Planning Board Minutes Jan. 2012

MINUTES OF January 10, 2012 Regular MEETING of the Town of Rochester PLANNING BOARD, held at the Town Hall, Accord, NY.

Chairman Baden called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM.

Chairman Baden asked the Secretary for roll call attendance.

PRESENT: ABSENT:

Michael Baden, Chairman

Shane Ricks, Vice Chairman

Fred O’Donnell

Melvyn I. Tapper

Robert Rominger

Leon Smith

Anthony Ullman

Also present:

Secretary, Rebecca Paddock Stange.

Adam S. Paddock, Planning Board Alternate (seated in the audience) arrived at 7:30PM.

ANNOUNCEMENTS

TRAINING OPPORTUNITIES

Chairman Baden noted that there is a soil erosion and sediment control training from 8-9:30am on Thursday January 12, 2012 at the New Paltz Diner that Chazen has been sponsoring. There is no charge. Another training is also available on Thursday, January 12, 2012 at the Steel House in Kingston and it is sponsored by the DEC, the Hudson River Estuary, Scenic Hudson and the Ulster County PB. It is called revitalizing Hudson River Fronts and they are going to go into some detail on the tributaries to the Hudson, so it is an applicable training.

ACTION ON MINUTES

Chairman Baden noted that there were a couple of corrections to make on the December 13, 2011 Minutes. The first correction was the first motion that was said to have been seconded by Mr. Smith. It was actually seconded by Mr. Rominger. The second correction is throughout the document- wherever Mr. Smith is registered as saying ‘Yes’, it should say, ‘Absent’. He was not in attendance. The last correction was when the meeting was adjourned. It should reflect Vice Chairman Ricks adjourning the meeting. Based on these correction, Mr. Ullman motioned to approve the December 13, 2011 Regular Meeting Minutes. Seconded by Mr. Rominger. No discussion.

Vote:

Baden: Yes Tapper: Abstain

O’Donnell: Yes Rominger: Yes

Ullman: Yes Ricks: Yes

Smith: Yes

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

CONTINUED APPLICATION, SEQR REVIEW, and PUBLIC HEARING (2011-11SBD)

DANIEL PALMESE– Minor Subdivision, for a 2 lot subdivision of a 7.58 acre parcel,

579 Samsonville Road, Tax Map #68.1-1-15.110, ‘AR-3’ Zoning District

Mr. Palmese was present on behalf of his application.

Chairman Baden noted that the Board has received revised plans listing the bounding owners, the Right to Farm Note was added, and the location of the septic on lot 2 was shown and it was no where near the lot line. They don’t show the building envelope, but he wasn’t sure if it was really needed. It did show the distance from the lot line of the proposed dwelling and the proposed garage and that is considerably further than the setback requirements.

Mr. Ricks questioned if the need for a 50’ right of way as discussed at the November meeting was resolved?

Chairman Baden noted that he has confirmed with the Town Attorney. The right of way does not need to be 50’ because it is not required. They have other access- lot 2 has more than 50’ of frontage and also has its own access. This is a self imposed right of way more for convenience for the applicant and the Planning Board has no jurisdiction over it.

Mr. Ricks noted that the only thought that he had which doesn’t apply to this case was if an applicant had a lot of frontage, but say there was a cliff all along there or something and they couldn’t physically have a driveway on that lot. Now they would be creating a substandard right of way.

Chairman Baden noted that in that case they could require a 50’ right of way because of the physical constraints on the property. But in this case they have more than ample road frontage and another means of access.

Mr. Ricks noted that there should be somewhere in the regs that addresses this in case it comes up again.

Mr. Ullman questioned when the Town Attorney stated that the Board doesn’t have to require the right of way to be 50’- does that mean the Board can’t or they can if they want to but they don’t have to? His recollection from the last discussion was that the existing driveway was said to have been hard to access in the winter. If there is some sort of emergency the existing right of way may in effect may not be useable in which case you may be stuck with a substandard access.

Chairman Baden questioned if the Secretary had a copy of the email from the Town Attorney on this at the meeting?

The Secretary didn’t have that email with her.

Mr. Ricks wasn’t concerned about it in this case since the Town Attorney made a ruling on it.

Chairman Baden noted that the Town Attorney’s ruling was based on the fact that there was another pre-existing access.

Chairman Baden noted that the PB referred this application to the Ulster County Dept of Public Works (UCDPW) who responded back to the Secretary verbally in a phone conversation that they had no concerns about either driveway. A note was put into the file to this effect. He wanted to make sure that they didn’t have any concerns because of the angle of the existing lot line, but they replied back that they didn’t.

Mr. Tapper questioned if the applicant used both driveways now?

CONTINUED APPLICATION, SEQR REVIEW, and PUBLIC HEARING (2011-11SBD)

DANIEL PALMESE (cont’d)– Minor Subdivision, for a 2 lot subdivision of a 7.58 acre parcel,

579 Samsonville Road, Tax Map #68.1-1-15.110, ‘AR-3’ Zoning District

Mr. Palmese answered yes he uses both to access his house on lot 2 now.

Chairman Baden noted that his anticipation was that the Board would be able to do conditional approval at this meeting. He could verify again with the Town Attorney given the concerns raised by members tonight.

Mr. Ullman didn’t think, given what the PB has heard and the fact that the UCDPW doesn’t have a problem with it he doesn’t think it would be a problem. For future references it would be useful to know how it should be looked at.

Chairman Baden was agreeable to this.

Mr. Ricks agreed also. He was just under the impression that all right of ways needed to be 50’ no exceptions.

Chairman Baden noted that those specs are in the Subdivision Regulations for a roadway or a shared driveway, but the circumstances surrounding this as they’ve pointed out, do not warrant it. He would double check with the Town Attorney just to be sure though.

Chairman Baden further noted that the applicant has received Health Dept. Approval for the proposed septic on lot 1. There is a copy of that in everyone’s packets. These were the only outstanding issues.

Since there were no other questions from the Board, they reviewed Part 2 of the Short EAF.

Chairman Baden read through a draft of Part 2 of the EAF checking all items as ‘no’.

Mr. Ricks motioned for a Negative Declaration under SEQRA based on Part 2 as just reviewed. Seconded by Mr. O’Donnell. No discussion.

Vote:

Baden: Yes Tapper: Yes

O’Donnell: Yes Rominger: Yes

Ullman: Yes Ricks: Yes

Smith: Yes

Motion carried. 7 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent

At 7:19PM Chairman Baden opened up the hearing to the public.

There was no public comment.

Mr. Ullman motioned to close the Public Hearing at 7:20PM. Seconded by Mr. Tapper. No discussion.

Vote:

Baden: Yes Tapper: Yes

O’Donnell: Yes Rominger: Yes

Ullman: Yes Ricks: Yes

Smith: Yes

Motion carried. 7 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent

CONTINUED APPLICATION, SEQR REVIEW, and PUBLIC HEARING (2011-11SBD)

DANIEL PALMESE (cont’d)– Minor Subdivision, for a 2 lot subdivision of a 7.58 acre parcel,

579 Samsonville Road, Tax Map #68.1-1-15.110, ‘AR-3’ Zoning District

Chairman Baden noted that he has prepared a draft decision and questioned if the Board wanted to go over it now, or wait and do any decisions at the end of the meeting?

The Board agreed to go over the draft now.

The Board went over the draft decision as follows read by Chairman Baden:

TOWN OF ROCHESTER PLANNING BOARD

Jan. 10, 2012

Decision: PB 2011-11SBD

Minor Subdivision-Conditional Final Approval for a 2 Lot Subdivision

Location: 579 Samsonville Rd. Total Acreage: +/-7.58 acres

Tax Map#: 68.1-1-15.110 Lot 1: +/-3.58 acres

Zoning District: ‘AR-3’ Lot 2: +/-4.00 acres

Zoning Permit filed: 9/9/2011 SEQR Type:

Planning Board Application #: 11-11SBD Unlisted, Uncoordinated -12/13/11

PB Application filed: 11/17/2011 SEQR Determination:

EAF filed: 11/17/2011 Negative Declaration-1/10/12

Other Agency Referrals: UC Dept. of Public Works

Documents considered by the Planning Board for review:

T/ Rochester Zoning Permit for Minor Subdivision dated 9/9/11.
T/ Rochester Planning Board Subdivision application #11-11SBD received dated 11/17/2011.
Short Form EAF received dated 11/17/2011.
Site Plan dated Nov. 11, 2011 as prepared by Medenbach and Eggers Civil Engineering and Land Surveying, P.C. and “updated” version dated December 2, 2011.
Ulster County Parcel Viewer aerial site maps as prepared by TORPB Chairman dated 12/2/2011.
Ulster County Health Dept. “Permit to Construct a Waste Disposal System” dated 11/23/2011 received dated 12/23/2011.
Ulster County Description of Lands of Daniel Palmese as prepared by Medenbach and Eggers Civil Engineering and Land Surveying, P.C. dated 11/11/2011 and received dated 12/23/2011.
Ulster County Dept. of Public Works advisory opinion as conveyed by telephone to the Planning Board Secretary on 1/6/2012.

Notice of Public Hearing:

Published in the Jan. 5, 2012 edition of the Shawangunk Journal

Notice by mail to known adjacent landowners

Posted on the Town Clerk’s Office bulletin board and the Town website.

Date of Public Hearing: 1/10/2012 Place: Town Hall, Accord, NY

Public Comment: (see Minutes of Town of Rochester Planning Board, Jan. 10, 2012)

* * * *

CONTINUED APPLICATION, SEQR REVIEW, and PUBLIC HEARING (2011-11SBD)

DANIEL PALMESE (cont’d)– Minor Subdivision, for a 2 lot subdivision of a 7.58 acre parcel,

579 Samsonville Road, Tax Map #68.1-1-15.110, ‘AR-3’ Zoning District

DRAFT CONDITIONAL FINAL APPROVAL CONTINUED:

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 9/9/2011.
The parcel location is 579 Samsonville Rd., Tax Map#:68.1-1-15.110, and in the ‘AR-3’ zoning district.

**Chairman Baden noted that if any Board members had any questions or difference of opinions, to just stop him at any point to go over anything.

Mr. Ullman questioned if it was procedurally required to read everything through everything out loud? It takes a lot of time.

Chairman Baden noted that it does take time, he likes to get it on the record.

Mr. Ullman noted that the Draft itself is part of the record.

Chairman Baden knew this, it was his preference to do it this way. It really only adds 5 more minutes. The findings are very important because that is what decides court cases.

Mr. Ullman understood this, but they are part of the record. They are what they are when they are approved.

Chairman Baden noted that they used to do these as a group at the meeting. Now that he does them ahead of time he doesn’t want them to be just his findings. He wants to make sure that all Board Members agree on them.

Chairman Baden continued reading the Draft Conditional Final Decision as follows:

The parcel is owned by Daniel Palmese.
The parcel is +/-7. 58 acres.
The parcel is proposed to be further subdivided into 2 lots.

Lot 1: +/-3.58 acres, Lot 2: +/-4.00 acres

The proposed lots meet the minimum development standards of Town of Rochester Code Chapter 140, Zoning.
The proposed lots will each have the required minimum road frontage on Samsonville Rd., also known as County Route 3. This roadway is under the jurisdiction of the Ulster County Dept. of Public Works (UCDPW).
The parcel has two existing means of access. No new driveway access is proposed.
The application was referred to UCDPW for comment. An advisory opinion of no comments or concerns was conveyed by telephone to the Planning Board secretary.
The parcel current use is residential and undeveloped land.
The proposed Lot 1 is undeveloped open meadow land. It contains an existing improvement of a driveway. The applicant proposes improvements of a single family 3 bedroom dwelling, two relocated sheds from Lot 2, an extension of the existing driveway, a garage, and septic area.
The proposed Lot 2 contains existing improvements of a single family dwelling, a barn, a shed, a circular driveway, well and septic, and utility hook-ups.
The applicant has secured a “Permit to Construct a Waste Disposal System” from the Ulster County Health Dept. for Lot 1.
The applicant proposes a 20’ wide right-of-way access for Lot 2 over the lands of Lot 1 for convenience purposes. Lot 2 has the required minimum lot frontage on Samsonville Rd. and access presently exists via the circular driveway. The Planning Board will impose no restrictions or conditions on the right-of-way as this is not a required access.
The application was determined to meet the Exception Agreement standards of the Ulster County Planning Board and was exempt from UCPB review.

Mr. Tapper had a question on #8- should it be ‘parcels’ instead of ‘parcel’?

Mr. Ullman noted that it could be worded as ‘each parcel has an existing’.

Chairman Baden noted he was talking about the main parcel having two existing means of access.

CONTINUED APPLICATION, SEQR REVIEW, and PUBLIC HEARING (2011-11SBD)

DANIEL PALMESE (cont’d)– Minor Subdivision, for a 2 lot subdivision of a 7.58 acre parcel,

579 Samsonville Road, Tax Map #68.1-1-15.110, ‘AR-3’ Zoning District

DRAFT CONDITIONAL FINAL APPROVAL CONTINUED:

Mr. Ullman noted that it could read, ‘each of the proposed parcels’.

Mr. Ricks agreed with Chairman Baden that this was talking about it before it is being subdivided.

Chairman Baden noted that it wasn’t subdivided until the Board voted on it- when he is breaking them out he identifies them as ‘lot 1 and lot 2’.

Chairman Baden now read the proposed motion into the record as follows:

RESOLVED,

The Town of Rochester Planning Board grants Minor Subdivision-Conditional Final Approvalto Daniel Palmese permitting the subdivision of lands situate at 579 Samsonville Rd., Tax Map #68.1-1-15.110, and in an ‘AR-3’ Zoning District of the T/ Rochester with the following conditions of approval.

This Conditional Final Approval shall expire 180 days from this approval date unless condition #2 is 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 Approval upon the satisfactory completion of condition #2 and presentation of the final plat. Condition #1 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.

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 have the responsibility to return three (3) Ulster County Clerk certified copies of the final plat to the Town of Rochester Planning Board within 30 days of filing.

CONDITIONS of APPROVAL:

All Local, County, State, and Federal Laws or Codes shall be complied with and any required Local, County, State, or Federal permits shall be secured for the use of these lands.
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.

DISCUSSION ON MOTION:

Mr. Ullman had one suggestion looking back at # 8 of the Findings. The fact that the parcel has two existing means of access doesn’t mean much unless there is one going to each of the proposed lots. So, he would suggest something like, ‘providing access to each of the proposed lots’.

Chairman Baden agreed and noted they would change it to read, ‘The parcel has two existing means of access which will provide access to lot 1 and lot 2’.

Mr. Ricks motioned for Conditional Final Approval as just read and discussed. Seconded by Mr. Ullman.

Vote:

Baden: Yes Tapper: Yes

O’Donnell: Yes Rominger: Yes

Ullman: Yes Ricks: Yes

Smith: Yes

Motion carried. 7 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent

CONTINUED APPLICATION, SEQR REVIEW and PUBLIC HEARING (2011-12SBD)

GEORGE STEFANOPOLOUS– Minor Subdivision, for a 2 lot Minor 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 there was a correction to a referral that was made at the last meeting. Lower Granite Road is actually a Town Road and not a County Road, so the Board sent a memo to the Town’s Highway Superintendent, Wayne Kelder for a referral. Mr. Kelder went out to the site and met with the applicant and Mr. Ringler and they determined the location for a driveway for lot 2 and it’s shown on the revised map. The other thing that changed was the lot line has been changed because the building that is identified on the map as the one story workshop, it is a large enough structure that it needs to also have a 40’ setback and where the originally proposed lot line was it didn’t meet that. The lot line has now been moved. There is a new driveway location for lot 2 which is shown just right to the right of the house. The applicant is proposing a shared well for the two residences right now and they would like that to continue. The Town Attorney has reviewed a revised Joint Well Agreement that was submitted by the applicant and she has approved it. That will get filed when they file the maps with the County Clerk. Back to the woodshed, in the minutes of the last meeting it was characterized as just a wooden pile with a tarp over it. The Chairman had actually driven by the property on this day and it looked to be an actual structure. So, the Board will probably have to condition that it be removed as is indicated on the map or that it is moved to one lot or the other. They can’t approve the lot line going through the middle of this. If it was just a pile of wood it wouldn’t matter, but because it was actually a structure. There was a discussion about the storage trailer and a letter was submitted to the Code Enforcement Officer by the Board asking for some guidance and a determination and he came back with a letter that it was a violation to have, but it was not a permanent structure, so it does not have setback requirements. The Planning Board is not the enforcing power of the Town, so the CEO has been notified of it, but it is essentially not involved in the PB’s review. The original lot line only had the storage trailer about 10 or 8’ away, so it’s not apart of the Board’s review. The other question that came up and Mr. Ringler submitted a response to this is the septic areas are notated but not defined. He’s not so much concerned about the one on lot 1, but the one on lot 2 is so close to the lot line there is a question as to whether the lot line is splitting the septic area and then there would be a septic on two parcels, which the Board obviously doesn’t want to do.

Mr. Ricks noted that that only happened because they had to move the line over.

Chairman Baden agreed, but noted that they either had to move the line or get a variance for the workshop and there choice was to move the line rather than to go through the variance process again for the workshop.

Mr. Ricks noted that the only thing he could say about it was that there was a lot of extra land on the property for a septic if they ever need to expand it or repair it.

Chairman Baden noted that Mr. Ringler did submit a letter at this meeting suggesting a note be added to the plan as the septic system was located under ground with no indication of their exact areas or dimensions. As they didn’t want to dig the system up, Mr. Ringler offered a note to be put on the plan indicating that if the system should fail, it would be replaced and placed solely on lot 2. Chairman Baden would like to run this suggestion by the Town Attorney as he just received this letter just before the meeting. He wasn’t sure if they could even consider this option.

Mr. Ricks noted that it wasn’t practical to dig it up and he didn’t see where it would be an issue as they had so much room on lot 2 if there was ever a problem.

CONTINUED APPLICATION, SEQR REVIEW and PUBLIC HEARING (2011-12SBD)

GEORGE STEFANOPOLOUS (cont’d)– Minor Subdivision, for a 2 lot Minor 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.

Chairman Baden needed to clarify whether or not this note should be added to the map and as to acceptable language. What he’d like to propose is once they do the public hearing, if they decided to do the approval tonight and as it would be a conditional approval anyway they would make this a condition of approval and then get the exact wording from the Town Attorney and find out if they can or can’t do it. They would word the condition as such that if this note wasn’t acceptable then they would have to seek an alternate way to make this work. The question was if the Board was comfortable with moving ahead with the map note idea or if the Board wanted to see a more definite solution to the question.

Mr. Ricks noted that they already had gotten the variance for the 2 dwellings. The whole issue with locating the system by digging it up, when you do that you start breaking pipes and the system turns to junk. So, you could be ruining a good septic system by doing that.

Mr. Ullman noted that it was a question for Mary Lou was if it was sufficient to put the note on the map, or if it should be more like the well agreement or something similar to that.

Mr. Ricks noted that in general if Mary Lou accepts the wording, is the Board okay with it?

Chairman Baden noted that Mr. Ullman just brought up a good point- the Town Attorney may come back and say they just need to do something similar like the well agreement and maybe it could be added into that agreement.

Mr. Ringler noted that the trouble is that they don’t even know that it’s going to be on lot 1- it’s an uncertainty. So, to put an encumbrance like that on lot 1 with it not being there was the reason why he opted to resolve it by the note.

Chairman Baden noted that he wanted to consult with the Town Attorney because he hasn’t had any experience with a map note like this. The Board’s goal was to protect the lot owners in the future.

Mr. Ullman noted that what was going to be important to the person in lot 1 was that they would have enforceable rights if there was ever a problem. He wasn’t sure if putting a map note was enough.

Chairman Baden would consult this with the Town Attorney.

Chairman Baden noted that the applicant identified all of the neighboring owners and they put the building envelope on. The two story house is obviously outside of the building envelope, but it is pre-existing, so there doesn’t need to be a variance for that. The variance to the side line was because it was being created. The front yard lot line is existing and not changing. The other item that he wanted to check with the applicant was how the applicant spelled his last name. Was it ‘Stef’ or ‘Steph’? It is represented on the map as ‘Stef’, but the applicant spells it as ‘Steph’ on the applications.

Mr. Stefanopolous noted it was ‘Stef’.

Mr. Ringler noted that he put that spelling on the map because it was based on the deed of record.

Chairman Baden would check with the Attorney as well to see how it needed to be spelled.

CONTINUED APPLICATION, SEQR REVIEW and PUBLIC HEARING (2011-12SBD)

Since there were no other questions from the Board, they reviewed Part 2 of the Short EAF.

Chairman Baden read through a draft of Part 2 of the EAF checking all items as ‘no’.

Before the Board made a motion on the determination the Chairman apologized noting that he forgot to call attention to something. As part of his review of applications he goes to the DEC website and look at wetlands and floodplains and if there are any endangered species in the area. There is a map in the packet that shows that there are no wetlands on this parcel, but right next door to the north and the east is a significant NYS Wetland area called the KR-14. The surrounding area is the 100’ buffer area. The DEC is quick to point out that unless they do an actual field delineation that their mapping isn’t guaranteed. The Board contacted the DEC and received no reply, which didn’t surprise him. It could mean that they just haven’t gotten to it yet because they are very short handed these days. As there is no new planned construction and it can’t be further subdivided, he didn’t see this as being an issue. He wanted to make the applicant aware of it and when he does go to install the new driveway he may want to contact the DEC and make sure it’s not in a buffer area, because if you do any disturbance in a wetland area they will hit you with big fines. He was more or less calling it to the attention of the applicant. It doesn’t impact PB review in any way.

Mr. Ricks had a question- he always thought that this part of the road was a County Road. This was discussed and cleared up as it was not- it was a Town Road where this property was located and this was confirmed by the Highway Superintendent.

Mr. Ricks motioned for a Negative Declaration under SEQRA based on Part 2 as just reviewed. Seconded by Mr. O’Donnell. No discussion.

Vote:

Baden: Yes Tapper: Yes

O’Donnell: Yes Rominger: Yes

Ullman: Yes Ricks: Yes

Smith: Yes

Motion carried. 7 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent

At 7:55PM Chairman Baden opened up the hearing to the public.

Vincent Amari was recognized to speak. He questioned what the land would be used for.

Mr. Ringler noted that Mr. Stefanopolous owns this entire parcel with two one story houses on the lot. All they are doing is breaking them into two separate lots with a house on each lot. There won’t be any further subdivision or modifications. Just dividing the houses.

Mr. Amari just wanted to be sure that there wouldn’t be any industrial uses.

Chairman Baden noted that the application before the Board was to just subdivide the parcel into two lots and any change of use of the property would have to be referred back to the Code Enforcement Officer and he would have to make a determination on that.

CONTINUED APPLICATION, SEQR REVIEW and PUBLIC HEARING (2011-12SBD)

Since there was no further public comment at 7:57 Mr. Smith motioned to close the Public Hearing. Seconded by Mr. Tapper. No discussion.

Vote:

Baden: Yes Tapper: Yes

O’Donnell: Yes Rominger: Yes

Ullman: Yes Ricks: Yes

Smith: Yes

Motion carried. 7 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent

Chairman Baden questioned if the Board was ready to make a conditional approval on this application? They could wait one month if they wanted to confirm with the Attorney or they could make a condition that it needed to be reviewed by the Town Attorney.

Mr. Ullman noted that it would have to come back to the Board anyway even if she agreed that the note needed to be put on the map. He didn’t see where they were gaining anything by doing an approval tonight.

Chairman Baden noted that they could do Conditional Final Approval and make that a condition and what it does is eliminates the application from having to come back to the Board for a meeting if it is resolved in the next month and the Board approves the Chairman to look at it to see if the conditions are met. They can make a condition if the Town Attorney determines that it isn’t legal to do that map note that it be referred back to the Board. The Board has to issue Conditional Approval, but the Board can grant the Chairman the authority to give Final Approval once certain conditions are met.

Chairman Baden read into the record the Draft Decision for Conditional Final Approval as follows:

Decision: PB 2011-12SBD for Conditional Final Approval

Applicant: George Stefanopoulos

Reason for Request: The applicant proposes a 2 lot subdivision of a parcel. 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.

Location: 46 Lower Granite Rd. Total Acreage: +/-5.406 acres

Tax Map#: 76.3-2-6 Lot 1: +/- 2.703 acres

Zoning District: ‘R-2’ Lot 2: +/- 2.703 acres

Zoning Permit filed: 8/18/2011 SEQR Type:

Planning Board Application #: 11-12SBD Unlisted, Uncoordinated -12/13/11

PB Application filed: 12/1/2011 SEQR Determination:

EAF filed: 12/1/2011 Negative Declaration-1/10/12

Other Agency Referrals: NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation, T/ Rochester Highway Supt.

Documents considered by the Planning Board for review:

Zoning Permit for Minor Subdivision dated 8/18/11.
Planning Board Subdivision application #11-12SBD received dated 12/1/2011.
Short Form EAF received dated 12/1/2011.
Site Plan dated 11/30/2011 as prepared by Ringler Land Surveying, PLLC and revision dated 12/28/2011.
Ulster County Parcel Viewer aerial site maps as prepared by TORPB Chair dated 12/1/2011.
NYS DEC wetlands site map as prepared by TORPB Chair dated 12/17/2011.

CONTINUED APPLICATION, SEQR REVIEW and PUBLIC HEARING (2011-12SBD)

Draft Decision for Conditional Final Approval as follows:

Decision Continued: PB 2011-12SBD for Conditional Final Approval

Applicant proposed “Joint Well Use Agreement” as received by the T/ Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) 7/8/2011 and revised “Joint Well Use Agreement” dated 1/9/2012.
T/ Rochester ZBA decision #ZBA 2010-03Area Variance dated 5/10/2011 (a copy is attached to this decision).
T/ Rochester Code Enforcement Officer memo dated 1/3/2012 regarding Planning Board questions concerning the movable storage trailer indicated on the Site Plan.
T/ Rochester Highway Supt. memo dated 12/14/2011 regarding proposed new driveway location for Lot 2 and reply dated 1/9/2012

Notice of Public Hearing:

Published in the Jan. 5, 2012 edition of the Shawangunk Journal.

Notice by mail to known adjacent landowners.

Posted on the Town Clerk’s Office bulletin board and the Town website.

Date of Public Hearing: 1/10/2012 Place: Town Hall, Accord, NY

Public Comment: (see Minutes of Town of Rochester Planning Board, Jan. 10, 2012)

* * * *

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 is +/-5.406 acres.
The parcel is proposed to be further 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 applicant has amended the Site Plan dated 11/30/2011 at the Planning Board’s recommendations and presented a revision for consideration.
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 movable storage trailer, 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.
The Site Plan indicates a “Woodshed to be removed” which is bisected by the proposed lot line. This has been identified by the applicant as a wood pile with a tarp which will be relocated to one of the lots. As this is not a structure, the Planning Board takes no opinion on this.
The applicant proposes the well located on Lot 1 will continue to be a shared use with Lot 2. The Planning Board will require a “Well Agreement” be established in writing. Should the applicant choose to abandon the “Well Agreement” proposal in the future; the Planning Board will conditionally require an alternate water supply be secured for Lot 2.

CONTINUED APPLICATION, SEQR REVIEW and PUBLIC HEARING (2011-12SBD)

Draft Decision for Conditional Final Approval as follows:

Decision Continued: PB 2011-12SBD for Conditional Final Approval

The Planning Board attorney reviewed the 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 agreement to be “legally sufficient”. The “Joint Well Use Agreement” will be required to be filed with the Ulster County Clerk and T/ Rochester Planning Board.
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. An amended plan was submitted to alter the proposed lot lines and the workshop is presently indicated as being 41’-2” from the lot line.
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.

*Mr. Ullman noted that he was reading where the Chairman indicates that the CEO responded, but he didn’t really answer the question.

Chairman Baden noted that the letter to the CEO asked if it was a violation under 140-13E. Because if the CEO considers it an accessory structure then it is bound by setback requirements, but if it’s a vehicle that’s parked there then it’s not bound by a setback and it’s out of the PB’s hands.

Mr. Ullman understood what the Chairman was saying, but the CEO literally didn’t answer the question.

Chairman Baden noted that in the CEO’s mind, once he determined that it was in violation the second part of the question didn’t have to be answered because it was not an accessory structure. If you look at the Code in that section- it basically addresses rail road box cars, manufactured home units, and recreational vehicles shall not be used for purposes of accessory or principal structures in connection with any use.

Mr. Ullman noted that it made more sense after he actually read the Chairman’s memo instead of how the Chairman described it.

CONTINUED APPLICATION, SEQR REVIEW and PUBLIC HEARING (2011-12SBD)

Draft Decision for Conditional Final Approval as follows:

Decision Continued: PB 2011-12SBD for Conditional Final Approval

The Planning Board notes the existence on the Site Plan of a “movable storage trailer” on the proposed Lot 1. The Planning Board has requested guidance and a determination from the Code Enforcement Officer regarding 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”. As this has been determined to not be a permanent improvement, the trailer is not considered an accessory structure with setback requirements under Chapter 140 of the Zoning Code. 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 parcel location on 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 appear to indicate this parcel to be located in the actual wetland delineation, the parcel may be located in the adjacent buffer area.
The Planning Board further notes that wetlands mapping is an approximate location without field delineation and the wetlands maps for the region are known to be more than 25 years old. 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 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.

Chairman Baden noted that they should add finding #24 about the septic conditions. He was open to anyone’s ideas of language on that as to what they determined about it. They could use the exact language from the letter, “the septic area of lot 2 is located near the proposed lot line boundary. The septic may encroach over the proposed lot line. The actual location is undeterminable due to being located underground.” They would further deal with it in a condition.

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 with the following conditions of approval.

This Conditional Final Approval shall expire 180 days from this approval date unless conditions #3 through #8 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 #3 through #8 and presentation of the final plat. Conditions #1 and #2 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.

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 additionally file the town attorney approved “Joint Well Use 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 “Joint Well Use Agreement” to the Town of Rochester Planning Board within 30 days of filing.

CONTINUED APPLICATION, SEQR REVIEW and PUBLIC HEARING (2011-12SBD)

Draft Decision for Conditional Final Approval as follows:

Decision Continued: PB 2011-12SBD for Conditional Final Approval

CONDITIONS of APPROVAL:

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 “Well Agreement” at a future date, an alternate source of water supply for Lot 2 shall be secured and any required permits associated shall be secured.

*Chairman Baden questioned if they should add a condition here about the septic.

The Board was uncertain how to handle this condition as they weren’t sure what the Town Attorney’s answer was going to be as per the map note that was suggested by Mr. Ringler. Mr. Ullman noted that this would be cumbersome to draft this condition.

Chairman Baden noted that they could make the condition that the map note would be determined by the Town Attorney.

Mr. Ullman wasn’t sure what the map note was going to address? The potential encroachment and making sure that the owner of lot 2… its starting to get cumbersome as to what this map note is supposed to do.

Chairman Baden noted that it would be the same scenario as the well use agreement. They may not have had it, but they are basically giving the attorney the ability to put the correct language in there. They could have approved it without her having approved that well use agreement.

Mr. Tapper noted that in that aspect you would put the well use agreement as approved by the Town Attorney. They don’t know now whether it’s going to be a note on the map or if it’s going to be an agreement.

Chairman Baden noted that they could make the condition be both. So condition #3 would say, “The Planning Board …”

The point that Mr. Ullman was getting at was that the well use agreement is very easy to stage and do- the objective is to share the well.

Chairman Baden noted that there is a whole section in there about maintenance—

Mr. Ullman noted that they needed to have some descriptor in here as to what end the map note is supposed to achieve.

Chairman Baden noted that in his mind it was supposed to address the maintenance of the septic in the event—

Mr. Ullman noted then the condition should say that—either a map note allocating responsibility for future maintenance of the septic in the event there is a problem exclusively to the owner of lot 2 and providing that any future additions or repairs would be done exclusively by extension on lot 2 or an agreement to that effect, which ever the Town Attorney recommended—but it needed to be more elaborately worded.

Chairman Baden noted the way it was just worded was perfect.

Mr. Tapper questioned if there was an urgency to get this done at this meeting? The two houses existed—everything on this parcel is already done other than splitting it.

Chairman Baden noted that they could delay this one month and get the Town Attorney’s recommendation and put it on the Agenda for February.

Mr. Ullman noted it would be easier to do it that way.

CONTINUED APPLICATION, SEQR REVIEW and PUBLIC HEARING (2011-12SBD)

Draft Decision for Conditional Final Approval as follows:

Decision Continued: PB 2011-12SBD for Conditional Final Approval

Mr. Ricks questioned if the Draft Decision would have to be read again?

Chairman Baden noted that it was potentially saving them in law suits by having it read into the record.

Mr. Ricks appreciated all of the hard work by the Chairman and having him read the decisions at the meetings.

Chairman Baden questioned if the applicant was okay if they deferred it one month.

Mr. Stefanopolous didn’t have a problem with delaying it a month.

Chairman Baden noted they would table the decision, the public hearing has been closed and they will get an opinion from the Attorney and hopefully come back with an opinion at the next meeting which is February 14, 2012.

Mr. Ringler noted that as far as the name on the map, he could change the name in the title block but as far as the deed reference he was going to leave it the way it was.

Chairman Baden agreed, but noted they wouldn’t ask for map revisions until they received the advisement from the Town Attorney. They would ask for all the changes at once. There were a couple of other map notes that needed to be addressed- hopefully they would be resolved for the next meeting. He agreed with the Board to hold off for a month to get the consultation of the Town Attorney.

Mr. Tapper had a comment about the format of the decisions and resolutions. Could the conditions be put prior to the resolution? Because in the resolution they are referring to the conditions 3-7 and they don’t know what they are yet.

Chairman Baden stated that they could do that.

NEW APPLICATION (2011-13SBD)

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’ Zoning District

Gregory Nissen, the Executive Director of the of the United Methodist Church and Perry Sharpe, the On-sight Property Manager were present on behalf of the application.

Mr. Nissen noted that the United Methodist Church (UMC) was proposing to pull out a 3.25 acre single lot as it stands of the Epworth parcel.

Chairman Baden questioned if lot 1 was coming off of the whole +/-162.25 acres.

Mr. Nissen confirmed this. He displayed another map of a color aerial photo that better showed what they wanted to do. Camp Epworth is a long parcel it’s partially in Rochester and Partially in Marbletown.

Chairman Baden questioned if the section in Marbletown was a separate lot? He just wanted to make sure that they were addressing this correctly.

NEW APPLICATION (2011-13SBD)

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’ Zoning District

Mr. Nissen confirmed this. He continued to note that they were proposing a new driveway. They have already secured UCDPW approval. They are proposing adding the driveway and closing off the connection to Epworth.

Chairman Baden noted that they have already received documentation from UCDPW on this that the applicant has contacted them and they have set the location of the driveway. They did need to make one correction in the EAF statement. They noted that it wasn’t near an Ag District, but it was actually directly across the street from them. Because this parcel is within 500’ of the Ag District the Board was bound to refer this to the County Planning Board. Patti Brooks had prepared the Ag Data Statement and submitted that. There is no need for the applicant to submit a new EAF as long as it has been notated in the minutes as being addressed. The Board has received a copy of the applicant’s application to the UCDPW and they have determined the location. He just wanted to point out that they were removing the old driveway so that there would be no connection there between the two parcels. He questioned a note on the map about items to be relocated- what was happening there?

Mr. Nissen noted that those are the items that are actually owned by their neighbor Neff. He doesn’t think that Mr. Neff was aware of the lot line. They went and spoke with him and offered to give him that little piece of land, but they are going to relocate the items which are trailers- snow mobile trailer and a single axel utility trailer. They are open flat bed trailers.

Mr. Ricks questioned how they made out during the floods during the tropical storms this past fall?

Mr. Nissen stated that the water came up pretty high, but no where near this proposed lot.

Chairman Baden noted that the applicant did need to show the approximate boundary of the flood plain. He knew on lot 1 there was some degree of flood plain there. Because this was an existing house and they were proposing new development the Board would not normally require topography to be shown, but because they were in the flood plain the surveyor should be able to put a line on the plan to show where the flood plain is. There is a map note that will be needed to be added to the plan from the DEC regarding the flood plain. He has already supplied Brooks and Brooks with the language that needs to be added. That’s the standard FEMA note that is required on all flood plain. It makes reference to the mapping of the flood plain the date and the plate. Also because they border the Rondout Creek which is a DEC controlled water way there are some DEC and Town of Rochester Map notes that will need to be added. He supplied these to Brooks and Brooks as well. Those were the only additions that he could see to the map. Because it bordered the Town of Marbletown line, the Board had to notify the Town of Marbletown about the Public Hearing. It just means that they become part of their notification process. Because the project is contiguous to a National Register Historic District which is the Rest Plaus, which starts at the Marbletown parcel, they have to submit the application for review to the NYS Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation to offer them the opportunity to comment.

NEW APPLICATION (2011-13SBD)

Mr. Ullman motioned to type the Action as Unlisted under SEQRA with a coordinated review. Seconded by Mr. O’Donnell. No discussion.

Vote:

Baden: Yes Tapper: Yes

O’Donnell: Yes Rominger: Yes

Ullman: Yes Ricks: Yes

Smith: Yes

Motion carried. 7 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent

Mr. Ullman motioned to refer the application to the UCPB, OPRHP, and NYSDEC. Seconded by Mr. O’Donnell. No discussion.

Vote:

Baden: Yes Tapper: Yes

O’Donnell: Yes Rominger: Yes

Ullman: Yes Ricks: Yes

Smith: Yes

Motion carried. 7 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent

Mr. Tapper motioned to set the application for public hearing at the February 14, 2012 Meeting and instruct the Secretary to advertise and notify the Town of Marbletown Clerk. Seconded by Mr. Ricks. No discussion.

Vote:

Baden: Yes Tapper: Yes

O’Donnell: Yes Rominger: Yes

Ullman: Yes Ricks: Yes

Smith: Yes

Motion carried. 7 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent

NEW APPLICATION (2012-01SBD)

BETH AND LEON SMITH– Minor Subdivision for 2 lots, Trotter Lane, Tax Map #76.2-2-27.13. ‘AR-3’, Zoning District

Mr. Smith recused himself from the Board as this was his application.

Chairman Baden appointed the alternate to sit on the Board.

Chairman Baden noted that this is the exact map that Mr. Smith had approved back in October. He is back in front of the Board because he did not get the approved map filed with the County Clerk’s Office within the required 62 days. Nothing at all has changed, but the Board needs to do the process over again as the County deemed the map as invalid. The applicant submitted a new application and EAF, again- are exactly the same.

NEW APPLICATION (2012-01SBD)

BETH AND LEON SMITH (cont’d)– Minor Subdivision for 2 lots, Trotter Lane, Tax Map #76.2-2-27.13., ‘AR-3’, Zoning District

Mr. Ricks motioned to type it as an Unlisted Action with an Uncoordinated Review. Seconded by Mr. O’Donnell. No discussion.

Vote:

Baden: Yes Tapper: Yes

O’Donnell: Yes Rominger: Yes

Ullman: Yes Ricks: Yes

Paddock: Yes

Motion carried. 7 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent

(* including alternate)

Mr. Ricks motioned for a Negative Declaration. Seconded by Mr. Ullman. No discussion.

Vote:

Baden: Yes Tapper: Yes

O’Donnell: Yes Rominger: Yes

Ullman: Yes Ricks: Yes

Paddock: Yes

Motion carried. 7 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent

(* including alternate)

Mr. Ricks motioned for a public hearing at the February 14, 2012 Meeting. Seconded by Mr. O’Donnell.

No discussion.

Vote:

Baden: Yes Tapper: Yes

O’Donnell: Yes Rominger: Yes

Ullman: Yes Ricks: Yes

Paddock: Yes

Motion carried. 7 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent

(* including alternate)

Mr. Tapper motioned to refer the application to the UCPB. Seconded by Mr. Ullman. No discussion.

Vote:

Baden: Yes Tapper: Yes

O’Donnell: Yes Rominger: Yes

Ullman: Yes Ricks: Yes

Paddock: Yes

Motion carried. 7 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent

(* including alternate)

Mr. Smith came back to the Board and Mr. Paddock was seated back in the audience.

OTHER MATTERS

Chairman Baden thanked Mr. Smith for all of his time on the Town’s Planning Board and for being an Alternate on the County Planning Board. This was Mr. Smith’s last meeting.

Chairman Baden noted that the Town Board is now accepting letters for the vacant seat left by Mr. Smith and he hoped that Mr. Paddock would consider putting a letter in to be considered for a regular member. They were holding interviews in February.

Mr. Ricks motioned to recommend Mr. Paddock to the Town Board to fill Mr. Smith’s vacant seat. Seconded by Mr. O’Donnell. No discussion.

All members present in favor.

Mr. Ullman asked if the Chairman could ask the Town Attorney if it was really necessary to read the whole decision into the record. It takes an awful lot of time and it would be much more efficient for him if they were circulated before hand or if Board Members read them at the meeting. He didn’t see what the benefit was.

Mr. Ricks noted that they did corrections.

Chairman Baden agreed and noted that the reason that he is doing it this was because in the past the Board started with a clean piece of paper and did the whole thing at the meeting. He is doing the homework and bringing it to the meeting.

Mr. Ricks noted that it was way faster now than sitting there and the whole Board going through everything.

Mr. Ullman thought it was great what Mr. Baden was doing, but he thought they should just go through and see if anyone had comments on certain items.

Mr. O’Donnell likes it when it’s read into the record better as well.

ADJOURMENT

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

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

Respectfully submitted,

Rebecca Paddock Stange, Secretary

As approved February 14, 2012