Planning Board Minutes April 2012

MINUTES OF April 10, 2012 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 Melvyn I. Tapper Robert Rominger, Vice Chairman Fred O’Donnell

Anthony Ullman

Shane Ricks

Adam S. Paddock

Also present:

Secretary, Rebecca Paddock Stange. In the Audience was Robert Case, the newly appointed Planning Board Alternate.

ANNOUNCEMENTS

ANNOUNCEMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS

Leon and Beth Smith- Minor Subdivision Final Approval completed and plats signed

TOR ECC- Earthday Community Roadside Cleanup notice

DEC- Response to inquiry re: Stephanopoulos parcel- They responded to the information that was sent to them in December 2011. The wetlands area is in the extreme corner and it is only the buffer area and there is no impact.

Supervisor Chipman- The PB was copied on an E-Mail to “Concerned City Hall Rd. Cell Tower Citizens”. It was a response to questions they had asked

Jason Broome- An E-mail was received from Mr. Broome regarding questions on telecommunications facilities

And he presented the PB with a copy of Petition signed by 37 people regarding City Hall Rd. T-Mobile application

TRAININGS

April 12 Hudson River Watershed Alliance Omelet Series 8am-9:30am

April 15-17 New York Planning Federation Conference @ Saratoga Springs

April 21 Ashokan Watershed Conference “People, Streams & Floods – Lessons from Irene” – Saturday April 21st from 8:30AM – 3:00PM at Bearsville Theatre, 291 Tinker St, Woodstock – Registration required $10 fee by April 13th to Cornell Coop. Ext. For more info go to:

www.ashokanstreams.org/

May 5 The science of Hydro-Fracking in Millbrook

There are still trainings available from the list that was handed out last month. Speak with the Chairman or Secretary for more information.

ACTION ON MINUTES

The March 13, 2012 Regular Meeting Minutes were tabled until the next meeting as they were not yet complete.

2012-01SUP Continued Review and Decision

Jack, Daniel, and David Schoonmaker- aka Saunderskill Farm Market, for Special Use Permit and Site Plan review, for expansion of use of a retail farm market to include the additions of a 1,672 sq. ft. retail building addition, a 1,680 sq. ft. covered loading dock, and septic system, 5100 Route 209, Tax Map #76.2-5-4.210, ‘AB-3’ and ‘Floodplain Development Overlay’ zoning districts

Daniel Schoonmaker and Barry Medenbach P.E. were present on behalf of the application.

Chairman Baden reminded the Board that they had closed the Public Hearing last month. The UCPB referral was incomplete and they had 30 days to respond. They did not send additional responses other than their unofficial comments so it can now be acted on. There is no SEQRA on this because it is a Type 2 Action.

As there were no other questions and nothing else to take care of, the Chairman read the Draft Findings as follows:

Findings of the Planning Board:

The application was determined to require a Special Use permit by the Code Enforcement Officer on 1/26/2012 and was referred to the Planning Board for review.
The parcel location is 5100 US Route 209 and is S/B/L# 76.2-5-4.210.
The parcel is located in the ‘AB-3’ and ‘FD Overlay’ zoning districts.
The parcel is owned by Jack, Daniel, and David Schoonmaker.
The parcel contains +/- 22 acres.
An approved Special Use permit (Planning Board decision #PB1997-13SUP) exists granting the use of the parcel as a retail farm market.
The parcel current use is for the operation of a retail farm market known as Saunderskill Farm Market with additional agricultural use of the parcel for crop farming and greenhouses. Numerous structural and infrastructure improvements currently exist.
The applicant proposes an expansion of the retail farm market to include the construction of a 1,672 sq. ft. retail building addition, a 1,680 sq. ft. covered loading dock, and an expansion of the septic disposal area.
The applicant has prepared a Site Plan detailing the location of the existing and proposed structures and infrastructure within the parcel. The Site Plan was amended as requested by the Board and a revision dated 2/21/2012 was presented for consideration.
The proposal meets the minimum development standards of Town of Rochester Code Chapter 140, Zoning.
The proposed structure exterior will be finished to resemble the barn-like appearance of the existing structure and will be slightly lower in height. A public restroom is being added which necessitates the septic expansion. The loading dock will be a covered facility with open sides and the applicant states they may wish to enclose the sides at a later time.
The applicant has confirmed no changes to the access drive and no changes to exterior lighting, signage, parking, outside storage, or landscaping will occur with this expansion. Store hours of operation will remain the same.
Applicant’s engineer states no additional stormwater will leave the parcel as a result of the expansion. The project will not cause a land disturbance of greater than 1 acre and will not require a SWPPP to be filed.
The project has been determined to require 33 parking spaces – 39 exist currently.
The parcel borders land in the Ulster County Agricultural District #3. An agricultural data statement was required and prepared by the applicant, and further amended at the request of the Board.
The parcel has road frontage on US Route 209 which is under the jurisdiction of the NYS Dept. of Transportation. An access drive approved by the NYSDOT in 1998 exists. The NYSDOT was referred the application and the agency indicates no changes are required.
The Rondout Creek is located directly opposite the parcel. The NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation has jurisdiction over the creek and was referred the application. No response was received.
The parcel is entirely located within the 100-year floodplain as depicted by FEMA on plate 36111C0590E, effective as of 9/25/2009. A flood elevation certification was prepared by the applicant’s engineer indicating the existing structure floor to be 1.2 ft. above the base flood elevation of 243 ft. The proposed construction will match this elevation. The Planning Board has required notation be added to the Site Plan indicating the floodplain and will require compliance with the Town Flood Damage Prevention code as a condition of approval.

The parcel contains land identified as potential federal wetlands, as depicted on the National Wetlands Inventory. The wetland location was determined to be substantially removed from the area proposed to be developed and further study was not required. The applicant was made aware such potential exists.

2012-01SUP Continued Review and Decision

Jack, Daniel, and David Schoonmaker (cont’d)- aka Saunderskill Farm Market, for Special Use Permit and Site Plan review, for expansion of use of a retail farm market to include the additions of a 1,672 sq. ft. retail building addition, a 1,680 sq. ft. covered loading dock, and septic system, 5100 Route 209, Tax Map #76.2-5-4.210, ‘AB-3’ and ‘Floodplain Development Overlay’ zoning districts

The project will require Ulster County Health Dept. approval for the new waste disposal area. The applicant has secured the required permit.
The application was determined to require referral to the Ulster County Planning Board who issued a “No Decision” with advisory comments. No action can be taken on this application until such time as either a UCPB decision is received or 30 days has passed from the time of receipt by the UCPB of the referral. The 30 days required have passed without a referral decision by the UCPB and the town is free to act on the application.

The UCPB advisory comments “applauds the design” of the farm market and placement of the parking along the side of the building and notes the “property stands out as one of the nicer looking properties along Route 209” and further recommend building elevations be required. The Planning Board is in receipt of building elevations from the applicant’s engineer.

The application was determined to qualify as a Type II action under SEQRA regulations.

Mr. Paddock had a question on #’s 11 & 18. He was confused over what the height the building would be built at.

Chairman Baden noted that the height of the building and the level of the flood plain were different.

Mr. Rominger motioned to approve the findings as just read into the record. Seconded by Mr. O’Donnell. No discussion.

Vote:

Baden: Yes Tapper: Absent

O’Donnell: Yes Rominger: Yes

Ullman: Yes Ricks: Yes

Paddock: Yes

Motion carried. 6 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, 0 abstention

Chairman Baden read the Draft Resolution and Conditions into the record as follows:

RESOLVED,

The Town of Rochester Planning Board has reviewed the application presented and grantsSpecial Use and Site Plan-Conditional Approval to Jack, Daniel, and David Schoonmaker permitting the modification of the Special Use Permit granted with Planning Board decision#PB1997-13SUP for the parcel situate at 5100 US Route 209 known as S/B/L# 76.2-5-4.210 and located in the ‘AB-3’ and ‘FD Overlay’ zoning districts of the T/ Rochester.

The expansion of the retail farm market to allow the construction of a 1,672 sq. ft. retail building, a 1,680 sq. ft. covered loading dock, and the installation of a new waste disposal system, as detailed on the Site Plan revision dated Feb. 21, 2012, is approved with the following conditions and the Planning Board further authorizes the Chairman to sign the referenced Site Plan indicating this approval.

CONDITIONS of APPROVAL:

Any deviation from the approved and signed Site Plan shall require resubmission to the Planning Board, except as may be permitted pursuant to the Town of Rochester Code and as determined by the Code Enforcement Officer.
Conditions 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, and 11 of Planning Board decision #PB1997-13SUP granting Special Use dated 8/26/1997 shall continue in effect with this approval. The remainder conditions are removed as they are no longer applicable. [Copy of #PB1997-13SUP attached]
All applicable Local, County, State, and Federal laws or codes shall be complied with.
All permits determined to be required in conjunction with the operation of this use shall be secured or renewed as applicable. Should any conditions imposed by such permits cause conditions to be in conflict, the more restrictive condition shall prevail. Should any permit approvals necessitate a change to the approved Site Plan, the matter shall be referred to the Planning Board for consideration.

2012-01SUP Continued Review and Decision

The owner shall specifically secure a Town of Rochester building permit and Ulster County Health Dept. waste disposal permit prior to start of construction or land disturbance. All conditions imposed in the granting of these permits shall be made a part of this Special Use approval. One copy of each approved permit shall be filed with the T/ Rochester Planning Board.
Any construction or disturbance within the FEMA designated 100-year floodplain shall adhere to the Code of the Town of Rochester Chapter 81, Flood Damage Prevention, or its successors.
The owner shall secure Building Dept. determination as to any required permits at such time as they may desire to enclose the loading dock area with the addition of walls. The Planning Board grants agreement without further review provided the exterior shall be finished in the same manner as the existing structure.

Parking shall be allowed only in the spaces designated on the approved and signed Site Plan, except the use of the unimproved fields of the parcel shall be allowed as overflow parking for the occasional hosting of agri-tourism and community events. Parking shall not be allowed within the public road right-of-way, within designated Site Plan traffic aisles, or within any land delineated as wetlands in any instance.

The owner shall be responsible to secure any permits as may be required in the hosting of or the production of such events as described in condition 8.

Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, improvements and existing site conditions shall be verified to be in agreement with the approved and signed Site Plan and conditions 3, 4, 5, and 6 of this decision shall be verified as complete by the Building Dept.

Any and all fees and reimbursements due to the Town of Rochester involving this application shall be paid in full prior to the Chairman’s signature on the Site Plan.

EFFECT of APPROVAL:

This Special Use and Site Plan approval and associated conditions shall be binding upon the applicant and all successive owners of the land so long as such use shall occur.
This approval shall remain effective as an authorization to secure the required permits and establish the use for a maximum of one year from this date of approval unless the applicant shall have submitted written request and the Planning Board shall have adopted such resolution granting an extension and provided the applicant has submitted proof of diligently pursued the implementation of the plans.
This Special Use authorization shall be deemed to have expired without further notice one year from this date unless a Certificate of Occupancy is issued or an extension granted by the Planning Board.
Should this Special Use be discontinued as a use for a period of two years or more, it shall be deemed to have lapsed as per the Town of Rochester code.

Motion was made by Mr. Rominger for approval with the above condition as read into the record. Seconded by Mr. O’Donnell. No discussion.

Vote:

Baden: Yes Tapper: Absent

O’Donnell: Yes Rominger: Yes

Ullman: Yes Ricks: Yes

Paddock: Yes

Motion carried. 6 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, 0 abstention

Mr. Jack Schoonmaker thanked the Board noting that they were very thankful as a family that the Board was positive toward their expansion. He was very impressed with how professional these meetings have been run. He encouraged the Board to keep up the good work.

2012-03SBD Continued Review, SEQRA Determination, and Public Hearing

Mattox Subdivision c/o Hillary Briley– Minor Subdivision, for a 2 lot subdivision of a 16.612 acre parcel with access from a private road, 50 Cliff Road, Tax Map #68.2-2-16.2, ‘R-2’ zoning district.

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

Chairman Baden noted that the Applicant submitted the requested additional information being the easement, deed, proposed lot description, and the waiver request. The PB also received a response from the Highway Superintendent concerning the condition of the private road. Mr. Eggers was supposed to find out if there was a plan to eventually put a new driveway in or if they were going to continue to use the easement. The Highway Superintendent has basically signed off on it and said that the road is in better condition than it was in 2005 and he further states that emergency vehicles would have no issue with using the road.

Chairman Baden read Mr. Egger’s waiver request into the record “a waiver from the requirement of the street encroachment permit as per subdivision requirement 125-12E. This waiver is requested due to the fact that this property is situate on a privately maintained road and is therefore not under the jurisdiction of the Town, County or State Highway Dept’s. Please also note that this land has one driveway serving 3 existing residences and no new access is being sought at this time although all 3 lots do have frontage on this road.” Chairman Baden noted that the Town Attorney’s opinion was that because the structures were existing and no new building permits were being sought –

Mr. Ullman noted that Chairman Baden shouldn’t disclose Attorney advice.

Mr. Ricks motioned to grant the applicant a waiver from the requirement of § 125-12(E) regarding street encroachment permit as the applicant propose to utilize the existing shared driveway access which has an easement filed on record with the County Clerk. Seconded by Mr. O’Donnell. No discussion.

Vote:

Baden: Yes Tapper: Absent

O’Donnell: Yes Rominger: Yes

Ullman: Yes Ricks: Yes

Paddock: Yes

Motion carried. 6 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, 0 abstention

At this time the Board reviewed Part 2 of the Short EAF answering ‘no’ to each question.

Based on the Board’s review of Part 2 of the Short EAF Chairman Baden motioned for a Negative Declaration under SEQRA. Seconded by Mr. Paddock. No discussion.

Vote:

Baden: Yes Tapper: Absent

O’Donnell: Yes Rominger: Yes

Ullman: Yes Ricks: Yes

Paddock: Yes

Motion carried. 6 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, 0 abstention

At 7:31 Chairman Baden opened the hearing to the public.

2012-03SBD Continued Review, SEQRA Determination, and Public Hearing

Mattox Subdivision c/o Hillary Briley(cont’d)– Minor Subdivision, for a 2 lot subdivision of a 16.612 acre parcel with access from a private road, 50 Cliff Road, Tax Map #68.2-2-16.2, ‘R-2’ zoning district.

Mr. Medenbach explained that this is an existing +/- 16 acre parcel with 2 dwellings on it which are a mobile home and a house. The intent of the division is so that each dwelling will be on its own lot. Its on Cliff Road which is a private road that has a handful of homes on it. As the Chairman reported earlier there have been improvements on it in the recent years and it is being maintained.

Chairman Baden noted that it does have an easement for access on it going over to the lot to the North and that easement is going to be extended to the second lot. The second lot will have 50’ of lot frontage on Cliff Road, but they are going to use the existing easement/ driveway for access.

John Shanahan lived at 39 Cliff Road and he was in support of this application. The only thing he had an issue with was the terminology used. At one point the Chairman noted that it was privately maintained, which it is, however he wanted to point out that it is not a private road- it is a public right-of-way and they have had a 4 year issue with this on the Town of Marbletown side. Judge Zwack has determined that it is a public right-of-way unless it is proven otherwise.

Chairman Baden noted that they would make note of that in their decision and correct anywhere it is referred to as a private road.

Mr. Medenbach questioned if the road was Town maintained?

Mr. Shanahan stated that the Town did not maintain it. It is privately maintained that is correct. The first ¼ mile is maintained by the Town.

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

Vote:

Baden: Yes Tapper: Absent

O’Donnell: Yes Rominger: Yes

Ullman: Yes Ricks: Yes

Paddock: Yes

Motion carried. 6 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, 0 abstention

Chairman Baden noted that there were some map notations that needed to be added as part of the conditions as recommended by the Town Attorney.

Chairman Baden read Highway Superintendent’s letter dated April 2, 2012 where he notes that there should be no more dwellings added to the road however the road has been worked on and has been somewhat improved from his 2005 correspondence. The Road can accommodate emergency vehicles.

2012-03SBD Continued Review, SEQRA Determination, and Public Hearing

At this time the Board reviewed the Draft Findings:

Findings of the Planning Board

The application for Minor Subdivision was referred to the Planning Board by the Code Enforcement Officer on 2/10/2012
The parcel location is Cliff Road, S/B/L# 68.2-2-16.2, and in the ‘R-2’ zoning district.
The parcel is owned by Hillary Briley. Gloria Mattox has been granted life tenancy. .
The owner is proposing subdivision of the parcel to separate two existing dwellings onto their own parcels and does not propose construction of any new dwellings.
The parcel contains land of +/-16.612 acres that is proposed to be further subdivided into 2 lots. Lot 1 to be +/- 4.29 acres and Lot 2 to be +/-12.32 acres.
The parcel has been granted access from a public road via a 50’ wide right-of-way over the land identified by deed as Quarry Road which is also known as Cliff Road.
Cliff Road is a privately maintained road, not under the jurisdiction of any public control.
The parcel is also subject to a right-of-way granted by Mattox to Carr; Liber 1440 Page 949. Access to the bounding parcel to the North is gained via this right-of-way.
The parcel current use is residential.
The proposed Lot 1 contains existing improvements of a trailer, a gravel driveway, utility hook-ups, and private well and septic. The proposed Lot 2 contains existing improvements of a single family dwelling, a gravel driveway, utility hook-ups, and private well and septic.
The proposed subdivision meets the development standards of Chapter 140 of the Town of Rochester Code.
The proposed subdivision parcels will have road frontage on Cliff Road, a pre-existing privately maintained road.

Lot 2, as proposed, will have 50’ of road frontage on Cliff Road, however access to Lot 2 is proposed via use of the above noted right-of-way with an additional right-of-way extension through Lot 1 proposed. A new driveway is not proposed. The Planning Board requires a written waiver from the requirement of a street encroachment permit for individual lot access. The applicant’s representative has supplied such request.

The Planning Board referred the application to the Town Highway Superintendent for expert review and comment.

Cliff Road has been previously determined by the Town Highway Supt. as to not meet town road standards with the resulting opinion being parcels with frontage on Cliff Road do not meet access standards for the issuance of residential building permits.
The Highway Supt. responded the road is in improved condition and has the ability to accommodate emergency vehicles; however he would not endorse construction of new dwellings along the road.
The Planning Board has motioned and granted a favorable response to the waiver request, but will impose conditions on the approval being considered in response. (Waiver adopted by 6-0 vote 4/10/2012)

Motion to adopt amended findings by Mr. Paddock, Second by Mr. Ricks. No discussion.

Vote:

Baden: Yes Tapper: Absent

O’Donnell: Yes Rominger: Yes

Ullman: Yes Ricks: Yes

Paddock: Yes

Motion carried. 6 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, 0 abstention

2012-03SBD Continued Review, SEQRA Determination, and Public Hearing

At this time the Chairman read the Draft Resolution and Conditions as follows:

The Town of Rochester Planning Board grants Minor Subdivision-Conditional Final Approvalto Hillary Briley permitting the subdivision of lands situate at Cliff Road,

SBL #68.2-2-16.2, and in the ‘R-2’ zoning district of the T/ Rochester.

The plat dated Jan. 20, 2012 is approved with the following conditions and modifications.

CONDITIONS of APPROVAL:

An amended plat shall be presented to the Planning Board with the addition of the following plat declarations:

The owner of the lands of this subdivision acknowledges the parcels have frontage on the privately maintained road known as Cliff Road, a road not under the jurisdiction of any public authority, and further agree the granting of this subdivision in no way obligates the Town of Rochester to undertake any responsibility for Cliff Road or its condition and that the property owner and successors assigns release and exempts the Town from all responsibility of maintenance of the same.
Further subdivision of Lot 1 and Lot 2 shall not be permitted except by application to the Code Enforcement Officer and Planning Board approval. Such subdivision application shall not be entertained until such time as the Town of Rochester Highway Superintendent shall have presented written notice the privately maintained road known as Cliff Road meets town dimension, safety, and condition standards.
No building permit for the construction of new residential dwellings or commercial structures shall be issued for Lot 1 or Lot 2 until such time as the Town of Rochester Highway Superintendent has presented written notice that the privately maintained road known as Cliff Road meets town dimension, safety, and condition standards. Building permits may be issued for non-dwelling residential accessory structures.

All proposed rights-of-way and easements proposed and identified on the plat shall be recorded as deed covenants and filed with the Ulster County Clerk simultaneously with the plat.
The agreement established by the right-of-way granted by Mattox to Carr, as filed with the Ulster County Clerk, Liber 1440 Page 949, shall be required to continue in effect.
Any and all fees due to the Town of Rochester involving this application shall be paid in full prior to the Chairman’s signature on the plat.

The Town of Rochester Planning Board further grants Minor Subdivision-Final Approval upon the satisfactory completion of condition 1 and presentation of the amended plat. The Planning Board grants the authority to the Chairman to certify the condition has been completed without further resolution and to sign and date the plat at such time.

Effect of Approval:

This Conditional Final Approval shall expire 180 days from this approval date unless condition 1 is satisfied by the applicant and an amended plat is presented and certified as complete by the Chairman. This period may be extended for two additional 90 day periods upon application to and resolution by the T/ Rochester Planning Board.
The owner shall file in the office of the Ulster County Clerk such approved plat bearing the Chairman’s signature within 62 days from the date of signature or such approval shall be deemed to expire without further notice in accordance with NYS Town Law §276.
The owner shall have the responsibility to return three (3) Ulster County Clerk certified copies of the filed plat and other related filings to the T/ Rochester Planning Board within 30 days of such filing.

Mr. O’Donnell motioned for approval. Seconded by Mr. Ullman. No discussion.

Vote:

Baden: Yes Tapper: Absent

O’Donnell: Yes Rominger: Yes

Ullman: Yes Ricks: Yes

Paddock: Yes

Motion carried. 6 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, 0 abstention

2012-02SPA Continued Review, SEQRA Determination, and Public Hearing

T-Mobile Northeast LLC-applicant, for Global Tower LLC and Zeno C. Wicks, property owners, for Site Plan review, for the installation of 3 antennas co-located on an existing 120-foot monopole wireless communication facility and installation of associated equipment within an existing fenced compound, 82 City Hall Rd., Tax Map #68.3-2-47.110, ‘R-2’ zoning district.

Robert Gaudioso, Esq. was present on behalf of the application.

Chairman Baden noted that he has obtained from the County Clerk office a copy of the signed Judicial Agreement that allowed for the original structure with all of the attachments. He turned the original document over to the Town Clerk and made copies for both Building Dept. and Planning Board files. That has been addressed. The Board also received a correction for the Ulster County Planning Board referral response. The County noted that this was Site Plan and Special Use Approval and it was only referred to them for Site Plan and they corrected it and sent the Town Planning Board an amended response. It was still not an official action by the UCPB it was just a correction. The 30 days has now passed without an official referral. Mr. Moss had previously questioned the authority to refer it to the UCPB and Chairman Baden had explained that the County uses a Charter form of government and under that Charter they put their review criteria above the NYS Statute. Because this is a structure over 100’ that is one of the triggers for a referral to them. The Board requested and received additional information being: RF emissions compliance, RF coverage report, Structural report, Maintenance agreement, Discontinuance of use provisions, Global Towers has indicated that they searched their files and have no record of a bond, so they are in agreement to correct that, and there was a letter sent to the Accord Fire District for them to go onto the tower for emergency services if they desired. The PB submitted everything received to our Engineer at Clark Patterson Lee and they reviewed all of the applications and documents and issued a comment letter received 4/9/12. They have indicated no issues or concerns with any of the submissions.

At 7:55 Town Attorney, Mary Lou Christiana, arrived.

Robert Gaudioso, Attorney with the law firm of Snyder and Snyder, introduced himself on behalf of T-Mobile Northeast, LLC. As noted in the submission they didn’t think that their submittals were required by the site plan section of the code, but they wanted to accommodate the Board’s request and concerns. There has been new Federal Law that they believe applies to this application, but never the less they feel that under the Town’s Code it is Site Plan Approval and that this is a site that was proper under the Code as a co-location on the existing tower.

Chairman Baden noted that the new law that was being referred to was passed in February of 2012 and it’s called the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012. Section 6409 does apply here. It was included in the applicant’s submission packet. Essentially what it states is that a State or Local Government may not deny and shall approve any eligible facility request for a modification of an existing wireless tower base station that does not substantially change the physical dimensions of such tower or base station. They do define eligible facilities as co-location of transmission equipment, removal, or replacement of transmission equipment. They don’t define what ‘substantially change’ means. He did a little research and found that the FCC in another document has a definition for a similar, but not exactly worded terminology. It’s included in the National Programmatic Agreement for the Co-location of Wireless Antennas and they define ‘substantial increase’ whereas this Code says ‘substantial change’. Whether it will apply or not remains to be seen. This is a legislation that is 6 weeks old. He didn’t find that anyone has challenged it yet, so there are no opinions on it yet, so it is up to the PB on how it applies or doesn’t apply.

2012-02SPA Continued Review, SEQRA Determination, and Public Hearing

T-Mobile Northeast LLC (cont’d)-applicant, for Global Tower LLC and Zeno C. Wicks, property owners, for Site Plan review, for the installation of 3 antennas co-located on an existing 120-foot monopole wireless communication facility and installation of associated equipment within an existing fenced compound, 82 City Hall Rd., Tax Map #68.3-2-47.110, ‘R-2’ zoning district.

Chairman Baden noted that in relation to the Telecommunications Act of 1996 the FCC has adopted their “Shot Clock Policy”, which states that for a co-location a PB has 90 days to consider the application. It doesn’t say that they have to render a decision within 90 days but the recourse is if they have not rendered a decision within 90 days the applicant is free to pursue legal challenge before the review is finished. If it were a new facility it

would be 150 days. The FCC was directed by the Telecommunications Law of 1996 to make that determination and that’s what they stick by.

Chairman Baden noted that today Mr. Rominger, Mr. O’Donnell and the Chairman made a site visit to the property with Mr. Gaudioso. They requested the permission to look around.

Mr. Rominger noted that they went to the site and walked around in all different directions to look for housing and property lines and his observation was that there were not any houses that could be seen.

Mr. O’Donnell noted that as far as fire access it was more than adequate and there were a number of pull off areas.

Mr. Ricks questioned if there was any construction going on as was indicated at the last meeting?

Chairman Baden noted that there were a number of trees that looked like they were being cleaned up. You could see a lot of trees that may have blown down. There was no construction going on at the telecommunications facility. Along the property leading up to it there were some fresh cut trees.

Mr. Ricks felt that the most important submission was the RF Emissions Compliance and Coverage report.

Mr. Gaudioso said a few words on that. Federal law basically says that if the antennas are greater than 10 meters in height they are presumed to be in compliance, but they did the report anyway. They included both the proposed T-Mobile antennas, the existing AT&T, Sprint and the municipal service antennas. When you add everything up both existing and proposed it is less than 1.5% of the allowable 100% limitation. In fact the proposed T-Mobile antennas are .092% of the allowable 100% limitation.

Mr. Ricks questioned how they did this test?

Mr. Gaudioso noted that they do around the base of the tower and every where out from the tower. That is the worst case scenario that if all of the antennas were all pointed toward the same spot and they all added up. That’s never the case- the antennas point in different directions and out toward the horizon. If the speed limit was 100 MPH it would be like driving a 1.5 MPH. They also submitted a coverage map for the need for the site and he knows that there were some questions about whether they could co-locate on the Town owned properties and what they have shown by those coverage maps is not only do they need this site, but they also need the Town tower site as well. They have actually filed applications to do just that.

Mr. Ricks questioned if the one on the HVR was a dead issue?

Mr. Gaudioso answered correct.

2012-02SPA Continued Review, SEQRA Determination, and Public Hearing

Mr. Ricks questioned if the other two would replace that one.

Mr. Gaudioso answered that by looking at the maps they all kind of work in conjunction with each other. One of these would somewhat cover the HVR. The way the towers were designed they actually cover that Route 209 corridor well.

Mr. Ricks questioned if T-Mobile was simultaneously getting coverage in Ellenville and Kingston?

Mr. Gaudioso answered yes. They just recently received approval to go on a tower in Kingston, Olive, and they are working in Wawarsing on a number of sites. So there is AT&T, Verizon, and Sprint and now T-mobile. Sprint merged with Nextel. Those are the main providers to this area.

Chairman Baden noted that they did receive a signed and stamped compliance report to answer those questions.

At this time the Board reviewed the Visual EAF Addendum. Chairman Baden had asked that the applicant provide a Visual EAF Addendum. The Chairman sat down with a topographical map and has a difference of opinion in a few areas that he’d like to go over with the Board. This is usually filled out in conjunction with the Full EAF. The Chairman realizes that they have a Short EAF on this, but he thought because of the height of the structure that it was important that it be included.

The 1^st questions examples being:

A parcel of land which is dedicated to and available to the public for the use, enjoyment and appreciation of natural or man-made scenic qualities? The applicant had checked 5+ miles and the Chairman noted that it was actually 3-5 miles. That would be the look out on Route 44/55.

A site or structure listed on the National or State Registers of Historic Places? Its ½ – 3 miles and that would be the structure that is at Boice Mill and Dunn Farm Road- Frank Dunn’s old house. That is on the Historic Register.

State Parks? The applicant had checked ½ – 3 miles and he believes it should be 3-5 Miles.

The State Forest Preserve? 3-5 miles- the Catskill Park Area.

National Wildlife Refuges and State Game Refuges? He didn’t believe there were any in this region so he left it blank.

Mr. Ullman interrupted with a question. When this is being filled out relative to this particular application, was he considering this to be the tower as a whole or the new antennas?

Chairman Baden noted that they way he did it in this instance was he figured how many each of these categories were in how many feet and measured from the parcel edge with the Ulster County Parcel Viewer. He admits that is another 400’ from where the tower actually is.

2012-02SPA Continued Review, SEQRA Determination, and Public Hearing

Mr. Ullman was wondering if the Chairman was looking at it where he could actually see the tower or where they could actually see the new antennas.

Chairman Baden noted that was true, this is about the antennas. He went with the assumption that its 15’ from the top of the tower, so he was going with the assumption that if you saw the top of the tower you would see this. It was a good question.

Mr. Gaudioso noted that it is a tough form.

Chairman Baden noted that it states ‘would be visible’ and he has to be honest- once you get to 5 miles you may see it, but you’re not going to see it. It will be so distorted and undefined at that distance. He filled out the form strictly from the number of feet.

Mr. Ullman noted that sometimes he can see something (the tower) from his house, but couldn’t tell you how many antennas were on it.

Chairman Baden agreed and was just going on the assumption of based on distance when filling this out.

It’s something that he’ll look into in terms of how other agencies look at this.

Continuing with the Visual EAF:

The next 3 he left blank as there are none in our area: National Natural Landmarks and other outstanding natural features? National Park Service lands? Rivers designated as National or State Wild, Scenic or Recreational?

Any transportation corridor of high exposure, such as part of the Interstate System, or Amtrak? Route 209 fits that category so that would be ½ – 3 miles as opposed to the 5+ that was checked.

A governmentally established or designated interstate or inter-county foot trail or one formally proposed for establishment or designation? (rail trail) 3- 5 miles. He wasn’t sure if it was visible.

A site, area, lake, reservoir or highway designated as scenic? ½- 3 miles

Municipal park or designated open space? 3-5 miles. They had checked ½ – 3 miles.

County road? ½ – 3 miles, not 3-5 miles

State road? ½- 3 miles

Local road? 0- ¼ mile

Chairman Baden noted that it was more semantics. It wasn’t a significant change; it’s just a more accurate record.

2012-02SPA Continued Review, SEQRA Determination, and Public Hearing

Was the visibility of the project seasonal? They checked ‘yes’. Chairman Baden felt that ‘No’ is the answer because it is above the tree line.

Are any of the resources checked in question 1 used by the public during the time of year during which the project will be visible? Yes.

From each item checked in question 1, check those which generally describe the surrounding environment.

Forested within a ¼ mile

Agriculture within 1 mile

Industrial is within 1 mile with the mines

River lake or pond- within 1 mile

Hilly and other – within ¼ mile (other would be considered rural residential)

Are there visually similar projects within: 3 miles was checked.

Other than that Chairman Baden agreed with their form.

At this time the Board reviewed Part 2 of the EAF.

C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, archaeological, historic, or other natural or cultural resources; or community or neighborhood character? Explain briefly:

Yes. This antenna addition will change the profile of the existing tower facility, however it will not raise the height of the tower. Small to moderate impact. Mr. Ullman thought it should be listed as a ‘potential small impact’. This change was made.

E. IS THERE, OR IS THERE LIKELY TO BE, CONTROVERSY RELATED TO POTENTIAL ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS?

Yes. nearby neighbors concerns of potential health and property value impacts

Chairman Baden checked yes because his opinion was that even though they were not able to consider that under the Federal Regulation they could still state that the ‘potential exists’.

Mr. Paddock felt that it was the least they could do for the public outcry. If they couldn’t vote on it or consider it at least it’s documented in the file.

Town Attorney Christiana noted that Part 3 didn’t need to be filled out.

Mr. Ricks motioned for a Negative Declaration under SEQRA Seconded by Mr. O’Donnell. No discussion.

Vote:

Baden: Yes Tapper: Absent

O’Donnell: Yes Rominger: Yes

Ullman: Yes Ricks: Yes

Paddock: Yes

Motion carried. 6 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, 0 abstention

2012-02SPA Continued Review, SEQRA Determination, and Public Hearing

Chairman Baden noted that before they opened the Public Hearing he wanted to ask everyone that if they spoke at the last Public Hearing that they let anyone who hasn’t spoken at the last one go first out of courtesy. He also asked that if they are making the same points as they made last time to be brief with it. He wasn’t trying to shorten their time, but they did hear the public’s comments last time and if they were just re-iterating the same comments, they have been heard. They appreciate them, but saying them again isn’t going to change anything. The Planning Board office did receive a number of emails and he would read one into the record, and a couple of them were just a written account of what the persons said at the meeting. He wouldn’t re-read them because the comments were already on the record.

At 8:20PM Chairman Baden opened the Public Hearing.

Mavis Harris was recognized to speak. She noted that she spoke last time. She heard everyone and she has done a lot of research and there is a lot of evidence out there and there is a major problem with this form of radiation. We have a gorgeous Town. Are we going to be known as a place to raise a family? Or are we going to be known as a place that cows down to another big corporation? They don’t need this tower. If there is even a potential that this will be harmful we need to do the right thing and stand up for the people. Some people can move, but not everyone can. We don’t need another cell tower.

Jason Broome was next to speak. He questioned if the environmental review was closed?

Chairman Baden noted that the Board just rendered a Negative Declaration. If evidence was presented and the Board believed that they made an error, they could re-open it. The Board isn’t required to reply to the Public’s questions. They would like to if they are able to.

Mr. Broome noted that a lot of people are upset because they have reached out to the Town for over a month and they feel that they have been stone walled considerably. They did get a letter on Friday- 28 days after their first inquiries. They haven’t received phone calls back. He’s received more communication from T-Mobile than from the Town. There are still a lot of questions. Mr. Chipman’s letter, although they appreciate the effort, it brought up a lot more questions for them.

Chairman Baden noted that if the questions are regarding the tower itself- that is not the application before the Board- those are questions that Mr. Broome is welcome to ask, but its not part of the Board’s application. The application is only for the 3 additional antennas and the associated equipment on the approved tower.

Mr. Broome appreciated that and he understood but he hasn’t gotten answers elsewhere.

Chairman Baden just wanted to state that a lot of Mr. Broome’s questions were not answerable by this Board. He did reach out to the Ulster County Clerk to get the Court Order. It was exactly the document that the Town already had, however the Town now has the signed copy and they also have the additional exhibits attached to it.

2012-02SPA Continued Review, SEQRA Determination, and Public Hearing

Mr. Broome questioned about the small to moderate impacts that were discussed tonight. Lets say that once every 50 years there is a hurricane that comes along and it knocks over a couple of trees. Now whoever was up there, if 50 trees were knocked down by a hurricane you would be able to see his house and maybe Mr. Wick’s house. You would see at least a dozen houses and in their neighborhood a lot of trees came down. So there is line of site from their residences. The trees are there now, but how does he know that someone isn’t going to cut them down or a tornado or hurricane come along? He doesn’t know that and as far as he is concerned it is a credible possibility. If you have two antennas on a tower and someone was going to put 2 more or 3 more- to him that is significant. That’s more than double.

Mr. Gaudioso just wanted to clarify one point. They are proposing 3 antennas and he believed AT&T had 6 antennas and Sprint has 4 and there were at least 2 other whip antennas. He just wanted to clarify. It wasn’t like they were adding 3 more than what’s already up there.

Mr. Broome noted that many many times each year, trucks from Verizon, Sprint, AT&T drive up to his house, knock on his door maybe in jeopardy of getting bit by his dog and say, ‘hey where’s the tower’. They don’t just do it to his door they do it to everyone’s- so it makes them responsible. It is more trucks. It is bothersome and that is an impact to the people that live up there. As far as Code Enforcement not dealing with the existing structure. Mr. Chipman told him that he went up there and there are structures outside of the fenced in area. His understanding from speaking to the FCC is that there shouldn’t be. Everything should be within the fenced in area.

Chairman Baden noted that what he observed today is that what it outside of the fenced in area is not part of the telecommunications facility. It is the power box- the Central Hudson box that would be similar to any other parcel. The second box is the Verizon phone line coming into the property.

Mr. Broome questioned if the tower wasn’t there, those boxes wouldn’t be there?

Chairman Baden couldn’t say that those boxes were there specifically for that use. They could be there for any other use as well.

Mr. Ullman felt that they were getting off point here.

Mr. Broome questioned if T-Mobile would be putting things on the outside of the fenced in area?

Chairman Baden answered that they would not. They would be using those to service.

Mr. Broome stated, let’s say T-Mobile- who laid off a couple thousand people a few weeks ago and closed down a bunch of call centers goes bankrupt next year. Were those antennas staying on and go to the next company? Or would the Board condition it so they come down?

Chairman Baden noted that they would consider conditioning a removal bond.

2012-02SPA Continued Review, SEQRA Determination, and Public Hearing

Mr. Broome noted that he would very much appreciate that. It is very likely- for those who don’t know- T-Mobile is going to be bought out by AT&T and the Federal Government stepped in and said that they couldn’t do that, but they gave them $3,000,000 to off set what AT&T would have given them.

Chairman Baden noted that those comments were more about the company and not about the site.

Mr. Broome stated that it was very relevant because it shows that these things come and go. Mergers happen and in this day and age companies go bankrupt.

Mr. Gaudioso didn’t want to belabor the point, but it was not accurate that the government gave T-Mobile $3,000,000.

Chairman Baden noted that it wasn’t a comment relevant to the application.

Mr. Broome noted as far as Mr. Chipman’s insinuation that Code Enforcement doesn’t have theright to go up to the tower. As a community they feel that they deserve for someone to go up there every once in a while to see how it is. Mr. Chipman noted that Mr. Chipman’s letter states that the CEO would never go into their houses if someone complained and that’s just not true.

Chairman Baden noted that those are issues that should be brought up to the Town Board.

Mr. Broome noted that he has done that and he spoke with Mr. Chipman yesterday and he said to talk with the Planning Board.

Chairman Baden noted that the Planning Board has no authority over Code Enforcement.

Mr. O’Donnell noted that a Code Enforcement Officer has no authority to go over anyone’s property without being invited.

Chairman Baden didn’t want to get into this discussion because it wasn’t part of this application. The Board will be reviewing this application for compliance and will be mandating in their conditions compliance with the Building Code for the construction of it. Enforcement is up to the CEO, not the Planning Board.

Mr. Broome was respectfully telling the PB that there is an issue here with accountability. They are being told by each person that the next person is responsible and every time he goes to that person they say no they are not.

Mr. Ullman noted that the Planning Board has limited Jurisdiction.

Chairman Baden agreed and noted that the PB is not the right Board to be answering Mr. Broome’s questions. They don’t have the ability to answer them. He can’t make a statement to Mr. Broome that he can’t support and confirm that it is going to happen. He can’t speak for someone else.

2012-02SPA Continued Review, SEQRA Determination, and Public Hearing

Mr. Broome requested that the Board for future wireless applications consider writing something new in the Code so that there can be more of a process to determine property devaluation.

Mr. Ricks noted that it would be the Town Board that would write that Code. Not the Planning Board.

Chairman Baden noted that the Board hears Mr. Broome’s comments and they could discuss it to make recommendations to the Town Board.

Sarah Harris was next to speak. She would like to know the definition between suburban housing and rural residential housing. It appears to her that there is a lot of housing clustered around the site.

Chairman Baden didn’t know if there was an actual measurement, but suburban is traditionally more of a neighborhood like down around the Kerhonkson School. When there is one house for every acre or two is getting into rural residential which is in this area of this application.

Ms. Harris was also curious as to if there could be any scientific measurements how that placement of these antennas in conjunction with the other 2 sites that are being applied for tonight- how necessary they would be for full coverage.

Chairman Baden noted that that has been submitted to the Board and the Board’s experts have reviewed it. It shows potential coverage areas and is quite an extensive documentation and is available for anyone to review. It shows all potential sites and coverage zones and they have fulfilled that.

Ms. Harris also noted that one of her neighbors actually spoke with someone from the FCC a couple of days ago and they were very forthcoming and she said that the Town can’t say no, but the people at the FCC said that the Town can certainly guide in terms of tower siting and could make suggestions future proposals. She would propose that the Town somehow put that into the Code.

Chairman Baden noted that the Board will probably consider suggestions to the Town Board but it is up to the Town Board to act on it.

Trish Stenger was next to speak. She questioned who owned Global Towers?

Chairman Baden noted that it wasn’t relevant as to who owned Global Towers.

Ms. Stenger then questioned the $15,000 bond that was supposed to be in place?

Chairman Baden noted that the bond was a part of the Court Decision and is not a part of this application, but as he said earlier the information has been forwarded on to the Town Board. Global Towers does not have it in their records that it was ever set up and they are going to address it, but it has nothing to do with this application.

Ms. Stenger questioned if the public comment period on this application be held open while the public views all of the reports that were submitted?

2012-02SPA Continued Review, SEQRA Determination, and Public Hearing

Chairman Baden couldn’t speak for the rest of the Board, they would see what the Board felt when this section was completed.

Ms. Stenger requested that the public comment period be held open for them to get a chance to look at these documents. She re-iterated that as far as the environmental review she appreciated the Board’s ‘nod’ to them over the public controversy. They don’t know what the negative effects are in relation to the devaluation of their property and the environmental impact to the area. They are unknown, so to say that there are none would have been misleading.

Chairman Baden noted that the Board is in receipt of an email dated March 28, 2012 from Stephanie Pinto:

“Dear Mr. Chipman, Ms. Archer, Mr. Spano, Mr. Baden, and Mr. Davis,

My family owns “the blue house” located at 485 Queens Highway at the corner of City Hall Road.~ I was an active member of the first community group when the cell tower was first proposed at 82 City Hall Road in 1997.~ I~ understand conditions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, but have spent a great deal of time in the past day or so both on line~ and in conversation with various staff at the FCC. The purpose of this has been to determine responsibility for monitoring, with what must be made available to the town regarding current emission measurements, as well as cell phone monitoring of these emissions. ~ the phone companies are supposed to keep records as I suspect we all know, and the question remains whether or not those records are accurate, and accessible.~

I realize that this issue is problematic, but I would very much appreciate it is you would consent to meet with a small number of residents on this issue.~ There simply has to be a win/win here that meets the requirements of the 1996 act, the needs of the town, and at least some of the needs of the residents of City Hall Road.~ I have had many years of experience in NYC on land use issues, while working for then Assemblyman Jerrold Nadler (now Congressman Nadler from the 8th Congressional District, and for then Comptroller Harrison j. Golden.~ Almost all of that time was spent on land use and transportation issues.

I intend to continue my dialogue with FCC staff, in an effort to see if we can find a solution here that meets our requirements.~ In the meantime, I would very much appreciate it if you would meet with Sara Harris and myself prior to the town board meeting on the 5th, perhaps with one other individual, to see if we can’t flush out some solutions.~ By the time of that meeting, I should have a lot more information from the FCC folks, and I am finding them to be extremely informative and cooperative.~ It is my hope that with this information, we might together form a plan that provides something for all.

I look forward to meeting with you and look forward to your response.~ Many thanks for your attention.~

Sincerely,

Stephanie Pinto”

Mavis Harris was recognized to speak again. She noted that we were once told that tobacco was safe and not too long ago we were told that the air quality from Ground Zero was safe.

2012-02SPA Continued Review, SEQRA Determination, and Public Hearing

Mr. O’Donnell motioned to close the Public Hearing at 9:05PM seconded by Mr. Ullman. No discussion.

Vote:

Baden: Yes Tapper: Absent

O’Donnell: Yes Rominger: Yes

Ullman: Yes Ricks: Yes

Paddock: Yes

Motion carried. 6 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, 0 abstention

Chairman Baden noted that based on what they’ve heard he jotted down what the conditions could be based on the Court Decision. The color of the antennas- the applicant has already agreed to match the existing. They can require that a building permit be obtained for the construction of the cabinet area. The last issue is the discontinuance of use provisions. The Code does allow for that to be required under a Special Use Permit and he thinks they could extend it to this application if the Board wanted to. Those were the 3 areas other than access issues that they would address on a normal site plan.

Mr. Ricks questioned what the discontinuance of use would cover? Taking down antennas?

Chairman Baden agreed. The applicant wasn’t responsible for the entire tower, but they could do a discontinuance of use of what they are approving for T-Mobile to put on the tower.

Mr. Ricks questioned how they would do that? In the form of a bond?

Chairman Baden noted that it would be up to the Town Attorney and then the Town Board would have to sign off on it. He felt that the PB’s authority could state that it needed to be addressed. He didn’t think they stated how.

The Town Attorney noted that they could have a condition that stated that the Town Board and Town Attorney with the applicant come up with the avenue to address it. They would not be given a C/O until it was taken care of.

Chairman Baden noted that this way they wouldn’t be able to start operating it until it was established.

Mr. Rominger questioned if the applicant would be willing to put up signage to address the truck traffic issue.

Mr. O’Donnell noted that there was a sign at the end of the access road and it was pathetic.

The Town Attorney noted that because this was for antennas and not the property owner the Board couldn’t require it.

Mr. Gaudioso noted that they would voluntarily attempt to fix the sign as long as the property owner and applicant are agreeable.

2012-02SPA Continued Review, SEQRA Determination, and Public Hearing

Chairman Baden noted that he felt that the Board could relay the concern and request it- but it couldn’t be included in the approval. It would need to be a small sign and something that would have to be approved by the Code Enforcement Officer. The best way to handle it would be to contact the CEO and see how big it could be.

Mr. O’Donnell noted that there was a little piece of a sign on the ground. He further noted that it should be adequately marked for safety purposes.

Chairman Baden questioned if the Board Members felt that they needed or wanted time to review the additional information? They have heard from their consultant that everything is in order. He did prepare a draft decision if the Board wanted to consider it.

Mr. Paddock questioned the 90 day time period.

Chairman Baden noted that the question is if it starts from the day the application is filed or from the day that the Board deems the application complete. It was filed on February 1, 2012 so the 90 days would bring this to May 1, 2012. If you considered February 14^th as the day as that was the first meeting on this application that would bring the 90 days to May 14^th and the next meeting is on May 8, 2012.

Mr. Gaudioso strongly urged the Board to move forward at this meeting. They have been very responsive to anything the Board has asked for. This is a simple co-location on an existing tower which is suggested by the Code.

Mr. Ricks noted that they submitted every report the Board asked for and they were very detailed. He didn’t know what would change in the next 30 days.

Mr. O’Donnell’s concern is that they’ve gotten all of this information given to them and did they have enough time to look at it.

Chairman Baden noted that the Board’s consultant has reviewed all of the data and they have the technical expertise to review this.

Mr. Rominger didn’t think there was data here that was substantial indicating that they shouldn’t move forward.

Mr. Ullman motioned to consider a decision at this meeting. Seconded by Mr. Ricks.

No discussion.

Vote:

Baden: Yes Tapper: Absent

O’Donnell: Yes Rominger: Yes

Ullman: Yes Ricks: Yes

Paddock: Yes

Motion carried. 6 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, 0 abstention

2012-02SPA Continued Review, SEQRA Determination, and Public Hearing

At this time the Board reviewed the Draft Findings prepared by Chairman Baden.

Board Comments on findings:

Mr. Ullman questioned what the present co-location was? That might be helpful to say what other carriers are on there already. Also- if they could say if the antennas are comparable in size to the current antennas? That might be helpful to identify the scope of what they are approving.

Chairman Baden agreed and would be specific with the number of antennas and they could put that onto item #9. They could add the scope of the size onto item #15.

Findings of the Planning Board:

The application was determined to require Site Plan review by the Code Enforcement Officer on 1/30/2012 and was referred to the Planning Board for review.
The parcel location is 82 City Hall Road and is identified as S/B/L# 68.3-2-47.110.
The parcel is located in the ‘R-2’ zoning district.
The parcel is owned by Zeno C. Wicks.

The parcel is +/- 23.8 acres.

The parcel current use is for the operation of a 120 foot monopole telecommunications tower hosting two providers of wireless service and a 2500 sq. ft. fenced, enclosed area housing the related accessory communications cabinets.

The facility setback distance is greater than the height of the telecommunications tower from the parcel boundary line.

Global Tower LLC is the current facility owner.

AT&T and Sprint currently operate use of the facility with a total of approximately 10 panel antennas located on the tower. There also exist 2 whip antennas believed to be for emergency services.

This telecommunications facility was granted approval via the courts as it was the subject of legal action. Hon. Vincent Bradley signed agreement to the consent judgment between the Town of Rochester and Alexandra Cellular Corp.
An access drive exists with an easement granted to the facility owner for the use of such drive.
The surrounding land use is predominately rural residential with a moderate density.
The parcel is heavily wooded. The existing facility is not easily visible throughout the Town. A location was determined on Boice Mill Road to have visibility of the facility.
The applicant submitted a Visual EAF form. The Planning Board conducted an analysis of this form and issued its own findings on 4/10/2012.
The applicant proposes an expansion of the telecommunications facility to include the installation of a three antenna array to be located at a height of +/- 105 feet on the tower and the use of a 300 sq. ft. area within the 2500 sq. ft. fenced enclosure to house the accessory communications equipment, located on a 160 sq. ft. concrete pad. The proposed antenna array is comparable in size to the existing antenna.
There are no other changes proposed to the site.
The applicant has prepared a Site Plan detailing the location of the existing and proposed structures and infrastructure within the parcel and illustrating the equipment to be co-located in significant detail.
The proposal meets the minimum development standards of Town of Rochester Code Chapter 140, Zoning.

The telecommunications industry is considered a public utility and the federal government retains significant regulatory powers which override Home Rule authority of local government.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is the federal regulatory authority of the industry.

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 mandates State or local government “shall not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services” and “shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services “. It further states “No State or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the Commission’s regulations concerning such emissions.”

The Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 mandates “a State or local government may not deny, and shall approve, any eligible facilities request for a modification of an existing wireless tower or base station that does not substantially change the physical dimensions of such tower or base station.”

2012-02SPA Continued Review, SEQRA Determination, and Public Hearing

The proposed structure exterior will be conditioned to require the antenna to resemble the existing antenna and equipment.

The applicant has submitted a structural report of the existing tower.

The applicant has submitted reports certifying the tower radio frequency emissions will be significantly less than the FCC maximum allowable standards.

The applicant has submitted FCC licensing information.

The applicant has submitted Federal Aviation Authority certification for the tower.

The Town planning consultant Clark Patterson Lee has reviewed all the information presented with specific review of

the technical information presented and has issued comment letters indicating no issues or concerns.

The Planning Board Chairman Baden, Vice-Chairman Rominger, and member O’Donnell visited the site on 4/10/2012.
The application was determined to require referral to the Ulster County Planning Board who issued a “No Decision”. No action can be taken on this application until such time as either a UCPB decision is received or 30 days has passed from the time of receipt by the UCPB of the referral. An amended referral was issued to correct an error in classification however, the 30 days required have passed without a referral decision by the UCPB and the town is free to act on the application.

Mr. O’Donnell motioned to accept the findings as discussed above. Seconded by Mr. Ullman. No discussion.

Vote:

Baden: Yes Tapper: Absent

O’Donnell: Yes Rominger: Yes

Ullman: Yes Ricks: Yes

Paddock: Yes

Motion carried. 6 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, 0 abstention

At this time Chairman Baden read over the Draft Decision as he prepared it.

RESOLVED,

The Town of Rochester Planning Board has reviewed the application presented pursuant to Chapter 140 of the Code of the Town of Rochester and the State Environmental Quality Review Act and grants Site Plan-Conditional Approval to T-Mobile Northeast LLC, permitting the expanded use of the telecommunications facility located on the parcel situate at 82 City Hall Road, further known as S/B/L# 68.3-2-47.110, and located in the ‘R-2’ zoning district of the T/ Rochester.

The installation of the proposed three antenna array on the existing 120 foot monopole telecommunications facility and the installation of proposed associated telecommunications equipment, as detailed on the Site Plan revision dated Jan. 30, 2012, is approved with the following conditions and the Planning Board further authorizes the Chairman to sign the referenced Site Plan indicating this approval.

CONDITIONS of APPROVAL:

Any deviation from the approved and signed Site Plan shall require resubmission to the Planning Board, except as may be permitted pursuant to the Town of Rochester Code and as determined by the Code Enforcement Officer.
All applicable Local, County, State, and Federal laws or codes shall be complied with.
The facility shall maintain radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the Federal Communication Commission’s regulations concerning such emissions.
All permits which may be determined required in conjunction with the operation of this use shall be secured or renewed as applicable. Should any conditions imposed by such permits cause conditions to be in conflict, the more restrictive condition shall prevail. Should any permit approvals necessitate a change to the approved Site Plan, the matter shall be referred to the Planning Board for consideration.
The owner shall specifically secure a Town of Rochester building permit prior to start of any construction or land disturbance. All conditions imposed in the granting of this permit shall be made a part of this approval. One copy of the permit shall be filed with the T/ Rochester Planning Board.

The Building Dept. shall require the placement and maintenance of any onsite fire safety devices which may be allowed under the New York State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code in conjunction with any structure located within the facility.

All telecommunications equipment shall be permanently located within the secure fenced area.

Their shall be no overnight parking of vehicles or storage of other equipment or materials on the site other than as may be necessary for short duration during the construction phase.

Parking shall be allowed only in the spaces designated on the approved and signed Site Plan.

The access road shall be maintained in good, safe order and remain free and clear of encumbrances year-round to allow adequate emergency access.

The antenna array shall be finished in the same color scheme and manner as the exiting antennas. This shall be a blue-gray color.

The associated telecommunications equipment cabinet shall be finished similarly to the color of the existing cabinets.

T-Mobile shall propose and establish such conditions as may be necessary and found acceptable by the Town Attorney for dismantling and removal of antennas and accessory facilities upon abandonment of use, herein defined as failure to provide services normally associated with personal wireless services for a period of one year. The Town attorney shall review such provisions. Such provisions will become effective upon Town Board approval. T-Mobile shall be responsible to reimburse the Town for the actual costs of such attorney review.

Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, improvements and existing site conditions shall be verified to be in agreement with the approved and signed Site Plan by the Building Dept. The Building Dept. shall additionally verify the provisions for dismantling, as noted in Condition 13, have been properly established.

Any and all fees and reimbursements due to the Town of Rochester involving this application shall be paid in full prior to the Chairman’s signature on the Site Plan.

EFFECT of APPROVAL:

This Site Plan approval and associated conditions shall be binding upon the applicant and all successive owners of the land so long as such use shall occur.
This approval shall remain effective as an authorization to secure the required permits and establish the use for a maximum of one year from this date of approval unless the applicant shall have submitted written request and the Planning Board shall have adopted such resolution granting an extension and provided the applicant has submitted proof of diligently pursued the implementation of the plans.
This Site Plan authorization shall be deemed to have expired without further notice one year from this date unless a Certificate of Occupancy is issued or an extension granted by the Planning Board.
Should the existing associated Special Use, under which this Site Plan is authorized, be discontinued as a use for a period of two years or more, the Special Use shall be deemed to have lapsed as per the Town of Rochester code.

Mr. Paddock motioned to approve the resolution as read above. Seconded by Mr. Ullman. No discussion.

Vote:

Baden: Yes Tapper: Absent

O’Donnell: Yes Rominger: Yes

Ullman: Yes Ricks: Yes

Paddock: Yes

Motion carried. 6 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, 0 abstention

2012-04SPA New Application

T-Mobile Northeast LLC- applicant, for American Tower Corp and Town of Rochester, property owners, for Site Plan review, for the installation of 3 panel antennas and equipment to be co-located on an existing 150-foot monopole wireless communication facility and installation of associated equipment within an existing fenced compound, 6140 Route 209, Tax Map #76.1-3-17, ‘AR-3’ zoning district.

Mr. Gaudioso was present on behalf of this application.

Chairman Baden noted that this is an application that requires Site Plan Review. This telecommunications facility has Special Use approval by Planning Board decision 2007-06SPA/SUP adopted 11/20/2007. Communications received from the applicant are: Tower owner authorization, a Structural report, FAA certification, FCC licensing, Visual EAF, Radio frequency coverage affidavit and report, and RF compliance report.

Mr. Gaudioso noted that this is for the co-location of 3 antennas. He respectfully requested a Public Hearing to be set for May 8, 2012.

Chairman Baden motioned for an Unlisted Action with an Uncoordinated Review. Seconded by Mr. O’Donnell. No discussion.

Vote:

Baden: Yes Tapper: Absent

O’Donnell: Yes Rominger: Yes

Ullman: Yes Ricks: Yes

Paddock: Yes

Motion carried. 6 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, 0 abstention

Chairman Baden motioned to refer the application to the Ulster County Planning Board and requested comments be received on or before May 7, 2012. Seconded by Mr. O’Donnell. No discussion.

Vote:

Baden: Yes Tapper: Absent

O’Donnell: Yes Rominger: Yes

Ullman: Yes Ricks: Yes

Paddock: Yes

Motion carried. 6 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, 0 abstention

Chairman Baden motioned to refer this application to the Town Planner and based on the 82 City Hall Application to set escrow at $1,200.00. Seconded by Mr. O’Donnell. No discussion.

Vote:

Baden: Yes Tapper: Absent

O’Donnell: Yes Rominger: Yes

Ullman: Yes Ricks: Yes

Paddock: Yes

Motion carried. 6 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, 0 abstention

Chairman Baden noted that they would condition the color of the antenna, the building permit and the discontinuance of use.

Mr. Ricks questioned the color of this tower.

Mr. Gaudioso noted that it was brown.

2012-04SPA New Application

T-Mobile Northeast LLC (cont’d)- applicant, for American Tower Corp and Town of Rochester, property owners, for Site Plan review, for the installation of 3 panel antennas and equipment to be co-located on an existing 150-foot monopole wireless communication facility and installation of associated equipment within an existing fenced compound, 6140 Route 209, Tax Map #76.1-3-17, ‘AR-3’ zoning district.

Mr. Ricks motioned to set the application for Public Hearing at the May 8, 2012 Meeting and to instruct the Secretary to circulate notice. Seconded by Mr. O’Donnell. No discussion.

Vote:

Baden: Yes Tapper: Absent

O’Donnell: Yes Rominger: Yes

Ullman: Yes Ricks: Yes

Paddock: Yes

Motion carried. 6 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, 0 abstention

2012-05SPA New Application

T-Mobile Northeast LLC– applicant, for American Tower Corp and Town of Rochester, property owners, for Site Plan review, for the installation of 3 panel antennas and equipment to be co-located on an existing 150-foot monopole wireless communication facility and installation of associated equipment within an existing fenced compound, 100 Airport Rd., Tax Map #69.3-2-37, ‘R-5’ zoning district.

Mr. Gaudioso was present on behalf of the application.

Mr. Rominger recused himself from the review as it impacts his view from his home.

Mr. Paddock stated he is a contiguous land owner to the property and after reviewing the information he felt he would have no problem making an informed decision.

Since Mr. Rominger recused himself from this application, Chairman Baden appointed Mr. Case, the Board’s Alternate to sit on the Board for this application.

Chairman Baden noted that this application was approved by a Special Use Permit, PB Decision #2007-07SUP. They received all of the same documentation for this tower as they received for the last one. This was very similar to the last application.

Chairman Baden motioned for an Unlisted Action with an Uncoordinated Review. Seconded by Mr. O’Donnell. No discussion.

Vote:

Baden: Yes Tapper: Absent

O’Donnell: Yes

Ullman: Yes Ricks: Yes

Paddock: Yes Case: Yes * alternate

Motion carried. 6 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, 0 abstention

2012-05SPA New Application

T-Mobile Northeast LLC (cont’d)– applicant, for American Tower Corp and Town of Rochester, property owners, for Site Plan review, for the installation of 3 panel antennas and equipment to be co-located on an existing 150-foot monopole wireless communication facility and installation of associated equipment within an existing fenced compound, 100 Airport Rd., Tax Map #69.3-2-37, ‘R-5’ zoning district.

Chairman Baden motioned to refer the application to the Ulster County Planning Board because of the height of the structure and requested comments be received on or before May 7, 2012. Seconded by Mr. O’Donnell. No discussion.

Vote:

Baden: Yes Tapper: Absent

O’Donnell: Yes

Ullman: Yes Ricks: Yes

Paddock: Yes Case: Yes * alternate

Motion carried. 6 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, 0 abstention

Chairman Baden motioned to refer this application to the Town Planner and based on the 82 City Hall Application to set escrow at $1,200.00. Seconded by Mr. Ricks. No discussion.

Vote:

Baden: Yes Tapper: Absent

O’Donnell: Yes

Ullman: Yes Ricks: Yes

Paddock: Yes Case: Yes * alternate

Motion carried. 6 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, 0 abstention

Mr. Ricks motioned to set the application for Public Hearing at the May 8, 2012 Meeting and to instruct the Secretary to circulate notice. Seconded by Mr. O’Donnell. No discussion.

Vote:

Baden: Yes Tapper: Absent

O’Donnell: Yes

Ullman: Yes Ricks: Yes

Paddock: Yes Case: Yes * alternate

Motion carried. 6 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, 0 abstention

Mr. Rominger was seated back on the Board at 9:25PM and Mr. Case, Alternate, was seated back in the audience.

2012-06SUP New Application

ELM ROCK INN– Mark Suszczynski and Kimberly Weeks, for Special Use Permit, for a change of use from a residential use (bed and breakfast) to a commercial use (hotel) to include interior catering and restaurant facilities, construction of a 32’ x 80’ barn for use in holding special events, and an increase in parking area from 15 to 32 spaces (parking will be located in Town of Marbletown), 4496 Route 209, Tax Map #69.4-2-1.32, ‘B’ and ‘FD Overlay’ zoning districts. The parcel also includes land located in the Town of Marbletown, 4494 Route 209, Tax Map #69.4-1-1.2.

Mr. Suszczynski was present on behalf of his application.

Chairman Baden noted that this application was before the Board in November of 2011 for a pre-application presentation. Since then he has submitted a Narrative, Business plan, Soil map, Ag Data statement, and an

Environmental hazard study. Chairman Baden obtained the Internet wetlands and floodplain maps. There were some wetlands on the boundaries of the property. There were a couple of things to correct on the EAF, but they wouldn’t need to physically be changed on the form- they could be discussed at this meeting and be in the record in the minutes. It is in the floodplain.

Mr. Ricks questioned the total number of hotel rooms. Did they fit the 4.4 acres as per the Town’s Zoning?

Chairman Baden believed so. There wasn’t a room per acre requirement or anything like that. It was based off of the use. There was no definition in the current code for an Inn. It’s something the Town may consider for the future, but what the Town did have was a hotel. A Bed and Breakfast requires the owner to live on premises under NYS Building Code and is matched in our code.

Mr. Suszczynski noted that there were 7 rooms and they have restored it back to its original 5 rooms and they have the carriage house and they are going to leave that the way it is and leave it for families up to 6-8 people to rent.

Chairman Baden questioned if there would be any exterior changes to the house?

Mr. Suszczynski answered no. They were proposing to add the barn, but they weren’t sure if they wanted to do that. It would be in the future.

Chairman Baden noted that the applicant was better off putting it in the application now and asking for approval. They could ask for the approval to be in phases and if they get approval and they decide that they want to do the barn two years from now, the applicant can request that.

Mr. Suszczynski noted that there wouldn’t be any plumbing included in that. It would be used for weddings and catered events.

Mr. Rominger questioned if there would be any modifications to the kitchen? Would they need a different exhaust that would effect the outside?

Mr. Suszczynski noted that there would be no changes to the outside. They were updating it slightly, but there would be no changes to the exterior.

Mr. Ricks questioned what type of events would be held in the barn?

Mr. Suszczynski noted that the barn would mostly be for weddings, rehearsal dinners, showers- catered events.

2012-06SUP New Application

Mr. Ricks questioned if the parking area would cover the wedding events?

Mr. Suszczynski noted that he met the parking requirements for NYS Code. The required parking spaces would be 23 and he was proposing 33 spaces with 2 handicap spaces. His neighbor, Mr. Hornbeck had offered his adjacent property for parking overflow for weddings. He also had flat space over by the shed that he could use.

Chairman Baden noted that if he was going to propose the parking on the neighbor’s property as part of the application would the applicant be able to provide something in writing? The numbers that the applicant stated seemed to work, but if they were holding an event, they would still need parking for employees and that kind of stuff above the 33 spaces.

Town Attorney Christiana noted that if there was going to be parking on someone else’s property, they would need a recorded document with the County. If the Hornbeck’s sell the property the approval would go with the land.

Mr. Suszczynski questioned if he could propose the parking if the event were to go over 132 people to do the parking up to the shed because there is already a driveway going up to that.

Chairman Baden noted that they would need to see an area and see how many cars could legally fit in there with access.

Mr. Ullman questioned if they proposed parking on someone else’s’ property if that would have to be an actual easement?

Town Attorney Christiana confirmed that it would have to be an actual easement.

Mr. Suszczynski noted that he would rather keep it on his own property. It was completely level.

Chairman Baden noted that the applicant would need to scale out the area and the parking spaces would need to be 10’ x 20’ and an aisle would need to be left in between. It seems to be short of the special events there is ample parking.

Mr. Rominger questioned if the applicant was proposing any bathrooms in the barn?

Mr. Suszczynski noted that he wasn’t putting any plumbing. Anything held exterior from the house would be porta-potties.

Chairman Baden noted that they would need to be shown on the map and so the neighbors and anyone who wants to know can see it.

Mr. Suszczynski noted that the barn isn’t going to go up this year or even next year, but that area will be for tented events.

2012-06SUP New Application

Chairman Baden noted that the applicant definitely needed to submit that in writing and mark it on the map.

Mr. Suszczynski noted that right now he is permitted with the Bed and Breakfast (B &B) for 12 events per year.

Chairman Baden noted that this was in the existing code. This existing Special Use Permit was for a B & B was prior to this code being written. They just don’t automatically go under the new code. It would need approval as it was originally approved as a residential B & B use.

Mr. Suszczynski noted that he already had a couple of events planned, so he wanted to make sure that it was fine.

Chairman Baden noted that this would be a Code Enforcement question. He will tell the applicant if he could do what he wanted. In order to get those events, the applicant would need to go through a site plan review with the Board.

Town Attorney Christiana agreed noting that it wasn’t an automatic thing as this law didn’t exist when the original approval was given.

Chairman Baden noted that anything that the applicant was going to do there in the near future would be under this existing approval and that needed to be discussed with the Code Enforcement Officer.

Chairman Baden noted that this property is contiguous to a County Ag District and the applicant submitted a County Ag Data Statement. They already talked about the wetlands and the flood plain. The building is on the National Register, so it will need to be referred to the State Historic Preservation and the Town’s Historic Preservation and makes the application a Type 1. It will also have to be referred to the Town of Marbletown as part of the property is in Marbletown. He confirmed with the applicant that it was all one deed even though it had two separate tax parcel numbers. He suggested that the applicant inquire with Marbletown if they need any applications. The Board would refer this application to Marbleotown, but he suggested the applicant contact Marbletown to see what they needed from him.

Mr. Suszczynski noted that originally when he was submitting everything they said they were just going to have a joint meeting with the Town of Rochester and the only thing that was effecting them was the parking.

Chairman Baden noted that he had written a letter to the Town of Marbletown when the Board had the pre-application presentation, so the Town of Marbletown is aware of this. The Board will now submit this new information to them and we will go from there.

Chairman Baden continued to note that this would need to be reviewed under the commercial use standards in the Zoning Code because it is a new use. In terms of noise and any impacts- Section 140-20- he asked that all members review this between now and the next meeting. The applicant also needed to submit signage information. He knew that there was an existing sign and if he was going to maintain that sign he needed to say it, if he was going to replace it the Board needed to know the size and what it would look like.

2012-06SUP New Application

Mr. Suszczynski noted that they just put the sign up yesterday.

Chairman Baden instructed the applicant to take a picture of it and submit that. He was aware that the person who did the sign had already spoken with the Code Enforcement Officer, so his suspicion was that it was within the Code, but he should still take a picture of it and get it to the Board. Take a picture of both sides. Were there going to be any changes to outside lighting?

The applicant responded that there were hookups for the front of the building and the side.

Mr. Ricks questioned if the parking lot was going to be lighted?

Mr. Suszczynski noted that they were going to light the parking.

Chairman Baden noted that they would need to see the lighting locations on the plan. The applicant would also have to submit detail sheets for the fixtures themselves. The County is very big into lighting. It needs to be full-cut off, down shielded lighting. The Board is also going to need elevations of the barn- a sketch or a drawing to show the dimensions of it, the height and style of the exterior. The interior doesn’t effect the Board at all.

Mr. Suszczynski noted that the sides would be enclosed- like Kelder’s Barn style.

Chairman Baden noted that because it is an historic structure, the State and Town’s Historic Preservation Commissions are really going to want to know what it is going to look like.

Mr. Ricks questioned if there would be a sidewalk going out there?

Mr. Suszczynski noted that they would probably have one going off of the blue stone patio in the back of the house.

Mr. Ricks noted that should be shown on the map.

Mr. Suszczynski noted that the barn would be enclosed. He didn’t have an architect working on it, but understood that the Board needed construction drawings- dimensions and what it would look like.

Chairman Baden noted that the setbacks for the barn would be 25’ from the rear property line and 25’ from the side property line.

2012-06SUP New Application

Chairman Baden motioned to preliminarily Type this Action as a Type 1 under SEQRA and to circulate Intent for Lead Agency to NYS DOT, NYS OPRHP, NYS DEC, UCHD, Town of Marbletown PB, and Town of Marbletown ZBA pending receipt of the requested revisions by April 17^th and being reviewed by the Chairman as being complete enough for referrals. No discussion.

Vote:

Baden: Yes Tapper: Absent

O’Donnell: Yes Rominger: Yes

Ullman: Yes Ricks: Yes

Paddock: Yes

Motion carried. 6 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, 0 abstention

Chairman Baden motioned to refer the application to Clark Patterson Lee and to require the applicant to establish an escrow account in the amount to be determined by the Planner for review. Seconded by Mr. O’Donnell. No discussion.

Vote:

Baden: Yes Tapper: Absent

O’Donnell: Yes Rominger: Yes

Ullman: Yes Ricks: Yes

Paddock: Yes

Motion carried. 6 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, 0 abstention

Mr. O’Donnell motioned to refer the application to the UCPB for review and to request comments be received on or before May 17, 2012 pending receipt of the complete application by April 17, 2012. Seconded by Mr. Rominger. No discussion.

Vote:

Baden: Yes Tapper: Absent

O’Donnell: Yes Rominger: Yes

Ullman: Yes Ricks: Yes

Paddock: Yes

Motion carried. 6 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, 0 abstention

Mr. Rominger motioned to refer the application to the Town of Rochester Historic Preservation Commission. Seconded by Mr. Ullman. No discussion.

Vote:

Baden: Yes Tapper: Absent

O’Donnell: Yes Rominger: Yes

Ullman: Yes Ricks: Yes

Paddock: Yes

Motion carried. 6 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, 0 abstention

2012-06SUP New Application

Chairman Baden noted that this was a lot of work for the applicant to do and if he had any questions, to contact the office to set up a meeting to go over it.

Chairman Baden questioned the Town Attorney as to what the next step would be in joining this application up with Marbletown.

Mrs. Christiana recommended holding a joint Public Hearing with the Town of Marbletown when this was complete. They could have a workshop meeting first to determine what issues they had between the Towns- if it could be coordinated.

Chairman Baden wanted to first reach out to them with a cover letter and the revised information and request to schedule a joint meeting.

Mrs. Christiana noted that what they require for parking may be different than what the Town of Rochester does.

OTHER MATTERS

Chairman Baden noted that he had sent a letter to the Code Enforcement Office regarding the log yard on Route 209.

Chairman Baden noted that he brought up to the Town Board about the Planning Board seeking a different Planner. The Town Board first wanted him to approach Clark Patterson Lee to see if the Board could work out whatever issues they are having. Maybe at some point Mr. Rominger and the Chairman could set up a meeting with them.

ADJOURNMENT

Mr. O’Donnell motioned to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Mr. Ullman. No discussion. All members present in favor.

As there was no further business to discuss Chairman Baden adjourned the meeting at 10:35 pm.

Respectfully submitted,

Rebecca Paddock Stange, Secretary

As approved on June 12, 2012