Planning Board Minutes Dec. 2012

MINUTES OF December 11, 2012 the Town of Rochester PLANNING BOARD, held at the Town Hall, Accord, NY.

 

Vice Chairman Rominger asked that everyone stood to say the Pledge to the Flag.

 

The Secretary did roll call attendance.

 

PRESENT:                                                                ABSENT:                 
Adam S. Paddock                                                 Michael Baden, Chairman 
Robert Rominger, Vice Chairman                                  Anthony Ullman
Melvyn I. Tapper                                                        Shane Ricks
                                                                        Fred O’Donnell                                                                                                                  
Also present:
Rebecca Paddock Stange, Secretary. Robert Case, Alternate.   

 

Vice Chairman Rominger called the meeting to order and asked for Mr. Case, Alternate to join the
Board to establish a quorum for this meeting.

 

ANNOUNCEMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS
Vice Chairman Rominger noted that Chairman Baden has secured a Local Government Records Management Improvement grant from NYS Archives for $8996 for a project to establish an electronic index database of Planning Board and ZBA paper files. Project to begin upon award and be accomplished in Spring 2013. He asked the Secretary to give any information she may have on it.

 

Mrs. Paddock Stange, Secretary noted that currently everything is filed by an owner’s last name and owner’s of properties change throughout the years, so instead of it taking hours to find a subdivision map or file, she will just be able to enter the property info into the computer and it will bring up everything she will need to locate the file.

 

Mrs. Brooks, audience member asked if it would use tax map data to do this?

 

The Secretary noted that would definitely be one of the ways to track properties- they hope to do it several different ways.

 

Mrs. Brooks congratulated the Board.

 

TRAININGS
Vice Chairman Rominger reminded the members that were present that they need to complete 4 hours of training for 2012 by Dec. 31. Online trainings can be completed. Check with Becky if they are uncertain how many hours credit they have for 2012.

 

The Secretary noted that all members at the meeting had fulfilled their training requirements for 2012.
ACTION ON MINUTES                       
Vice Chairman Rominger noted that there was only one correction for the minutes of November 13, 2012 Regular Meeting. At the bottom of page 6. Ms. Brooks incorrectly referred to the Wallkill Grower’s Association. Amend minutes to insert this statement of clarification in brackets after the word Association
[Incorrect name referenced by applicant. Rondout Valley Grower’s Association is correct name].

 

Mr. Paddock motioned to approve the minutes with this correction. Seconded by Mr. Case. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden:  Absent                                  Tapper: Yes
O’Donnell:      Absent                                  Rominger:       Yes
Ullman: Absent                                  Ricks:          Absent
Paddock:        Yes                                             Case, Alt.:     Yes
                                                                        
Motion carried. 4 ayes, 0 nays, 4 absent, 0 abstentions (vote included alternate)
PB 2012-11 LLA  Continued Application and Public Hearing        
Amend Minor Subdivision via Lot Improvement
Appeldoorn Farm LLC and Open Space Conservancy– c/o Brooks and Brooks Land Surveyors PC, Application to amend decision PB2010-06SBD granting Minor Subdivision Approval dated December 21, 2010, for amendment to the filed map for lot line revision between two previously approved subdivision lots to eliminate the need for a driveway easement by constructing a driveway from Whitfield Road to Lot 2 and conveying Route 209 frontage to Lot #1. No other new construction is proposed on either lot, S/B/L #77.1-1-8.12 and  #77.1-1-8.11, ‘AR-3’ and AP Overlay Zoning Districts.

 

Patti Brooks, Land Surveyor, was present on behalf of the application.

 

Vice Chairman Rominger noted that this was continued review and the Public Hearing of this application which was presented at the Nov. meeting.  Since the last meeting, Open Space Conservancy has joined in the application as a co-applicant as they are the holders of the Conservation easement. He also noted that the Planning Board secretary is a bounding owner to this application but as she is an employee and has no vote, there is no conflict of interest. It has been determined subsequent to the last meeting this property has some land in the 100-year floodplain, but it has no bearing on the proposed lot line changes or driveway, but will be addressed in the decision. He also noted that the Ulster County Planning Board referral came back with  “No County Impact”.

 

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

 

Mr. Paddock questioned where the 100 year flood plain was drawn on the map.

 

Mrs. Brooks showed the approximate location and noted that she would add it to the final plan.
PB 2012-11 LLA  Continued Application and Public Hearing        
Amend Minor Subdivision via Lot Improvement
Appeldoorn Farm LLC and Open Space Conservancy– c/o Brooks and Brooks Land Surveyors PC, Application to amend decision PB2010-06SBD granting Minor Subdivision Approval dated December 21, 2010, for amendment to the filed map for lot line revision between two previously approved subdivision lots to eliminate the need for a driveway easement by constructing a driveway from Whitfield Road to Lot 2 and conveying Route 209 frontage to Lot #1. No other new construction is proposed on either lot, S/B/L #77.1-1-8.12 and  #77.1-1-8.11, ‘AR-3’ and AP Overlay Zoning Districts.

 

After reviewing Part 2 of the Short EAF and determining that there were no impacts identified, Vice Chairman Rominger motioned for a Negative Declaration under SEQRA. Seconded by Mr. Paddock. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden:  Absent                                  Tapper: Yes
O’Donnell:      Absent                                  Rominger:       Yes
Ullman: Absent                                  Ricks:          Absent
Paddock:        Yes                                             Case, Alt.:     Yes
                                                                        
Motion carried. 4 ayes, 0 nays, 4 absent, 0 abstentions (vote included alternate)

 

At 7:10PM Vice Chairman Rominger opened the Hearing to the public.

 

Mrs. Brooks, Surveyor gave a brief description of the project. She noted that the application is a lot line revision between two existing lots that were part of lots 1 and 2 of the subdivision approved 2 years ago. The reason for the lot line revision is take lot #1 which was previously 3.01 acres and increase it to 9.34 acres and give it all of the road frontage along Route 209. A new driveway was constructed to lot #2 from Whitfield Road and lot #2 is reduced in size to 22.29. Instead of lot #2 having a right of way over lot #1 for access, they each have their own road frontage and driveways. Both lots are still subject to the conservation easements, no changes to that.
Mrs. Brooks showed him on the map the location of the driveway.

 

Next to speak was Mike Redmond Jr., bounding property owner. Mr. Redmond noted that the driveway effects himself and Jerry Flaherty more than everyone else as it accesses Whitfield Road between their two properties. That property has grown vegetation- 25’ tall and 75’ wide. He heard the Board read that there would be no impact to animals or any of that- he didn’t know, but he had at anytime 10-15 rabbits in his lawn and now its all clear cut- gone. He sat here 2 years ago at the same meeting with the Open Space people and the same thing and was told that no construction to be done on that lot and here they built a road into that lot. They already built a road into that lot and they didn’t get approval for anything and there is already a road in 250’ in. It said right on the Planning Board plans- “no construction”. And now they just put the road in and now they are revising it. So what is going to stop two more years from now them subdividing it and putting houses or whatever. Two years ago a bunch of lawyers and a bunch of people sat right here and promised him that there was nothing that could be done with that 35 acre field- including that right of way- the only spot that someone could build on was 2 or 3 acres around the barn or something right there and the other lot was unbuildable- Open Space- guaranteed, stamped and approved. He understood that a new owner bought the property and wants to improve their thing, but again he doesn’t understand that another every two years we are going to go through another Planning Board meeting when someone wants to change their plan and they are going to see that that is no impact. Well, they put two  6” culvert pipes out by the road. Not a 12”. It floods through there. They ran a drainage ditch down the road. The guy did a proper job, they were very friendly, the owner stopped by and he was very friendly. But there is a lot of water now being diverted out to Whitfield Road and across the back of his yard at any time that it rains, the is a 1’ stream that comes across the back corner of his property.

 

PB 2012-11 LLA  Continued Application and Public Hearing        
Amend Minor Subdivision via Lot Improvement
Appeldoorn Farm LLC and Open Space Conservancy– c/o Brooks and Brooks Land Surveyors PC, Application to amend decision PB2010-06SBD granting Minor Subdivision Approval dated December 21, 2010, for amendment to the filed map for lot line revision between two previously approved subdivision lots to eliminate the need for a driveway easement by constructing a driveway from Whitfield Road to Lot 2 and conveying Route 209 frontage to Lot #1. No other new construction is proposed on either lot, S/B/L #77.1-1-8.12 and  #77.1-1-8.11, ‘AR-3’ and AP Overlay Zoning Districts.

 

So they stoned it in and put a culvert pipe that shoots the water further out into the cow field, but again- if there is no impact it is just baffling to him. He doesn’t know who did the study and who looked it up. He was greatly affected. He wasn’t looking for some land because why would he want to buy something that no one was going to build on? And then it sold and now we are changing the right of way with a perfectly good access to the property. For years he worked on those houses doing construction and there is a perfectly good road going from Route 209 that has been there for over 100 years and now we are putting a road in to no where. He doesn’t see how there is no impact. It was 2 years ago and it was stamped on the thing- “no construction”. That right of way was part of that “no construction”. And now we’ve put a road in and we’re trying to continue the road. The first part of the road should have never went in—we just did it and then we put the cart before the horse. He personally thinks that Mr. Flaherty and himself are the most effected. Mr. Marshall is on the other side of that field where the road is going to be. Again- now he has a beautiful view of Mr. Flaherty’s house. It’s not the owner’s problem. The vegetation was there. The trees were there and now he gets to see a house sitting right next to his pool. He doesn’t know the answer and he is very frustrated that it sounds like a done deal. He’s lived there for 20 years and he was promised 2 years ago that there would be no construction. All the other property owners that touch the field aren’t effected by the driveway. He is. The driveway actually helped him to pull out of his own driveway to see up Whitfield Road. Its impossible to pull out of that driveway without worrying that you are going to get hit every time. Its another 25’ up and he couldn’t see, so he can’t imagine that it got approved- just like that with no questions and they are off to the races.

 

Mrs. Brooks noted that Open Space Conservancy does have a conservation easement on the property and a copy of that easement is on file with the Planning Board for anyone who is interested in reading it. The construction of a driveway – it is a driveway – not a roadway- is in accordance with that conservation easement and this lot line revision actually didn’t need to take place for that driveway to be constructed, because the road frontage to lot #2 already existed on Whitfield Road. The applicant made application for the Driveway Permit from the Highway Superintendent and was granted permission to construct that driveway before they even began the lot line revision process. She is not versed enough in each of the items in the conservation easement to be able to read them off item by item, but the driveway was within the permissible construction obviously- because Open Space is actually taking part as a co-applicant in this application and submitted an email to the Planning Board that they were in concurrence with the lot line revision. The construction that is being referred to is for dwellings and so forth- those restrictions are found in the conservation easement and the only thing she could do was to direct the public to read them to clearly and definitively what restrictions are placed on the property.

 

Mr. Redmond noted that he wasn’t arguing, but he sat right here and they said that that 35 acres, including that thing was unbuildable. He was not here- he believes his father came here and saw the original plan and its stamped on the plan- “no construction”.
Steven Marshall was recognized to speak. He was curious how the applicant was going to continue the driveway in the field. Currently the driveway construction came to a screeching halt where the cows were and he just wanted

 

Mrs. Brooks noted that it depends on what the definition of construction is. Unfortunately the definition can be debated and that is why the specifics are laid out in the conservation easement.

 

PB 2012-11 LLA  Continued Application and Public Hearing        
Amend Minor Subdivision via Lot Improvement
Appeldoorn Farm LLC and Open Space Conservancy– c/o Brooks and Brooks Land Surveyors PC, Application to amend decision PB2010-06SBD granting Minor Subdivision Approval dated December 21, 2010, for amendment to the filed map for lot line revision between two previously approved subdivision lots to eliminate the need for a driveway easement by constructing a driveway from Whitfield Road to Lot 2 and conveying Route 209 frontage to Lot #1. No other new construction is proposed on either lot, S/B/L #77.1-1-8.12 and  #77.1-1-8.11, ‘AR-3’ and AP Overlay Zoning Districts.

 

Vice Chairman Rominger noted that the Town Highway Supervisor has signed off on the driveway and obviously has to approve the construction. The Board could speak to him about the drainage concerns, but he is the expert and he is over seeing it and he is assuming he is taking things like water run off into consideration.

 

Mr. Redmond questioned who came out to evaluate that there was no environmental impact on the property?

 

Mrs. Brooks noted that the driveway construction and the lot line revision were two separate actions and this Board was looking at the impact of the lot line revision.

 

Mr. Redmond noted that the driveway has changed the water flow to the road and the field.

 

Vice Chairman Rominger noted that Mr. Redmond was mentioning that it was a dangerous intersection getting out onto Whitfield Road and that is Wayne Kelder, Highway Superintendent, making the call on that. As far as the construction of the driveway- it’s allowed under the zoning and they will construct it properly.

 

Mr. Redmond noted that Vice Chairman Rominger had read that there was no environmental impact on the property and water is now diverted in a totally different direction across that field.

 

Vice Chairman Rominger noted that on any construction projects or lots or development there can be changes in water flow.

 

Mrs. Brooks questioned if Mr. Redmond had spoken and voiced his concerns to the new owner?

 

Mr. Redmond personally did not. He stopped by and talked to his 16 year old daughter. He still believed that there was a cart before the horse kind of thing. We didn’t really do what we were supposed to do, but we did it any way.  

 

Mrs. Brooks could speak with him about these concerns.

 

Mr. Tapper noted that construction of a driveway is not what the Board deems as construction. They deem construction as putting in houses and homes. To put a driveway in over an existing right of way isn’t really construction- they are not allowed to change the flow of water- that’s for sure. If that happens they need to correct it. Line of site of the driveway was approved by the Highway Superintendent and that’s what the Board has to go by- he’s the expert in that field. As far as environmental- when the Board reviews an environmental assessment form it’s usually a much broader term and a much broader effect on the environment than putting in a driveway unfortunately. Putting in a driveway to the Board has very little damage to the environment. Putting in a driveway to a house is part of the process of putting in a house. That’s all he could say. It was existing road frontage and that basically is not what this application was for. This application was for a revision of a lot line. They are entitled to put a road off of that access.

 

Mr. Redmond noted that they could do that from Whitfield Road to the cow fence, but from cow fence to the house isn’t anything.

 

PB 2012-11 LLA  Continued Application and Public Hearing        
Amend Minor Subdivision via Lot Improvement
Appeldoorn Farm LLC and Open Space Conservancy– c/o Brooks and Brooks Land Surveyors PC, Application to amend decision PB2010-06SBD granting Minor Subdivision Approval dated December 21, 2010, for amendment to the filed map for lot line revision between two previously approved subdivision lots to eliminate the need for a driveway easement by constructing a driveway from Whitfield Road to Lot 2 and conveying Route 209 frontage to Lot #1. No other new construction is proposed on either lot, S/B/L #77.1-1-8.12 and  #77.1-1-8.11, ‘AR-3’ and AP Overlay Zoning Districts.

 

Mrs. Brooks noted that it will be a driveway as shown on the map and will access to the house. An access to a single family dwelling is an as of right entity appurtenant to that structure from the frontage that it owns as it does on Whitfield Road. When completed it will be a driveway from Whitfield Road to the house.

 

Judy Redmond was recognized to speak. She lives on the Route 209 side of the property. Her husband was at a School Board meeting. When he spoke with Wayne Kelder he said he had nothing to do with siting the driveway. And when her husband spoke with Jerry Davis- the Zoning Inspector he said it was up to Wayne Kelder. She wanted to know who was in charge? She believed it had to be supervised by someone?

 

Mrs. Brooks noted that this driveway access had a permit October 10, 2012- Driveway Permit application #198 was granted to Victorian Builders as contractors for the applicant and it was signed by Wayne Kelder. That was before the construction started.

 

Mr. Redmond noted that this was just a waste of time.

 

Mr. Tapper noted that bringing your concerns to the Board was not necessarily a waste of time. You may not get the relief that you want.

 

Mr. Redmond noted that he could just put a driveway over a creek and that would be fine.

 

Mr. Tapper noted that would be different.

 

Mr. Redmond noted that Mr. Tapper just said you could put a driveway anywhere.

 

Mr. Tapper noted that this was apples and oranges. They have a right to put the driveway in and were issued a permit from Wayne Kelder, Highway Superintended.  Changes of water flow wasn’t permitted.

 

Vice Chairman Rominger questioned if there were any more comments from the public. There were not.

 

At 7:30PM Mr. Case motioned to close the Public Hearing. Seconded by Mr. Tapper. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden:  Absent                                  Tapper: Yes
O’Donnell:      Absent                                  Rominger:       Yes
Ullman: Absent                                  Ricks:          Absent
Paddock:        Yes                                             Case, Alt.:     Yes
                                                                        
Motion carried. 4 ayes, 0 nays, 4 absent, 0 abstentions (vote included alternate)
Vice Chairman Rominger noted that Chairman Baden had prepared a draft decision that the Board would now review.
PB 2012-11 LLA  Continued Application and Public Hearing        
Amend Minor Subdivision via Lot Improvement
Appeldoorn Farm LLC and Open Space Conservancy– c/o Brooks and Brooks Land Surveyors PC, Application to amend decision PB2010-06SBD granting Minor Subdivision Approval dated December 21, 2010, for amendment to the filed map for lot line revision between two previously approved subdivision lots to eliminate the need for a driveway easement by constructing a driveway from Whitfield Road to Lot 2 and conveying Route 209 frontage to Lot #1. No other new construction is proposed on either lot, S/B/L #77.1-1-8.12 and  #77.1-1-8.11, ‘AR-3’ and AP Overlay Zoning Districts.

 

At this time the Board reviewed the draft findings as follows:
Findings of the Planning Board
  • The Planning Board has received application to amend a Subdivision filed plat approved with decision PB2010-06SBD on Dec. 21, 2010.
  • The parcels are identified as SBL 77.1-1-8.12, SBL 77.1-1-8.11 (Appeldoorn) and
SBL 77.1-1-8.13 (Open Space Conservancy) located in the ‘AR-3’ and ‘AP Overlay’ zoning district.  
  • The parcel locations have road frontage on Whitfield  Road and Route 209.
  • Lot 1 and Lot 2 have been purchased by Appeldoorn Farm LLC. Lot 3 remains the property of Open Space Conservancy Inc.
  • Robert Anderberg, representative of Open Space Conservancy Inc., has signed a consent form to allow Appeldoorn Farm LLC to represent their interest in the application.
  • Appeldoorn Farm LLC is proposing a Lot Improvement between two previously approved subdivision lots to eliminate the need for a driveway easement by constructing a driveway from Whitfield Road to access Lot 2 and conveying Route 209 frontage to Lot 1. No other new construction is proposed on either lot.
  • Lot 1 will be increased to new acreage of 9.34 acres and Lot 2 will be reduced to new acreage 22.39 acres as proposed.
  • Both parcels, as proposed, will meet the bulk lot standards for the ‘AR-3’ zoning district and will exceed the required minimum road frontage on a public roadway.
  • Lot 1 has existing improvements of a 2-story frame house.
  • Lot 2 has existing improvements of 2 stone houses, an uninhabited cottage, a frame barn, and a stone shop. One of the stone houses will be conveyed to Lot 1 via the proposed Lot Improvement.
  • The existing use of the parcel will continue as residential and agricultural use. The use of the property requires no further review under the ‘AP Overlay’ zoning district standards.
  • The proposed Lot Improvement will eliminate access to Lot 2 via Route 209 with the extinguishing of a 30’ x 200’ right-of-way and will shift access via Whitfield Rd with a newly constructed driveway.
  • Appeldoorn Farm LLC has secured a driveway permit from the T/ Rochester Highway Supt. for the Whitfield Rd. proposed access.
  • The parcels are located within the Ulster County Agricultural District #3.
  • There is a Conservation Easement on the parcels held by Open Space Conservancy Inc.
  • Upon review of the application, the Planning Board Chairman determined the parcels may contain land located in the FEMA 100-year floodplain but the location has limited detail study according to maps prepared by FEMA.
  • The application was referred to the Ulster County Planning Board for review which returned a “No County Impact” decision.

PB 2012-11 LLA  Continued Application and Public Hearing        
Amend Minor Subdivision via Lot Improvement
Appeldoorn Farm LLC and Open Space Conservancy– c/o Brooks and Brooks Land Surveyors PC, Application to amend decision PB2010-06SBD granting Minor Subdivision Approval dated December 21, 2010, for amendment to the filed map for lot line revision between two previously approved subdivision lots to eliminate the need for a driveway easement by constructing a driveway from Whitfield Road to Lot 2 and conveying Route 209 frontage to Lot #1. No other new construction is proposed on either lot, S/B/L #77.1-1-8.12 and  #77.1-1-8.11, ‘AR-3’ and AP Overlay Zoning Districts.

 

Mr. Paddock motioned to accept the findings as prepared. Seconded by Mr. Case. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden:  Absent                                  Tapper: Yes
O’Donnell:      Absent                                  Rominger:       Yes
Ullman: Absent                                  Ricks:          Absent
Paddock:        Yes                                             Case, Alt.:     Yes
                                                                        
Motion carried. 4 ayes, 0 nays, 4 absent, 0 abstentions (vote included alternate)
At this time the Board reviewed the draft resolution as follows:
*                       *                       *                       *
RESOLVED,
        The Town of Rochester Planning Board grants amended Minor Subdivision-Conditional Final Approval to Appeldoorn Farm LLC and Open Space Conservancy Inc. permitting the Lot Improvement between the two previously approved subdivision lots established with decision PB2010-06SBD, adopted Dec. 21, 2010 allowing construction of a driveway from Whitfield Road to Lot 2 and conveying Route 209 frontage to Lot 1. Such land lands situate at Whitfield Rd. and Route 209, known as SBL 77.1-1-8.11, SBL 77.1-1-8.12 (Appeldoorn) and SBL 77.1-1-8.13 (Open Space Conservancy) and located in the ‘AR-3’ and ‘AP Overlay’ zoning districts.

 

The plat revision dated Nov. 15, 2012 is approved with the following conditions.    
        
CONDITIONS of APPROVAL:   
  • The proposed driveway to access Lot 2 shall be constructed as per the specifications of the
T/ Rochester driveway permit #198 and as per NYS Fire Code. Written certification from the T/ Rochester Highway Supt. approving completion shall be presented to the Planning Board prior to the Chairman’s signature on the plat.
  • The Final Plat shall be amended to include plat statements as follows:
  • “This property may border a farm, as defined in Chapter 75 of the Town of Rochester Code. Residents should be aware that farmers have the right to undertake farm practices which may generate dust, odor, smoke, noise and vibrations and which may involve insecticides, herbicides, pesticides, etc.”
  • “This property contains land within the 100-year floodplain as depicted by FEMA on plate 36111C0590E effective as of 9/25/2009.  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.”
  • “As per the Code of the Town of Rochester §140-12(E), each lot fronting on a named stream depicted on United States Geological Survey maps shall include a setback of 100 feet in depth from the high water mark of such stream. No principal structure shall be located within such setback, except by Planning Board authorization provided other mitigating measures such as deed covenants limiting clearing near the stream are employed to protect stream quality.”
  • 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.
  • All Local, County, State, and Federal Laws or Codes shall be complied with and all required Local, County, State, or Federal permits shall be secured for the current or future use of these lands.
        The Town of Rochester Planning Board further grants Minor Subdivision-Final Approvalpermitting the Lot Improvement upon the satisfactory completion of conditions of approval 1, 2 and 3 and written certification of the driveway completion.
The Planning Board grants the authority to the Chairman to certify the conditions have 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 conditions 1, 2, and 3are satisfied by the applicant and the 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 any other related filings to the T/ Rochester Planning Board within 30 days of such filing.    
Mr. Case motioned to accept the resolution as prepared. Seconded by Mr. Paddock. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden:  Absent                                  Tapper: Yes
O’Donnell:      Absent                                  Rominger:       Yes
Ullman: Absent                                  Ricks:          Absent
Paddock:        Yes                                             Case, Alt.:     Yes
                                                                        
Motion carried. 4 ayes, 0 nays, 4 absent, 0 abstentions (vote included alternate)
PB 2012-10 SBD          Continued Application and Public Hearing        
Minor Subdivision and Lot Improvement   
Ruth Lypka, c/o William Eggers LS– Application for Minor Subdivision Approval of a 2 lot subdivision and for Lot Improvement to alter boundary lines of an existing subdivision, 737 Queens Hwy., S/B/L #68.1-2-5.1 and S/B/L #68.1-2-11.1, ‘R-5 and ‘R-2’ Zoning Districts, respectively.

 

Mr. Eggers, was present on behalf of the application.

 

Vice Chairman Rominger noted that the application has had a revised determination by the CEO. The applicant has revised the plat to reflect the plat for lot #2 to now be 5.01 acres in order to meet the R-5 District Standards. Also Wayne Kelder, Highway Superintendent has sent a memo to the Board noting that he inspected the site at Queens Highway and find that it was the required access on the Town Highway.

 

The Board now reviewed the change that was made.

 

Mr. Paddock questioned if this changed any setbacks?

 

Mr. Eggers answered no. He noted that the original was for two lots, but they have a large tract in the back and they took a 50’ strip to be connected to that back piece to give it more road frontage to Queens Highway. They are trying to expedite the actions, rather than doing the two lot subdivision and then a lot line adjustment as separate actions. He is also showing a building area on lot #1 and they have a buyer for that parcel.

 

At this time the Board reviewed Part 2 of the Short EAF.
As there were no impacts indicated on the Short EAF, Mr. Paddock motioned for a Negative Declaration under SEQRA. Seconded by Mr. Tapper. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden:  Absent                                  Tapper: Yes
O’Donnell:      Absent                                  Rominger:       Yes
Ullman: Absent                                  Ricks:          Absent
Paddock:        Yes                                             Case, Alt.:     Yes
                                                                        
Motion carried. 4 ayes, 0 nays, 4 absent, 0 abstentions (vote included alternate)

 

At 7:50PM Vice Chairman Rominger opened the hearing to the public.

 

Mr. Eggers explained that this property was located on Queens Highway about a mile past the intersection of Cedar Drive and Queens Highway. The Lypka’s own two separate parcels of land and have done a previous lot line adjustment to attach more land to their house property. Their intention at this point is to subdivide and create a 6 acre building lot and leave a 5 acre parcel for the house and a little separation between those of a 50’ strip which will be attached to their +100 acres in the back to provide more flexibility to that parcel for access.

 

There were no comments from the public.
PB 2012-10 SBD          Continued Application and Public Hearing        
Minor Subdivision and Lot Improvement   
Ruth Lypka, c/o William Eggers LS– Application for Minor Subdivision Approval of a 2 lot subdivision and for Lot Improvement to alter boundary lines of an existing subdivision, 737 Queens Hwy., S/B/L #68.1-2-5.1 and S/B/L #68.1-2-11.1, ‘R-5 and ‘R-2’ Zoning Districts, respectively.

 

At 7:31PM Mr. Tapper motioned to close the Public Hearing. Seconded by Mr. Case. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden:  Absent                                  Tapper: Yes
O’Donnell:      Absent                                  Rominger:       Yes
Ullman: Absent                                  Ricks:          Absent
Paddock:        Yes                                             Case, Alt.:     Yes
                                                                        
Motion carried. 4 ayes, 0 nays, 4 absent, 0 abstentions (vote included alternate)

 

Mr. Rominger noted that the Chairman has prepared a draft decision.

 

At this time he read through the findings as follows:

 

Findings of the Planning Board
  • The Planning Board has received zoning referral for a 2-lot Minor Subdivision and a Lot Improvement from the Code Enforcement Officer.
  • The application proposes to subdivide a parcel of land into 3 pieces resulting in a Minor Subdivision creating 2 new lots and adding the remaining lands to a contiguous lot via Lot Improvement.
  • The parcel to be subdivided is known as SBL 68.1-2-11.1 and the contiguous lot is known as SBL 68.1-2-5.1.
  • The parcel locations both have road frontage on Queens Highway.
  • The current use of the parcels is residential and agricultural. There is no change proposed is use.
  • The applicant original proposal was to create 2 new lots from the 10.6 acre lot to be subdivided resulting in proposed Lot 1 being 6.0 acres and proposed Lot 2 being 4.21 acres. The remaining 0.4 acres will be conveyed as access to the contiguous 102 acre lot.
Code Enforcement Officer issued a re-determination of the application stating the proposed Lot 2 did not have the required acreage minimum of 5 acres for the ‘R-5’ zoning district.
The applicant has made revisions to the plat conveying 0.8 acres from the contiguous parcel to Lot 2, thus satisfying the minimum acreage of 5 acres.
The revised plat submitted reflects acreages of Lot 1 as 6.0 acres, Lot 2 as 5.01 acres, and the contiguous lot as 101.6 acres
Lot 1 meets the bulk standards requirements for the ‘R-2’ zoning district. Lot 2, located in the both the ‘R-2’ and ‘R-5’ zoning districts, meets the bulk standard requirements for the ‘R-5’ zoning district.
Both parcels, as proposed, will exceed the required minimum road frontage on a public roadway.
Proposed Lot 1 has no existing improvements and offers a house, well, septic, and driveway location as potential new improvements.
Proposed Lot 2 has existing improvements of single-family house, a trailer, a shared well, 2 septic areas, and a gravel driveway. No new improvements are proposed.
The proposed Lot Improvement will convey a 50’ wide strip of land fronting Queens Highway to the contiguous lot located behind the subdivided lot to create access for potential future subdivision.
Barry Medenbach, P.E. has certified the proposed Lot 1 has the possibility to support well and septic requirements of the Ulster County Health Dept. if developed.
The T/ Rochester Highway Supt. was referred the application for review of the access to Queens Highway and has no issues. A Driveway work permit has been issued.

 

Mr. Case motioned to approve the findings as read. Seconded by Mr. Paddock. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden:  Absent                                  Tapper: Yes
O’Donnell:      Absent                                  Rominger:       Yes
Ullman: Absent                                  Ricks:          Absent
Paddock:        Yes                                             Case, Alt.:     Yes
                                                                        
Motion carried. 4 ayes, 0 nays, 4 absent, 0 abstentions (vote included alternate)
*                       *                       *                       *
RESOLVED,
        The Town of Rochester Planning Board grants Minor Subdivision-Conditional Final Approval and Lot Improvement Approval to Ruth Lypka permitting the subdivision of lands situate at Queens Highway, known as SBL 68.1-2-11.1 and located in the ‘R-2’ and ‘R-5’ zoning districts, into 2 lots and the conveyance of the remaining lands to lands known as SBL 68.1-2-5.1 and located in the ‘R-5’ zoning district.
The plat dated Oct. 23, 2012 and revised Dec. 11, 2012 is approved with the following conditions.    
        
CONDITIONS of APPROVAL:   

 

  • A Final Plat shall be submitted amending the Preliminary Plat as follows:
  • The plat label shall be revised to delete the word “Preliminary” and replace with “Final”.
  • The plat revision date of Dec. 11, 2012 shall be added.
  • The delineation of the approximate boundaries of the ‘R-5’ and ‘R-2’zoning district division of proposed Lot 2 shall be added to more clearly indicate the specific location.
  • The lot line division of the existing parcel which is being deleted to convey the 0.8 acres to Lot 2 shall be indicated and referenced as “Lot line to be deleted”. The 0.8 acres conveyed shall be notated on the plat and the acreage of the contiguous lot should reflect the change.
  • The metes and bounds of Lot 2 shall be added.
  • The plat shall be amended to include the plat statement “This property may border a farm, as defined in Chapter 75 of the Town of Rochester Code. Residents should be aware that farmers have the right to undertake farm practices which may generate dust, odor, smoke, noise and vibrations and which may involve insecticides, herbicides, pesticides, etc.”
  • The applicant shall file an amended Subdivision and Lot Improvement application with the Planning Board reflecting the acreage changes. The 0.8 acres to be conveyed to the proposed Lot 2 shall be shown as a Lot Improvement.
  • 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.
  • All Local, County, State, and Federal Laws or Codes shall be complied with and all required Local, County, State, or Federal permits shall be secured for the current or future use of these lands.

PB 2012-10 SBD          Continued Application and Public Hearing        
Minor Subdivision and Lot Improvement   
Ruth Lypka, c/o William Eggers LS– Application for Minor Subdivision Approval of a 2 lot subdivision and for Lot Improvement to alter boundary lines of an existing subdivision, 737 Queens Hwy., S/B/L #68.1-2-5.1 and S/B/L #68.1-2-11.1, ‘R-5 and ‘R-2’ Zoning Districts, respectively.

 

        The Town of Rochester Planning Board further grants Minor Subdivision-Final Approvalpermitting the subdivision of lands and lot improvement upon the satisfactory completion of conditions of approval 1, 2 and 3. The Planning Board grants the authority to the Chairman to certify the conditions have 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 conditions 1, 2 and 3 are satisfied by the applicant and the 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 any other related filings to the T/ Rochester Planning Board within 30 days of such filing.
Mr. Eggers had a question about the approval. Conditions 1(d) and 1(e) and the second sentence of #2. Mr. Eggers disagreed  with these as he wasn’t creating a new lot line- it was existing. He knew the Chairman wasn’t here to discuss this with, but he was confused with the way it was worded.

 

Mr. Tapper noted that Lot #2 was +/-5 acres—and it could have two residences on it?

 

The Secretary noted that this was reviewed by the Town Attorney and determined by the CEO that this was the resolution that they came up with.

 

The Board and the Secretary agreed with Mr. Eggers. The Board decided to delete conditions 1(d) and 1(e) and the second sentence of #2.

 

Mr. Case motioned to approve the resolution based on the amendments listed above. Seconded by Mr. Paddock.
No discussion.
Vote:
Baden:  Absent                                  Tapper: Yes
O’Donnell:      Absent                                  Rominger:       Yes
Ullman: Absent                                  Ricks:          Absent
Paddock:        Yes                                             Case, Alt.:     Yes
                                                                        
Motion carried. 4 ayes, 0 nays, 4 absent, 0 abstentions (vote included alternate)
PB 2012-08 SPA          New Application 
Site Plan       
Nichols Field; Cori Nichols– applicant, representing Katherine Sherman, executrix, Application for Site Plan Review for a new use “Commercial Stables”. New construction to encompass 8.2 acres of a 72.6 acre parcel including construction of a 700’ driveway, horse pasture, 2,040 sq. ft. horse barn, and 10,080 sq. ft. covered riding arena. 97 Sherman Rd., S/B/L #76.3-2-3.1, ‘R-5’ Zoning District.

 

Mr. Boek, PE and Ms. Nichols was present on behalf of the application.

 

Mr. Boek submitted revised materials based on the Chairman’s initial review of the application – the list of that review is on file and in the member files. He also explained that this property was an open area- meadow and lawn. They are going to construct a parking lot as shown on the site plan along with a driveway, barn, and commercial riding arena. There are wetlands to the right side and rear portion of the property and they are not going to be near the project. It’s a Federal Wetland and there will be no disturbance to it. He met with the DEC and they didn’t have any jurisdiction over it.

 

Mr. Tapper questioned if the covered riding area was going to be open on the sides?

 

Mr. Boek noted that the last sheet of the site plan showed the sketch of the building. It was open on the sides.

 

Mr. Paddock questioned what the purpose of the riding area was since this was a business? Was it for events and shows?

 

Ms. Nichols answered that it was for riding lessons.

 

At this time they went over the Chairman’s initial point by point review.

 

#1– Mr. Boek determined the property to be within 300’ of the Town of Wawarsing.

 

This would need to be referred to the Town of Wawarsing to make them aware.

 

On the Long EAF- the applicant made the following revisions as requested by Chairman Baden.
Question A3b – please answer because of proposed agricultural use – Mr. Boek checked with the Soil and Conservation office on this date and he was told that the answer to this was 0 because of the soil type.
Question A5 – slopes – Mr. Boek noted that slopes were all 0-10%
Question A8 – water table (important due to presence of Federal wetlands on the parcel and proposed use of agricultural use) – Mr. Boek noted that the depth of the water table was greater than 24”. They probed in several places.
Question A11 – needs source to the given answer “No”. DEC website is usual source but we will need the source utilized to be verified – Mr. Boek- noted that they went to the DEC in New Paltz and also spoke to who was in charge of the National Heritage- according to the DEC there were no endangered species listed. They did indicate that a typical species in the entire town was the Indiana Bat, but because there were no trees being cut it didn’t apply.
Question A16 – wetlands – located on the property in the area not proposed to be developed. Please address in this question. – Mr. Boek explained that there is a 15 acre wetland on the parcel and it extends  on to a neighboring parcel, but its not connected to a water course.
Question A18 – Ag District  please check “No”
Question A19 – please check “No”
PB 2012-08 SPA          New Application 
Site Plan       
Nichols Field; Cori Nichols– applicant, representing Katherine Sherman, executrix, Application for Site Plan Review for a new use “Commercial Stables”. New construction to encompass 8.2 acres of a 72.6 acre parcel including construction of a 700’ driveway, horse pasture, 2,040 sq. ft. horse barn, and 10,080 sq. ft. covered riding arena. 97 Sherman Rd., S/B/L #76.3-2-3.1, ‘R-5’ Zoning District.
Question B1j – should be whatever frontage of the parcel is along the public road where the proposed driveway will be – Mr. Boek noted that this is a little unique because Sherman Road comes in to the property and ends. There is no turn around. He measured across perpendicular to the road and it was about 72’.
On the plan:
Plan will need to be amended to show the approximate location of Federal Wetlands on the undeveloped part of the parcel and on the neighboring parcel if closer than 100’ to the property line. – Mr. Boek noted that they did this.
 
Driveway – We will require better detail with dimensions, especially width shown. Also need detail of intersection with public roadway. –  Mr. Boek noted that on sheet 3 they did this showing the detail, cross section and the profile.

 

 
Parking – Will require better detail of parking area and dimensions of parking spaces (10’ x 20’ required by Code) and turnaround area shown. – Mr. Boek noted that in the narrative they described the parking area to be for 5 vehicles including one handicap space. Lessons would be given to one student at a time and that would involve one vehicle at a time. In most cases the parent would drop the kids off and come back to pick them up. There would be several horses to be boarded there- they don’t know how many exactly. On the average there would be about 3 people to visit their horses. There were 6 stalls. Vice Chairman Rominger noted that under a commercial building the parking spaces were determined by square footage. Had they done that in this case there would be many more than needed. This was unique. It will be important that it is one lesson at a time and not that many borders to make this number work. Was the applicant planning on having clinics or shows?
Ms. Nichols responded not at this time.
Vice Chairman Rominger noted that he had a riding area near him and when they had a show they had a field that they put all of the parking in. Could they indicate an area for overflow should something like this happen?
Ms. Nichols noted that by the house there was a turn around driveway.
Vice Chairman Rominger questioned if there was a field area by the riding arena  that was parkable?
Ms. Nichols noted that they did have an area like that.
Vice Chairman Rominger noted that if she is going to run it like she says she is going to run it, 5 parking spaces might be okay, but she might benefit herself that if they have an event they could provide overflow parking that was suitable.
Mr. Paddock noted that they were talking about 4 spaces and 1 handicap- shouldn’t the parking area at least accommodate the maximum number of borders? Again, he didn’t think that based on the riding area they should have a 200 car parking lot, but at the very minimum there should be 1 per border plus a lesson so that would be 7.

 

PB 2012-08 SPA          New Application 
Site Plan       
Nichols Field; Cori Nichols– applicant, representing Katherine Sherman, executrix, Application for Site Plan Review for a new use “Commercial Stables”. New construction to encompass 8.2 acres of a 72.6 acre parcel including construction of a 700’ driveway, horse pasture, 2,040 sq. ft. horse barn, and 10,080 sq. ft. covered riding arena. 97 Sherman Rd., S/B/L #76.3-2-3.1, ‘R-5’ Zoning District.

 

Vice Chairman Rominger noted that they had room there to add a couple of parking spaces.
Mr. Boek noted that they could add spaces or see how the business goes- but add the overflow parking to accommodate occasional situations. If it didn’t work out where it was muddy- she would be paving that area.
Vice Chairman Rominger questioned if there was an area to turn around horse trailers?
Ms. Nichols replied yes.
Vice Chairman Rominger questioned how the Board felt about the extra parking spaces for the core business?
Mr. Case was comfortable with what they were offering as they had plenty of room.
Mr. Tapper would like to see something indicated on the map for turn around or overflow area.  
Manure pile location not shown (if one is planned). How is this protected to prevent groundwater contamination?  – Ms. Nichols noted that she could put it in a container that composted it. She only really envisioned having 5 horses and she wasn’t sure what the standards were.
Mr. Tapper suggested that the applicant consult the Dept. of Agriculture to see if they have any guidelines.
Vice Chairman Rominger noted that a lot of farmers have different practices, but they always keep it away from their wells and running water courses.

 

Fencing in horse pasture area? Type of fencing? – Ms. Nichols plans on using electric fencing. It is outlined in the narrative.
Plan requires Town zoning standards table for the R5 district be added- Mr. Boek noted that this was added.
 
Plan requires name of owner of record listed in plan key with address. May also list applicant in addition if desired by applicant- Mr. Boek noted that this was added.

 

 
Plan requires North arrow be added – Mr. Boek noted that this was added.
4. Parking/Driveway
As this application does not neatly fit into our Town parking standards chart we will require written reasoning for proposing 5 spaces for this project. Commercial projects require 1 space per 175 sq. ft. under our code. The Board understands
this is not a usual commercial activity, but needs a basis for consideration. How many employees and customers will be onsite at the same time? Any parking area lighting? Please see our code Parking section for further information.- This was already discussed.  
PB 2012-08 SPA          New Application 
Site Plan       
Nichols Field; Cori Nichols– applicant, representing Katherine Sherman, executrix, Application for Site Plan Review for a new use “Commercial Stables”. New construction to encompass 8.2 acres of a 72.6 acre parcel including construction of a 700’ driveway, horse pasture, 2,040 sq. ft. horse barn, and 10,080 sq. ft. covered riding arena. 97 Sherman Rd., S/B/L #76.3-2-3.1, ‘R-5’ Zoning District.
b. A T/ Rochester approved driveway permit will be required for final approval (already applied for).
Driveway conforms to maximum 15% slope requirements.
Driveway will be required to have a minimum unobstructed width of 12’ and a minimum unobstructed height of 13’6”. Because of the length of the proposed driveway this application will be sent to the Accord Fire District for review.

 

5. Code 14020 General Commercial Standards
Planning Board will need architectural details of the proposed structures. A construction drawing or rendering is requested. Height of structures? General design style? – This was supplied
Exterior Lighting details (if any will be added for the structures or parking area) – Mr. Boek understood that he would need to supply lighting details for the UCPB.
Any noise to be created by project? Amplification or PA system in arena? – Mr. Boek noted there would be no noise- horses are easily spooked by loud noises.
Any added landscaping? Provide details and landscaping plan if yes.- Mr. Boek  noted they weren’t proposing any.

 

6. Any signage of any kind for this project? Provide details and visual rendering if yes. – Ms. Nichols noted that she didn’t propose any signage.

 

7. Stormwater plan. Confirm area of disturbance as stated includes all disturbed areas and will not be more than 1 acre. Please provide a breakdown of all areas to be disturbed in square feet. If more than 1 acre, a SWPPP is required. – Mr. Boek noted that the calculations were provided in his submittal at this meeting and it was under one acre of disturbance.

 

8. Water and sewer.
Portapotties not the most desired type for permanent structures. A bathroom may be required after discussion by the Board. UC Board of Health will be sent application for comment. –Ms. Nichols was proposing a porta potty for now and maybe a composting toilet in the future.

 

Water source is from existing residential dwelling. Need certification source is adequate by engineer in terms of volume.

 

9. Utilities – Electric – Is it to be entirely solar? If not what is source? Ms. Nichols noted that it was her intention to do solar panels on the riding arena roof. She wasn’t sure how many she would need.

 

10. Written narrative should include description of ALL planned activities and uses for the project site. Any special events or competitions? Any rentals of facilities planned? The decision will reflect and restrict use to what is proposed so please include any potential uses that may be planned in future. – The applicant understood this.
PB 2012-08 SPA          New Application 
Site Plan       
Nichols Field; Cori Nichols– applicant, representing Katherine Sherman, executrix, Application for Site Plan Review for a new use “Commercial Stables”. New construction to encompass 8.2 acres of a 72.6 acre parcel including construction of a 700’ driveway, horse pasture, 2,040 sq. ft. horse barn, and 10,080 sq. ft. covered riding arena. 97 Sherman Rd., S/B/L #76.3-2-3.1, ‘R-5’ Zoning District.

 

Vice Chairman Rominger motioned for this to be an Unlisted Action with an Uncoordinated Review under SEQRA. Seconded by Mr. Paddock. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden:  Absent                                  Tapper: Yes
O’Donnell:      Absent                                  Rominger:       Yes
Ullman: Absent                                  Ricks:          Absent
Paddock:        Yes                                             Case, Alt.:     Yes
                                                                        
Motion carried. 4 ayes, 0 nays, 4 absent, 0 abstentions (vote included alternate)

 

Vice Chairman Rominger motioned to refer the application to the UCPB. Seconded by Mr. Case. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden:  Absent                                  Tapper: Yes
O’Donnell:      Absent                                  Rominger:       Yes
Ullman: Absent                                  Ricks:          Absent
Paddock:        Yes                                             Case, Alt.:     Yes
                                                                        
Motion carried. 4 ayes, 0 nays, 4 absent, 0 abstentions (vote included alternate)

 

Vice Chairman Rominger motioned to refer the application to the appropriate Fire District and Town Highway for their comments. Seconded by Mr. Paddock. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden:  Absent                                  Tapper: Yes
O’Donnell:      Absent                                  Rominger:       Yes
Ullman: Absent                                  Ricks:          Absent
Paddock:        Yes                                             Case, Alt.:     Yes
                                                                        
Motion carried. 4 ayes, 0 nays, 4 absent, 0 abstentions (vote included alternate)

 

Vice Chairman Rominger motioned to schedule the application for a Public Hearing January 8, 2013. Seconded by Mr. Case. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden:  Absent                                  Tapper: Yes
O’Donnell:      Absent                                  Rominger:       Yes
Ullman: Absent                                  Ricks:          Absent
Paddock:        Yes                                             Case, Alt.:     Yes
                                                                        
Motion carried. 4 ayes, 0 nays, 4 absent, 0 abstentions (vote included alternate)

 

Mr. Tapper questioned if Sherman Road was a Town Road?

 

Mr. Boek answered yes.
PB 2012-08 SPA          New Application 
Site Plan       
Nichols Field; Cori Nichols– applicant, representing Katherine Sherman, executrix, Application for Site Plan Review for a new use “Commercial Stables”. New construction to encompass 8.2 acres of a 72.6 acre parcel including construction of a 700’ driveway, horse pasture, 2,040 sq. ft. horse barn, and 10,080 sq. ft. covered riding arena. 97 Sherman Rd., S/B/L #76.3-2-3.1, ‘R-5’ Zoning District.

 

Mr. Boek changed the application on #11 to reflect the correct water supply.

 

OTHER MATTERS
Mr. Tapper noted that he went to the NYPF seminar on December 5, 2012 and they went over the New SEQRA Forms that are coming in the spring of 2013. He would get the forms to the PB office to put on file.

 

ADJOURNMENT
Vice Chairman Rominger motioned to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Mr. Case. No discussion.
All members present in favor.

 

As there was no further business, Vice Chairman Rominger adjourned the meeting at 8:55PM.

 

Respectfully submitted,
                                                        
Rebecca Paddock Stange, Secretary       
                                                        As approved 1/8/13