have it’s own access on to Route 209?

Mr. Brewer answered, yes it does.

Mr. Ricks noted that they needed to show the right of ways over lot 3 to provide access for lots 2 and 1.

Chairman Baden noted that this application having a shared driveway puts this application as being eligible for Planner Review. He didn’t see the need for it and felt the Board could handle it. The Board agreed. This application meets the exception agreement and does not need to be referred to the County. He would like to notify the DOT ,UCHD and Accord Fire Dept.

Chairman Baden motioned for an unlisted action under SEQR with an uncoordinated review. Seconded by Mr. Tapper. No discussion.

Vote:

Baden: Yes Tapper: Yes

O’Donnell: Absent Rominger: Yes

Ullman: Yes Ricks: Yes

Smith: Yes

Motion carried.

Mr. Rominger motioned for the Public Hearing to be scheduled on April 19, 2011 seconded by Mr. Smith. No discussion.

Vote:

Baden: Yes Tapper: Yes

O’Donnell: Absent Rominger: Yes

Ullman: Yes Ricks: Yes

Smith: Yes

Motion carried.

OTHER MATTERS

Chairman Baden noted that they discussed at the last meeting having him pre-review applications to make sure that they were heading in the right direction as far as agencies to contact and things that would be needed.

The Board was in agreement that this was a good idea.

OTHER MATTERS (cont’d):

Mr. Ricks motioned to give the Chairman the authority to pre-review applications. Seconded by Mr. Ullman. No discussion.

Vote:

Baden: Yes Tapper: Yes

O’Donnell: Absent Rominger: Yes

Ullman: Yes Ricks: Yes

Smith: Yes

Motion carried.

COORDINATION WITH OUTSIDE AGENCIES

Chairman Baden noted that he is going to ask the Town Attorney for her advice on how to coordinate with other agencies for applications that the Board approves. For instance in regard to the Body of Truth application- the Health Dept. referenced a set of plans that had a later date on them than when the PB issued their approval. There needs to be a way to make sure that agencies like the DEC and HD are reviewing the same plans approved by the PB and vice versa.

MEETING SWAP WITH ZBA

Chairman Baden asked the Board if they had any problems with asking the ZBA if they would swap meeting dates from now on. This would give the PB an extra week to meet the UCPB deadline.

No one on the PB had a problem with this.

BODY OF TRUTH UPDATE

To the Chairman’s knowledge, the Town filed their papers and the case is now in the judge’s hands.

ADJOURNMENT

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

As there was no further business, at 9:05 PM, Chairman Baden adjourned the meeting.

Respectfully submitted,

Rebecca Paddock Stange, Secretary

PLANNING BOARD

TOWN OF ROCHESTER

ULSTER COUNTY

ACCORD, NEW YORK

(845) 626-2434

torpbzba@hvc.rr.com

MINUTES OF March 29, 2011 Work Shop 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 and asked for roll call attendance.

PRESENT: ABSENT:

Michael Baden, Chairman Robert Rominger

Shane Ricks, Vice Chairman Anthony Ullman

Melvyn I. Tapper

Fred O’Donnell

Leon Smith

Also present was Town Attorney, Mary Lou Christiana.

CONTINUED APPLICATION AND PUBLIC HEARING

BELLIMAN, LLC– c/o Alan Madnick, Special Use Permit to include additional Principal Permitted Uses: Gift, Antique, and Craft Shop, Low-Impact Retail and Service Establishment, Office, and Recording Studio, Amending Site Plan Approval [PB 2009-01SPA for use Retail and Service Establishment (non-auto)] 5010 Route 209, Tax Map #77.1-1-24.131, ‘B’ Zoning District

Barry Medenbach, PE was present on behalf of the application.

Chairman Baden noted that based on the number of parking spaces he has drafted a table of uses and how many parking spaces each use will need.

Mr. Ricks questioned what was the maximum number of spaces?

Chairman Baden noted that he based the table of uses on the previously approved 34 spaces from the previously approved site plan because the applicant is not proposing any changes. Chairman Baden went through how they were calculated- retail and service establishment was already approved, the second one being the gift/antique and craft shop he considered retail, so it’s the same. The low impact retail and service establishment is 2,500 sf by definition in the Town Code. Office is 200 sf per space, so that’s 6,800 sf of useable space. The recording studio he calculated as an industrial use for the parking so that’s 400 sf per space, so the entire building can be used. Because there was discussion that there may be two or more simultaneous uses, he put in the added language that there could be two or more to operate simultaneously, but the applicant would have to designate to the CEO how many spaces would be for each use, that way they wouldn’t need to come back to the PB. IT would be up the CEO to do the math.

Chairman Baden continued to note that the Board did receive a revised application with a letter requesting that the Planning Board fee be moved over from the original application in February.

CONTINUED APPLICATION AND PUBLIC HEARING

Town Attorney Christiana noted that the applicant should at least state for the record that the February application for just a recording studio is rescinded.

Mr. Medenbach agreed and stated for the record that they rescinded the original application that they submitted in February for a recording studio only.

Chairman Baden opened the hearing to the public. He asked that Mr. Medenbach give a brief description of the project.

Mr. Medenbach noted that this building was formerly the Ulster County Carpet Store. There is a building and parking that is existing. The site plan to expand the parking lot was approved last may to expand the use from only being able to be a carpet store to retail use. The applicants have been trying to get a tenant in here and they have a potential client for a recording studio, and that use was not allowed. This was the primary reason for coming back to the Planning Board. They want to build everything the way it was approved last May and just to be able to allow the building to have more of a variety of uses- and right now they are looking at a recording studio and when the lease runs out and someone else comes along they will be able to rent it out to other appropriate type of retail uses. The square footages that they were just talking about have to do with parking. The building was uses in part as retail and the back part was used for storage, so if they use the entire square footage which is 12,000 sf for retail, they wouldn’t have enough parking, so this is why they need to expand it.

Richard Travers, a bounding owner was recognized to speak. Mr. Travers wanted to be clear that the category of ‘gift, antique, and craft shop’ couldn’t include a possible use as a flea market?

Chairman Baden noted that this would be a CEO determination, but he could read the definition of ‘gift, antique, and craft shop’ from Chapter 140: “Gift, Antique or Craft Shop — A relatively small retail store, typically less than 5,000 square feet of floor area, that sells miscellaneous articles appropriate as gifts including antiques, collectibles, crafts, novelties and souvenirs, but not including adult stores.” There is not a separate definition for a flea market.

Mr. Travers had a definition of flea market- it read, “Flea Market or Swap Meet is a type of bizarre where inexpensive second hand goods are sold or bartered. It may be indoors such as in a warehouse or a school gymnasium or maybe outdoors such as a field or under a tent. Flea Market venders may range from a family that is renting a table for the first time to sell household items to a commercial operation including new or used merchandise…” He assumed this is not inherent in that statement.

CONTINUED APPLICATION AND PUBLIC HEARING

Chairman Baden noted that because Flea Market is not covered in any of the zoning districts the way it would be addressed is that as per § 140-8 Schedule of District Regulations: “If a proposed use is not specifically listed in any category of uses or within any zoning district on the Schedule of District Regulations, the Town Board shall, following a public hearing, render a formal determination as to whether or not the use is permitted in a given district and, if the use is permitted, the Planning Board shall then process the application as a Special Use.” So, it would have to go from the Town Board through the PB—at least that is his interpretation. It is up to the CEO, but that is the way that the Code is written.

Mr. Travers trusted that the topic of the recording studio and some of the comments that he has heard two weeks ago have been resolved in relationship to the parking?

Chairman Baden noted that they have not been discussed since the last meeting and it will be brought up tonight.

Mr. Ricks motioned to close the Public Hearing. Seconded by Mr. O’Donnell. No discussion.

Vote:

Baden: Yes Tapper: Yes

O’Donnell: Yes Rominger: Absent

Ullman: Absent Ricks: Yes

Smith: Yes

Motion carried. 5 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent

Chairman Baden noted that there was no SEQRA for this application as it is a Type 2 Action.

Chairman Baden questioned if the Board was ready to make a decision? In keeping with the Board’s new policy he prepared a Draft Decision and it was circulated. Chairman Baden asked for the Town Attorney’s guidance to make sure that the Board was amending the Site Plan Approval properly. The Board was amending the Amend Site Plan Approval #PB 2009-01SPA dated 5/18/2010 Conversion of existing warehouse and retail showroom area. Chairman Baden gave Mr. Medenbach a copy of the Draft Decision to view, but stressed that he wouldn’t open it up for discussion, but he was happy to have Mr. Medenbach read along.

At this time, Chairman Baden read the DRAFT DECISION into the record as follows:

DECISION #PB 2011-01SUP

Application by: Belliman LLC c/o Alan Madnick

For: SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPROVAL for MULTIPLE PRINCIPAL PERMITTED USES pursuant to the Schedule of Zoning Uses in the Code of the Town of Rochester.

Reason for Request: Amend Site Plan Approval #PB 2009-01SPA dated 5/18/2010

Conversion of existing warehouse and retail showroom area to allow multiple principal permitted uses:

Retail and Service Establishment (Non-Auto), Gift, Antique, or Craft Shop, Low-Impact Retail and Service Establishment Office Recording Studio

Location: 5010 Route 209 Tax Map#: 77.1-1-24.131

Acreage: +/- 4.87 Zoning District: ‘B’

Zoning Permit filed: 2/23/11 EAF filed: None Filed

Application #: 11-01SUP SEQR Action: Type 2 determined 3/15/2011

Application filed: 3/18/2011(amended) SEQR Determination: N/A

Outside Agency Referrals: None

Documents considered by the Planning Board for review:

Letter from Medenbach & Eggers to CEO dated 2/17/2011
Zoning Permit #13 of 2011 dated 2/23/2011.
Memo from CEO to Planning Board amending Zoning Permit determination dated 3/16/2011
Amended Special Use Permit application #11-01SUP received dated 3/18/2011.
Letter from Medenbach & Eggers to the Planning Board requesting transfer of zoning fees dated 3/18/2011.
Site Plan dated April 21, 2010 as prepared by Medenbach & Eggers, PC received 3/4/2011.
Town of Rochester Planning Board Site Plan Approval decision #PB 2009-01SPA dated 5/18/2010 (attached)
Letter to Planning Board from BCDF Pictures RE: overflow parking dated 2/24/2011
Memo from Planning Board chairman to the Planning Board RE: maximum allowable square footage per each use applied for and per designated parking space dated 3/22/2011

Notice of Public Hearing: Published in the March 24, 2011 edition of the Shawangunk Journal, Notice by mail to known adjacent landowners, Posted on the Town Clerk’s Office bulletin board and the Town website.

Date of Public Hearing: 3/29/2011 Place: Town Hall, Accord, NY

Public Comment: (see Minutes of Town of Rochester Planning Board, March 29, 2011)

* * * *

DRAFT #PB 2011-01SUP DECISION AS READ BY CHAIRMAN BADEN, CONTINUED:

Facts Established by the Planning Board:

The parcel location is 5010 Route 209, Tax Map#: 77.1-1-24.131
The parcel is in the Town of Rochester ‘B’ zoning district.
The parcel is +/- 4.87 acres.

The parcel is owned by Belliman LLC c/o Alan Madnick.

The parcel is within an Ulster County Agricultural District.

The parcel is the former Ulster County Carpet Store.

The parcel contains existing improvements of 12,225 sf gross area of warehouse and retail area, paved area of 17 parking spaces, signage, landscaping, and lighting improvements.

Site Plan Approval was granted May 18, 2010 by the Town of Rochester Planning Board with decision #PB 2009-01SPA for the use “Retail and Service Establishment (Non-Auto)”.

The parcel has road frontage on US Highway Route 209. NYSDOT has jurisdiction over this roadway. NYSDOT has approved the driveway entrance for the approved Site Plan and a copy is on file.

The applicant has applied for a change of use to amend Site Plan Approval to include Multiple Principal Permitted Uses: “Gift, Antique, or Craft Shop”, “Low-Impact Retail and Service Establishment”, “Office”, and “Recording Studio”. The applicant proposes no changes to the approved Site Plan.
The application was referred by the Code Enforcement Officer for Site Plan review for multiple principal permitted uses and was amended to Special Use Permit on March 15, 2011.
The Planning Board determined no EAF is required as this application was classified as a SEQR Type 2 action by resolution. The application does not meet the thresholds for Town Planner review.
Application was previously referred to Ulster County Planning Board for Site Plan review for the use “Retail and Service Establishment (Non-Auto)”. Required Modifications issued by the UCPB were incorporated into Planning Board decision #PB 2009-01SPA. New application referral to the Ulster County Planning Board is not required under the signed exception agreement so long as no changes are proposed to the approved Site Plan. Confirmed in phone call by Chairman to Robert Leibowitz, Ulster County Principal Planner.
The parcel has existing private water supply and individual septic. Applicant has submitted existing Ulster County Health Dept. Approval signed by Dean Palen, PE on 2/20/92 for a septic system that would handle 300 gallons per day.
There are +/-.015 Acres of ACOE Wetlands on the property adjacent to the new parking spaces and they were delineated by Kevin Young, Survey Technician from Medenbach & Eggers and shown on the plans.

* * * *

DRAFT #PB 2011-01SUP DECISION AS READ BY CHAIRMAN BADEN, CONTINUED:

Town of Rochester Planning Board decision #PB 2009-01SPA of May 18, 2010 is hereby amended in granting this Special Use Permit Approval and is further amended in that all Conditions of Approval associated with decision #PB 2009-01SPA of May 18, 2010 shall be revoked and replaced with the following conditions.

Adopted March 29, 2011, by the following vote:

CONDITIONS:

All Local, County, State, and Federal Codes shall be complied with.
All current or future approvals and conditions of approval by other agencies shall be in effect and copies shall be filed with the Planning Board.

The filed Site Plan shall be revised to include a table indicating the maximum allowable square footage per each approved use and per designated parking space prior to the Chairman’s signature.

All existing conditions and improvements depicted on the Site Plan bearing the Chairman’s signature; including, but not limited to, structures, parking, grading, landscaping, lighting, stormwater, water, sewer, and signage; shall be completed 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.
Any proposed actual use of the property shall be referred to the Code Enforcement Officer for determination the use qualifies under the definition of the approved uses and requires no further approvals prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
The maximum square footage of allowable space per use shall comply with the approved table illustrated on the Site Plan. Two or more approved Permitted Uses may operate simultaneously with the maximum square footage per use to be determined by the Town of Rochester Code Enforcement Officer based on the number of applicant designated parking spaces per use and providing all other development standards are met.
There shall be no on-street parking. All parking shall be in designated spaces only and aisles shall remain clear.
There shall be no outside storage of materials or supplies.
Ulster County Health Dept. has granted approval for the septic system for usage up to 300 gallons per day. Any use which exceeds 300 gallons per day shall require further Ulster County Health Dept. Approval. A copy of approval shall be filed with the Planning Board.
Silt fencing and areas of disturbance as depicted on the Site Plan shall be maintained during construction to ensure protection of the mapped wetland areas.
For the use as “Recording Studio”, facility use shall be restricted to indoor use only.
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.
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.

DRAFT #PB 2011-01SUP DECISION DISCUSSION:

The Town Attorney noted that she’d like to add that the applicant was amending the Site Plan Approval and applying for a Special Use Permit in the “Facts Established” section.

Chairman Baden noted that after speaking with Mrs. Christiana, Town Attorney, they felt it was easiest and best to revoke the original conditions from the May 2010 approval and replace with new conditions. It’s not revoking the original approval, its just revoking the conditions.

On proposed condition #11 Mr. Tapper questioned about the other uses being indoors?

Chairman Baden noted that he put this condition in just to be consistent with the last decision that they did for a recording studio which was last year for Vinci Farms. The other uses there could be display outside—its up to the Board if they want to limit it to all uses. The applicant has stated that they do outside shooting for the recording studio off site.

Regarding proposed condition #12, Chairman Baden noted that he had the question if it was 1 year from the date of the original approval? Or did they want to make it 1 year from this approval?

Mr. Ricks and other Board Members agreed to start it from the amended decision date. The parking has to be completed before they can occupy it.

Mr. Medenbach stated that moving forward as planned, the parking lot will be done in the next month or so and they will get there Certificate of Occupancy (C/O).

Town Attorney Christiana agreed and noted that they aren’t going to get their C/O until they complete the parking lot- whether its next March or whenever.

The Town Attorney advised to add to proposed condition #12 to add “from the date of Special Use Permit Approval PB2011-01SUP just to make it clear.

DECISION 2011-01SUP:

Mr. Ricks made the following motion:

The Town of Rochester Planning Board grants Special Use Permit Approval permitting the establishment of one or more of the following Principal Permitted Uses: “Retail and Service Establishment (Non-Auto)”, “Gift, Antique, or Craft Shop”, “Low-Impact Retail and Service Establishment”, “Office”, and “Recording Studio” situate at 5010 Route 209, Tax Map 77.1-1-24.131, and in a ‘B’ Zoning District of the Town of Rochester. Town of Rochester Planning Board decision #PB 2009-01SPA of May 18, 2010 is hereby amended in granting this Special Use Permit Approval and is further amended in that all Conditions of Approval associated with decision #PB 2009-01SPA of May 18, 2010 shall be revoked and replaced with the following conditions.

CONDITIONS:

All Local, County, State, and Federal Codes shall be complied with.
All current or future approvals and conditions of approval by other agencies shall be in effect and copies shall be filed with the Planning Board.
The filed Site Plan shall be revised to include a table indicating the maximum allowable square footage per each approved use and per designated parking space prior to the Chairman’s signature.
All existing conditions and improvements depicted on the Site Plan bearing the Chairman’s signature; including, but not limited to, structures, parking, grading, landscaping, lighting, stormwater, water, sewer, and signage; shall be completed 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.
Any proposed actual use of the property shall be referred to the Code Enforcement Officer for determination the use qualifies under the definition of the approved uses and requires no further approvals prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
The maximum square footage of allowable space per use shall comply with the approved table illustrated on the Site Plan. Two or more approved Permitted Uses may operate simultaneously with the maximum square footage per use to be determined by the Town of Rochester Code Enforcement Officer based on the number of applicant designated parking spaces per use and providing all other development standards are met.
There shall be no on-street parking. All parking shall be in designated spaces only and aisles shall remain clear.
There shall be no outside storage of materials or supplies.
Ulster County Health Dept. has granted approval for the septic system for usage up to 300 gallons per day. Any use which exceeds 300 gallons per day shall require further Ulster County Health Dept. Approval. A copy of approval shall be filed with the Planning Board.
Silt fencing and areas of disturbance as depicted on the Site Plan shall be maintained during construction to ensure protection of the mapped wetland areas.
For the use as “Recording Studio”, facility use shall be restricted to indoor use only.
The Site Plan shall remain effective, as an authorization to establish the use, for a maximum of one year from the date of Special Use Permit approval unless the Planning Board shall have granted an extension in writing pursuant to §140-52 of the Town of Rochester Code.
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.

Motion seconded by Mr. Tapper. No discussion.

Vote:

Baden: Yes Tapper: Yes

O’Donnell: Yes Rominger: Absent

Ullman: Absent Ricks: Yes

Smith: Yes

Motion carried. 5 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent

OTHER MATTERS:

IAN READ SUBDIVISION

Chairman Baden noted that while they had the Town Attorney present and as she would not be able to be in attendance at the Board’s April Meeting, he wanted to talk about the Ian Read Subdivision on Route 209. He noted that he had a chance to drive by the other day and discovered that the driveway that they are talking about actually services the parcel in the front as well. They had indicated at the March Regular Meeting that the front parcel had its own access. Mrs. Christiana’s opinion on that is that its okay because they have their own frontage on Route 209. The other issue that it may raise is with the front parcel accessing that existing shared driveway, that would make it 4 parcels accessing the private drive and that’s not allowed under the Town Code. It would have to become a private road. Since Mrs. Christiana was here, he wanted to have her confirm that with the Board that in this case, because it had its own road frontage, it was okay.

STREAMSIDE ESTATES

Chairman Baden noted that he would meet with the Town Attorney prior to the April Meeting to discuss Streamside Estates.

BODY OF TRUTH

Mr. Ricks questioned what the status was of the Body of Truth Law suit?

Mrs. Christiana noted that she didn’t know. They could get a ruling next week or September. It was in the Court’s hands now.

TRAININGS

Chairman Baden noted that there are trainings in Orange County in April.

Mr. Ricks and Mr. Smith requested that the Chairman pursue putting on their own training at the Town Hall.

MEETING SWAP WITH ZBA

Chairman Baden noted that he has drafted a letter to send to the ZBA to swap meeting dates so the PB would meet the second Tuesday instead of the third Tuesday. It’s easier for the applicants if things need to be referred to the County PB.

ADJOURNMENT

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

As there was no further business, at 7:35 PM, Chairman Baden adjourned the meeting.

Respectfully submitted,

Rebecca Paddock Stange, Secretary