Planning Board Minutes July 2012

MINUTES OF July 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                                         Fred O’Donnell                                  
Robert Rominger, Vice Chairman                                  Melvyn I. Tapper                        
Anthony Ullman
Shane Ricks                                                             
Adam S. Paddock                                                                                                         
                                                                                                
Also present:
Rebecca Paddock Stange, Secretary.   

 

ANNOUNCEMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS
Chairman Baden noted that he had sent out three letters this month. One to the DEC  regarding the Public Hearing held in June regarding the Mombaccus Excavating Amanda Drive Blue Stone Mine. The Board did receive back a response from the DEC which is a compilation of all of the comments they received on the subject. He also sent out two letters for Conditional Approvals on subdivisions that were set to expire in August. So, he sent out reminders and asked that the applicants request an extension in writing. Those were for Stefanopolous and Epworth. The board received a letter from the Town Attorney regarding the Rock Mt. Ridge (Pen Ulster) Subdivision. It has been in the process of being sold and the new owners are about to take over the bond and the Board has been copied in the communications regarding that bond and it really has nothing to do with the Board. In the title search they discovered that there is no easement over that front road for that property, so what that means or doesn’t mean is being figured out. Their intention is to build the road as it’s drawn, so he’ll have to confer with the Town Attorney to see what it would mean to only have one access and not two. The Board also received a determination for another application by Sterrett Smith, not the B & B she was here for tonight. This was referred to the Town Board because it is a use that is not discussed in the Zoning Code. So the way the Code reads is that the Town Board has to hold a public hearing and decide if that use is allowed or not in that District. This application is for special events and they are not specifically addressed in the schedule.

 

TRAININGS
  • Association of Towns    Summer School           July 25 – Albany, July 31 – Poughkeepsie (Fishkill)
  • Wetlands Awareness training in Rhinebeck on July 18th in Rhinebeck

ACTION ON MINUTES                       
Mr. Ricks motioned to approve the June 12, 2012 Minutes. Seconded by Mr. Rominger. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden:  Yes                                             Tapper: Absent
O’Donnell:      Absent                                  Rominger:       Yes
Ullman: Yes                                             Ricks:          Yes
Paddock:        Yes                                     
                                                                        
Motion carried. 5 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, 0 abstentions

 

2012-07SPA      Continued Application, SEQRA determination, and Public Hearing
G. STERRETT SMITH- for Site Plan review, for expansion of use of a single-family residence to a Bed & Breakfast utilizing existing rooms and to include the addition of 2 parking spaces, located on 30.856 acres, 34 Evers Lane, Tax Map #77.2-2-26.400, ‘AR-3’ zoning district.

 

Ms. Smith was present on behalf of her application.

 

Chairman Baden noted that the application had been reviewed by the County Planning Board and their concerns were for emergency vehicles and they included in their response as a Required Modification. In their discussion they felt that it could be addressed by having a 911 ID sign. The applicant could probably obtain one from the fire dept or rescue squad or they would probably know how she could get one.

 

Ms. Smith noted that she did have to call an ambulance a number of times when her mother was alive and lived with her and they had no problem finding the residence. She then asked who was responsible for road signs. The Evers Lane sign has been bent.

 

Chairman Baden noted that because it is a private road that whoever maintains the road and however their road maintenance fees are set up should determine that.

 

At this time the Board reviewed Part 2 of the Short EAF. All items were checked as ‘no’.

 

Mr. Rominger motioned for a Negative Declaration under SEQRA. Seconded by Mr. Ullman. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden:  Yes                                             Tapper: Absent
O’Donnell:      Absent                                  Rominger:       Yes
Ullman: Yes                                             Ricks:          Yes
Paddock:        Yes                                     
                                                                        
Motion carried. 5 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, 0 abstentions

 

At 7:20PM Chairman Baden opened the Public Hearing.

 

Ken Corber of Creek Road was recognized to speak. Mr. Corber noted that Mrs. Smith has been an excellent neighbor. He noted that a number of years ago there were a number of hearings regarding this property and it was designated that off of the right of way there would be 3 or 4 homes off of Evers Lane. Creek Road is a single lane road and in order for two cars to pass one has to pull off into an existing driveway. He wondered how this would affect traffic in the future and what types of activities would be held up there? He has read that there are to be no special events and that is good. How many people are expected to be up there on a given weekend? What is the difference between a Bed and Breakfast and a hotel?

 

Chairman Baden noted that under the Town’s Code, a Bed and Breakfast (B & B) is considered a residential use where as a motel or a hotel is considered a commercial use. In a B & B in our Town’s Zoning Code and under the NYS Building Code, the owner is required to reside onsite. The B & B is considered an extension of the residential use of the property. In this case these are two existing bedrooms that already exist with baths and they were used previously by her children and her mother and she now has them available and she would like to rent them out and that is why she is in front of the Board.

 

Mr. Corber questioned if there was no designation under the length of stay?

 

Chairman Baden noted that not under our Code. Some codes say 30 days.

 

Mr. Corber questioned if a stay could be considered a week a month or 3 days?

 

Chairman Baden agreed. There was no duration designated in our Code.

 

Mr. Corber noted that she has people working at her house off and on. As far as the levels of traffic- he wanted to let everyone know that this wasn’t a super highway. There is a speed limit sign that is 15 MPH and he has concerns about traffic.

 

Richard Travers was next to speak. Mr. Travers noted that he owned the undeveloped piece of property on Evers Lane at the end and his questions had to do with B & B’s in essence turning a private road into a public road. What effect does this have on that? There is a degree of privacy offered by the private road that he thinks is effected by this. He realizes that the Town Code allows this to occur on a private road and he realizes that this is zoned AR-3, but he did have questions related to the shared maintenance of the private road and the increased activity of the private road by now allowing private usage.

 

Chairman Baden noted that because this considered a residential use it is no different than if someone were establishing a home on the property. It’s considered an extension of the residential use and that is why it is allowed on the private road. With regard to any private road maintenance agreement- the PB and the Town do not have the power to enforce anything in those documents. If there was something in there denying this ability, the Town doesn’t have the power to consider that. That would have to be done privately. He has not looked at the document for that very reason. It is not something the Town is able to consider because it is a private agreement.

 

Mr. Travers questioned if the Chairman could read the SEQRA C1 over again?

 

Chairman Baden read it over- ‘C1. Existing air quality, surface groundwater quality or quantity, noise level, existing traffic pattern, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems’. In order for the Board to check, ‘yes’, it would have to be a significant impact.

 

Mr. Travers questioned if the increased traffic didn’t seem significant to the Board?

 

Chairman Baden noted that they didn’t—not for the rate it will be raised for two additional rooms. If it were for a 20 room hotel, he would agree, but for two additional rooms that already were existing.

 

Mrs. Smith noted that she has one daughter and her mother lived there for almost 8 years and they had a registered nurse on a daily basis for 5 years. They had a doctor that only made house calls and they ended up having a live in person because of her mothers medical care, so they had a fair amount of traffic because of her mother’s needs. Her daughter is now just graduated from college.

 

Mr. Ullman noted that there was no significant increase.

 

Chairman Baden noted that the Board was in receipt of letter dated July 10, 2012 from Nora Casey Feingold. Ms. Feingold’s concern was how the establishment of the B & B might influence future planning on Evers Lane, and thus negatively impacting the very essence of the serene location and opening up the possibility for more businesses.

 

Chairman Baden questioned if anyone else had questions.

 

Mr. Paddock questioned how many B & B’s were allowed on a road?

 

Chairman Baden noted that would be considered on a case by case basis. If more became added they could take into consideration the cumulative effect because that’s part of the process.

 

Mr. Paddock questioned if there were any maximums or limitations?

 

Chairman Baden noted that it was allowed in the zone with a site plan review, which is what the Board was doing and essentially that means it is an allowed use, the Board is just reviewing the particulars about how it’s being done.

 

Mr. Ricks noted that as far as B & B’s go, this is rather small. Traditionally most of the time they are 4-5 bedrooms. This is very small.

 

At 7:35PM Mr. Rominger motioned to close the Public Hearing. Seconded by Mr. Ullman. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden:  Yes                                             Tapper: Absent
O’Donnell:      Absent                                  Rominger:       Yes
Ullman: Yes                                             Ricks:          Yes
Paddock:        Yes                                     
                                                                        
Motion carried. 5 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, 0 abstentions

 

At this time the Board went over a draft decision as prepared by Chairman Baden.
Findings of the Planning Board:
  • The application was determined to require a Site Plan review by the Code Enforcement Officer on 4/26/2012 and was referred to the Planning Board for review.
  • The parcel location is 34 Evers Lane and is S/B/L# 77.002-2-26.4.
  • The parcel is located in the ‘AR-3’ and ‘AP Overlay’ zoning districts.
  • The parcel is owned by G. Sterrett Smith.
  • The parcel contains +/- 30.856 acres.  
The parcel current use is for a single family residential dwelling.  Two buildings exist, a +/- 3000 square ft. house and a +/- 4000 square ft. studio.  The studio includes an 800 square ft. garage with 500 square ft. bed and bath area above.  The house has 3 bedrooms.   
The applicant proposes an expansion of the residential use to add a Bed and Breakfast operation consisting of the use of 2 existing areas of the dwelling.
  • Bed & Breakfast use is considered a residential use home occupation under the Town of Rochester Code and requires the owner to reside onsite.
  • The applicant has prepared a Site Plan detailing the location of the existing and proposed structures and infrastructure within the parcel.
  • The proposal meets the minimum development standards of Town of Rochester Code Chapter 140, Zoning.
  • The proposed use does not require further study of the Aquifer Protection (AP) overlay district impacts as it is considered a residential use.
  • The applicant has proposed no changes to the access drive, to landscaping, to exterior lighting or signage will occur with this expansion.   
No new construction, alterations, or additions to the dwelling will be necessary as this is a reuse of currently existing areas of the dwelling.
Two parking spots which meet the Town parking standards will be made available for the bed & breakfast use.  Additionally two parking spaces are required for the residential use.  Adequate space exists currently to accomplish this.  
There will be no increased septic or water use concerns as this is a reuse of existing infrastructure.
The parcel borders land in the Ulster County Agricultural District #3.  An agricultural data statement was required and prepared by the applicant.
  • The parcel has road frontage on Evers Lane which is a private improved road with direct access to Creek Road, a road under the jurisdiction of the Town of Rochester.
  • The applicant proposal indicates no food preparation will occur with the operation of the bed & breakfast.  Food will be provided in the form of prepared food items.  The applicant is advised should this change Ulster County Health Dept. approval may be required.
  • The applicant proposes no use of the property for special events such as weddings.  The Planning Board will condition the decision to require Code Enforcement determination should such events be desired in the future.
  • The applicant proposes no advertising signage for the bed & breakfast, but a house number marker exists.
  • The application was determined to require referral to the Ulster County Planning Board who issued a “Required Modification” determination.  The UCPB will require the applicant to take what measures the Town deems necessary to ensure emergency vehicles can find the property as quickly as possible.  The Planning Board will condition the decision requiring the placement of a 9-1-1 property sign at the end of the driveway intersection with Evers Lane.
*                       *                       *                       *
Mr. Rominger motioned to accept the findings as read above. Seconded by Mr. Paddock. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden:  Yes                                             Tapper: Absent
O’Donnell:      Absent                                  Rominger:       Yes
Ullman: Yes                                             Ricks:          Yes
Paddock:        Yes                                     
                                                                        
Motion carried. 5 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, 0 abstentions

 

At this time the Board reviewed the resolution of the draft decision as follows:
RESOLVED,

 

        The Town of Rochester Planning Board has reviewed the application presented and grantsSite Plan-Conditional Approval to G. Sterrett Smith permitting the expansion of the residential use of a single family dwelling and studio for the parcel situate at 34 Evers Lane known as S/B/L# 77.002-2-26.4 and located in the ‘AR-3’ and ‘AP Overlay’ zoning districts of the T/ Rochester.

 

        The expansion of use of the one family dwelling and studio to a bed & breakfast as detailed on the Site Plan revision dated May 30, 2012, is approved with the following conditions and the Planning Board further authorizes the Chairman to sign the referenced Site Plan indicating this approval.  
        
CONDITIONS of APPROVAL:   
  • Any deviation from the approved and signed Site Plan shall require resubmission to the Planning Board, except as may be permitted pursuant to the Town of Rochester Code and as determined by the Code Enforcement Officer.
  • All applicable Local, County, State, and Federal laws or codes shall be complied with.  
  • All permits as may be determined to be required in conjunction with the operation of this use shall be secured or renewed as applicable.   Should any conditions imposed by such permits cause conditions to be in conflict, the more restrictive condition shall prevail.  Should any permit approvals necessitate a change to the approved Site Plan, the matter shall be referred to the Planning Board for consideration.
  • Parking shall be only in the spaces designated on the approved and signed Site Plan and shall not be allowed within the public or private road right-of-way.
  • The applicant shall place 9-1-1 identification signage at the intersection of the driveway and Evers Lane prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
  • Any and all fees and reimbursements due to the Town of Rochester involving this application shall be paid in full prior to the Chairman’s signature on the Site Plan.
  • Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, improvements and existing site conditions shall be verified to be in agreement with the approved and signed Site Plan and all conditions of this approval shall be verified as complete by the Building Dept.
   
EFFECT of APPROVAL:
  • This Site Plan approval and associated conditions shall be binding upon the applicant and all successive owners of the land so long as such use shall occur.  
This approval shall remain effective as an authorization to secure the required permits and establish the use for a maximum of one year from this date of approval unless the applicant shall have submitted written request and the Planning Board shall have adopted such resolution granting an extension and provided the applicant has submitted proof of diligently pursued the implementation of the plans.  
This Site Plan authorization shall be deemed to have expired without further notice one year from this date unless a Certificate of Occupancy is issued or an extension granted by the Planning Board.  
  • Should this use be discontinued as a use for a period of two years or more, it shall be deemed to have lapsed as per the Town of Rochester code.  
Mr. Rominger motioned to amend the Findings as previously passed above. Seconded by Mr. Paddock. Discussion:
The Board agreed to erase sentence #2 of Findings item #19 being: “The Planning Board will condition the decision to require Code Enforcement determination should such events be desired in the future.”
The Board agreed to add a condition that would say, “No Special Events shall be allowed in conjunction with this B & B use”.
Vote:
Baden:  Yes                                             Tapper: Absent
O’Donnell:      Absent                                  Rominger:       Yes
Ullman: Yes                                             Ricks:          Yes
Paddock:        Yes                                     
                                                                        
Motion carried. 5 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, 0 abstentions

 

Mr. Rominger motioned to approve the resolution as read and discussed above with the addition of condition stating, “There shall be no Special Events in conjunction with this B & B use”. Seconded by Mr. Paddock. Discussion: This condition was only to be in connection with the B & B use. The Board didn’t want to make it so she couldn’t have a party on the property of her own, they wanted to make sure that there weren’t special events in connection with the B & B.  
Vote:
Baden:  Yes                                             Tapper: Absent
O’Donnell:      Absent                                  Rominger:       Yes
Ullman: Yes                                             Ricks:          Yes
Paddock:        Yes                                     
                                                                        
Motion carried. 5 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, 0 abstentions

 

OTHER MATTERS
Chairman Baden motioned for the August PB Meeting to be rescheduled for August 8, 2012 and for the Secretary to circulate notice. Seconded by Mr. Ullman. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden:  Yes                                             Tapper: Absent
O’Donnell:      Absent                                  Rominger:       Yes
Ullman: Yes                                             Ricks:          Yes
Paddock:        Yes                                     
                                                                        
Motion carried. 5 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, 0 abstentions

 

EXTENSIONS:

 

UNITED METHODIST CHURCH
Chairman Baden noted that the applicants were required to construct a new driveway as part of their Conditional Preliminary Approval and they did, however they installed an undersized culvert and the County would not sign off on it. The applicants are requesting an extension on Conditional Preliminary Approval based on this.

 

Chairman Baden motioned for a 90 day extension from August 13, 2012 extending to November 10, 2012 for Conditional Preliminary Approval. Seconded by Mr. Ullman. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden:  Yes                                             Tapper: Absent
O’Donnell:      Absent                                  Rominger:       Yes
Ullman: Yes                                             Ricks:          Yes
Paddock:        Yes                                     
                                                                        
Motion carried. 5 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, 0 abstentions

 

STEFANOPOLOUS
Chairman Baden noted that the applicant is working with the Health Dept and they think the septic is on his own property, but its not verified as of yet. They are also working on installing the driveway.

 

Mr. Rominger motioned for a 90 day extension from August 13, 2012 extending to November 10, 2012 for Conditional Preliminary Approval. Seconded by Mr. Ullman. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden:  Yes                                             Tapper: Absent
O’Donnell:      Absent                                  Rominger:       Yes
Ullman: Yes                                             Ricks:          Yes
Paddock:        Yes                                     
                                                                        
Motion carried. 5 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, 0 abstentions

 

LOCAL LAW #2 OF 2012
Chairman Baden noted that the Town Board held the public hearing in June and it was continued at the July TB meeting at which the Chairman was not present, so he didn’t know what happened or didn’t happen. At the audit meeting in June several Town Board members were concerned about knowing the geology of the Town so they are in discussions to hire a geologist to prepare that information. He questioned if Councilwoman Archer, who was present in the audience, knew anything further since Chairman Baden was not at the July meeting.

 

Councilwoman Archer noted that she was at the Public Hearing, and what they decided was to go back to the company that prepared the Comprehensive Plan, instead of hiring someone else. They wanted someone to come in and explain the geology within the Town as it was put into the Comprehensive Plan. There are still a lot of questions and they are actually having a special workshop meeting on July 23rd and the Public Hearing is still open because it’s also the issue around petrol. Councilman Spano wanted to approach it from a road use instead of Fracking. She thinks they are hoping to hash it all out on the 23rd.

 

MOMBACCUS- AMANDA DRIVE BLUESTONE MINE
Mr. Ricks noted that with the responses that came back from the DEC in regards to the Amanda Drive Bluestone Mine they all came within a couple days of each other in June. It looks like there was an effort to have all of these people write in, so it sounds to him like Mombaccus has a feeling that they are going to try and push this thing through even though its totally against the Zoning if they took the effort to go around and talk to all these different people and have them write these letters within a few day period. He was just trying to make logic of the whole thing.

 

Chairman Baden noted that it was interesting that none of the people that commented live anywhere near the project site.

 

Mr. Ricks noted that they were friends and relatives and the one or two that lived near it were against it.

 

STERRET SMITH- SPECIAL EVENTS- TOWN BOARD PETITION
Mr. Ricks noted that this was for a property that Sterrett Smith owned on County Route 6. He just glanced at the application, but he thought it said that they were going to park cars all along Berme Road. It’s a 10 acre site- it’s no where near her other place.

 

Chairman Baden really didn’t have a chance to look at this yet, but basically what it was, was that the Town Board now had to consider whether that Special Events use should be allowed anywhere in the R-1 District and then if they allowed it in the R-1 District then it would go back to the CEO who would then say, yes you can do it with a Special Use Permit and the PB would review the application.

 

Mr. Ricks noted that B & B’s are very non intrusive uses as long as it’s only used as a B & B.

 

Chairman Baden noted that this wasn’t an application for a B & B, she just wanted this parcel for events.

 

Mr. Ricks understood that, but as soon as you do that, it’s just like a commercial establishment or a catering hall or something.

 

Mr. Rominger noted that it wouldn’t even come to the PB if the Town Board didn’t allow it to.

 

Chairman Baden agreed, the Town Board had to hold a Public Hearing and do SEQRA on the process.

 

Mr. Ricks noted that he had neighbors down at the stone house near Rosakranse’s property and they were approved for a B & B and all of a sudden they had special events there with weddings with hundreds of people and bands and PA systems all going to 1-2a.m.. It was unbelievable how loud it was. You really have to look at these things like full blown commercial operations.

 

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

 

As there was no further business, Chairman Baden adjourned the meeting at 8:00PM.
Respectfully submitted,
                                                        
Rebecca Paddock Stange, Secretary       
                                                        As approved 9/11/12