Planning Board Minutes May 2012

MINUTES OF May 8, 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 Melvyn I. Tapper Robert Rominger, Vice Chairman Adam S. Paddock Fred O’Donnell

Anthony Ullman

Shane Ricks

Also present:

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

ANNOUNCEMENTS

ANNOUNCEMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS

Chairman Baden noted that Cliff Mallery from the ZBA was appointed by the County Legislature to the Ulster County Planning Board as the Town’s Alternate as of April 2012.
Chairman Baden was appointed to the Executive Committee on the County Planning Board as of May 2012.
There was an email in everyone’s file from Jason Broome regarding the Telecommunications Facilities thanking the Board for their work.
Vinci Farms has received their Certificate of Occupancy in April from the Code Enforcement Office.
Briley/ Mattox Subdivision that was approved in April has been given Final Approval as they made the revisions and met all of their conditions.
Trainings: Omelet Series- May 10^th at the New Paltz Diner
UCPB is planning a training for the 2^nd week of June

ACTION ON MINUTES

Mr. Ricks motioned to approve the March 13, 2012 Minutes. Seconded by Mr. O’Donnell. No discussion.

Vote:

Baden: Yes Tapper: Absent

O’Donnell: Yes Rominger: Yes

Ullman: Yes Ricks: Yes

Paddock: Absent

Motion carried. 5 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, 0 abstention

The April 10, 2012 Regular Meeting Minutes were tabled until the next meeting as they were not yet complete.

2012-04SPA Continued Application, SEQRA Review, Public Hearing

T-Mobile Northeast LLC- applicant, for American Tower Corp and Town of Rochester, property owners, for Site Plan review, for the installation of 3 panel antennas and equipment to be co-located on an existing 150-foot monopole wireless communication facility and installation of associated equipment within an existing fenced compound, 6140 Route 209, Tax Map #76.1-3-17, ‘AR-3’ zoning district.

Adam Moss, Esq. was present on behalf of the application.

Chairman Baden noted that this is application has been Typed as Unlisted with an Uncoordinated Review. They will do the SEQRA before they open the Public Hearing. There have been no new submissions. Everything has been submitted with the original application. Structural report, FAA certification, FCC licensing, Visual EAF, Radio frequency coverage affidavit and report, and RF compliance report. The Board did also receive UCPB comments of ‘No County Impacts’ on May 8. Clark Patterson Lee also issued comments dated May 3, 2012. They reviewed the structural certifications and the RF compliance and conclude that those documents adequately satisfy any concerns related to those items.

At this time the Board reviewed the Visual EAF Addendum. The applicant submitted a draft that they supplied. Chairman Baden sat down with a topographic map and went through and prepared his own draft for the Board to review.

The 1^st two areas of where the project will be visible from, Chairman Baden agreed with the applicant that it fell into the ½ to 3 mile range.

The applicant did not check off anything in the structure listed on the structure listed on the National or State Registers of Historic Places? It should have been 1/4 – ½ mile checked off.

They agreed on the State Parks and the State forest preserve. They had 5 miles and Chairman Baden calculated ½ to 3 miles—that’s the Catskill Park.

The next 4 items- the National Wildlife Refuges and State Game Refuges, Natural Landmarks or outstanding natural features- we don’t have any in our Town so they don’t apply.

Any transportation corridor of high exposure, such as part of the Interstate System, or Amtrak? Route 209 fits that category so that would be 0- 1/4 miles was checked.

A governmentally established or designated interstate or inter-county foot trail or one formally proposed for establishment or designation? (rail trail) ¼ – ½ miles.

A site, area, lake, reservoir or highway designated as scenic? Scenic Byway has an official NYS designated. 0-1/4 miles.

Municipal park or designated open space? ¼-1/2 miles.

County road? 0 – 1/4 miles.

State road? 0-1/4 miles

Local road? 0- ¼ mile

Those were the changes that were made to what was submitted by the applicant. They weren’t significant changes.

2012-04SPA Continued Application, SEQRA Review, Public Hearing

T-Mobile Northeast LLC(cont’d)- applicant, for American Tower Corp and Town of Rochester, property owners, for Site Plan review, for the installation of 3 panel antennas and equipment to be co-located on an existing 150-foot monopole wireless communication facility and installation of associated equipment within an existing fenced compound, 6140 Route 209, Tax Map #76.1-3-17, ‘AR-3’ zoning district.

Questions 2 and 3 were both agreed upon. #4 for the ¼ mile designation he checked forested because there are some parts that are still forested and agricultural is right across the road. Suburban residential- there are a significant amount of homes dotted throughout that area. Industrial area- the Old Mine Road property just across Samsonville is actually in the Town’s ‘I’ District. Commercial- that whole stretch of Route 209- there is Suburban Propane, Provident Bank, the PX Mart and Rainbow Diner. In terms of 1 mile- River, Lake, or Pond- the Chairman extended that to include the Rondout Creek. Hilly- he checked and he didn’t really think that it fit any of the other categories. #5 the visually similar projects- you go two miles before you get to the nearest cell tower, which are both the City Hall Road and Airport Road towers. #6 & #7- The Chairman took the applicant’s vehicle traffic count, which he was certain that they did the research on, he did not verify it, but he was certain that it was correct. In terms of #7 you would have daily sightings from any of those. Those were the changes that he made and he felt that it was important to be reviewed just because of the visual aspects of it.

Mr. Rominger accepted the Visual EAF with the Amendment as read at tonight’s meeting. Seconded by Mr. Ricks. Mr. Ricks did question #6- Annual number of viewers. He didn’t think that anyone would see that tower.

Chairman Baden noted that if you looked for it, you could find it.

Mr. Ullman noted that the visual impact was actually lower if you looked at this as the application being the antennas and not the actual tower. In that case all of this would probably be zero.

Chairman Baden noted that the antennas were going about 20’ from the top of the tower which was still above the tree line.

Mr. Moss noted that this was also a lot less antennas than what each of the other carriers have. He believed that the other carriers had about 12 antennas up there and they are only proposing 3.

Vote:

Baden: Yes Tapper: Absent

O’Donnell: Yes Rominger: Yes

Ullman: Yes Ricks: Yes

Paddock: Absent

Motion carried. 5 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, 0 abstention

At this time the Board went over a draft of Part 2 of the EAF as follows:

C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, archaeological, historic, or other natural or cultural resources; or community or neighborhood character? Explain briefly:

Yes. This antenna addition will change the profile of the existing tower facility, however it will not raise the height of the tower. Listed as a ‘potential small impact’.

All other items were checked as ‘no’.

2012-04SPA Continued Application, SEQRA Review, Public Hearing

Mr. O’Donnell motioned for a Negative Declaration under SEQRA. Seconded by Mr. Ullman. No discussion.

Baden: Yes Tapper: Absent

O’Donnell: Yes Rominger: Yes

Ullman: Yes Ricks: Yes

Paddock: Absent

Motion carried. 5 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, 0 abstention

At 7:20PM the Public Hearing was opened.

As there was no public comment, Mr. O’Donnell motioned to close the public hearing at 7:20PM. Seconded by Mr. Ullman. No discussion.

Vote:

Baden: Yes Tapper: Absent

O’Donnell: Yes Rominger: Yes

Ullman: Yes Ricks: Yes

Paddock: Absent

Motion carried. 5 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, 0 abstention

At this time the Board went over the Draft Decision as prepared by Chairman Baden.

Draft Findings:

Findings of the Planning Board:

The application was determined to require Site Plan review by the Code Enforcement Officer on 3/24/2012 and was referred to the Planning Board for review.
The parcel location is 6140 US Route 209 and is identified as S/B/L# 76.1-3-17.
The parcel is located in the ‘AR-3’ zoning district.

The parcel is +/- 67.3 acres.

The parcel is owned by the Town of Rochester.
American Tower is the current facility owner.
The parcel current use is for the operation of a 150 foot monopole telecommunications tower hosting two providers of wireless service and a 3000 sq. ft. fenced, enclosed area housing the related accessory communications cabinets. There are two sets of antennas located at approximately +/- 146 feet and +/- 136 feet in height.
This telecommunications facility was granted approval via a Special Use Permit and Site Plan approval by the Town of Rochester Planning Board with decision 2007-06SPA/SUP.
An access drive exists with an easement granted to the facility owner for the use of such drive.
The parcel use is as a sand mine operation for the Town of Rochester.
The surrounding land use is a mixture of residential, commercial, agricultural, and vacant land.

The parcel is mostly cleared land but the facility location is surrounded by a heavily wooded area

The applicant submitted a Visual EAF form. The Planning Board conducted an analysis of this form and issued its own findings on 5/08/2012.
The applicant proposes an expansion of the telecommunications facility to include the installation of a three antenna array to be located at a height of +/- 126 feet on the tower and the use area within the 3000 sq. ft. fenced enclosure to house the accessory communications equipment, located on a 160 sq. ft. concrete pad. The proposed antenna array is smaller in size compared to the existing antenna.
There are no other changes proposed to the site.

2012-04SPA Continued Application, SEQRA Review, Public Hearing

The applicant has prepared a Site Plan detailing the location of the existing and proposed structures and infrastructure within the parcel and illustrating the equipment to be co-located in significant detail.
The proposal meets the minimum development standards of Town of Rochester Code Chapter 140, Zoning.

The telecommunications industry is considered a public utility and the federal government retains significant regulatory powers which override Home Rule authority of local government.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is the federal regulatory authority of the industry.

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 mandates State or local government “shall not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services” and “shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services “. It further states “No State or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the Commission’s regulations concerning such emissions.”

The Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 mandates “a State or local government may not deny, and shall approve, any eligible facilities request for a modification of an existing wireless tower or base station that does not substantially change the physical dimensions of such tower or base station.”

The proposed structure exterior will be conditioned to require the antenna to resemble the existing antenna and equipment.

The applicant has submitted a structural report of the existing tower.

The applicant has submitted reports certifying the tower radio frequency emissions will be significantly less than the FCC maximum allowable standards.

The applicant has submitted FCC licensing information.

The applicant has submitted Federal Aviation Authority certification for the tower.

The Town planning consultant Clark Patterson Lee has reviewed all the information presented with specific review of the technical information presented and has issued comment letters indicating no issues or concerns.

The Planning Board Chairman Baden, Vice-Chairman Rominger, and member O’Donnell visited the site on 4/10/2012.
The application was determined to require referral to the Ulster County Planning Board who issued a “No County Impact” reply.

Mr. Rominger motioned to accept the findings as listed above. Seconded by Mr. O’Donnell. No discussion.

Vote:

Baden: Yes Tapper: Absent

O’Donnell: Yes Rominger: Yes

Ullman: Yes Ricks: Yes

Paddock: Absent

Motion carried. 5 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, 0 abstention

At this time the Board reviewed the draft decision as prepared by Chairman Baden as follows:

RESOLVED,

The Town of Rochester Planning Board has reviewed the application presented pursuant to Chapter 140 of the Code of the Town of Rochester and the State Environmental Quality Review Act and grants Site Plan-Conditional Approval to T-Mobile Northeast LLC, permitting the expanded use of the telecommunications facility located on the parcel situate at 6140 US Route 209, further known as S/B/L# 76.1-3-17, and located in the ‘AR-3’ zoning district of the T/ Rochester.

The installation of the proposed three antenna array on the existing 150 foot monopole telecommunications facility and the installation of proposed associated telecommunications equipment, as detailed on the Site Plan revision dated March 22, 2012, is approved with the following conditions and the Planning Board further authorizes the Chairman to sign the referenced Site Plan indicating this approval.

2012-04SPA Continued Application, SEQRA Review, Public Hearing

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.
The facility shall maintain radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the Federal Communication Commission’s regulations concerning such emissions.
All permits which may be determined 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.
The owner shall specifically secure a Town of Rochester building permit prior to start of any construction or land disturbance. All conditions imposed in the granting of this permit shall be made a part of this approval. One copy of the permit shall be filed with the T/ Rochester Planning Board.

The Building Dept. shall require the placement and maintenance of any onsite fire safety devices which may be allowed under the New York State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code in conjunction with any structure located within the facility.

All telecommunications equipment shall be permanently located within the secure fenced area.

Their shall be no overnight parking of vehicles or storage of other equipment or materials on the site other than as may be necessary for short duration during the construction phase.

Parking shall be allowed only in the spaces designated on the approved and signed Site Plan.

The access road shall be maintained in good, safe order and remain free and clear of encumbrances year-round to allow adequate emergency access.

The antenna array shall be finished in the same color scheme and manner as the existing antennas. This shall be brown in color.

The associated telecommunications equipment cabinet shall be finished similarly to the color of the existing cabinets.

T-Mobile shall propose and establish such conditions as may be necessary and found acceptable by the Town Attorney for dismantling and removal of antennas and accessory facilities upon abandonment of use, herein defined as failure to provide services normally associated with personal wireless services for a period of one year. The Town attorney shall review such provisions. Such provisions will become effective upon Town Board approval. T-Mobile shall be responsible to reimburse the Town for the actual costs of such attorney review.

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 by the Building Dept. The Building Dept. shall additionally verify the provisions for dismantling, as noted in Condition 13, have been properly established.

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.

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 having 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.

Mr. Ricks motioned to approve the above resolution and conditions for 6140 Route 209, T-Mobile application. Seconded by Mr. O’Donnell. No discussion.

Vote:

Baden: Yes Tapper: Absent

O’Donnell: Yes Rominger: Yes

Ullman: Yes Ricks: Yes

Paddock: Absent

Motion carried. 5 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, 0 abstention

2012-05SPA Continued Application, SEQRA Review, Public Hearing

T-Mobile Northeast LLC- applicant, for American Tower Corp and Town of Rochester, property owners, for Site Plan review, for the installation of 3 panel antennas and equipment to be co-located on an existing 150-foot monopole wireless communication facility and installation of associated equipment within an existing fenced compound, 100 Airport Rd., Tax Map #69.3-2-37, ‘R-5’ zoning district.

Mr. Moss, Esq. was present on behalf of the application.

At 7:40PM, Mr. Rominger recused himself from the Board for this application and seated himself with the public. Mr. Case, Alternate was appointed to the Board in his place by the Chairman and joined the Board.

Chairman Baden noted that they received all of the same comments and submissions as the Route 209 application along with the same studies. County Planning Board was ‘No County Impact’ and Clark Patterson Lee’s comments were the same as the Route 209 application- they had no concerns.

At this time the Board reviewed Chairman Baden’s draft of the Visual EAF as they did on the Route 209 application.

The 1^st item, Chairman Baden agreed with the applicant.

The 2^nd item the applicant checked at 3 miles and actually there is no overlook or parcel of land dedicated to public observation that he could come up with, although from that road there is a very significant view of Mohonk. He left it blank because he didn’t know how the Board would want to consider it. The Board checked the item off as 5+

The applicant did not check off anything in the structure listed on the structure listed on the National or State Registers of Historic Places? It should have been 1/2 – 3 mile checked off.

The State Parks was ½-3 miles and the State forest preserve was 3- 5 miles.

The next 4 items- the National Wildlife Refuges and State Game Refuges, Natural Landmarks or outstanding natural features- we don’t have any in our Town so they don’t apply.

Any transportation corridor of high exposure, such as part of the Interstate System, or Amtrak? Route 209 fits that category so that would be 0- 1/4 miles was checked.

A governmentally established or designated interstate or inter-county foot trail or one formally proposed for establishment or designation? (rail trail) ½-3 miles.

A site, area, lake, reservoir or highway designated as scenic? Scenic Byway has an official NYS designated. ½ -3 miles.

Municipal park or designated open space? ½-3 miles. (Town Park)

County road? ½-3 miles.

State road? 0-1/4 miles

Local road? 0- ¼ mile

2012-05SPA Continued Application, SEQRA Review, Public Hearing

T-Mobile Northeast LLC (cont’d)- applicant, for American Tower Corp and Town of Rochester, property owners, for Site Plan review, for the installation of 3 panel antennas and equipment to be co-located on an existing 150-foot monopole wireless communication facility and installation of associated equipment within an existing fenced compound, 100 Airport Rd., Tax Map #69.3-2-37, ‘R-5’ zoning district.

They agree on question 2 & 3. Question 4 within a ¼ mile the Chairman checked forested, agricultural, suburban residential, Industrial, flat and hilly. He considered the transfer station as Industrial. There is also a Town sand mine near there. Commercial was within 1 mile. River lake or pond was within 1 mile (Rondout Creek). Visually similar projects- 2 miles away from the Route 209 tower. The exposure is the same because its Route 209 and the frequency is daily because it can be seen from Route 209.

Mr. O’Donnell motioned to accept the Visual EAF, seconded by Mr. Case. No discussion.

Vote:

Baden: Yes Tapper: Absent

O’Donnell: Yes

Ullman: Yes Ricks: Yes

Paddock: Absent Case: Yes *Alternate

Motion carried. 5 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, 0 abstention

At this time the Board went over a draft of Part 2 of the EAF as follows:

C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, archaeological, historic, or other natural or cultural resources; or community or neighborhood character? Explain briefly:

Yes. This antenna addition will change the profile of the existing tower facility, however it will not raise the height of the tower. Listed as a ‘potential small impact’.

All other items were checked as ‘no’.

Mr. O’Donnell motioned for a Negative Declaration under SEQRA. Seconded by Mr. Ullman. No discussion.

Vote:

Baden: Yes Tapper: Absent

O’Donnell: Yes

Ullman: Yes Ricks: Yes

Paddock: Absent Case: Yes *Alternate

Motion carried. 5 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, 0 abstention

At 7:45PM the Public Hearing was opened.

Robert Rominger was recognized to speak from the public and noted that as more antennas go on, the small impact becomes a bigger impact.

2012-05SPA Continued Application, SEQRA Review, Public Hearing

T-Mobile Northeast LLC (cont’d)- applicant, for American Tower Corp and Town of Rochester, property owners, for Site Plan review, for the installation of 3 panel antennas and equipment to be co-located on an existing 150-foot monopole wireless communication facility and installation of associated equipment within an existing fenced compound, 100 Airport Rd., Tax Map #69.3-2-37, ‘R-5’ zoning district.

As there was no further public comment, Mr. Ullman motioned to close the public hearing at 7:45PM. Seconded by Mr. Case. No discussion.

Vote:

Baden: Yes Tapper: Absent

O’Donnell: Yes

Ullman: Yes Ricks: Yes

Paddock: Absent Case: Yes *Alternate

Motion carried. 5 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, 0 abstention

At this time the Board went over the Draft Decision as prepared by Chairman Baden.

At this time the Board went over the Draft Decision as prepared by Chairman Baden.

Findings of the Planning Board:

The application was determined to require Site Plan review by the Code Enforcement Officer on 3/28/2012 and was referred to the Planning Board for review.
The parcel location is 100 Airport Rd. and is identified as S/B/L# 69.3-2-37.
The parcel is located in the ‘R-5’ zoning district.

The parcel is +/- 30 acres.

The parcel is owned by the Town of Rochester.
American Tower is the current facility owner.
The facility current use is for the operation of a 150 foot monopole telecommunications tower hosting two providers of wireless service and a 3000 sq. ft. fenced, enclosed area housing the related accessory communications cabinets. There are two sets of antennas located at approximately +/- 147 feet and +/- 135 feet in height.
This telecommunications facility was granted approval via a Special Use Permit and Site Plan approval by the Town of Rochester Planning Board with decision 2007-07SPA/SUP.
An access drive exists with an easement granted to the facility owner for the use of such drive.
The parcel use is as refuse transfer station operated and owned by the Town of Rochester.
The surrounding land use is a mixture of residential, agricultural, and vacant land.

The parcel is mostly cleared land but the facility location is surrounded by a heavily wooded area

The applicant submitted a Visual EAF form. The Planning Board conducted an analysis of this form and issued its own findings on 5/08/2012.
The applicant proposes an expansion of the telecommunications facility to include the installation of a three antenna array to be located at a height of +/- 125 feet on the tower and the use area within the 3000 sq. ft. fenced enclosure to house the accessory communications equipment, located on a 160 sq. ft. concrete pad. The proposed antenna array is smaller in size compared to the existing antenna.
There are no other changes proposed to the site.
The applicant has prepared a Site Plan detailing the location of the existing and proposed structures and infrastructure within the parcel and illustrating the equipment to be co-located in significant detail.
The proposal meets the minimum development standards of Town of Rochester Code Chapter 140, Zoning.

The telecommunications industry is considered a public utility and the federal government retains significant regulatory powers which override Home Rule authority of local government.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is the federal regulatory authority of the industry.

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 mandates State or local government “shall not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services” and “shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services “. It further states “No State or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the Commission’s regulations concerning such emissions.”

The proposed structure exterior will be conditioned to require the antenna to resemble the existing antenna and equipment.

The applicant has submitted a structural report of the existing tower.

The applicant has submitted reports certifying the tower radio frequency emissions will be significantly less than the FCC maximum allowable standards.

The applicant has submitted FCC licensing information.

The applicant has submitted Federal Aviation Authority certification for the tower.

The application was determined to require referral to the Ulster County Planning Board who issued a “No County Impact” reply.

Motion made by Mr. O’Donnell and seconded by Mr. Ricks to accept the findings for T-Mobile at 100 Airport Road. No discussion.

Vote:

Baden: Yes Tapper: Absent

O’Donnell: Yes

Ullman: Yes Ricks: Yes

Paddock: Absent Case: Yes *Alternate

Motion carried. 5 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, 0 abstention

At this time the Board reviewed the draft approval and conditions as prepared by Chairman Baden:

RESOLVED,

The Town of Rochester Planning Board has reviewed the application presented pursuant to Chapter 140 of the Code of the Town of Rochester and the State Environmental Quality Review Act and grants Site Plan-Conditional Approval to T-Mobile Northeast LLC, permitting the expanded use of the telecommunications facility located on the parcel situate at 100 Airport Road, further known as S/B/L# 69.3-2-37, and located in the ‘R-5’ zoning district of the T/ Rochester.

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.
The facility shall maintain radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the Federal Communication Commission’s regulations concerning such emissions.
All permits which may be determined 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.
The owner shall specifically secure a Town of Rochester building permit prior to start of any construction or land disturbance. All conditions imposed in the granting of this permit shall be made a part of this approval. One copy of the permit shall be filed with the T/ Rochester Planning Board.

All telecommunications equipment shall be permanently located within the secure fenced area.

There shall be no overnight parking of vehicles or storage of other equipment or materials on the site other than as may be necessary for short duration during the construction phase.

Parking shall be allowed only in the spaces designated on the approved and signed Site Plan.

The access road shall be maintained in good, safe order and remain free and clear of encumbrances year-round to allow adequate emergency access.

The antenna array shall be finished in the same color scheme and manner as the existing antennas. This shall be galvanized in color.

The associated telecommunications equipment cabinet shall be finished similarly to the color of the existing cabinets.

T-Mobile shall propose and establish such conditions as may be necessary and found acceptable by the Town Attorney for dismantling and removal of antennas and accessory facilities upon abandonment of use, herein defined as failure to provide services normally associated with personal wireless services for a period of one year. The Town attorney shall review such provisions. Such provisions will become effective upon Town Board approval. T-Mobile shall be responsible to reimburse the Town for the actual costs of such attorney review.

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.

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 having 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.

Motion made by Mr. O’Donnell and seconded by Mr. Ullman to approve the above resolution and conditions for 100 Airport Road, T-Mobile application. No discussion.

Vote:

Baden: Yes Tapper: Absent

O’Donnell: Yes

Ullman: Yes Ricks: Yes

Paddock: Absent Case: Yes *Alternate

Motion carried. 5 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, 0 abstention

At 7:56 Mr. Rominger was reseated on the Board and Alternate Case was seated back in the audience.

2012-06SUP Continued Application

ELM ROCK INN- Mark Suszczynski and Kimberly Weeks 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.

Mr. Suszczynski was present on behalf of his application.

Chairman Baden noted that since the last meeting the applicant submitted signage pictures, lighting details, amended Site Plan to show revised parking area, revised narrative, and a sketch of the proposed barn. These revisions and submittals were sent out to all of the agencies discussed at the last meeting.

2012-06SUP Continued Application

Chairman Baden noted that as far as SEQRA is concerned this will be a Type 1 Action. The involved agencies have 30 days to respond and that 30 days has not yet passed, so the Board can’t take any actions on this application. The Board has not received any responses. The Board has heard back from the Ulster County Planning Board with their referral comments, but they aren’t an involved agency, they are an interested agency. The Board won’t be able to declare themselves as Lead Agency or do anything further with SEQRA until the June meeting. They should continue reviewing the application.

At this time the Board went over the Ulster County Planning Board response reviewed dated 5/2/12. (The Board just received these comments today. The Chairman is on the UCPB, and he was present, but he is not allowed to answer any questions or talk about the application.):

Chairman Baden noted that the UCPB were concerned with the need for an existing conditions plan and details on signage and lighting and building elevations. They brought up the fact that the applicant needed to coordinate with the UCHD, NYSDOT, and the State Office of Historic Preservation. The Town submitted everything that was submitted by the applicant to those 3 agencies as part of it’s intent to seek lead agency report. The UCPB also brought up the concern about the use of porta-potties depending on how often they were going to be used. The comment was that if the barn was going to be used on a regular basis that it should have permanent regular sanitary facilities rather than porta-potties. The existing conditions plan was their concern that what they were submitted was a proposal, but there was no proposal or presentation of what the existing conditions were. The Chairman explained to the applicant what a ‘Required Modification’ referral response from the UCPB meant. The Town was bound to follow it, or they could over-ride it with a super majority vote, which means majority +1.

Mr. Suszczynski understood that this was called a recommendation, and he didn’t mind them revising everything, but he’d like to hear back first from all of the different departments. Because its going to cost quite a bit of money to keep on making 15 copies of the plans. He could put a proposal in there- there is a separate septic for the carriage house, so he could actually put two bathrooms in there and run the septic into where the carriage house is, which would offset any concerns. He understood the porta-potties comment.

Chairman Baden noted that the County didn’t want the porta-potties to become a permanent outhouse.

Mr. Suszczynski noted that for this year, whether they do the barn or not, they would actually propose putting two bathrooms put in there and that should be more appealing for bookings of weddings and parties. They just hired a wedding planner and she mentioned that if you had bathrooms in the barn it would be more appealing to people. For this year though he’s allowed up to 12 events.

Chairman Baden noted that they could view it that way- he noted to the Town Attorney that the barn was a future expansion, but the Board suggested that the applicant put it in this approval process now.

Mr. Suszczynski noted that he had a fund raiser scheduled for the second weekend in June and he was going to put a tent over a blue stone patio, but there was really nothing planned. They really didn’t have any other plans than that it was really more off in September and October. He didn’t really plan on having any more than 12 tented events in a year. If they do have good bookings they would probably start in the fall, early winter.

2012-06SUP Continued Application

Chairman Baden noted that if he was going to go the route of the permanent bathrooms to show where the existing systems were.

Mr. Suszczynski noted that there was an existing dry well, and they couldn’t find out where the existing septic was, but he had a call into Betsy and Howard the previous owners before Ciraulo and Hanley to tell him where it is.

Chairman Baden noted that when he made the changes to the plan to just show where the septic areas are located.

Chairman Baden continued and noted that from past experience he could tell the applicant that NYS DOT would comment on this, they just haven’t gotten around to it yet. It is very likely that what the County says will happen. It is very likely that they will make him put curbing in because now they are going to view this as a commercial use and not a residential use. They have different standards. For residential they allow a gravel driveway without curbing and they probably will have to put in a curb cut. They very well may ask the applicant to close off one of the two accesses.

Mr. Suszczynski noted that originally he was going to cut off the one that was the one closer to Rochester- there’s like a little curb there and when you are trying pull out it is difficult. They were actually going to put in for that, but there was a big easement.

Chairman Baden noted that if they closed it off it might help out with the parking area spacing. Right now the Chairman did have a concern too with that space because the applicant had spacing right there and it kind of bottle necks up. He thought that was a great addition. They could certainly wait until they hear back from the DOT on what they will require and what their comments are because the other driveway comes off on an angle. They may require that to be made straight- they tend to like to get things to intersect at a 90 degree angle. That section of property that is in Marbletown and in between Route 209 and the applicant’s property- was that a separate parcel?

The applicant stated that halfway right past the carriage house it opens up and that’s all DOT access.

Chairman Baden noted that we would see what their comments were- was the Board willing to wait and see what the DOT had to say before they made any further discussions? Chairman Baden knew that when the applicant came back in the fall for a pre-application discussion- he thought that it would make all of these agencies a lot more comfortable as well as himself- to get an engineered drawing done- at least for the parking area. He knows that there is a cost involved for that, but with that number of spaces its hard to visualize it unless its done to scale and done by an engineer- showing each space exactly the way it is supposed to be.

The applicant understood this and would wait until all of the comments came in.

Mr. Rominger agreed and noted that there could be comments from Marbletown.

The applicant noted that if he had to pay an engineer each time it could get costly.

2012-06SUP Continued Application

The Chairman understood this and understood if the applicant wanted to wait to see all of the comments come in and the Board talks about them to see how to progress. The Chairman questioned if anyone else on the Board had any thoughts on having an engineered drawing done of the intersection and the driveway and the parking area? The majority of the impact is that.

Mr. Ricks noted that the DOT would require some sort of drawing anyway.

Chairman Baden agreed that the DOT would also need to see something.

The applicant wanted to wait to see what Marbletown had to say because he remembered that they were supposed to have some sort of consolidated meeting.

Chairman Baden noted that the Board reached out to Marbletown and other than an informal phone call the Board hasn’t heard anything yet. He did know that they met just a couple days after this was sent to them, so it may not have been on their agenda. The Chairman also sent notice of this to the CEO in Marbletown – not as part of SEQRA, but to bring his attention to it and to say what permits would be involved from Marbletown’s standpoint. We referred it to both the ZBA and the PB in Marbletown on the assumption that one of those two agencies would probably have to offer some sort of approval, but that was just a guess on the Town’s part. Other than Marbletown’s Secretary’s phone call- which was more questions than answers- the Town of Rochester Planning Board hasn’t heard anything as of yet.

Mr. Ricks noted that some kind of lights would need to be presented that wouldn’t shine into the cars eyes.

Chairman Baden wanted to first go down the list in order- signage was next.

The applicant wanted to talk about the parking and the shed. He noted that he would remove the two parking spaces that wouldn’t be able to back up.

Chairman Baden noted that he didn’t think that the County Planning Board realized that the sign pictures that were submitted was the new sign. He thinks they thought it was the older sign. The Board would address that required modification saying that they have the photo of the new sign.

Mr. Ricks noted that the sign said Bed and Breakfast, but it was a hotel?

Chairman Baden noted that under the Code it was a hotel, the applicant can call it anything they wanted.

The applicant noted that they were calling it a Bed and Breakfast because they were including breakfast where a hotel.

Mr. Ricks questioned if it was going to be a restaurant too?

The applicant answered no, right now he was just doing parties and hopefully he doesn’t have to open a restaurant. When they first started they were told to put in for the maximum which was the barn and the restaurant.

2012-06SUP Continued Application

Chairman Baden noted that the difference is that with a Bed and Breakfast under State Code you are required to live there, which the applicant is not. The previous owner did. So, he may call it a Bed and Breakfast, but under the Code, its not.

The applicant noted that someone mentioned that they may be trying to change the terminology to Inn.

Chairman Baden noted that its in discussions, the Town may create a category in the future.

Chairman Baden noted that in terms of the lighting- the fixtures that are being proposed—the applicant might want to call the County about this- what they require is a fixture called a full cut off fixture and what that means is that it doesn’t allow the light to extend beyond a certain point and in this case they are concerned that the light would go beyond Route 209. The County Planning Board on their website has a document that deals specifically with lighting. He encouraged the applicant to contact Burt Samuelson at the County Planning Department direct. The County is really pushing LED’s and Metal Alloys. As far as the elevations the County is really concerned with what the barn will look like along Route 209. The elevations presented by the applicant show somewhat, but they are asking more for a view point from Route 209 and they are asking for more than a sketch, but a rendering. The applicant could probably take a picture and Photoshop the barn in on the property in terms of how it is going to look. The Chairman advised to do it from two view points- North and South of the property to answer their questions. That’s the County’s concern because they are thinking of it from the public road. The Chairman was speaking for himself, but felt that if the applicant supplied that he would be comfortable with that and wouldn’t need anything beyond that for the Town’s Planning Board’s review. In regards to Health Dept. – the applicant would obviously need to get County Health Dept. approval and he felt that they were all in agreement with that and if the applicant was going to change the barn to include bathrooms, that would definitely address that. In regards to DOT, they already touched on that part. In regards to the historic structures, this has been referred by the Town to the State Historic Preservation and the local Town Historic Preservation for comments. The Board is notin receipt of any comments as of yet. As a matter of fact, the State had trouble finding the property was even listed because it wasn’t listed by the address. They finally called back and did find it in the records and it wasn’t listed under the address, it was listed otherwise.

Mr. Ricks thought it was referred to as the Sahler House?

The Secretary noted that was confusing because that was what Simone Harari’s house (the Body of Truth Spa) was also referred to.

The Chairman noted that there were several structures in the Town of Rochester that were referred to as the Sahler House.

Chairman Baden continued to note that under existing conditions- the County would really like to see the flood plain area and the wetland area better. He thought that this could be taken off of the internet- but if the applicant was going to have someone draft the parking, they could do this all at the same time. They could overlay the flood zone area. The concern was that they didn’t want traffic going over the flood plain or wetlands areas, so their concern is that needs to be looked at and addressed overall.

Mr. Rominger questioned how the side driveway behind the house was going to be used?

2012-06SUP Continued Application

The applicant noted that that was basically his kitchen entrance, so it’s only going to be for deliveries. He was going to let anyone who made deliveries know that they had to exit South and not go across the road.

Chairman Baden had a few concerns about that driveway as well. Prior to the applicant owning the property, he has witnessed Waste Management blocking Route 209 by stopping traffic and backing up into it.

The applicant noted that he wanted to make it safe. Right now the garbage is there, but whatever he needed to do to make it safe.

Chairman Baden noted that they could wait to see what DOT had to say about it, and if they don’t the Board could take it further- it was definitely something that needed to be taken into consideration. Only making a right turn out of there is not a bad idea. The Board could condition a sign that says, ‘no left turn’.

Mr. Rominger questioned if there was any way to turn around once you went in that driveway?

The applicant noted that there was a locust right before the septic and now since all of the contractors have been in there you can pull up and pull back to the left of the ‘L’ shape on the plans and pull up and back out.

Chairman Baden agreed noting that the Board couldn’t allow a truck to be backing out onto Route 209. When the applicant revises the plans he might want to show that turn around area to address those concerns.

Mr. O’Donnell noted that that whole spot is kind of bad in regards to pulling out onto the road.

Chairman Baden noted that it is deceiving because it doesn’t look like much of a turn there until you actually get there.

The applicant noted that from 4-6PM and 7:30-8:30AM its crazy there.

Chairman Baden noted that when the applicant redoes the map he will have to label the names of the bounding owners across the street. If there are driveways or separate parcels across Route 209 it needed to be shown. That driveway should be shown because it helps to look at traffic patterns.

Mr. Ricks believed they told him this last time.

Chairman Baden noted that at the last meeting they had made a motion to refer this to the Town Planner, but he wanted to wait to pass it off to save the applicant some money. There was no sense in having the Town Planner review something that was going to change anyway. They did ask the Planner to look at what has been submitted just to develop an idea of an initial escrow deposit. And he came up with $1,500.00 for an escrow deposit.

The applicant asked if they could wait to do that until he gets the revised plans after all of the other agencies’ comments.

2012-06SUP Continued Application

The Chairman agreed to have him look at it again after all of the comments and revisions have been made. They will have to decide too when they see the other comments come in whether they think the Planner is going to add anything different than what the other agencies are going to say. There are so many other agencies review this that they may find it isn’t necessary for the Planner to review it. That is certainly within the Board’s right to do.

Chairman Baden noted that they talked about what revisions needed to be made. They are not at a point where they can schedule a Public Hearing because they really need to hear the other comments and react to the changes. They are in a holding pattern until they get comments from other people. As the comments come back over the next month the Board will send copies to the applicant. Once they receive all of the comments they will put the applicant on the agenda for the June meeting to see where the Board goes from there. He knows it seems like a long process, but there are a lot of people involved in this property because of where it is.

The applicant noted that right now he isn’t in a rush and its kind of like a long term plan, so its fine.

The Chairman would rather they take the time and get it done correctly. He didn’t want to have the applicant draw new plans and spend money when they get the DOT comments and things may change.

Mr. Rominger instructed the applicant to keep track of everything that the Board was telling him he needed on the plans because when he meets with his engineer he can make sure that it all gets on in one shot and he’s not going back and forth.

Chairman Baden noted that this is a significant enough project and he appreciates that the applicant was trying to do the drawings on his own to do the drawings on his own to save costs, especially with the parking area where they really do need engineered plans.

The applicant noted that he would wait anyway to get everyone’s input.

Chairman Baden noted that they would wait to see what happened with the changes, but if there was significant enough change, they would refer this back to the County Planning Board again for them to comment on again. This happens often where changes are made and they need to look at it again.

The applicant noted that the County also mentioned lighting around the barn which he didn’t do.

Chairman Baden stated that the question was if there was going to be lighting around the barn and they sort of answered it that if there is any they would need to see the fixtures, where they would be and the height of them and again- full cut off fixtures. If the applicant does research on the internet for full cut off fixtures he was certain he would get what he needed. They should hear back from more agencies within the next two weeks, if they hear back at all. That is for the Lead Agency status- the 30 days. Beyond that the Board may hear back comments. His suspicion was that the Planning Board would be the Lead Agency, he didn’t think anyone else felt strongly enough. They have 30 days from the time they receive the letter to respond to that.

The applicant noted that he would update whatever he could.

2012-06SUP Continued Application

Chairman Baden noted that the applicant took notes, he could do research in the meantime, but he would wait to hear back and once he gets all of the comments and hires an engineer- they are just going to do a new drawing. He didn’t even think it was worth the applicant’s time to update the drawing.

Mr. Ricks questioned if the State Historic Preservation was going to want to see architecture style or period style of the barn to make sure it matches the house.

The applicant stated that they were just going to do rough cut pine from the Town of Rochester.

Chairman Baden encouraged the applicant to contact the State Historic Preservation Office on his own to explain to them what his plans are. He instructed the applicant to go online and look for Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation- OPRHP or sometime referred to as SHPO. They ultimately control National Registered buildings for the State of New York. They don’t have regulatory powers, but they can require certain things to be done and make suggestions in terms of the integrity and the look. In the case of an addition or adding a barn to the property, they are going to want it to be in a similar style.

The applicant noted that this is one of the only homes that was created by a foundry in Ulster County.

Chairman Baden noted that because the applicant was proposing a barn style- they would be looking for a barn that was appropriate to the time frame.

Mr. Rominger noted that they could probably show the applicant examples.

The applicant noted that he would look them up.

The Chairman gave the applicant the list of letters and agencies that the Town had sent the Lead Agency notice to- that has addresses and names of who the Town contacted for SEQRA, so the applicant could contact those people direct. They were going to comment back to the Town, but if the applicant wanted to start his own conversation with these agencies, it is helpful that way he could talk to them direct.

Chairman Baden noted that there will be something to do with this application at the next meeting. At the very least the Board can declare themselves Lead Agency and start the SEQRA process.

Pre-application Conference

G. STERRETT SMITH– Request for pre-application conference for Site Plan referral, for expansion of use of a single-family residence to a Bed & Breakfast, 34 Evers Lane, Tax Map #77.2-2-26.400, ‘AR-3’ zoning district.

Sterrett Smith was present on behalf of her pre-application conference.

Chairman Baden noted that Evers Lane was off of Creek Road in Alligerville.

Pre-application Conference

Mrs. Smith noted that she was in front of the Board to see if what she wanted to do was feasible. She has a very large house, her daughter has grown up and her mother passed away in the fall. Her mother had needed to make changes in her living situations, so they had an architect put a wing on and a long hallway so that it had a feeling of independent space, but it was still connected to the house. She now shares this space with her husband and her old dog. It’s a big place for them and its not a good time to sell a big house. So she is exploring her options on what she can do with this space and what would be okay with the Town.

Chairman Baden noted that the Code Enforcement Office has referred this to the Board has a Bed and Breakfast which needs Site Plan Review. Its an allowed use because the applicant is going to continue living on the property- it’s a Bed and Breakfast and not a hotel. Under the Code they do allow for special events.

Mrs. Smith noted that she wasn’t interested in special events.

Chairman Baden noted that would make the process easier because the Board wouldn’t be reviewing the application from the aspect of impact on the neighbors. He questioned how many rooms they would be providing.

Mrs. Smith noted that in what was her mother’s wing was is one bedroom and a large living area and a separate bathroom. They also have a space that was renovated above their garage to have home health care for her mother. Basically a nice little living space. Its just a room, but it has a bath. Nobody is using that now. She would want two rooms at the most.

Chairman Baden noted that it’s a residence with two rooms that she is renting out for a Bed and Breakfast type business. The applicant would have to show a parking area enough for two cars for the guests and two for the residence. The applicant’s site plan is most of the way there, she would need to draw the parking spaces. They are required to be 10’ wide by 20’ deep, so she would need a space that was 20’x 20’. This can be graveled surface. If she was going to have a sign-

The applicant stated that she wouldn’t have a sign.

Mr. Ricks noted that if people were coming to stay there they would want to know where they turn up the driveway.

Chairman Baden noted that she may want a sign at the end of the driveway to at least show the direction to where she was.

The applicant stated that she already had the number ‘34’ at the end of the driveway. She was trying to keep this as low key as possible. She didn’t want to change the house and there would be no construction.

Pre-application Conference

Chairman Baden noted that the applicant should speak to the Code Enforcement Officer in terms of the Building Code. That is different from what the Board does. The Board gives approval for the use, but what she actually has to do to the building structure to comply to use it commercially is a Code Enforcement issue. A bed and breakfast is a residential use and it doesn’t fall under all of the same categories, but the applicant should speak with the Code Enforcement Office if there is anything that the applicant may or may not need to do. What the Board is doing is reviewing the use and giving the applicant a permit for that.

Mr. Ricks questioned if there was a common area in the living space that used to be the applicant’s mother’s wing of the house?

The applicant answered, yes, but there would only be a couple or a single person staying in there.

Mr. Ricks questioned where the applicant would be serving the breakfast?

The applicant noted that she didn’t really want to serve them breakfast, that she would rather just leave them something. She would leave something at either room separately. She rented out a space over 10 years ago when she lived in a different location over on Rock Hill Road, and she had a place that she rented out there and there were plenty of people that didn’t want a bed and breakfast experience and hang out with other people- it was more private.

Chairman Baden noted that a lot of Bed and Breakfast’s do that.

Chairman Baden continued to note that if the applicant was going to propose any signage that she should show an area on the map where she was going to do that and a drawing of size and content. There is no requirement to have a sign. Other than parking the property was in a County Ag District and would need to fill out an Ag Data Statement. The applicant would just need to identify any working farms within a certain amount of feet of her property. Its pretty self explanatory, but if she went online to the Ulster County Parcel Viewer she could get the names of the parcel owners and she would just need to list their names and what other information the form asks for. This needs to put on record, because this is more about the impact that the farm would have on the applicant- its making the applicant aware that she is either in or neighboring a County Ag District. Since she wasn’t proposing any changes the applicant could fill out the Short EAF. Its simpler, but it is changing as of October 2012, so if the applicant did not move forward until the Fall, there will be a new form that will be mandatory as of October 2012. The Short Form will now be 4 pages instead of 1. This will need to be referred to the County Planning Board. The Chairman will need to check to see if this falls within the exception agreement with the County where this doesn’t have any County Impact. He would check to see if this fit the criteria. Very likely this would be a No County Impact because she isn’t proposing any physical change to the property she is only changing the use. Once the Board receives an application that they deem as complete they will refer it to the County PB and they will schedule the Public Hearing and notify all of the applicant’s bounding owners, they will open the Public Hearing and if there are any comments they will listen to them and address them or if no comments they will close the Public Hearing and move forward with the Board’s review. It sounds to him like it’s a very simple straight forward application. The biggest impact is to see that she has enough parking. Show 4 parking spots- outside of the garage- they don’t need to be in the same place, they can be in different places. If she parks in the garage, the garage can be spaces- but she should put a map on the note that residential parking

Pre-application Conference

is located in the garage and show the additional two. In terms of the map, she could go to any engineer or surveyor and she has the start of one already.

The applicant noted that she could go to Medenbach & Eggers and see what they could do.

Chairman Baden noted that the applicant could look in the Code and see what the requirements of a site plan are, but if she was going to Medenbach & Eggers they know what is required in the Town. If she would try and do it herself, she should read the Code and the different things in the Code that are required. The Chairman did look online and she wasn’t in a flood plain, there were no wetlands on the property. There is very little that she has to show. She needs to show the existing site, the bounding owners and boundaries. Medenbach & Eggers would know all of this. May 30^th was the cut off date to get on the June 12, 2012 Agenda. If she had to make changes after that it would be fine, but if as long as she got the beginnings in by that date.

OTHER MATTERS

Chairman Baden noted that the Town Board referred a proposed Local Law for the exploration and extraction of natural gas. The Office just received this today and he looked it over and it appears to be copied from every other page. Chairman Baden would get the whole document and forward it on to Board Members. He also wanted to be upfront and let the Board know that he wrote a lot of this language for the Town Board. It’s a referral and a recommendation so there was no need for his recusal.

Mr. Ricks noted that it refers to natural gas extraction, but it doesn’t refer to fracking. There are other ways to take natural gas out without using these harmful fracking chemicals. It sounds like this is totally outlawing any means of it.

Chairman Baden noted that they were avoiding the word ‘Fracking’ because it is too specific. This law is a combination of three other laws that have been Court tested.

Mr. O’Donnell wanted to know if they were closing the door on everything by doing this.

Chairman Baden noted that he would circulate the full Law by email to everyone. The first public hearing for this is scheduled for the first Thursday in June. The Board can decide if they want to make a statement as a group or if people want to make individual statements. The original one included the word ‘petroleum’ and several Town Board Members and people had problems with that and it is now just ‘natural gas’.

CODE UPDATE

Chairman Baden noted that he had been working on revisions to the Code with the Planning Board Secretary, Code Enforcement Secretary, and Code Enforcement Officer for the last 6 or 7 months on going through the Code and fixing some things that were wrong and there are some procedural things that are just flat out wrong- errors and discrepancies. The Code Enforcement Officer has found new uses that he wants defined. There are a lot of vague definitions and the Code Enforcement Officer is asking for more specific definitions. A lot of the change is going to be definitions.

Mr. Ricks questioned if they addressed health club membership spas?

CODE UPDATE (CONT’D)

Chairman Baden noted they were day use only- not overnight accommodations.

Chairman Baden was hoping by the end of May to have one or two more meetings and to present it to the Town Board. It will be a local law, so the PB will get an official referral- he just wanted to let everyone to know that it is in the works, so when they get it they are not surprised. They are doing both the Subdivision Code and the Zoning Code.

BODY OF TRUTH – FELDMAN LITIGATION

Chairman Baden noted that they have filed an appeal for the Article 78 on the Body of Truth property.

Town Attorney Christiana noted that the Town was letting the applicant pursue this more than the Town as the applicant has a stronger interest in this. This is the same stuff- nothing different. Their appeal is that this case shouldn’t have been dismissed.

ADJOURNMENT

Mr. Rominger 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 9:00 pm.

Respectfully submitted,

Rebecca Paddock Stange, Secretary

Approved June 12, 2012