Planning Board Minutes June 2012

MINUTES OF June 12, 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

Robert Rominger, Vice Chairman

Fred O’Donnell

Anthony Ullman

Shane Ricks

Adam S. Paddock Melvyn I. Tapper

Also present:

Town Attorney, Mary Lou Christiana. Secretary, Rebecca Paddock Stange. In the Audience was Robert Case, Alternate.

ANNOUNCEMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS

Pen Ulster Realty has withdrawn their application for Subdivision approval. The public hearing is closed due to this withdrawal.
T-Mobile has completed Site Plan conditions for all 3 approved applications and Chair has signed the plans.
Saunderskill Farms (Schoonmaker) has completed Site Plan conditions and Chair has signed the plans.

TRAININGS

Hudson River Watershed Alliance – June 14 8am – 9:30am, New Paltz Diner

Water Plans! Mid-Hudson Regional Sustainability Development Study

Center for Research, Regional Education and Outreach – June 15 8am – 2pm, SUNY New Paltz

“Is There a Hudson Valley Regional Agenda?”

ACTION ON MINUTES

Mr. Rominger motioned to approve the April 10, 2012 Minutes. Seconded by Mr. O’Donnell. No discussion.

Vote:

Baden: Yes Tapper: Abstain

O’Donnell: Yes Rominger: Yes

Ullman: Yes Ricks: Yes

Paddock: Yes

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

Mr. O’Donnell motioned to approve the May 8, 2012 Minutes. Seconded by Mr. Rominger. No discussion.

Vote:

Baden: Yes Tapper: Abstain

O’Donnell: Yes Rominger: Yes

Ullman: Yes Ricks: Yes

Paddock: Yes

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

PUBLIC HEARING

Pursuant to Article 23 Title 27 of the NYS Environmental Conservation Law and the Town of Rochester Zoning Code §140-28

Mombaccus Excavating, Inc., Notice of Completed Mined Land Reclamation Permit

(#3-5144-00239/000001) from the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation, Region 3; for the creation of a 9.5 acre consolidated bluestone mine and access road with stone removed from the site to be transported by truck to the permitted and operating Mombaccus mine located off Rochester Center Road for processing, sale, and export, located off Amanda Drive, Tax Map#67.00-4-11, AR-3 zoning district

Chairman Baden noted that the Town has received notice from the NYS DEC of a completed Mined Land Reclamation Permit. It is by Mombaccus Excavating for a blue stone shale mine on Amanda Drive. This was an application that the Planning Board had discussion on back in 2008. It has been going through the process and is now completed. The Board is holding this Public Hearing to gather comments to send them back to the DEC because there is a 30 day comment period that closes June 15, 2012. We will gather any comments that anyone makes tonight and send a summary of those comments to the DEC and if anyone has written comments that they supply, the Board will forward those on. He wanted to be really clear- there is no local application on this project at this time. He has confirmed that with the Code Enforcement Officer. This Public Hearing is strictly for the Town to gather comments and send back to the DEC. The Supervisor had already sent some comments back. Having said that the Chairman called the Public Hearing open at 7:05PM.

A member of the public questioned what the Supervisor’s comments were.

Chairman Baden noted that it was a 7 page letter and it was public information. His comment- first and foremost- one of the things the DEC asked was if this was allowed under local zoning. Because an application has not been received, there has been no determination of that, but the property is in the AR-3 Zoning District and under the Town’s Zoning Code, mining of the scale that requires a DEC permit is not allowed in that Zoning District. But again, they don’t have a determination yet. So really he made the DEC aware of that. He commented a little about traffic issues over the local roadways because what is proposed is that the material will be transported to the Mombaccus Mine on Rochester Center Road for Processing. So they made some comments about that. There were comments about potential dust issues. The hours of operation- the Town commented, but only to agree with what the DEC was requiring, which was no mining on weekends and National Holidays.

Mr. Ullman thought that they said that they just gave the permitted hours during the week—they didn’t say ‘no mining on weekends’- it just wasn’t proposed for weekends.

PUBLIC HEARING

Pursuant to Article 23 Title 27 of the NYS Environmental Conservation Law and the Town of Rochester Zoning Code §140-28

Mombaccus Excavating, Inc (CONT’D). Notice of Completed Mined Land Reclamation Permit

Chairman Baden noted that Mr. Ullman was correct. The DEC was basically stating the applicant’s proposed hours.

Town Attorney Christiana noted that what the Supervisor did was to ask to please take that and make it a condition so that there would be no mining on weekends.

Chairman Baden noted that they also talked about making a barrier to restrict unauthorized access at the end of Amanda Drive. There were some comments on the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan- a few technical comments on that. And mined site structures- just making the DEC aware that if a building was proposed as part of this that it would need a building permit. (A building was not proposed thus far). A noise study was prepared by the applicant and the Town requested that a monitoring schedule be established for the confirmation of the actual noise once it was in operation. Those were the comments.

A member of the public questioned if there was any timing associated with this application?

Chairman Baden noted that in terms of the length of it- it has been proposed indefinite. A DEC mining permit is good for 3 years. They would have to renew every 3 years, but a renewal is a much simpler process than getting a new permit. Essentially the Town has submitted these comments and the DEC can not legally enforce local zoning regulations. They have to process this application because they have received it and it is deemed complete by New York State Law. So they are processing it and submitting it to the Town for comments.

Larry Godfried was recognized to speak. He was confused and questioned if Mombaccus Excavating was applying to open a blue stone mining operation on Amanda Drive?

Chairman Baden noted that they have never applied to the Town, this application is with the DEC. All mining that exceeds (he believes) 10,000 cubic yards a year of excavation requires a permit from the DEC. This application is in front of the DEC. Under NY State Law the DEC is obligated to notify the Town where the permit is being proposed and the Town has the 30 days to issue comments back and that is what they are doing now. There is no local permit application in front of the Town and there has been no determination by the Code Enforcement Officer and there is no application in front of the Planning Board right now. Without that they can’t make any determination of whether it’s allowed or not allowed.

Mr. Godfried questioned if they were positioning themselves to open a mine.

Chairman Baden noted that it appears to look like what their attempt is, but they would eventually need to apply to the Town for a permit and then it would go through the Town’s process.

Mr. Godfried understood this and noted that they just haven’t made that application yet. It sounds like its imminent though, as they made this permit several years ago.

PUBLIC HEARING

Pursuant to Article 23 Title 27 of the NYS Environmental Conservation Law and the Town of Rochester Zoning Code §140-28

Mombaccus Excavating, Inc (CONT’D). Notice of Completed Mined Land Reclamation Permit

Chairman Baden noted that they applied for this permit in 2008 and then it sat dormant for a while and they have recently continued. It was deemed incomplete by the DEC, but an incomplete application never really goes away totally and they picked up what was deemed incomplete and now the DEC has determined that this was a completed application.

Mr. Ullman questioned what would be needed at the Town level?

Chairman Baden noted that they would need to fill out a Zoning Permit with the Code Enforcement Officer and he would review what they were doing and then he would make his determination. Currently, mining of that scale is not permitted in that District.

Mr. Ullman questioned if it was exempt from Site Plan Review?

Chairman Baden answered no, but it wasn’t allowed in that Zoning District.

Mr. Ullman understood this.

Mr. Ricks had a question that since 2008-09 when their permit was in front of the DEC, it was deemed incomplete and sat their idle- was there recently work added to that permit to get it to this point by Mombaccus?

Chairman Baden answered yes. They have done the traffic study and submitted additional documents. Some are dated 2011, some are dated 2012- so within the last couple of years.

Mr. Ricks questioned if this was within the latest lawsuit or not? This doesn’t make sense.

Chairman Baden noted that this was after the original decision and before the second.

Steven Fornal was recognized to speak. He noted that 140-20(b)(5)(e) asks the question if it’s allowed. Since they are having a Public Hearing it would seem that they would make the determination that it wasn’t allowed.

Chairman Baden noted that the Supervisor has already relayed that it is his and the Town’s interpretation of the law that it would not be allowed, but he did not want to go that far without a Zoning Permit application from the Code Enforcement Officer, because it is the Code Enforcement Officer’s decision to determine what procedure a Zoning Permit has to follow. The implication is that it would not be allowed, but they didn’t want to go so far as to say it’s definitely not allowed because they don’t have an application.

Mr. Ullman noted that it was a little stronger than that. In the first sentence of the Supervisor’s letter it says “first and foremost we offer the opinion this is not a legally allowable use under the current local Zoning Code…” So it’s a little more than what the Chairman has been implying.

Chairman Baden agreed.

PUBLIC HEARING

Pursuant to Article 23 Title 27 of the NYS Environmental Conservation Law and the Town of Rochester Zoning Code §140-28

Mombaccus Excavating, Inc (CONT’D). Notice of Completed Mined Land Reclamation Permit

Mr. Fornal questioned when they come to a conclusion- what will that be.

Chairman Baden noted that it was the Code Enforcement Officer’s conclusion. Its not the Board’s to come up with. Unless he hears any other significant comments he was going to say that the Planning Board concurs with the Supervisor’s letter. Unless they have any additional information to add, there is no point in saying the same thing that the Supervisor said a week ago. They will follow up and let them know that the Board held this Public Hearing and that they received some questions and comments from the public and essentially say that they concur with the Supervisor’s letter.

Barbara Fornal was recognized to speak. She was going to go a little further. She concurs with Mr. Ricks’ concerns that this just doesn’t make sense that Mombaccus Excavating knows that that law states that and they still are going and proceeding to the tune of costing this Town and the tax payers how many thousands of dollars to fight that lawsuit. Basically she was going to be a little rude here and say that they want to be a prick- to think that they know that this law states exactly that and they are proceeding to go shows you their character.

Chairman Baden noted that the Supervisor did put in his letter that Mombaccus should be aware that it isn’t an allowed use because they were involved with the Town in a lawsuit over the current Zoning Law.

At 7:20PM Mr. Rominger motioned to close the Public Hearing. 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, 0 abstention

Chairman Baden asked if the Board wanted to have an internal discussion to add of their own? Basically he noted that they have read the letter, he knows the public hasn’t, but what they heard was questions and he will write a summary of how many members spoke and that there were questions, otherwise the majority of it has been answered already by the Supervisor’s letter so he didn’t’ want say again what has already been said.

Mr. Ricks noted that once you read through the letter- and he figured that Chairman Baden and the Supervisor did this letter together it looks like it covers everything.

Mr. Ullman questioned if the Chairman went back and compared with the letter that the Board originally wrote in 2008? Was there anything that wasn’t covered?

PUBLIC HEARING

Pursuant to Article 23 Title 27 of the NYS Environmental Conservation Law and the Town of Rochester Zoning Code §140-28

Mombaccus Excavating, Inc (CONT’D). Notice of Completed Mined Land Reclamation Permit

Chairman Baden noted that some of it is word for word. When the Board was seeking Lead Agency there were some things that were decided in that process that weren’t brought up again because they were decided. The Town’s biggest issue is the traffic on the local roads and the transport of 40 trailers a day. He did read in their traffic report that the applicant did agree to go down to dump trucks and not trailers to help alleviate that and the DEC is taking that into consideration. Until the actual permit comes out they don’t’ know if that will be an actual condition or not.

2012-04SBD New Application

SCHOONMAKER FAMILY TRUST c/o Beverly Schoonmaker and Steven Schoonmaker, for Lot Improvement, Mettacahonts Rd., Tax Map #68.4-2-2.1 and #68.4-2-1, ‘R-2’ and ‘R-5’ zoning districts.

Mrs. Schoonmaker and her son, Mr. Schoonmaker were present on behalf of the application.

Chairman Baden noted that this is a lot improvement and the applicants own both parcels. This is off Mettacahonts Road and it is essentially taking a net adjustment of zero. They are starting with 53.3 acres and are going to end with 53.3 acres. They are basically just taking property and shifting it. What they are doing is they are extending to where the creek is.

Mrs. Schoonmaker noted that they were adding on to the side of the house parcel and reducing the difference off of the back of the parcel so that the acreage will remain the same on the house parcel.

Chairman Baden noted that they were just taking some of the larger parcel which is currently 53.3 acres and adding it to the house parcel. Across the street is a continuation of the larger lot. They have added the required statement. And for the record Chairman Baden noted that this was a Type II Action under SEQRA and there was no SEQRA that needed to be done on this. This was under the stipulations of the Zoning Code. There is no Public Hearing on this. This was just for the Board to look at and basically certify that both parcels still meet Town Zoning Regs, which they do. The Chairman went through it already and made sure that they still had the required acreage.

Mr. Ullman motioned to approve the lot improvement. 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, 0 abstentions

2012-05SBD New Application

ARLENE BUBAR AND BRUCE AND ROGER MITCHELL- for Lot Improvement, 175 and 161 Cherrytown Rd., Tax Map #76.1-1-20.1 and #76.1-1-20.2, ‘AR-3’ zoning district.

Chairman Baden noted that this was two properties that were adjoining each other. Both parcels did go into the Town of Wawarsing, but the part they are moving is only in the Town of Rochester. There is a note on file from Arlene Bubar that she is authorizing Bruce Mitchell to act on her behalf. They are shifting a square area from Mitchell and both will continue to have more than enough acreage and lot frontage it was just changing that portion indicated on the map. The acreage changing is conveying 2.04 acres of open field from Mitchell to the neighboring parcel. Chairman Baden made sure the required language was correctly placed on the map. It was.

Mr. Ricks motioned to approve the lot line improvement. 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, 0 abstentions

RE-APPLICATION

12-07SBD

VERNA GILLIS– Lot Improvement, GLF Road, Tax Map #77.9-1-24.100, ‘H’ Zoning District

Chairman Baden noted that

Chairman Baden noted that this application was before the Board in October of 2011. The applicant did not file the map in the required amount of time, so they needed to start over again. Currently the lot line from the Accord Train Station property runs through the Accord Post Office parking lot. This lot line improvement makes the parking for the Post Office much better.

Mr. O’Donnell motioned to approve this lot line adjustment. Seconded by Mr. Paddock. 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, 0 abstentions

At 7:30 Chairman Baden called for a short recess to sign the maps for Mr. Mitchell as he needed the maps for the next day for his closing.

At 7:35 Chairman Baden brought the Board back from recess.

2012-07SPA New Application

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.

Mrs. Smith was present on behalf of her application.

Chairman Baden noted that this application was before the Board in May 2012 for a Pre-application Conference. There were two maps submitted for this. One was a detailed map and the other was a survey showing the boundaries. The applicant added the notes that the Board had asked for at the last meeting.

Mrs. Smith noted that she depicted on the map where parking will be- it is existing and it is gravel and it can actually serve 4 cars. Immediately in front of that the section that is marked off in orange is the garage which currently has parking for 2 cars, so she is exceeding the amount of parking needed- which is 4. They can be parked in a variety of ways, she just put it this way as she thought it was the most straightforward and the least obstructive of the garage. She shows a walkway from that parking area that goes to the door up to the room on the second floor above the garage. It’s about 500sf with a bathroom- all existing. The second area is in the house which is the larger of the two buildings. There is a wing- this isn’t a completely accurate drawing in that the wing actually is more delineated and she showed the indentation as it actually exists. She has shown the walkway drawn in blue. The walkway off of the driveway leads up to that and one step up you go into a hallway and you are in a large area containing one bedroom and one bathroom. The existing septic clean out shown- shows that the driveway goes over the clean out- it is not physically located as it is on the plans. It is about 20’ from there in the grass. Everything exists. This was all done to code. This building was finished in 2003. Jerry Davis was just coming in as CEO at that point. In her description, she doesn’t see that there are any changes that she needs to make in order to make this function because she is not having special events. She is not going to be cooking for the guests.

The bedrooms and bathrooms are already existing, so the Chairman didn’t think there was a change in Health Dept. The Board could send notice to this to the Health Dept, but there may not be anything for them to follow up on. The Board had discussed last meeting about having a sign. The applicant decided that she is just going to go with the house marking number, not any sign advertising it. She wants to downplay it and the Chairman didn’t see any problem with that unless any of the Board members did.

Mrs. Smith noted that she was happy to do it if the Board thought that is was a better idea; she just found with GPS and phones these days that most people can find out where they are.

Mr. Ullman felt it was a business decision for the applicant to make.

Mrs. Smith noted that she didn’t feel the need to advertise. This was sort of a low key thing. She didn’t feel like it was necessary and she was trying to keep it simple.

Mr. Tapper questioned what was going to be served to the guests if she wasn’t going to cook?

Mrs. Smith noted that she would be providing them with something that has already been prepared that she has purchased for them that will be in the room for them.

2012-07SPA New Application

G. STERRETT SMITH (cont’d)- 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.

Chairman Baden motioned to classify this as an Unlisted Action with an Uncoordinated Review for the purposes of SEQRA. Seconded by Mr. Rominger. 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, 0 abstentions

Mr. Rominger motioned to schedule this application for Public Hearing July 10, 2012 and for the Secretary to circulate notice. 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, 0 abstentions

Mr. Paddock motioned to refer this application to the Ulster County Planning Board as it was located in the County Ag. District. Seconded by Mr. Tapper. 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, 0 abstentions

2012-06SUP Continued Application

MARK SUSZCYNSKI & KIMBERLY WEEKS– aka Elm Rock Inn, for Special Use Permit, for a change of use from a residential use (Bed and Breakfast) to a commercial use (hotel) to include interior catering and restaurant facilities, construction of a 32’ x 80’ barn for use in holding special events, and an increase in parking area from 15 to 32 spaces with overflow parking area (parking will be located in Town of Marbletown), 4496 Route 209, Tax Map #69.4-2-1.32, ‘B’ and ‘FD Overlay’ zoning districts. The parcel also includes land located in the Town of Marbletown, 4494 Route 209, Tax Map #69.4-1-1.2.

Chairman Baden noted that the applicants were not here tonight. The Secretary received a phone call today from an engineer that was recently hired by the applicants and he noted that he just received all of the paperwork and asked to be taken off of the agenda tonight. Chairman Baden noted that the engineer and himself would most likely sit down together within the next month to get him up to speed on where the Board stands and all of the issues surrounding this project. The good news is that they now have an engineer on board and the applicant isn’t trying to do this himself anymore.

2012-06SUP Continued Application

MARK SUSZCYNSKI & KIMBERLY WEEKS (cont’d)– aka Elm Rock Inn, for Special Use Permit, for a change of use from a residential use (Bed and Breakfast) to a commercial use (hotel) to include interior catering and restaurant facilities, construction of a 32’ x 80’ barn for use in holding special events, and an increase in parking area from 15 to 32 spaces with overflow parking area (parking will be located in Town of Marbletown), 4496 Route 209, Tax Map #69.4-2-1.32, ‘B’ and ‘FD Overlay’ zoning districts. The parcel also includes land located in the Town of Marbletown, 4494 Route 209, Tax Map #69.4-1-1.2.

Chairman Baden motioned to declare the Town of Rochester Planning Board as the Lead Agency and this application is classified as a Type 1 Action for the purposes of SEQRA Review. Seconded by Mr. O’Donnell.

Discussion: The Chairman noted the Board has heard back from every agency except the NYS DEC, but the 30 day time frame has passed, so that’s okay. It’s a Type 1 because it is an historic structure.

Vote:

Baden: Yes Tapper: Yes

O’Donnell: Yes Rominger: Yes

Ullman: Yes Ricks: Yes

Paddock: Yes

Motion carried. 7 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent, 0 abstentions

Chairman Baden noted that Marbletown replied. The Chairman wasn’t sure if it was the Planning Board or the ZBA that reviewed these types of applications and it turns out that both of the Town of Marbletown Planning Board (TMPB) and ZBA’s (TMZBA) have something to do with this application. The TMPB has to review signage and the TMZBA would be dealing with parking. They have submitted comments to the Board that are in all members’ files. The Chairman had the Secretary copy the Town of Marbletown’s Parking Regulations so everyone could see what their regulations were because the parking is in Marbletown. The only real difference the Chairman noticed was that Rochester requires 10’ x 20’ and Marbletown requires 9’ x 20’. They might require a few different numbers and the Chairman is going to wait and talk with the engineer and see what he comes up with for parking spaces. His plan was for the Board to try and come up with a number tonight, but he didn’t think it was worth the Board’s time in light of what was going on.

The Board agreed.

Chairman Baden noted that the NYS DOT came back with comments saying basically that they will need a driveway permit and he knew that Mr. O’Donnell had some questions because essentially right now there are 3 entrances coming out on to Route 209 now. There was a small one that was used for service and there were 2 others that lead to the parking lot. The Chairman would suspect that the DOT would make them close at least one of those entrances. He was hoping it was the one that was actually in Rochester, only because that’s the one where that really bad turn was and it has terrible site distance. The DOT commented back that they would need a permit and the Secretary forwarded it on to the applicant that they should talk to the DOT. The Health Dept. had questions about what permits would be needed and those comments were also forwarded onto the applicant. There was a bit of discussion with the applicant and he may not do the barn now, he may just plan on using a tent, but it would still have the use of events, but the Board wouldn’t have a structure to deal with in terms of the historic aspect of the project. Surprisingly the OPRHP returned a comment letter and had no issues. The Chairman was very surprised to get that letter.

Mr. Ullman questioned if they were abandoning the idea of the barn or was it going to be like a phase 2 or something? He didn’t want to run into the same issues the Board has had in the past with an unclear application.

2012-06SUP Continued Application

Chairman Baden agreed and noted that in their approval they would be very clear with that in the approval that any changes would need to be re-referred and re-reviewed by the Planning Board. He thinks they just sort of looked at the cost of building a barn and how many times they would really use it and they decided that a tent was really the better way to go. That was his suspicion.

Mr. Rominger recalled that the applicant wasn’t actually going to construct the barn until the business was taking off. He could always come back.

Chairman Baden noted that the DEC didn’t send back any comments, but the parcel has flood plains and wetland issues and eventually they will have to address those. For sure his engineer will know how to address those. The wetland and flood plains were in the corner of the property. The applicant wasn’t proposing any changes in those areas right now, so really there was no issue other than notifying the DEC that this was happening in an area that has wetlands. The Board also received a letter from the Town’s Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) offering to meet with the applicant regarding the construction of the barn, but they would wait to see if there was a barn now. That’s where that stands. He just wanted to keep the Board in the loop of where it stood, so when it does come back they don’t forget all about it.

2012-06SBD New Application

GARY HUME AND RUTH LYPKA– c/o Medenbach & Eggers, for Lot Improvement, Hill Rd. and Queens Hwy., Tax Map #60.3-3-56.11 and #68.1-2-5.100, ‘R-2’ and ‘R-5’ zoning districts.

Chairman Baden noted that they were waiting for Bill Eggers, land surveyor who had told the Secretary that he would be running late, but Mr. Eggers was still not in attendance. The Chairman noted that the Board could do this without his attendance as it was a simple lot line adjustment. He noted that Mr. Eggers submitted a reduced version of the map today with corrections on it. This was for 2 properties that were end to end between Hill Road and Queens Hwy. The one that is boot shaped is owned by Lypka. The Board did a lot improvement on the front part of this parcel last year. The other one in the back is owned by Hume. What they are proposing is to take 10 acres off of Lypka’s property and add it to Hume’s lot in the back. There are some wetlands there, but its 10 acres of property and its in the R-2 and R-5 Districts. This is really a non issue- it’s a 27 acre property and a 100+ acre property that they were taking 10 acres from the 100+ acre property and adding it on to the 27 acre property. The required language was on the plan.

Mr. Rominger motioned to approve the lot line adjustment. 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, 0 abstentions

OTHER MATTERS:

LOCAL LAW #2 OF 2012

Chairman Baden noted that the Board talked briefly about this at their May meeting but they didn’t have the actual copy of the local law in their hands yet. The Secretary emailed it to everyone and Mr. Ullman submitted some comments- it was more procedural- and the Chairman and the Town Board really appreciated it.

Mr. Ullman noted that the definition could just be made in lower case and then they wouldn’t have to change the rest- it would probably be simplest.

Chairman Baden noted that the Town Board did hold the Public Hearing last Thursday and about 65 people showed up and about 20 spoke. There were some repeat speakers. No one spoke against it. Everyone spoke in favor of it. People spoke that it didn’t go far enough, but a lot of people would like the Town to do a local law in the perspective that this was a violation of their civil rights. He didn’t know what the Town Board’s feeling was.

Mr. Ullman didn’t understand how people think this is a violation of their civil rights.

Chairman Baden noted that a number of people in the public didn’t think that this anti-fracking law went far enough and that a second law or an addition to this was necessary speaking about civil rights.

Mr. Ullman was still confused.

Town Attorney Christiana noted that they were bringing this issue to every town.

Chairman Baden noted that they are saying that it should be included in the law that the action is a violation of their civil rights. He just wanted to bring it to the Board’s attention because it was discussed by more than several people.

Town Attorney Christiana noted that there was sort of a coalition out there.

Chairman Baden questioned if the PB wanted to issue any formal comment on it? They could choose not to. The one thing he wanted to say was that this was banning the use- its like the mining in that the Town couldn’t ban the process of how it happens, but they could totally ban the use and that’s what they are choosing to do with this local law. The DEC would control the permitting process and the process on how the action actually happens, just like they do on mining. The DEC is still reviewing that right now. Right now no permits are being issued in the State until that’s resolved.

Mr. Tapper questioned what would happen if they did start issuing it? He knew that Gov. Cuomo was kind of in favor of it, so he assumed that the DEC is going to be, not necessarily in favor of it, but eventually they will be possibly issuing permits, so where does that leave the Town?

Chairman Baden believed that if the Town banned it, it would be treated just like mining, the Town has the ability to say no, we don’t want it at all.

Mr. Tapper noted that it was almost the same thing with cell antennas.

Chairman Baden noted that cell antennas were different because that was a Federal Law.

Mr. Tapper understood this, and questioned if a Federal Law came out and allowed fracking…

LOCAL LAW #2 OF 2012(cont’d)

Chairman Baden noted that would be another story- right now it was in the hands of the State. The permitting process is in the hands of the DEC and that’s where it all stands. The Public Hearing is continued at the July Town Board meeting, so if anyone wanted to issue individual comments, feel free.

Mr. Ricks thought that everyone on this Board probably had a different opinion on it.

Chairman Baden agreed and left it at if anyone wanted to issue comments on their own to please do.

Mr. Rominger didn’t think it was the PB’s role to issue comments.

Chairman Baden noted that it technically was their role as any land use law had to be referred to the PB and the PB has to have the opportunity to comment- it doesn’t say they have to comment.

Mr. Rominger agreed with Mr. Rick’s statement about differing opinions.

Chairman Baden noted that it was referred to the County Planning Board who came back with one comment. There is a section in there on invalidity of permits. That was overturned by a Court Decision that already happened with the exact same language because basically the Court said that the Town has no right to declare a State Permit invalid.

Mr. Ricks noted that this new law actually outlaws all types of natural gas drilling and exploration. That’s what he got out of reading it and he told the Supervisor that he related to this law as passing a DWI law and then outlawing people from driving and liquor stores without really solving the problem.

Chairman Baden noted that then you are defining the process and the Town can’t define the process- the Town can only regulate whether it’s allowed or not allowed.

Mr. Ricks believed that in the future with technology they would figure out how to do it cleanly.

Chairman Baden noted that then this local law could be changed and the Town Board discussed that this could easily be changed later. He noted that he helped write the language in the law and it was a combination of two other local laws from two other towns that have already survived the first round of lawsuits.

Mr. Ricks questioned if towns in Pennsylvania ever go this route?

Chairman Baden didn’t know the answer to that.

ZONING/SUBDIVISION CODE UPDATE

Chairman Baden mentioned to everyone last month that this was in the process. The PB Secretary, the CEO Secretary, and the Code Enforcement Officer, and the Chairman of the PB all met for about 4 months and a proposal was presented to the Town Board at the May Audit Meeting and its now in their hands. He was certain he would be meeting with them at some point to go over it all. If anyone wanted a copy, he would be happy to email it. If they proceed with this, the PB would get an official referral and at that point everyone would get a copy. It is primarily a clean up. Its dealing with things that they just didn’t get right. When you write 150 pages of law, you are going to get some mistakes, so they are fixing them now. They added new uses that the CEO asked for as he’s getting questions on them now.

Mr. Ricks questioned if anything was done on fitness clubs?

ZONING/SUBDIVISION CODE UPDATE (cont’d)

Mr. Ullman questioned if overnight guests were addressed?

Chairman Baden noted that they did. Spas are for day use only, but they did allow other products to be sold out of the fitness clubs as oils and creams. If they wanted to open a little snack bar, they could. They clarified that it was for day use only.

Mr. Ullman questioned if there was anything done relative to the membership issue?

Chairman Baden noted that a new use that would come in would be treated differently than that. That one was a membership club and was a non-conforming use. That was a one shot issue that should never rear its head again.

FELDMAN LITIGATION (BODY OF TRUTH)-

Town Attorney Christiana noted that the papers will be delivered to the appellate division tomorrow and they will argue this sometime in September. Actually the only thing that is being argued at this point is the judge granting a motion to dismiss. So, if the appellate division agrees with that, then fine, its over- if the appellate disagrees, it doesn’t mean the Town lost, it means it goes back down to supreme court for them to decide the issues.

Mr. Tapper questioned if there was a stay attached to this?

Town Attorney Christiana noted that there was not.

Chairman Baden noted they were applying to the IDA and he just received communication from the IDA asking questions about the approval from the PB. They anticipated that.

MAPS IN PDF FORM

Chairman Baden questioned how the Board felt about requiring maps in a PDF format – preliminary maps- obviously the final maps would need to be paper copy- how would the Board feel about that? They could distribute to everyone ahead of time online- they could look at it on a screen. They could use the Town’s projector. Some people are starting to give it to the Board in PDF format.

The Board Members agreed that they would want hard copies because they make notes on them and it’s easier to see.

Mr. O’Donnell motioned to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Mr. Ullman. No discussion.

As there was no further business, Chairman Baden adjourned the meeting at 8:10PM.

Respectfully submitted,

Rebecca Paddock Stange, Secretary

As approved July 10, 2012