Planning Board Minutes Feb. 2012

MINUTES OF February 14, 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 Leon Smith

Shane Ricks, Vice Chairman Fred O’Donnell

Melvyn I. Tapper Anthony Ullman

Robert Rominger

Chairman Baden appointed the Alternate, Adam S. Paddock to the Board as there was just a quorum at the meeting. Mr. Smith’s term expired at the end of December and he was still a member until the Town Board replaced him, but he was appointing Mr. Paddock to sit in his place at this meeting.

Also present:

Secretary, Rebecca Paddock Stange.

ANNOUNCEMENTS

TRAININGS

As of January the Town Board passed a resolution where Board Members will be compensated for attending training sessions up to $50 per year or $12.50 per hour of training up to 4 hours per year. This is to the credit of Councilman Drabkin.

UPDATES FROM JANUARY MEETING

At the request of the Planning Board at the last meeting, Chairman Baden sent a letter of recommendation regarding the Board’s desire to have Mr. Paddock appointed to a full 7 year term.
Pen Ulster Realty, the Ralph Brunswick application, they have signed a waiver to allow the Board to continue to hold the Public Hearing open. Under NYS Law the Board had to close the hearing within 120 days and while they are waiting for the applicant to do their stormwater the clock is ticking, so they signed that waiver.
Daniel Palmese has finished all of the requirements for Final Approval after receiving Conditional Final Approval at the January meeting and the Chairman has signed the plans. Even though the Board had received a verbal comment from someone at the UCDPW about this subdivision, and the driveways and they responded that there were no issues, we received a letter from them recently saying that they had an issue with the angle of the driveway. Chairman Baden checked with the Town Attorney and it doesn’t impact the Board’s approval any way. The Chairman has forwarded the letter from UCDPW on to the applicant and they can sort it out between themselves.
Chairman Baden met with the Town Board in January about raising Planning Board fees and his anticipation is that will happen in the next couple of months.
Chairman Baden noted at the Town Board’s last meeting they made a motion to recommend Cliff Mallery from the ZBA to replace Leon Smith as the Ulster County Planning Board Alternate.

TRAINING OPPORTUNITIES

There will be a training on March 22, 2012 sponsored by the UCPB at SUNY Ulster and the topic is to be determined as of yet. There will probably be another training in April- Date and topic to be determined as well.

April 15-17^th is the Annual NY Planning Federation Conference in Saratoga Springs. There is an 8 hour training on Saturday the 16^th in Saratoga.

ACTION ON MINUTES

Mr. Ricks motioned to approve the January 10, 2012 Regular Meeting Minutes. Seconded by Mr. Paddock. No discussion.

Vote:

Baden: Yes Tapper: Yes

O’Donnell: Absent Rominger: Yes

Ullman: Absent Ricks: Yes

Smith: Absent Paddock: Yes*

Motion carried. 5 ayes (including alternate), 0 nays, 3 absent, 0 abstention

APPLICATION REVIEW

2011-13SBD Continued Review, SEQRA Determination, and Public Hearing

NY Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church – c/o Brooks & Brooks Land Surveyors, Minor Subdivision, for a 2 lot subdivision of a 162.25 acre parcel, 8 Epworth Lane, Tax Map #69.4-2-11, ‘AR-3’ and ‘Floodplain Development Overlay’ Zoning Districts. The parcel boundaries extend into the Town of Marbletown and are also identified as Tax Map #69.4-1-36.

Steve Pauli from Brooks and Brooks was present on behalf of the application along with Perry Sharpe from Camp Epworth.

Chairman Baden noted that this application was for a Minor 2 lot subdivision. At the last meeting this was typed as Unlisted for SEQRA and when the Town Attorney reviewed the application she had pointed out that because of the property being contiguous to a National Historic Register District that it needed to be categorized as a Type 1 Action

Chairman Baden motioned to type this application for SEQRA as a Type 1 Action and that the Town of Rochester Planning Board be Lead Agency as there are no other permitting agencies involved. Seconded by Mr. Tapper. No discussion.

Vote:

Baden: Yes Tapper: Yes

O’Donnell: Absent Rominger: Yes

Ullman: Absent Ricks: Yes

Smith: Absent Paddock: Yes*

Motion carried. 5 ayes (including alternate), 0 nays, 3 absent, 0 abstention

Chairman Baden noted that because the Town is the only agency issuing a permit, this did not need to be circulated as a coordinated review.

APPLICATION REVIEW

2011-13SBD Continued Review, SEQRA Determination, and Public Hearing

NY Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church (cont’d) – c/o Brooks & Brooks Land Surveyors, Minor Subdivision, for a 2 lot subdivision of a 162.25 acre parcel, 8 Epworth Lane, Tax Map #69.4-2-11, ‘AR-3’ and ‘Floodplain Development Overlay’ Zoning Districts. The parcel boundaries extend into the Town of Marbletown and are also identified as Tax Map #69.4-1-36.

Chairman Baden continued to note that the applicant has submitted a new map with the plan revisions asked for by the Board at the January meeting. They show the bounding owners, the Right to Farm note, the Flood Plain notes, and the DEC and Town of Rochester Rondout Creek Notes. This application was referred to the County PB and received a reply of “No County Impact”. It was also referred to the DEC and the State Historic Preservation. The DEC did not reply, but the State Historic Preservation did call the PB Office because they weren’t sure where the property was. They never replied further. The UCDPW- the applicant has already submitted an application to them for a driveway permit and the applicant did receive a preliminary agreement from them. Because this is now a Type 1 Action the applicant was required to submit a long EAF which they submitted to the Office today. The Chairman went through it and everything appears to be in order.

Chairman Baden wanted to point out that after the Board’s review in January it was discovered that this parcel extends into the Town of Marbletown. It was unclear at the January meeting initially because it has two separate Tax Map ID numbers, but they did confirm that it is one parcel. Because of that the Board has sent the map to the Town of Marbletown Town Clerk for their files, but again they do not have any permit authority over it because the action is taking place in the Town of Rochester.

Mr. Ricks questioned where the house was located that was mentioned in letter dated 2-13-12 from Alice Cross of the (town) Historic Preservation Commission.

Mr. Pauli showed the Board where it was located on the aerial map and the subdivision map.

Chairman Baden noted that he would read Mrs. Cross’s letter into the record at the Public Hearing. There are no concerns and there is no impact, but they were just drawing attention to it to make the Board aware and that it exists on the property.

Mr. Ricks noted that at the January meeting there were questions about the pieces that extended on the creek beds was that it wasn’t labeled? Was that changed on the map?

Chairman Baden noted that they added language to the map that the DEC would require in regards to disturbance to the Creek because the Creek isn’t just a boundary to the property it actually flows through the property. The DEC has language that they require to put in every map in this situation. They will also require it to be put on the deeds as well.

Mr. Ricks remembered that they couldn’t access part of their parcel that was on the other side of the creek- could they clarify?

Mr. Pauli noted that they investigated that and read all of the deeds and they couldn’t come up with a right-of-way to it.

APPLICATION REVIEW

2011-13SBD Continued Review, SEQRA Determination, and Public Hearing

At this time the Board went over Part 2 of the Long EAF and answered “yes” to the questions indicated as follows:

Will the Proposed Action result in a physical change to the project site? The Board checked yes under ‘other impacts’ there is the construction of the new driveway and the alterations to the existing driveway. Classified as “Small to moderate impact”.

Mr. Pauli noted that there would be no modifications to the existing driveway based on a letter they received from the County. At first they had proposed to expand the apron and that’s not necessary.

Chairman Baden questioned if they would be closing off the one section of the driveway.

Mr. Pauli answered yes.

Chairman Baden noted that they would still have some alterations, just nothing in the County right-of-way.

12. Will Proposed Action impact any site or structure of historic, prehistoric or paleontological importance? The Board checked yes under the example: Proposed Action occurring wholly or partially within or substantially contiguous to any facility or site listed on the State or National Register of historic places. Classified as “Small to moderate impact”.

Chairman Baden motioned for a Negative Declaration under SEQRA Seconded by Mr. Rominger. No discussion.

Vote:

Baden: Yes Tapper: Yes

O’Donnell: Absent Rominger: Yes

Ullman: Absent Ricks: Yes

Smith: Absent Paddock: Yes*

Motion carried. 5 ayes (including alternate), 0 nays, 3 absent, 0 abstention

At 7:20 Chairman Baden opened the Public Hearing.

There was no public comment.

Chairman Baden stated that Councilman Brian Drabkin, who is a bounding owner to the project, called the PB Office on this date and expressed that he had no objections and that he wished the applicants the best of luck.

Chairman Baden read letter dated 2-13-12 from Alice Cross of the Town of Rochester Historic Preservation Commission noting the presence of an historic home on the property. The Chairman noted that there was no impact regarding this but he wanted to make it a matter of record.

APPLICATION REVIEW

2011-13SBD Continued Review, SEQRA Determination, and Public Hearing

At 7:23 Mr. Ricks motioned to close the Public Hearing. Seconded by Mr. Rominger. No discussion.

Vote:

Baden: Yes Tapper: Yes

O’Donnell: Absent Rominger: Yes

Ullman: Absent Ricks: Yes

Smith: Absent Paddock: Yes*

Motion carried. 5 ayes (including alternate), 0 nays, 3 absent, 0 abstention

At this time Chairman Baden read the Draft Decision for this application reading the Findings and Conditions as follows:

Draft Findings:

Findings of the Planning Board:

The application was determined a Minor Subdivision and was referred to the Planning Board for review by the Code Enforcement Officer on 12/7/2011.
The parcel location is 8 Epworth Lane, Tax Map#:69.4-2-11, and in the ‘AR-3’ zoning district.
The parcel also contains land within the ‘Floodplain Development Overlay’ district.
The parcel boundaries extend into the T/ of Marbletown and that portion is identified as Tax Map #69.4-1-36.
The parcel is owned by the NY Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church.
The parcel is +/-162.25 acres.
The parcel is proposed to be subdivided into 2 lots.

Lot 1: +/-3.25 acres with remaining land, Lot 2: +/- 159 acres.

The proposed lots meet the minimum development standards of Town of Rochester Code Chapter 140, Zoning.
The parcel borders land in the Ulster County Agricultural District #3. An Agricultural Data Statement was required and prepared by the applicant.
The parcel borders the area identified on the National Register as the “Rest Plaus Historic District”. The NYS Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation was referred the application for comment and no response was received.
As the parcel is contiguous to a historic district as identified on the National Register this action is a Type I SEQRA action and a long form EAF is required.~ So long as no other agencies have any approval authority for this project, the Planning Board is the Lead Agency.
The Rondout Creek path travels within the parcel boundaries. The NYS Department of Environmental Conservation has jurisdiction over the creek and was referred the application for comment and no response was received.
The parcel contains land within the 100-year floodplain as depicted by FEMA on plate 36111C0595E effective as of 9/25/2009.
The remaining lands of Lot 2 contain areas identified as Federal Wetlands. The Planning Board notes the presence of the wetland has no bearing on the subdivision approval however offers an advisement to the applicant to seek a determination of wetlands delineation prior to commencing any future work projects or construction activities on the parcels in those areas.
The parcel current use is as an educational and retreat facility known as Camp Epworth.
The proposed Lot 1contains existing improvements of a residential house, water, and septic. Access is by a driveway over Lot 2. The applicant proposes to sell Lot 1.
The proposed Lot 2 contains several existing structures, all with water and septic, all to remain and operate as Camp Epworth with no proposed change.

The proposed lots will each have the required minimum road frontage on Lucas Avenue Extension also known as County Route 1. The road is under the jurisdiction of the Ulster Co. Dept. of Public Works (UCDPW).

The applicant has submitted plans of a new access driveway from Lucas Avenue Extension to the proposed Lot 1 along with the removal of an existing gravel drive to the UCDPW. The UCDPW has indicated agreement with the plans and will require a construction permit.
The T/ Rochester Historic Preservation Commission offers advisory statement Lot 2 contains an “important 19^th century stone house.
The applicant has amended the Site Plan at the Planning Board’s recommendations and presented a revision dated 1/17/2012 for consideration.
The application was determined to require referral to the Ulster County Planning Board who issued a review stating “No County Impact”.

APPLICATION REVIEW

2011-13SBD Continued Review, SEQRA Determination, and Public Hearing

Mr. Rominger motioned to accept the findings as just read into the record. Seconded by Mr. Paddock. No discussion.

Vote:

Baden: Yes Tapper: Yes

O’Donnell: Absent Rominger: Yes

Ullman: Absent Ricks: Yes

Smith: Absent Paddock: Yes*

Motion carried. 5 ayes (including alternate), 0 nays, 3 absent, 0 abstention

DRAFT RESOLUTION:

RESOLVED,

The Town of Rochester Planning Board grants Minor Subdivision-Conditional Final Approval to the NY Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church permitting the subdivision of lands situate at 8 Epworth Lane, Tax Map #69.4-2-11, and in the ‘AR-3’ and ‘FD Overlay’ zoning districts of the T/ Rochester. The plat dated Jan. 17, 2012 is approved with the following conditions.

CONDITIONS of APPROVAL:

A driveway access permit shall be secured from the Ulster County Dept. of Public Works and a driveway shall be constructed on Lot 1 in the location identified on the plat. The addition of the driveway apron and the removal of the gravel driveway on Lot 2 as identified on the plat shall be completed. Any conditions imposed in the issuance of a UCDPW permit shall be made conditions of this approval. Proof of completion of construction shall be provided to the Planning Board.
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 Final 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 use of these lands.
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.
There shall be no regulated activity as defined by Article 15 of the Environmental Conservation Law on this property within the bed or banks of the Rondout Creek at any time without having first secured the necessary permission and permit required from the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation.

This Conditional Final Approval shall expire 180 days from this approval date unless conditions #1 and #2 are satisfied by the applicant and a final 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 Town of Rochester Planning Board further grants Minor Subdivision-Final Approvalupon the satisfactory completion of conditions #1 and #2 and presentation of the final plat. Conditions #3 through #5 shall remain in effect. The Planning Board grants the authority to the Chairman to certify the conditions have been completed and to sign and date the Final Plat at such time. Should any of these conditions be unable to be fulfilled or should the fulfilment cause a change to the metes and bounds of the proposed parcels, the applicant shall present an amended plan to the Planning Board for review.

APPLICATION REVIEW

2011-13SBD Continued Review, SEQRA Determination, and Public Hearing

Mr. Ricks motioned for Conditional Final Approval as read into the record. Seconded by Mr. Tapper. No discussion.

Vote:

Baden: Yes Tapper: Yes

O’Donnell: Absent Rominger: Yes

Ullman: Absent Ricks: Yes

Smith: Absent Paddock: Yes*

Motion carried. 5 ayes (including alternate), 0 nays, 3 absent, 0 abstention

Mr. Pauli had a question on the first condition. The driveway needed to be installed prior to receiving Final Approval?

Chairman Baden confirmed this. The Town cannot approve a lot with an existing structure until the access is either constructed or bonded.

2012-01SBD Continued Review and Public Hearing

Beth and Leon Smith– Minor Subdivision, for a 2 lot subdivision of a 30.806 parcel, private road Trotter Lane, Tax Map #76.2-2-27.13. ‘AR-3’ and ‘Floodplain Development Overlay’ Zoning Districts.

Chairman Baden noted that this application was typed under SEQRA as Unlisted with an Uncoordinated review. He needed to announce that Mr. Smith is a Board Member and has recused himself from this application. So he will be listed in the minutes as recused even though he is not present at the meeting.

Chairman Baden continued noting that the Board determined the Negative Declaration at the last meeting. This application was already approved and because the filing date lapsed before the applicant filed it with the County the review has to happen again. There are no changes to the application that was approved last Fall. The County Planning Board issued a new referral of a “No County Impact”. Mr. Smith is not present, but they have gone through all of the questions on the first review of this application.

At 7:45 Chairman Baden opened the hearing to the public. There was no comment.

Chairman Baden noted that there was a bounding owner, Mr. Norman Greene, who stopped in the office, but had no concerns. He did call to the Board’s attention that there is an ongoing dispute over a property line that doesn’t impact this.

At 7:46 Mr. Rominger motioned to close the Public Hearing. Seconded by Mr. Tapper. No discussion.

Vote:

Baden: Yes Tapper: Yes

O’Donnell: Absent Rominger: Yes

Ullman: Absent Ricks: Yes

Smith: Recused Paddock: Yes*

Motion carried. 5 ayes (including alternate), 0 nays, 2 absent, 0 abstention

2012-01SBD Continued Review and Public Hearing

Beth and Leon Smith (cont’d)– Minor Subdivision, for a 2 lot subdivision of a 30.806 parcel, private road Trotter Lane, Tax Map #76.2-2-27.13. ‘AR-3’ and ‘Floodplain Development Overlay’ Zoning Districts.

Chairman Baden stated that Mr. Smith had requested that the Decision be deferred until the March Meeting. He is away and would not be here to file the approved plan.

2011-12SBD Continued Review

George Stefanopoulos a.k.a. George Stephanopoulos– Minor Subdivision, for a 2 lot subdivision of a 5.385 acre parcel, Area Variance granted by the ZBA on May 10, 2011, 46 Lower Granite Road, Tax Map #76.3-2-6, ‘R-2’ Zoning District.

Mr. Stefanopolous was present on behalf of his application along with Surveyor, Terry Ringler.

Chairman Baden noted that they opened and closed the Public Hearing on this application at the January meeting and they rendered a Negative Declaration under SEQRA. They were going over the Draft Decision when they hit an issue with the septic area and at the Board’s request he has spoken with the Town’s Attorney and she came back with an opinion on how to resolve the issue. She reviewed Mr. Ringler’s request for language and her opinion was that that language needed to be found acceptable to the Ulster County Health Dept. The applicant has requested that information from the UCHD and, as of now, they haven’t responded. That does not stop the Board from issuing Conditional Final Approval and that once it is resolved the language can be clarified on the final map. The Town Attorney also said that if the UCHD finds the applicant’s proposal acceptable, they will need a written formal agreement between the two parcel owners- a Septic Repair and Maintenance Agreement allowing access onto the other lot for repairs. She also noted that alternatively the applicant could change the lot line and go to the ZBA for another variance, but the applicant didn’t want to go that route.

At this time Chairman Baden read the revised Draft Conditional Final Approval in the record for the Board to consider as follows:

DRAFT:

Findings of the Planning Board:

The application was determined a Minor Subdivision and was referred to the Planning Board for review by the Code Enforcement Officer on 8/18/2011.
The parcel location is 46 Lower Granite Rd., Tax Map#:76.3-2-6, and in the ‘R-2’ zoning district.
The parcel is owned by George Stefanopoulos.
The parcel deed reflects the name of the owner as George Stephanopoulos (sic).
The parcel is +/-5.406 acres.
The parcel is proposed to be subdivided into 2 lots.

Lot 1: +/-2.703 acres, Lot 2: +/-2.703 acres

The parcel current use is residential with 2 dwellings. The applicant wishes to divide the parcel to allow each dwelling to be on its own parcel.
The proposed lots do not meet the minimum development standards of Town of Rochester Code Chapter 140, Zoning. An Area Variance was determined to be required by the Code Enforcement Officer as the side yard setback of 40’ in the R-2 zoning district cannot be met by the existing dwellings.
An Area Variance to reduce the side yard setbacks for the existing dwellings was reviewed and approved by the T/ Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals with decision “#ZBA 2010-03Area Variance” dated 5/10/2011. A variance of 18’ from the 40’ side yard setback requirements in an ‘R-2’ zoning district was granted for the dwellings on Lot 1 and Lot 2.
The proposed lots will each have the required minimum road frontage on Lower Granite Rd. Lower Granite Rd. is under the jurisdiction of the T/ Rochester Highway Dept.
The proposed Lot 1contains existing improvements of a one-story dwelling, a one-story workshop, two wood fences, a shed, a stone wall, a driveway currently shared with a dwelling on proposed Lot 2, well and septic, and utility hook-ups.
The proposed Lot 2 contains existing improvements of a two-story dwelling, four sheds, a stone wall, septic, and utility hook-ups. It does not contain a well or water hook-up.

2011-12SBDContinued Review

George Stefanopoulos a.k.a. George Stephanopoulos (cont’d)– Minor Subdivision, for a 2 lot subdivision of a 5.385 acre parcel, Area Variance granted by the ZBA on May 10, 2011, 46 Lower Granite Road, Tax Map #76.3-2-6, ‘R-2’ Zoning District.

The applicant has stated to the Planning Board he wishes to construct a new driveway for Lot 2 rather than create a shared driveway for Lots 1 and 2 utilizing the existing driveway.
The application was referred to the T/ Rochester Highway Supt. for comment. He met with the applicant’s surveyor and offered an advisory opinion determining the location for the proposed “new driveway” servicing Lot 2. The Planning Board will require construction of this driveway in this location as a condition of approval.
The applicant proposes the well located on Lot 1 will continue to be a shared use with Lot 2. The Planning Board has required a “Well Agreement” be established in writing.
The Planning Board attorney reviewed the initial proposed “Joint Well Use Agreement” and found it to be insufficient. The applicant was directed to draft a revised agreement and present it to the Planning Board for attorney review and approval. The applicant has complied and the Town Attorney has found the amended agreement to be “legally sufficient”. The approved “Joint Well Use Agreement” will be required to be filed with the Ulster County Clerk and T/ Rochester Planning Board. Should the applicant choose to abandon the “Well Agreement” at a future time; the Planning Board will conditionally require an alternate water supply be secured for Lot 2.
The application Site Plan, as originally proposed, was determined by the Planning Board to further require a variance for the accessory building one-story workshop as the proposed side lot line of Lot 1 was determined to encroach on the side yard setback requirement of 40’and the structure is considered an accessory structure under the Town of Rochester Code Chapter 140.
The applicant has amended the Site Plan at the Planning Board’s recommendations and presented a revision dated 11/30/2011 for consideration. The amended plan alters the proposed lot lines and the workshop is presently indicated as being 41’-2” from the lot line.
The amended plan has raised questions regarding the location of the existing septic area for Lot 2 as being completely located within Lot 2. The Planning Board requested placement of the actual location on the plat.
The surveyor, Mr. Ringler, indicated that without excavation the exact location is indeterminable due to being located underground and proposed language be added to the plan to specify that “at the time of failure or needed repair, any portion of the septic area discovered to be on Lot 1 would be removed and placed wholly on Lot 2”.
The Planning Board sought legal advisement on the septic area and proposed language and its attorney replied with a recommendation that a letter from the Ulster County Health Dept. accepting this proposal be required. If accepted, an easement will be required to be filed with the Subdivision plat.
The Site Plan indicates a “Woodshed to be removed” which is bisected by the proposed lot line. The Planning Board will require the structure to be removed or relocated entirely onto one lot.
The Planning Board notes the existence on the Site Plan of a “movable storage trailer” on the proposed Lot 1. The Planning Board requested guidance and a determination from the Code Enforcement Officer regarding the legality of the trailer and if it should be considered an accessory structure bound by setback requirements. The CEO responded with an advisory opinion “the trailer is in violation”. The Planning Board has no jurisdiction over enforcement proceedings and any potential violations will not be considered in the review of the subdivision application.
The Planning Board Chairman, in reviewing the NYS DEC website to check for the presence of wetlands, has determined the close proximity of the area identified as NYS wetland “KR-14” located to the North and East of the parcel. Although the map does not indicate this parcel to be located in the actual wetland delineation, the parcel may be located in the adjacent buffer area. The NYS DEC was consulted for comment and no advisory opinion was received prior to the adoption of this decision. The Planning Board notes the presence of the wetland has no bearing on the subdivision approval given the fact each parcel has an existing dwelling and will not be further developed or subdivided; however the Planning Board offers an advisement to the applicant to seek a determination from the NYS DEC of wetlands delineation prior to commencing any future work projects or construction activities on the parcels.

The application was determined to meet the Exception Agreement standards of the Ulster County Planning Board and was exempt from UCPB review.

2011-12SBD Continued Review

Mr. Rominger motioned to accept the findings as just read into the record. Seconded by Mr. Paddock.

Vote:

Baden: Yes Tapper: Yes

O’Donnell: Absent Rominger: Yes

Ullman: Absent Ricks: Yes

Smith: Absent Paddock: Yes*

Motion carried. 5 ayes (including alternate), 0 nays, 3 absent, 0 abstention

DRAFT:

RESOLVED,

The Town of Rochester Planning Board grants Minor Subdivision-Conditional Final Approval to George Stefanopoulos permitting the subdivision of lands situate at 46 Granite Rd., Tax Map #76.3-2-6, and in an ‘R-2’ Zoning District of the T/ Rochester. The plat dated Nov. 30, 2011 is approved with the following conditions and modifications.

CONDITIONS of APPROVAL:

The applicant shall secure Ulster County Health Dept. written acceptance regarding the location of the Lot 2 septic area and the possible encroachment onto Lot 1and provide a copy of acceptance to the Planning Board. Any conditions or decisions imposed by the Health Dept. shall become a part of this approval.
The following agreements shall be prepared by the applicant and reviewed and approved by the Planning Board attorney. The approved agreements shall be filed with the Ulster County Clerk simultaneously with the signed subdivision plat.

A “Joint Well Use Agreement”. This condition has been accomplished by the applicant prior to approval.
A “Septic Repair and Maintenance Agreement” containing an easement clause granting the owners of Lot 2 entrance onto Lot 1 for the purposes of Lot 2 septic system maintenance and repair.

A driveway access permit shall be secured from the T/ Rochester Highway Supt. and a driveway shall be constructed on Lot 2 in the location identified on the plat. Proof of completion of construction shall be provided to the Planning Board.
The applicant will remove the woodshed structure as indicated on the plan. Alternatively, the woodshed may be relocated to either proposed lot, but must meet setback requirements and any required permits must be secured. Proof of relocation or removal shall be submitted to the Planning Board.
The Final Plat shall be amended to remove the “movable storage trailer” from the plan as it is not a permanent structure.

The Final Plat shall be amended to include the following statements:

“Subject to the conditions of the “Joint Use Well Agreement” of record between George Stefanopoulos and George Stefanopoulos dated January 9, 2012”.
“Subject to the conditions of the “Septic Repair and Maintenance Agreement” of record between George Stefanopoulos and George Stefanopoulos dated (date to be determined).”

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 Final Plat. The applicant shall be responsible to reimburse the Town of Rochester for all attorney fees associated with the review of the “Well Agreement” and “Septic Agreement”.
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 use of these lands.
Should the applicant desire to abandon the “Joint Well Use Agreement” at a future date, an alternate source of water supply for Lot 2 shall be secured and any required permits shall be secured.
The septic area of Lot 2 shall be relocated wholly onto Lot 2 at the time of repair or replacement if found to encroach onto the lands of Lot 1.

2011-12SBD Continued Review

This Conditional Final Approval shall expire 180 days from this approval date unless conditions #1 through #7 are satisfied by the applicant and a final 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 Town of Rochester Planning Board further grants Minor Subdivision-Final Approvalupon the satisfactory completion of conditions #1 through #7 and presentation of the final plat. Conditions #8 through #10 shall remain in effect. The Planning Board grants the authority to the Chairman to certify the conditions have been completed and to sign and date the Final Plat at such time. Should any of these conditions be unable to be fulfilled or should the fulfilment cause a change to the metes and bounds of the proposed parcels, the applicant shall present an amended plan to the Planning Board for review.

The owner shall file in the office of the Ulster County Clerk such approved Final Plat bearing the Chairman’s signature within 62 days from the date of signature or such approval shall be deemed to expire in accordance with NYS Town Law §276. The owner shall, simultaneously with the subdivision plat, file the approved “Joint Well Use Agreement” and “Septic Repair and Maintenance Agreement” in the office of the Ulster County Clerk. The owner shall have the responsibility to return three (3) Ulster County Clerk certified copies of the final plat and agreements to the Town of Rochester Planning Board within 30 days of filing.

Mr. Rominger motioned to grant Conditional Final Approval as read into the record. Seconded by Mr. Ricks. No discussion.

Vote:

Baden: Yes Tapper: Yes

O’Donnell: Absent Rominger: Yes

Ullman: Absent Ricks: Yes

Smith: Absent Paddock: Yes*

Motion carried. 5 ayes (including alternate), 0 nays, 3 absent, 0 abstention

2012-01SUP New Application Preliminary Review

Jack, Daniel, and David Schoonmaker– a.k.a. Saunderskill Farm Market, Special Use Permit, 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 Ed Sprague from Medenbach and Eggers were present on behalf of the application.

Chairman Baden noted that the use has an existing Special Use Permit granted on August 26, 1997. The entire parcel is in the Flood Plain Overlay District and in an AE Zone as mapped by FEMA. As Per Chapter 81 of the Town Code a Flood Development Permit is required to build in this zone. There are federal wetlands on the back of the parcel shown on aerial maps that the Chairman downloaded from the National Wetlands Inventory- they are nowhere near where the market is being expanded.

Mr. Ricks noted that the loading dock is just a covered loading area?

Mr. Schoonmaker answered yes.

Mr. Sprague noted that the addition to the main building is 1,672 sf and the covered loading dock is 1,680 sf. The existing retail is 16’ x 14’ and the new retail in the back is going to be 44’ x 30’.

2012-01SUP New Application Preliminary Review

Jack, Daniel, and David Schoonmaker(CONT’D)– a.k.a. Saunderskill Farm Market, Special Use Permit, 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

Chairman Baden questioned if the addition was going to be the same height as the existing building.

Mr. Schoonmaker noted that it was going to be a little bit lower.

Mr. Sprague noted that the elevations were the only things that they haven’t submitted yet. It’s 1’ higher than the flood plain elevation.

Chairman Baden noted that because it is an existing store and the fact that the property is in the flood plain, they have to note it, but the applicant will address it in their construction plans.

Mr. Ricks questioned how much higher the addition was from the existing floor?

Mr. Schoonmaker noted that the existing floor is 1’ higher than Route 209. The floor would be the same height as existing.

Mr. Ricks questioned how high the water was in August? (as a result of Hurricane Irene and Tropical Storm Lee)

Mr. Schoonmaker noted that it was 1’ over the existing floor.

Chairman Baden noted that the EAF states that this application was for site plan approval and the CEO referred this to the PB as a Special Use Permit. It doesn’t need to be revised, it’s on the record now as being corrected.

He had a list of a couple of things from their Site Plan Checklist. Did the Board feel the need to see contour lines?

The Board didn’t think so as it was flat.

Chairman Baden questioned if there were any changes in the stormwater run off because of this addition?

Mr. Sprague answered no.

Chairman Baden noted that they were adding a septic area and that is because they are adding a public restroom. The UCHD has already issued a permit for that. He wanted to make sure that in terms of parking spaces, he’s done the calculations and they actually have more spaces than is required. They list 18 and the Chairman only counted 17 spaces there.

The Board and Mr. Sprague recounted the spaces and agreed that there were only 17 spaces.

Chairman Baden noted that either way they had enough, but they should just correct the total number to 39, not 40. He wanted to make sure that the Board was comfortable with atruck getting to the loading dock in terms of adequate space for turning radius?

Mr. Ricks questioned if the applicant owned the adjoining parcel on the greenhouse side of the lot?

2012-01SUP New Application Preliminary Review

Mr. Schoonmaker replied that they did. It used to be Gary Sachetti’s property, but they bought that.

Mr. Ricks questioned where Valley Gardens was on the map.

Mr. Schoonmaker wasn’t sure how far away it was.

Chairman Baden asked the applicant to add Valley Gardens to the Ag Data Statement if they were within 500’ and submit the new one to the office.

Chairman Baden noted that he went through the Board’s commercial standards. Was the exterior going to be similar?

Mr. Schoonmaker answered yes. A conversation began about the loading area. It would be open on all sides, but in the future they would like to enclose the southerly side- should they apply for that now? It probably wouldn’t be for a few years.

Chairman Baden noted that he didn’t know if they would need to come back to the Board for something like that. His guess was that it should be something that could be handled right within the Building Dept..

Chairman Baden wanted to touch on some points regarding noise concerns. In regards to using the loading dock- what kind of timeframe were they looking at?

Mr. Schoonmaker believed it would be around 8 a.m. at the earliest.

Chairman Baden questioned if there would be any exterior lighting added to the site.

Mr. Schoonmaker answered no.

Chairman Baden questioned if they were proposing any additional outside use or changes?

Mr. Schoonmaker answered no.

Chairman Baden questioned if there would be any changes to signs?

Mr. Schoonmaker answered no.

Chairman Baden questioned if there would be any landscaping changes?

Mr. Schoonmaker didn’t think there would be any for a while.

Chairman Baden questioned if the Board was concerned with any screening for the dumpster location? He thought it was pretty well hidden. He didn’t really see it as being an issue.

Mr. Rominger felt that the building would cover it.

2012-01SUP New Application Preliminary Review

Mr. Ricks had a question regarding the map where it said existing store. Right now that is not all retail space. Some of it is kitchen and prep room and offices.

Chairman Baden noted that it’s broken down on the map- it’s just not broken down in the picture of the building.

Mr. Ricks noted that the only reason he says that is because lots of times the square feet of the retail area is what determines your parking.

Chairman Baden noted that they actually have an abundance of parking, so it’s really a non issue. They are over by 6 or 7 spaces. Even if they required that whole space they would have enough parking.

Mr. Tapper questioned if the greenhouse area factored into that parking calculation?

Chairman Baden noted that to him it didn’t. It’s kind of up to the Board. He thought that the store did because they had employees who were going to be working in that area. That’s why he thinks the Code is not just retail space, it’s for the whole structure, but he would put that up to the Board. To him greenhouses are considered temporary under NYS Ag and Markets. He’s sure that they had to get building permits when they put them up, but they are considered temporary.

Chairman Baden questioned if the hours of operation were going to remain the same?

Mr. Schoonmaker answered yes.

Chairman Baden motioned to classify this application as a Type 2 Action under SEQRA specified in Environmental Conservation Law 617.5C7 with no further SEQRA Action or review required. Seconded by Mr. Rominger. No discussion.

Vote:

Baden: Yes Tapper: Yes

O’Donnell: Absent Rominger: Yes

Ullman: Absent Ricks: Yes

Smith: Absent Paddock: Yes*

Motion carried. 5 ayes (including alternate), 0 nays, 3 absent, 0 abstention

Chairman Baden noted that the section of the SEQRA Law that he quoted was that the action was less than 4,000 sf and therefore the applicant is exempt from SEQRA.

Chairman Baden noted that they did need to refer this to other agencies. The application is required to be referred to the Ulster County PB and he’d like the Board to refer it to the NYS DOT even though he didn’t think they’d have any issues. He’d like them to look at the existing access and just make sure they didn’t have any questions. They needed to refer it to the DEC because it is in the flood plain. They would normally refer it to the UCHD, but because they have a permit already granted they will list them on notices, but not refer it to them.

2012-01SUP New Application Preliminary Review

Chairman Baden motioned to refer the application to the Ulster County Planning Board, NYS DOT, and the NYS DEC for review and request comments be returned on or before March 9, 2012. Seconded by Mr. Rominger.

Discussion:

Mr. Tapper questioned if the applicant was deferred from any of those agencies as they fall under the Ag and Markets Laws?

Chairman Baden noted that because it is in the Ag District that is what triggers referral. And because of the flood plain, the DEC needs to be notified. They have an approved driveway access, but because of the change he wants to forward this on in case they have any questions.

Vote:

Baden: Yes Tapper: Yes

O’Donnell: Absent Rominger: Yes

Ullman: Absent Ricks: Yes

Smith: Absent Paddock: Yes*

Motion carried. 5 ayes (including alternate), 0 nays, 3 absent, 0 abstention

Chairman Baden noted that because this was in a flood plain, this application meets the criteria for Planner Review.

Chairman Baden motioned to waive the requirement for Town Planner Review because the professional review is going to be conducted by the other three agencies referred to and any other review would be redundant. Seconded by Mr. Ricks. No discussion.

Vote:

Baden: Yes Tapper: Yes

O’Donnell: Absent Rominger: Yes

Ullman: Absent Ricks: Yes

Smith: Absent Paddock: Yes*

Motion carried. 5 ayes (including alternate), 0 nays, 3 absent, 0 abstention

Chairman Baden noted that they talked about the parking changes. Were there any other changes that the Board wanted to see on the site plan? There are a couple of notations for the flood plain and he would get Mr. Sprague the language that they add for the DEC. They will need the UCHD permit, which they already have, and the DOT sign off, and they’ll need to get building permits.

Mr. Rominger suggested having the applicant change the existing store to show the retail and kitchen and office space.

Mr. Sprague questioned about the Flood Development Permit that was in Chapter 81? What was involved in that?

2012-01SUP New Application Preliminary Review

Chairman Baden did not know what was required to get one. The Code Enforcement Office handles that. It’s in the Town Code under Chapter 81 and its states that any development within a flood plain needs a Flood Plain Development Permit. His suspicion was that they may have already had one because in 1997 that flood plain law existed.

Chairman Baden motioned to schedule the Public Hearing for March 13, 2012 and to instruct the Secretary to circulate notice. Seconded by Mr. Rominger. No discussion.

Vote:

Baden: Yes Tapper: Yes

O’Donnell: Absent Rominger: Yes

Ullman: Absent Ricks: Yes

Smith: Absent Paddock: Yes*

Motion carried. 5 ayes (including alternate), 0 nays, 3 absent, 0 abstention

2012-02SPA New Application Preliminary Review

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

Adam Moss, Esq. from Snyder and Snyder Law Firm was present on behalf of the application.

Chairman Baden noted that the existing tower was constructed and granted by Ulster County Supreme Court action. There was a lawsuit over the Special Use Permit back in 1997. The applicant and the Town resolved the lawsuit and came to an agreement that it would be constructed. So there is not an existing Special Use Permit per se, it was granted by Court. The other thing he wanted to note was that Clark Patterson Lee, Town Engineer and Planner, reviewed this application. The applicant agreed to allow it to be referred prior to a meeting to speed up the process. the Chairman questioned if there is another set of antennas located on the tower as well?

Mr. Moss noted that there were but he didn’t have the exact information for who else was up there.

Chairman Baden noted that it was applied for under Sprint. Whether they still own it or not he doesn’t know. The original antennas were Cellular One which is now AT & T.

Mr. Ricks was on the Board when the original tower was being applied for. There were many people against it and then the Town made up a new cell tower law and then they found out that the whole thing they made up was illegal and they weren’t allowed to do that.

Chairman Baden noted that they had that telecommunications law until 2 years ago when the Town passed the new Zoning Code. That section went away and has been replaced and it is a part of the Zoning Code.

Mr. Ricks questioned if there were new buildings going up in the fenced area?

2012-02SPA New Application Preliminary Review

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

Mr. Moss answered yes there were. It was an equipment structure within the existing compound. It was 160 sf concrete pad that they were on. The site plan shows the layout. It fits within the existing fenced compound.

Chairman Baden noted that the Board requested that a Visual EAF Addendum be submitted.

Mr. Moss had the document with him and submitted it along with a copy of the FCC licensing and documentation on FAA Certification. They weren’t extending the height of the mono pole. It was 120’ and their antennas would be located at 105’.

Chairman Baden noted that this past weekend he drove around the area trying to spot the tower and it’s pretty hard to spot. You can see it driving across Boicemill Road where the airstrip used to be.

Mr. Ricks noted that there is a spot if you come down across the Hillside Restaurant and where Route 209 gradually curves you used to be able to see it there.

Chairman Baden noted that the one thing that the Town Planner and Engineer points out and he’d like to ask for it to be supplied by the applicant, some certification of the structural capacity of the tower itself.

Mr. Moss noted that it wasn’t a problem at all. He thought that the report was just about ready. He would get it to the Board prior to any submission deadline they had.

Chairman Baden noted that if they could get that to the Board by February 21^st– even emailed to the Office so that it could be included in UCPB referral. That was something that he knew that they will look at. The other question he had was if there was a bond posted on the construction of this tower?

Mr. Moss wasn’t aware of that and didn’t have information on that. The original approval was back in 1998 and he could try and find it out, but he wasn’t sure what he could come up with. It’s a different tower owner now.

Chairman Baden noted that his suspicion was that the owner of the tower would still have that bond. The bond is for the removal of the tower in case it is abandoned. There was a requirement, but whether or not it happened, no one was able to tell him. Part of the agreement that the Judge came back with. Basically what happened was a negotiation between the Town and the tower owner and they settled out of Court and the Judge signed off on the settlement and one of the conditions of the settlement was that a bond be created. If they were able to come across any information it would be good to know. The Chairman questioned if the color of the antennas were going to be blue gray to match the existing ones?

Mr. Moss noted that T=Mobile could certainly do that.

Chairman Baden noted that that was what was agreed to in the Court decision. Was there going to be any changes in utility services? Any need for additional power?

Mr. Moss answered that it was on the plans.

Mr. Ricks questioned if there was generator back up?

2012-02SPA New Application Preliminary Review

Mr. Moss noted that there was generator back up proposed.

Mr. Ricks noted that when Hurricane Irene happened everyone’s cell phones were out and the word was that the generator up at the cell tower died.

Mr. Moss noted that it may have been the case and for circumstances like that there is usually a generator placed at the site. There is a small generator shown on the plan.

Chairman Baden was questioning if additional power was going to need to be brought in?

Mr. Moss stated no- it would be from whatever was on site.

Chairman Baden questioned if there was going to be a maintenance agreement with the tower owner and if there was could that be provided to the Board? And the other thing is some sort of discontinuance of use provisions. If there’s something that they could propose so that if TMobile suddenly goes out of business and if the antennas are still on the tower if they could addressed. Did the Board feel the need to see any sort of pictorial representation of this? It was below the height of the Tower.

They did not. It was already existing and the antennas were proposed below the height of the tower.

Mr. Rominger noted that if there was someone from the Public Hearing they may want to see it.

Mr. Ricks noted that they could just look at what was there now.

Chairman Baden noted that these were going to be in between what was already up there. During the last Sprint approval he read the minutes of the meetings and there was a whole discussion on emergency service providers antennas going on the tower. Did that ever happen?

Mr. Moss could check into that as well.

Chairman Baden noted that the conditions of the settlement was that they be provided by Cellular One when the tower went up. He thought that maybe those lower antennas were. He only asked because if they weren’t on there it might be an opportunity to contact the Fire District and see if they want to get on there.

Mr. Moss would look into this.

2012-02SPA New Application Preliminary Review

Chairman Baden motioned to Type the application as Unlisted under SEQRA with an Uncoordinated Review. Seconded by Mr. Ricks. No discussion.

Vote:

Baden: Yes Tapper: Yes

O’Donnell: Absent Rominger: Yes

Ullman: Absent Ricks: Yes

Smith: Absent Paddock: Yes*

Motion carried. 5 ayes (including alternate), 0 nays, 3 absent, 0 abstention

Chairman Baden motioned to refer the application to the County Planning Board for review. Seconded by Mr. Rominger. No discussion.

Vote:

Baden: Yes Tapper: Yes

O’Donnell: Absent Rominger: Yes

Ullman: Absent Ricks: Yes

Smith: Absent Paddock: Yes*

Motion carried. 5 ayes (including alternate), 0 nays, 3 absent, 0 abstention

Chairman Baden motioned to schedule the Public Hearing for the March 13, 2012 meeting and to instruct the Secretary to circulate notice.

Seconded by Mr. Rominger. No discussion.

Vote:

Baden: Yes Tapper: Yes

O’Donnell: Absent Rominger: Yes

Ullman: Absent Ricks: Yes

Smith: Absent Paddock: Yes*

Motion carried. 5 ayes (including alternate), 0 nays, 3 absent, 0 abstention

2012-02SBD New Application Review

Let Lee– c/o Medenbach and Eggers, for Lot Improvement certification, for a lot line adjustment between two contiguous parcels, 236 Lower Whitfield Rd., Tax Map #68.4-4-26.1 and Tax Map #68.4-4-23.1, ‘AR-3’ Zoning District

Mr. Lee wasn’t present at this time. He was anticipated to arrive within the ½ hour.

Chairman Baden noted that it wasn’t necessary to wait as it was for a lot line improvement and they could review it without the applicant.

2012-02SBD New Application Review

Let Lee (CONT’D)– c/o Medenbach and Eggers, for Lot Improvement certification, for a lot line adjustment between two contiguous parcels, 236 Lower Whitfield Rd., Tax Map #68.4-4-26.1 and Tax Map #68.4-4-23.1, ‘AR-3’ Zoning District

Chairman Baden explained that he owned to contiguous parcels at 236 Lower Whitfield Road across from the West Wind Orchard and next door to Wendy Hollender’s property. This is here because they built a new house with the intention of removing the smaller house in the front and now they have changed their mind and they want to keep it and they don’t have enough acreage, but they own the contiguous lot. Currently they only own 4 acres and this is an AR-3 District so they need 3 acres per structure, so they are going to transfer some land from another parcel that they own and will now have 13.9 acres. It meets the criteria for an AR-3 District where both lots have 50’ of road frontage and the correct language on the plan.

Mr. Lee arrived at the meeting.

Chairman Baden re-iterated what he explained about the application to the Board.

Mr. Lee agreed that this correct.

Mr. Ricks questioned how additional lands (not involved in this application) were accessed.

Chairman Baden noted that it wasn’t part of this application so the Board couldn’t really look into that. He believed that they accessed it off of Mill Hook Road, but it really wasn’t a part of the PB’s concern at this time.

Chairman Baden motioned that the Planning Board determined that the application meets the criteria of 125-18C of the Town of Rochester Town Code qualifying as a Lot Line Improvement and that the applicant shall record the maps after the Chairman signed the plans and that the applicant return 3 copies to the Town. Seconded by Mr. Rominger. No discussion.

Vote:

Baden: Yes Tapper: Yes

O’Donnell: Absent Rominger: Yes

Ullman: Absent Ricks: Yes

Smith: Absent Paddock: Yes*

Motion carried. 5 ayes (including alternate), 0 nays, 3 absent, 0 abstention

OTHER MATTERS:

Chairman Baden noted that at the last meeting it was asked about the need to read the decisions. He checked with the Town Attorney and what she came back with was that there was no legal requirement to do Findings or read them, but she strongly suggested the Board do them because it gives the Board legal basis if they are sued. Personally he’d like to keep reading them. He thinks it is a good thing and he thinks it gives the Board a chance to make any corrections of errors instead of just having the members read them individually and just agreeing on them. The motion does not need to be read if they all have a copy in front of them, but again he’d like to keep reading them.

Mr. Ricks thought that since it was a public meeting it was good to read the findings and motions.

Chairman Baden noted that his plan from now on is to read the findings and then do a motion on the findings. Read the resolution and do a motion on that. He thought the meeting went fairly quickly tonight.

APPLICATION FEES:

Chairman Baden met with the Town Board regarding revising the application fees. On Site Plan and Special Use Permits, an idea that he came up with was charging a flat rate fee and then so much per square footage. So a larger application would pay more than a lesser application- with the stipulation that if it gets referred to the Planner that 50% of that square footage be applied to the applicant’s escrow account. Sometimes its not going to go to the Planner and sometimes it would.

Mr. Ricks noted that sometimes bigger square footage isn’t more work. Say a warehouse or those storage buildings for example. You could have a small site with smaller square footage and have it be very complex.

Chairman Baden had kicked it around both ways and he could see the merits of both.

Mr. Ricks noted that things with more square feet get killed on their building permits.

Chairman Baden questioned if they just wanted to consider it as a flat rate which is the way it is now?

Mr. Ricks thought it should be raised the same for everyone.

Mr. Rominger felt that it should be raised across the Board like Mr. Ricks said and to see what type of applications that they get in and if they have to revisit, they have to revisit.

Chairman Baden noted that the subdivision would be the same- they have a flat rate application fee and then $100 per lot and he was inclined to keep that because each lot does create more work.

BODY OF TRUTH LITIGATION

Chairman Baden noted that both the Town Attorney and the applicant’s attorney filed a motion to dismiss the Article 78. Mr. Feldman’s attorney filed a reply back and the Town got the opportunity to reply to their reply and that’s where it is now. The same judge is handling this as the last time. They have to first rule on the motion to dismiss. If they dismiss it then it is done, if not then they move forward- so there is no time frame.

TRAINING

Chairman Baden noted that he discovered an option that the Secretary said that some people have already taken advantage of. There is a set of tutorials that you can do online and if all members complete 5 tutorials and pass, members get their 4 hours of training and the Board becomes certified. Everyone has to do them to become a certified board—and really there is no advantage of it except the title.

Board Members didn’t think it was anything that was pressing.

ADJOURMENT

Mr. Tapper motioned to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Mr. Rominger. No discussion. All members present, in favor.

As there was no further business to discuss Chairman Baden adjourned the meeting at 8:50 pm.

Respectfully submitted,

Rebecca Paddock Stange, Secretary

As Approved March 13, 2012