MINUTES OF August 13 , 2013 the Town of Rochester PLANNING BOARD, held at the Town Hall, Accord, NY.
Chairman Baden asked that everyone stand to say the Pledge to the Flag.
The Secretary did roll call attendance.
PRESENT: ABSENT: Michael Baden, Chairman Baden Melvyn I. Tapper
Robert Rominger, Vice Chairman Anthony Ullman
Adam Paddock
Fred O’Donnell
Shane Ricks
Also present:
Loretta Terwilleger, substitute for Rebecca Paddock Stange, Secretary.
ANNOUNCEMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS
Chairman Baden noted that the Board received an official withdrawal from Elizabeth Kawalchuk for her Minor Subdivision, so even though the Board closed the Public Hearing, she has withdrawn her application, so that was it for that.
There were some other communications that were sent out and received throughout the month, but the Chairman would get to those in “Other Matters” later on in the meeting.
TRAININGS
Chairman Baden noted that there was nothing new out yet. He keeps a pretty close eye and as soon as he sees something he will let everyone know.
ACTION ON MINUTES
Chairman Baden motioned to approve the July 9, 2013 Minutes and have any typos corrected prior to distributing the final copy. Mr. Tapper arrived at 7:15PM, but is listed as not being in attendance for any of the votes that took place and that will be corrected. Seconded by Mr. Ricks. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden: Yes Tapper: Absent
O’Donnell: Yes Rominger: Yes
Ullman: Absent Ricks: Yes
Paddock: Yes
Motion carried. 5 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, 0 abstentions
PB 2013-07 LLI New Application
Lot Improvement
Larry/Pamela Pugliese and Carol Pugliese, for Lot Improvement to convey 0.937 acres to an adjacent lot resulting in lots of 4.620 and 2.127 acres, 682 and 684 Samsonville Rd., S/B/L #68.1-2-66 and #68.1-2-67, ‘R-2’ zoning district
Terry Ringler, land surveyor, was present on behalf of the application.
Chairman Baden noted that the applicants wanted to convey .937 acres to an adjacent lot resulting in lots of 4.620 and 2.127 acres. The end result would be lots that are conforming to the R-2 Zoning District.
Mr. Ringler noted that the applicants are father and mother. Their property has overlapped a bit, but they never really acknowledged the lot line between them. As each are growing older they have decided to put all of their existing improvements on their own lots so nothing overlapped. There is a dirt drive that goes into the back where they had a pond built. They were just taking the lot line that went through the carport and putting it off to the side. Basically it puts area that Mr. Pugleisi utilizes in his own name.
Chairman Baden looked at the maps that the resulting lots meet the R-2 development standards and the setbacks are correct. There are no issues that he is aware of. The only thing he noticed was that there needed to be a clause added from the Subdivision Code Chapter 125-18.
Mr. Ringler would add that.
Mr. Ricks motioned to accept this action pending the clause that needed to go on the plans. Then the Chairman could sign the plans, Mr. Ringler could file the maps and return 3 filed copies to the Town. Seconded by Mr. O’Donnell.
Discussion:
Mr. O’Donnell noted that he would also need to add the bounding owners to the plan that were across the street and all sides.
Vote:
Baden: Yes Tapper: Absent
O’Donnell: Yes Rominger: Yes
Ullman: Absent Ricks: Yes
Paddock: Yes
Motion carried. 5 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, 0 abstentions
PB 2013-08 LLI New Application
Lot Improvement
David Sumberg/Vivian Ubell c/o Joseph Mernin, for Lot Improvement to exchange land totaling 0.43 acres between adjacent lots resulting in a pre-existing non-conforming lot of 4.67 acres and a lot of 5.04 acres,
52 Ginger Rd., S/B/L #77.4-2-4 and #77.4-2-5, ‘R-5’ zoning district
Mr. Mernin was present on behalf of the application.
Chairman Baden noted that this was already a non conforming lot being 4.67 acres in an R-5 District, but the after the lot improvement, the non conforming lot will remain the same acreage and so the Town Attorney has suggested that this will simply continue as a non conforming lot. The reason that they were shifting the lot line was to make the sheds that belong to Sumberg/ Ubell be on the lot with their home and they would sell the vacant lot to Mernin. He also noted that the backside of this has Federal Wetlands on it and it looks to be pretty much unusable land. At the least the applicant would have to get Federal Permits if he wanted to build or do anything back there. He also suggested that the lot line follow the stream. Right now there was a little tiny sliver on one side of the stream that belonged to lot 4 that was pretty much usless to them.
Mr. Mernin noted that it was more like mountain run off.
Chairman Baden noted that it wouldn’t even be worth worrying about.
Mr. Mernin noted that the only real reason that the applicants are doing this is for him. He grew up in the area and never had any intention for selling this piece next to them, but kept it as a separate lot for their own kids. They were trying to keep him in the area by selling this to him. So, they wanted to adjust things so that no encroachments were on the other lot.
Chairman Baden noted that you could see that Mr. Eggers did show that there was a building envelope for a house and there was a potential area for a septic. Even though it would be an undersized lot, it would remain the same acreage that it was before. They did have all of the required notes on the plan. All adjoining properties were notated.
Mr. Ricks motioned to approve the lot line improvement of Sumberg and Ubell. Seconded by Mr. Rominger. No discussion. :
Vote:
Baden: Yes Tapper: Absent
O’Donnell: Yes Rominger: Yes
Ullman: Absent Ricks: Yes
Paddock: Yes
Motion carried. 5 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, 0 abstentions
Chairman Baden asked for Mr. Mernin to have Mr. Eggers get the Secretary a mylar and maps to be filed with the County and that 3 maps were to be returned to the Town.
Mr. Mernin noted that once he purchased this property, he was going to have the lot resurveyed into his name. Should he wait until that happens before they get signed?
Chairman Baden noted that he could do that.
Mr. Ricks noted that they didn’t have to wait for this to be in Mr. Mernin’s name. They approved what they approved and it would carry over to any subsequent owners.
PB 2013-04 SUP Continued Application Review
Special Use Permit
Scott MacScott, for Special Use Permit to expand a Non-Conforming residential use with bathroom and shed expansions pursuant to § 140-42 of the T/ Rochester zoning code , 24 Blevins Rd., S/B/L #59.7-2-57, ‘R-2’ zoning district.
Mr. MacScott was present on behalf of his application.
Chairman Baden noted that the applicant submitted pictures that were requested at the last meeting.
Mr. Ricks questioned if the roof line to the additions were actually over the property line?
Mr. MacScott noted that it wasn’t. He questioned if they had the maps he had previously submitted.
Chairman Baden noted that Mr. MacScott wasn’t on the agenda until recently, so no, they did not have his file at the meeting.
Mr. MacScott noted that he was going to take everything to the measurement where it was parallel with the line. The roof was not going to be over the property line.
Chairman Baden noted that the Town Board was in the process of considering amending the Zoning Code. This particular situation of a non conforming lot—essentially he would have needed a variance, but because his lot was a non-conforming lot he needed a Special Use Permit. It was pointed out by the Attorney to the Town Board that it was more a mistake in wording in terms of what was intended. They are considering correcting that. The PB could hold off on the application and if they did pass that the applicant could probably reapply and be considered for a variance as opposed to a Special Use Permit. Its cost difference is really all it is. The applicant would be getting the same approval, but a variance is $100 as opposed to the Special Use Permit that is $500. The Chairman couldn’t guarantee that the Town Board would reimburse the money, but they would consider it. This was up to the applicant.
Mr. MacScott noted that the additions would be built to Code. Part of one would have to be cut off.
Chairman Baden noted that because it is pre-existing non-conforming the existing is 4’ from the line and 6” and as long as he holds that distance, with a Special Use Permit, he could make those additions.
Mr. MacScott noted that he measured to the line and put in the cement- and put the center of the drill over the line and the house is over the neighboring property line currently. That is what he wants to get rid of as quickly as he can because that’s the neighbor’s property. It is unusable land for the neighbor…
Chairman Baden noted that the PB couldn’t approve a structure on a neighboring property line—but Mr. MacScott was going to remove that portion?
Mr. MacScott replied yes. The map he submitted to the Board is the eventual outcome with the cut off additions. The addition that he cuts off is going to be 6” from the property line.
Chairman Baden questioned if there was an existing survey of the property?
Mr. MacScott noted that he did not.
Chairman Baden noted that this was up to the Board—on a Special Use Permit they weren’t required to have an engineer’s drawing—they could certainly consider the applicant’s free-hand drawing. Chairman Baden was a little concerned with a 6” setback only in that if the line is not really where the applicant thinks it is, potentially they could be causing problems. The structure is already there- and his end result will be 6” from where he thinks the lot line is and if he doesn’t encroach any further…
Mr. Ricks noted that in the Board’s approval they could word it that ‘its 6” from where the applicant is certifying where the line is’, so that way it falls back on the applicant and not the Board.
Chairman Baden noted that they still needed to go through the Public Hearing process.
Mr. Rominger questioned how they would know if the existing structure wasn’t already over the line?
Chairman Baden responded that if they had a survey, then they would know.
Mr. Ricks noted that it’s a short line and you could hold a string from one line to the other—but who knows, one of those pins could be off a foot.
Chairman Baden noted that they were also assuming that the final map with the County was a straight line, but there could be a jog somewhere in there.
Mr. MacScott noted that he read the original deed and it’s a square. He would submit a copy to the Board.
Chairman Baden noted that would help. It would allow the Board to follow the line. He also might be able to speak with the Assessor and they might be able to give him a copy of the parcel. Then the Board might actually be seeing a real picture of the boundaries of a map. The problem with the Ulster County Parcel Viewer is that it’s not always entirely accurate as to where the structure is and where the boundary lines are.
Mr. Paddock noted that when they were talking about the width of 6”- an eve or vinyl siding could go over that—why didn’t they put the setback back a little bit? 10” or a foot to at least give them some breathing room.
Chairman Baden noted that the Code basically says that he can’t further violate the existing setback and he’s already at 6”.
Mr. Paddock questioned if it couldn’t be any more or any less?
Chairman Baden noted that it couldn’t be any more.
Mr. Ricks noted that you can’t make the applicant chop off the original corner to his house. It was already there.
Mr. Paddock understood not the original corner, but if the front edge is 6”- but less than there. He just felt that it was extremely tight.
Chairman Baden noted that they could definitely consider that, but they did have to have a Public Hearing. They could consider all of these things and incorporate that into a decision. They need to type it for SEQRA and because it involves a residential use, it meets the qualifications for a Type 2 Action. So no further action is involved.
Mr. Ricks motioned to schedule a Public Hearing at the September 10th meeting. Seconded by Mr. O’Donnell. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden: Yes Tapper: Absent
O’Donnell: Yes Rominger: Yes
Ullman: Absent Ricks: Yes
Paddock: Yes
Motion carried. 5 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, 0 abstentions
OTHER MATTERS:
Chairman Baden noted that in regards to the David Kennedy & Thomas Kennedy Subdivision that they were both owners that has been verified by their Attorney. They have the right to proceed with the Subdivision.
Chairman Baden noted that he sent a memo to CEO Davis just following up on the statuses of applications. There were a number that were open and he really didn’t know what had taken place on them.
In regards to Wayne Kelder’s Special Use Permit for his private airstrip- Jerry’s reply was that no action had ever been taken and if that is the case, that Special Use Permit has expired. The PB is not enforcement, so that is up to Mr. Davis to enforce. The reason he inquired about it was because the PB gave a 3 year approval which is set to expire this October. He was going to write a letter to Mr. Kelder, but if he never completed the conditions, then it is already expired.
Streamside Estates: Their 3 year preliminary approval runs out next April. No action has been taken there.
Schoonmaker: Completed
T-Mobile: Completed
Real Escapes Property/ Body of Truth: Mr. Davis said that no action was taken, but they have since found out that she completed her driveway and did get a permit to construct a new sign. This approval ran out last week, however she requested an extension.
Mr. O’Donnell motioned to grant a one year extension on the Special Use Permit to the Body of Truth/ Real Escapes Property. Seconded by Mr. Rominger. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden: Yes Tapper: Absent
O’Donnell: Yes Rominger: Yes
Ullman: Absent Ricks: Yes
Paddock: Yes
Motion carried. 5 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, 0 abstentions
Nichols: in the process, but one year not run out yet.
Reiss: in process
Smith B & B: no further CEO approval required- Completes
SEQRA policy: As of October 3rd the new forms will go into effect. The DEC hasn’t shown any indication that isn’t going to happen. Now that the new form is better, he is going to put together a policy as to what applications would require a short or long EAF so they can have one set policy that everyone understands and knows.
Zoning and Subdivision Local law referral from Town:
The Town Board has referred to new local laws- Zoning 140 and Subdivision 125.
Chairman Baden noted that the current Code was adopted in 2009 after a long 5 or 6 year process. They have been using it very well. At the time is was adopted, the Town Attorney asked the Code Enforcement Office and the Planning/ZBA Office to keep track of any issues. Then there was litigation that went on for 2 or 3 years over it. Once it was finished, the Town won the initial litigation and then won on the appeal. Once that was all done, Chairman Baden sat down with Mrs. Paddock Stange, Mr. Davis, CEO, and Mrs. Striano, CEO Secretary and they went through everything. Chairman Baden prepared a draft document. He copied that to all of the PB members. He spoke to the Town Board last summer and let them know that this was happening. In January he made a presentation of a summary of the changes to the Town Board. In February he was scheduled to begin going over it with the Town Board and they chose not to do that. They chose a 10 person committee to review the code of which he wasn’t a part of. The 10 person committee reviewed it and made their recommendations back to the Town Board. Where they stand now is that the Town Board has taken those recommendations and everything that was in the proposal that the 10 person committee agreed to, the Town Board has put that forth as the amended local law. Anything that was not agreed to, and by agreed to, Chairman O’Halloran determined that if it wasn’t a unanimous agreement they wouldn’t pass it through. So, some these changes were one or two people out of 10 having issue with. He was just giving this as a history. A large percentage of it went through, however it really wasn’t just a matter of volume, but that there are some issues that are potentially complicated. The reason he was telling them all this that this is now referred to the PB by NYS Law. He feels that since he wrote the original document that he probably shouldn’t be sitting there representing the PB as the Chairman. He would recuse himself, but before he did that he wanted to give everyone the history. He would ask Mr. Rominger to take over at this point. Board Members did have a copy of both local laws in their folders.
Mr. Rominger noted that since they couldn’t review this tonight as they just received this information, they either had to have a workshop meeting within the next 2 weeks and compare this to what Chairman Baden had presented and to the original Code and to what the new local laws are- or they can just do that themselves independently and offer their comments independently to the Town Board. It’s really a question as to what everyone wants to do. Mr. Rominger noted that it would have been nice if the TB or Committee would have given them something to work with that may have been highlighted or pointed out what the changes were. This is just plain text that they are looking at. You can’t tell from reading it what has been changed.
Chairman Baden noted that what he could say about format is that this was local law format that the TB was required to do. What it was is if anything in one section is changed, the entire section is shown in the local law format. Only because it’s a reprint. What happens is the existing section is removed and a new section is put in its place, but the definitions- definitions that weren’t even touched are still shown here because they were on the same page as ones that were.
Mr. Ricks noted that the only way you could really see what changed is to go through the old code and see what changed page by page.
Chairman Baden noted that the Public Hearing by the Town Board was scheduled for August 29th, but it would most likely need to be held open because they also needed to refer this to the County PB.
Mr. Rominger noted that a lot of the changes made were definitions and words here and there… he was assuming that the bulk of it wasn’t especially significant. It would have been nice to be alerted to anything that would make a greater impact on the PB or the Town as a whole.
Mr. Rominger motioned to hold a workshop meeting on August 27th at 7PM to review the changes to the referred proposed local law Chapter 140 & 125 by the Town Board and that the Secretary circulate notice. Mr. Paddock Seconded the motion.
Vote:
Baden: abstain Tapper: Absent
O’Donnell: Yes Rominger: Yes
Ullman: Absent Ricks: Yes
Paddock: Yes
Motion carried. 4 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, 1 abstentions
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. O’Donnell motioned to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Mr. Rominger. No discussion. All members present in favor.
Chairman Baden adjourned the meeting at 7:50PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Rebecca Paddock Stange, Secretary
Approved 11/12/2013