Planning Board Minutes January 2013

MINUTES OF January 8, 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 Shane Ricks

Fred O’Donnell Anthony Ullman

Adam Paddock

Robert Rominger, Vice Chairman

Melvyn I. Tapper

Also present:

Rebecca Paddock Stange, Secretary. Robert Case, Alternate.

Chairman Baden requested that Mr. Case, Alternate join the Board for the Nichols’ application, even though there was a quorum because he sat on the board from the beginning of this application.

ANNOUNCEMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS

Chairman Baden noted that at the Organizational Town Board Meeting last week the Town Board has reappointed Mr. Rominger as a member with a 7 year term and Mr. Case was reappointed as the alternate for a 2 year term. They also reappointed Mr. Baden as Chairman and Mr. Rominger as Vice Chair.

Chairman Baden noted that they would get to the communications as they come up under the corresponding applications, but the Board did hear back from Highway Superintendent, Wayne Kelder and the Accord Fire Dept. regarding the Nichols’ application.

Trainings:

ACTION ON MINUTES

Chairman Baden noted that he was not at the meeting, but he spoke with Mr. Rominger about it at length and they look fine to him and Mr. Rominger.

Mr. Rominger motioned to approve the December 11, 2012 minutes. Seconded by Mr. Paddock. No discussion.

Vote:

Baden: Yes Tapper: Yes

O’Donnell: Yes Rominger: Yes

Ullman: Absent Ricks: Absent

Paddock: Yes Case, Alt.: Yes

Motion carried. 6 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, 0 abstentions (vote included alternate)

PB 2012-08 SPA Continued Application, Public Hearing, and SEQRA Review

Site Plan

Nichols Field; Cori Nichols- applicant, representing Katherine Sherman, executrix, Application for Site Plan Review for a new use “Commercial Stables”. New construction to encompass 8.2 acres of a 72.6 acre parcel including construction of a 700’ driveway, horse pasture, 2,040 sq. ft. horse barn, and 10,080 sq. ft. covered riding arena. 97 Sherman Rd., S/B/L #76.3-2-3.1, ‘R-5’ Zoning District.

Ms. Nichols was present on behalf of the application.

Chairman Baden noted that he and Mr. O’Donnell were absent last month when the review began on this application, but he was confident that they were up to speed on the application. He noted that it was an irregularly shaped parcel and what they were proposing at the end of Sherman Road was to put a barn and covered riding arena in the back area. There were a lot of questions at the last meeting that were answered by the applicant’s engineer pretty satisfactorily. There were a few other things to bring up that have happened since then. The Board heard back from Highway Superintendent Kelder and he has issued a driveway permit for the access off of Sherman Road. Sherman Road is a Town Road right to the end of the pavement. Chairman Baden downloaded aerial view from the County Website and he spoke with Mr. Kelder and he said that the Town’s portion of the road goes exactly to the end of the pavement. Really this parcel kind of wraps around the Town Road. That’s going to lead to a discussion.

Chairman Baden rode over there the other day to take a look and as he suspected, all the snow from the road is just pushed straight ahead into the roadway. What they have proposed is that the driveway is just going to be a continuation of the road. Mr. Kelder has approved the driveway permit and said that there was no reason not to, but he does have concerns about snow removal and that there is no where to push it. So, Chairman Baden spoke with the Town Attorney on how to address this and she basically said that when the Board gets to a decision the Board can condition that the driveway be maintained as passable for fire access and that puts the responsibility and liability off of the Town and onto the applicant. Mr. Kelder indicated that he could push the snow off to the sides to some degree, but it’s pretty much impossible. If you drive that road you will see that if its 15’ it’s a lot. The Town will push the snow to the end of the roadway so this was something that he wanted to bring to the Board’s attention. He asked Mr. Kelder what the plow trucks did now as far as turning around and he said that they back up into that wide driveway and turn around that way. It’s just an agreement he’s always had with the owner of that property. He didn’t think it was an actual registered agreement- it was probably more of a gentleman’s agreement.

Mr. Tapper wanted to know how this concerned the Town?

Chairman Baden noted that the Board has to ensure that the applicant provides fire safety access and because this is a commercial use it falls under different standards.

Mr. Tapper questioned if the applicant would be responsible for plowing all the way to her barn?

Chairman Baden answered yes. From the end of the Town Road to the barn. He has secured language from the Town Attorney on how to handle this in the decision; he just wanted to bring it to everyone’s attention so they could discuss it.

Chairman Baden noted that today the Office received a phone call from the Fire Dept. What they requested was that the driveway width be between 15 and 20’ to ensure room for fire safety apparatus. Residential fire code is 12’ and what is being proposed is 12’, so the Board needed to discuss this. He was going to rely a lot on Mr.

PB 2012-08 SPA Continued Application, Public Hearing, and SEQRA Review

Site Plan

Nichols Field; Cori Nichols (cont’d)- applicant, representing Katherine Sherman, executrix, Application for Site Plan Review for a new use “Commercial Stables”. New construction to encompass 8.2 acres of a 72.6 acre parcel including construction of a 700’ driveway, horse pasture, 2,040 sq. ft. horse barn, and 10,080 sq. ft. covered riding arena. 97 Sherman Rd., S/B/L #76.3-2-3.1, ‘R-5’ Zoning District.

O’Donnell’s thoughts as he was a former Fire Chief. To Chairman given that Sherman Road is no more than 15’ he would be hesitant to require 20’ width. If the Board upped it from 12’ to 15’ to satisfy the Fire District, he thought that would be sufficient.

Mr. O’Donnell heard a figure thrown out there—640’ from where the Town Road ends down to the parking area. 1,000’ is always the big deal because that is what the truck has for hose length. The problem here is that the Town Road is only giving 12’ so you want some way of getting one piece of apparatus around the other to get down there. A bump out would work—so you could take one truck and put it there till the other one passes and get by that way. How far was Sherman Road from Lower Granite?

Chairman Baden noted that it was probably about ½ a mile. Chairman Baden noted that the property is an open pasture.

Mr. O’Donnell noted that the only thing that he didn’t like was that the parking was behind the barn, so if you did have a fire in the barn you would have to go past the fire which may be impossible to do.

Chairman Baden noted that if you looked at the contour lines on the map it was a very flat open pasture, so the fire trucks would have access.

Mr. O’Donnell noted that then you get into the issue of weight. You are talking about vehicles that are upwards of 55-65 thousand pounds and if you get them off of any hard packed road surface you could have a problem.

Chairman Baden questioned what Mr. O’Donnell’s opinion would be based on his experience.

Mr. O’Donnell noted that 15’ would be good because they only had those 2 structures and nothing beyond it. And you are talking barns—but you’d have to consider the livestock. It would be nice to have a bump out of 20’ right at where Sherman Road and the driveway meet just so you can get one vehicle past the other.

Chairman Baden questioned if the applicant saw any issues in changing it from 12 to 15’?

Ms. Nichols didn’t see a problem with it other than she was trying to keep costs down as the road was going to cost a considerable amount already, but she thought she could do the bump out.

Mr. O’Donnell noted that it would be physically impossible for two fire trucks to pass each other on a 15’ road because of their width. If a truck gets off that hard pack- the truck immediately starts to sink and then wants to roll. So, in reality if it’s a pre-existing building, it’s going to burn because it’s old. Since this is new, they can avoid this by doing the proper measures. He would do it right after the Town Road.

Chairman Baden noted that they also did have the other driveway area as well.

Mr. O’Donnell noted that whoever plows it has to plow the bump out as well.

PB 2012-08 SPA Continued Application, Public Hearing, and SEQRA Review

Site Plan

Chairman Baden noted that they were requesting that the applicant change the road from 12’ to 15’ wide and to add the bump out with the dimensions of 60’ long and 20-22’ wide.

Ms. Nichols questioned if it could be further down because that would be on a septic field. She would request that it be on or near the pool. She wasn’t sure if she was going to keep the pool or not.

Mr. O’Donnell noted that if she filled the pool they could use that as a water source.

Chairman Baden noted that they received a response from the Ulster County Planning Board. They had no concerns except that they made a recommendation about finding out what the proposal and maximum number of horses the operation could handle. The County must have missed that information, because it was included in the papers- 10. They just missed that, so that concern is answered.

Ms. Nichols’ engineer also sent details on the lighting proposed. They were going to put exterior lighting- a downward shielded light on 3 sides of the barn. It’s acceptable to the County PB and he had no problems with it.

The other issue discussed was parking, from what Chairman Baden read in the minutes, everyone preliminarily agreed to the 5 spaces that were being proposed. That was broken down as 1- for someone with lessons, 3- for horse boarders, and 1-handicapped spot. And then there was an overflow parking area surrounding it if necessary. What he would like to do is to make a resolution to approve the 5 spots based on the applicant’s justification.

Mr. O’Donnell motioned to approve the 5 spots as described above. Seconded by Mr. Tapper.

Discussion: Chairman Baden felt that based on what was being presented, this was adequate. If the Board went strictly by the code, they would have to have 1 space for every 175 sq ft. And that is a little unrealistic given that the riding arena is over 10,000 sq ft. The Board will be specific in their decision to not allow shows and clinics. If they wanted to do them in the future they would have to come back in for further amending of the permit. For individual riding lessons, horse boarding, equine therapy, 5 spaces seems adequate.

Vote:

Baden: Yes Tapper: Yes

O’Donnell: Yes Rominger: Yes

Ullman: Absent Ricks: Absent

Paddock: Yes Case, Alt.: Yes

Motion carried. 6 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, 0 abstentions (vote included alternate)

Chairman Baden noted that on the new site plans the manure composting area has been added to the plans. The County had no issues with it as long as it was far enough away from any water sources to meet health code requirements which he believed was 100’ from the well. And as long as there wasn’t any storm water run off from neighboring properties and the location on the map looked fine. Chairman Baden questioned if the lighting was on a motion detector?

PB 2012-08 SPA Continued Application, Public Hearing, and SEQRA Review

Site Plan

The applicant replied yes it was.

Chairman Baden noted that was the preferred method.

At 7:30PM Chairman Baden opened the Public Hearing.

Chairman Baden noted that this application was for Site Plan Review for a new use “Commercial Stables”. New construction to encompass 8.2 acres of a 72.6 acre parcel including construction of a 700’ driveway, horse pasture, 2,040 sq. ft. horse barn, and 10,080 sq. ft. covered riding arena. 97 Sherman Rd., S/B/L #76.3-2-3.1, ‘R-5’ Zoning District.

Paul Thurst from 30 Sherman Road was recognized to speak. Mr. Thurst noted that one of his questions was already answered- the number of animals-10. He asked what the approximate water usage would be? And he believed that the number of traffic on the road was answered by the number of parking spaces. He also had questions if there would be shows and events?

Chairman Baden noted that events and shows would not be allowed as they were not being applied for. If they wanted them in the future, they would have to come back to the Board. The water usage is proposed at 5 gallons per horse per day so that would be 50 gallons of water a day and they are drilling a new well for that.

As there were no other questions or comments at 7:31PM Mr. O’Donnell motioned to close the Public Hearing. Seconded by Mr. Paddock. No discussion.

Vote:

Baden: Yes Tapper: Yes

O’Donnell: Yes Rominger: Yes

Ullman: Absent Ricks: Absent

Paddock: Yes Case, Alt.: Yes

Motion carried. 6 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, 0 abstentions (vote included alternate)

At this time the Board reviewed Part 2 of the Long EAF.

1.Will the Proposed Action result in a physical change to the project site? The Board answered, ‘Yes’. And checked ‘Other’ and wrote: “The construction of a barn, riding arena, driveway, and well. No impacts other than normal construction impacts.” And identified it as a ‘small to moderate impact’.

5. Will Proposed Action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity? The Board answered, ‘Yes’. And checked ‘Other’ and wrote: “Addition of livestock to the area. Animal waste may impact the surface or groundwater quality. Applicant will follow best practices to mitigate. A new well will be drilled. No impact.” Identified as a small to moderate impact.

PB 2012-08 SPA Continued Application, Public Hearing, and SEQRA Review

Site Plan

Based that there were only 2 yes answers and that they were only small to moderate, Chairman Baden asked for a motion for a Negative Declaration.

Mr. O’Donnell motioned for a Negative Declaration under SEQRA.

Discussion:

Mr. Rominger had a question on #6 on Part 2:

6. Will Proposed Action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface water runoff? The Board checked this as ‘no’.

Mr. Rominger noted that it would seem to him that almost anything that you construct would affect surface water and flow. He wasn’t sure if this should be changed to ‘yes’ as a small to moderate as normal construction activity. He didn’t think it would be correct to say it wouldn’t have any affect. There is water coming off of a roof.

The Chairman agreed.

Mr. O’Donnell noted that any water coming off of a roof is covered under the Building Code. If the CEO is doing his job correctly—and he’s not saying that he doesn’t—they address that issue with it. That has to do with anything. She is going to be in more compliance than anyone in this room.

Chairman Baden noted that that could be their answer. The way that SEQRA is intended is that if there is any possibility of impact, you have to answer yes.

Mr. Tapper noted that if you were going to take it to that extreme you could say the same thing with #7 with affecting the air quality. During construction you are going to have dust and dirt.

Mr. Paddock felt that they addressed this last time when they said any time you dig up a driveway or put up a building you are going to have some impact. The question is if these small construction sites are impacts or not.

Mr. O’Donnell noted that if someone did construction and they did it correctly, they don’t really create any negative impact. If you’re not building a Wal-Mart- like in Napanoch where they are going to blacktop 10,000 sf- and then you have that drain run off you have an issue. This applicant isn’t talking any blacktop. This is that catch 22 where people look at it and the black top and seal off ground that no longer allows water to sink in…

Mr. Paddock noted that again like with what Mr. Tapper said—and he believed someone said this at the last meeting as well—it says- ‘any impact’—which is making it sound kind of definitive.

Mr. O’Donnell noted that construction is also a temporary basis- he didn’t think that you wanted to take that as an impact for something that is going to take 3 days.

PB 2012-08 SPA Continued Application, Public Hearing, and SEQRA Review

Site Plan

Chairman Baden put it to a vote. Who wanted it to remain as ‘no’? 5 out of 6 members agreed to leave #6 as ‘no’. He understood Mr. Rominger’s point though.

Mr. Rominger noted that if it is done correctly- there is no issue. He himself has a barn and there is a dramatic amount of water that comes off of that barn.

Mr. O’Donnell noted that that is where the building inspector has to do his job correctly and take care of those issues. If you look in the building code- you are responsible for any run off on your property- even if it goes down across the road to someone else’s house and that is for pre-existing. With this one the Building Inspector would address this as a natural course of the Building Permit.

Chairman Baden noted that it does say in the instructions to answer yes if there will be any impact and maybe answers should be considered as yes.

Mr. Paddock noted that this seems to be a precedent that they have been coming too- any impact- yes, but again did they want to go and mark everything that was just a driveway or small construction and everything like that.

Chairman Baden noted that when they get the new forms starting in April- they are much clearer.

Mr. Rominger seconded Mr. O’Donnell’s motion for a Negative Declaration under SEQRA.

Vote:

Baden: Yes Tapper: Yes

O’Donnell: Yes Rominger: Yes

Ullman: Absent Ricks: Absent

Paddock: Yes Case, Alt.: Yes

Motion carried. 6 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, 0 abstentions (vote included alternate)

Chairman Baden noted that he had prepared a draft decision if the Board felt ready to make a decision?

The Board was.

PB 2012-08 SPA Continued Application, Public Hearing, and SEQRA Review

Site Plan

Findings of the Planning Board:

The application was determined to require a Site Plan review by the Code Enforcement Officer on 11/27/2012 and was referred to the Planning Board for review.
The parcel location is 97 Sherman Rd. off Lower Granite Rd. and is S/B/L 76.3-2-3.1.
The parcel is located in the ‘R-5’ zoning district.
The parcel is owned by Kathleen Sherman, executrix for the estate of Barbara Sherman. The applicant is Cori Nichols.
The parcel contains +/- 72.6 acres, of which 8.2 acres is proposed to be utilized for this Site Plan.

The parcel current use is residential with large areas of hay lots and wood cutting.

Existing improvements of the parcel include 2 houses with shed, barn, garage, and pool.

The applicant proposes a new use Commercial Stables; specifically horse boarding, riding lessons, horse training, and equine assisted therapy. This use will be in addition to the residential use.

Commercial Stables is a permitted use in the ‘R-5’ zoning district upon Site Plan review.

The proposal meets the minimum development standards of Town of Rochester Code Chapter 140.

The applicant proposes new improvements of a 10,080 sq. ft. covered riding arena, a 2,040 sq. ft. barn, a 640’ driveway, and 5 space parking area.

The applicant has prepared a Site Plan detailing the location of the existing and proposed structures and infrastructure within the parcel. The Site Plan was amended as requested by the Board and a revision dated 12/09/2012 was presented for consideration. Pages 1 and 2 were further revised dated 12/16/2012.

The parcel contains land identified as potential federal wetlands, as depicted on the National Wetlands Inventory, in the eastern quadrant of the parcel and the adjacent parcel to the west. The wetland location was determined to be substantially removed from the area proposed to be developed and further study was not required. The applicant was made aware such potential exists.

Central Hudson power lines cross this property with a 100 ft. easement imposed on this area.

The applicant requests 5 parking spaces and has presented justification in the fact lessons will be given on an individual basis with one vehicle per student, three vehicles per horse boarding use, and one handicapped space are provided for. An overflow parking area has also been identified and labelled on the Site Plan. Staff will use ATV’s to travel the property. The Planning Board has discussed this and has approved this request by resolution on 1/08/2013.

The applicant states the pasture area will be fenced with electric tape initially and later with cedar post and rail.

The applicant proposes no signage, no additional landscaping, and no public address system for the project.

The applicant proposes 3 wall mounted outdoor lighting fixtures will be added to the barn exterior with one fixture to be mounted on the north, west, and south side of the barn. Cut-sheet details of the fixtures have been submitted. Motion detectors are also proposed to be employed.

The applicant initially proposed utilities of a shared water supply with the existing house. This was revised during the review to be the use of a drilled well as the water source. Sewage facility is proposed as a Porta-John initially to be replaced eventually by a composting toilet. The applicant proposes solar panels mounted on the roof of the structure for electric.

Applicant’s engineer has prepared and presented detailed calculations of the land disturbance area. The project will not cause a land disturbance of greater than 1 acre and will not require a SWPPP to be filed.

The parcel has road frontage on Sherman Rd. which is under the jurisdiction of the T/ Rochester. Sherman Rd. currently dead-ends onto the property with no cul-de-sac or turnaround capabilities. The applicant has prepared a road profile for the proposed driveway. A driveway permit has been granted by the T/ Rochester Highway Supt.
The project will require Ulster County Health Dept. approval for the new well. The project may require further Health Dept. permits regarding sewage.
The extreme NW property line corner lies approximately 300 ft, from the T/ Rochester / T/ Wawarsing border. Ulster County Planning Board review and notice of hearing to Wawarsing is required. The Ulster County Planning Board issued a “Recommendation” with advisory comments suggesting the town consider the expected number of horses allowable for the use.
The application was sent to the Accord Fire District for comments. They request the driveway be constructed to a width of 15’ – 20’ for fire access.

PB 2012-08 SPA Continued Application, Public Hearing, and SEQRA Review

Site Plan

Draft findings were prepared by the Chairman and were read and amended by the Planning Board.

Findings adopted Jan. 8, 2013

Ayes: 6* Nays: 0

*alternate seated on the Board for this application due to lack of quorum at the meeting 12/11/2012

Absent: Mr. Ricks, Mr. Ullman

Motion to adopt findings by Mr. Rominger

Second by Mr. O’Donnell

* * * *

RESOLVED,

The Town of Rochester Planning Board has reviewed the application presented and grantsSite Plan-Conditional Approval to Cori Nichols permitting the new use “Commercial Stables” for the parcel of land situate at 97 Sherman Rd. and further known as S/B/L 76.3-2-3.1 and located in the ‘R-5’ zoning district of the T/ Rochester. The construction of the improvements, as detailed on the Site Plan dated Dec. 9, 2012, is approved. This approval is pursuant to the imposition of the following conditions of approval and the adherence to any and all statements of fact declared on the Site Plan.

CONDITIONS of APPROVAL:

This Site Plan approval of the use “Commercial Stables” is explicitly limited to the uses as proposed for horse boarding, riding lessons, horse training, and equine assisted therapy. No group lessons or special events such as horse shows or rentals of the facility shall be allowed or considered a part of this approval. Any additional use or changes in the use shall be presented to the Code Enforcement Officer for determination.
The owner shall specifically secure a Town of Rochester building permit, a Town of Rochester driveway permit, and Ulster County Health Dept. approval prior to the start of construction and/or land disturbance required for each respective improvement. Any and all conditions imposed in the granting of these permits shall be binding as a part of this Site Plan approval. One copy of each approved permit shall be filed with the Planning Board upon receipt.
All applicable Local, County, State, and Federal laws or codes shall be complied with. Any and all permits determined to be required in conjunction with the operation of this use, present or future, 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 reconsideration.
Federal wetlands requirements, specifically but not limited to mitigation requirements to prevent disturbance during construction or operation of use, shall be adhered to.
Animal waste areas shall be located and maintained to prevent any groundwater runoff onto neighboring properties or any potential contamination of the wetlands or well area and shall further adhere to all applicable Health Dept. or other agency regulations.
The use of portable toilets shall adhere to any Ulster County Health Dept. or other agency regulations. The owner shall secure Health Dept. determination as to any required permits with the transition to the composting toilet. The Planning Board grants agreement to this transition without further review.
The electric tape fence proposed to surround the pasture area shall be marked with appropriate warning signage as to the potential hazards.
The area of the 100’ easement identified on the Site Plan along the Central Hudson power lines shall be restricted from any use associated with this approval so long as such easement continues to exist. Appropriate warning signage shall be installed at the easement line.
The lighting for the outdoor barn area shall be constructed as proposed with 3 wall-mount 16” barn fixtures located on the north, west, and south sides of the barn.

PB 2012-08 SPA Continued Application, Public Hearing, and SEQRA Review

Site Plan

There shall be no signage involving this project except that which may be allowable without review or may be permitted directly by the Code Enforcement Officer.
The parking area shall be constructed to Town of Rochester zoning code specifications and dimensions. The parking space designated for handicapped use shall follow State and federal specifications and shall bear appropriate signage. Parking shall be allowed only in the spaces designated on the approved and signed Site Plan, including the parking overflow area. Fire and emergency vehicle access to the structures shall be maintained and remain clear.
If additional parking areas are determined to be required by the owner, the matter shall be referred to the Planning Board for amended review. Parking shall not be allowed within the public road right-of-way or within any land delineated as wetlands in any instance.
The Site Plan shall be amended as follows:

A chart detailing the development standards for the ‘R-5’ zoning district shall be added to the Site Plan
The following statement or such similar language shall be added as a note on the Site Plan. The applicant or their representative shall propose the actual language of the statement which shall be reviewed and approved by the Town Attorney at a cost to be borne by the applicant.

This Site Plan approval shall be subject to a provision guaranteeing the driveway proposed for this use and accessed at the end of Sherman Road will be constructed and maintained to meet New York State Fire Code regulations for continuous safe passage of emergency and other vehicles, at all times and in all weather conditions, and the owner, and/or successors, further release the Town of Rochester from any costs or liabilities associated with the driveway access, and agrees to defend and hold the town harmless for any claims made with regard to the access.

The driveway proposed shall be amended to be constructed to a width of 15’. Additionally, the driveway shall be constructed to a width of 20’ for a distance of 60’ in length at a location to the north of the pool area to create an emergency vehicle pull-off area.

Any and all fees and reimbursements due to the Town of Rochester involving this application shall be paid in full prior to the Chairman’s signature on the Site Plan.
Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, improvements and existing site conditions shall be verified to be in agreement with the approved and signed Site Plan and conditions 1 through 13 of this decision shall be verified as complete by the Code Enforcement Officer. Should the improvements be installed in phases, the Code Enforcement Officer may issue a temporary Certificate of Occupancy, upon determination that the minimum health, safety, and welfare elements required for the use have been satisfied.

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. 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 as determined by the Code Enforcement Officer.
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.

PB 2012-08 SPA Continued Application, Public Hearing, and SEQRA Review

Site Plan

The Planning Board further authorizes the Chairman to sign the Site Plan certifying this approval upon presentation and acceptance of a Site Plan revision including the required amendments and Town Attorney agreement to the proposed Site Plan statement. The amended Site Plan shall retain the date Dec. 9, 2012 with pages 1 and 2 having revision date of Dec. 16, 2012. The date of amendment, as mandated by the conditional approval, shall further be revised accordingly.

Draft resolution prepared by the Chairman and was read and amended by the Planning Board.

Resolution adopted Jan. 8, 2013, by the following vote:

Ayes: 6* Nays: 0

*alternate seated on the Board for this application due to lack of quorum at the meeting 12/11/2012

Absent: Mr. Ricks, Mr. Ullman

Motion made by Mr. O’Donnell

Second by Mr. Rominger

Chairman Baden thought that this was a great project and was exactly the kind of business the Town was looking for.

Ms. Nichols’ questioned if she had a driveway permit so that she could construct the driveway now?

Chairman Baden answered yes. Maybe the applicant’s engineer had a copy of it. What the Highway Superintendent is approving is the access to the Town Road. As long as she constructs it to where she has said she is going to and she also needs to submit a final site plan that reflects the changes to the road. If her engineer can do it and send it to the Board that would be great. He can’t sign the site plan until those changes are made. If she also had an attorney that she wanted to confer with to go over the language on the notes that would be fine- or she is welcome to use the language suggested by the Town Attorney. Its just to protect the Town so that if her road is snow covered and there is an emergency and they can’t get through, the Town is not held responsible.

OTHER MATTERS:

Chairman Baden noted that he’d run into a conflict with his schedule with the February meeting which was on February 12^th. He’d like to ask the Board if they would consider changing the meeting date to February 11^th 2013?

Mr. Paddock motioned to change the meeting to February 11, 2013. Seconded by Mr. Tapper. No discussion.

Vote:

Baden: Yes Tapper: Yes

O’Donnell: Yes Rominger: Yes

Ullman: Absent Ricks: Absent

Paddock: Yes Case, Alt.: Yes

Motion carried. 6 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, 0 abstentions (vote included alternate)

OTHER MATTERS (CONT’D)

ZONING AND SUBDIVISION UPDATE

Chairman Baden wanted to make the Board aware that for the last year, he, Jerry Davis, Brenda Striano, and Becky Paddock Stange have been going through the Zoning and Subdivision Code and identifying things that need a little tweaking—things that didn’t get done right back in 2009. He presented that in draft form to the Town Board and at some point he is going to be going over it with them. There isn’t a lot- there is some procedural things- some things that Mr. Davis asked for to give himself a little less of a gray area on some things. It will be referred back to the Planning Board as an official document once it gets to the local law stage. So they will have plenty of time to discuss it all then. He hasn’t circulated copies of it to everyone because he really wanted the Town Board to do their end first and they will go from there.

Mr. Tapper thought that since recommendations were coming from the Planning Board, that the Board Members should know what they are before they give them to the Town Board?

Chairman Baden clarified that they weren’t actually coming from the Planning Board- they are coming from the Code Enforcement Office and it was a combined effort. Its not an official recommendation from the PB. Mr. Davis asked for certain things to be fixed over the last few years. They have been compiling them and finally have gotten to the point where they have enough fixes to make to change them. The Town Board will review it and they will come up with an actual local law to amend those two codes and at that point it legally has to be refereed back to the PB to comment on. He wasn’t trying to hide anything. He would be happy to circulate it, but he had wanted the Town Board to see if first.

Mr. Tapper noted that what Mr. Baden was saying was that by the time it comes back to the PB it would be more or less in the form of a Town Law and then they got to make recommendations. He didn’t want to criticize, because what the Chairman did for the PB was very good, but if Mr. Davis as the CEO and Mr. Baden as Chairman of the PB was in conference with him about making certain changes that would involve the PB- maybe they should have a little input before hand.

Chairman Baden understood and would circulate the drafts by email.

Mr. Tapper questioned if there were any examples of the laws that they found problematic?

Chairman Baden noted that this whole review would be done very openly in public, but what he was trying to avoid was starting a big public controversy. He was happy to circulate this- he just asked that the members not share it with others at this point. Its not at that stage. A majority of the things are just clarifications and some laws have changed over the last couple of years. Definitions were the bulk of the revisions. Basically its problems that have been run into over the last few years. There is a definition of the word ‘Inn’. B & B is a residential use. Right now we have B & B and hotel- with nothing in between. We are proposing a definition of ‘Inn’ and a new use called ‘Inn’. It can be the size of a B & B, but the owners don’t live there.

Mr. Rominger noted that a lot of these issues are going to clear things up and make it easier to work with.

Chairman Baden noted that what he will send will be a red-lined version. It’s the existing code with things that are being taken out crossed out with a red line. Its very easy to read and follow.

OTHER MATTERS (CONT’D)

LYPKA

One other thing that the Chairman wanted to discuss was the Lypka Subdivision that had been discussed at the last meeting. It was very confusing. It’s a lot line adjustment and a subdivision all at the same time. The Chairman raced the process as it was discovered about the one lot being in 2 different zoning districts. The CEO didn’t pick that up in the initial review. Unfortunately the day before the scheduled Public Hearing, the Chairman made the CEO aware of it and when he saw that he said, ‘of course, that lot needs to be 5 acres’. So that was what had happened. The Chairman was originally going to leave the Public Hearing opened until it was resolved, but Bill Eggers, LS really did his homework and got the changes in on Tuesday afternoon. The chairman wanted to thank the Board for being patient with that. He didn’t normally like to race something through like that, but he knew there was a sale pending on the approval. He knew it was a little confusing in terms of the lot line and where they took that acreage from. And he knew that the Board took a few things out of the decision that the Chairman had prepared. Mr. Eggers went ahead and complied with them once the Chairman had explained them. The Board had to justify where that land was coming from. The decision was left alone, but the maps reflected what needed to be done. And as soon as the Chairman explained it to Mr. Eggers he completely understood and agreed to do it. The Chairman was just making the Board aware of what had happened.

ADJOURNMENT

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

All members present in favor.

As there was no further business, Vice Chairman Rominger adjourned the meeting at 8:45PM.

Respectfully submitted,

Rebecca Paddock Stange, Secretary

Approved February 11, 2013