Planning Board Minutes March 2013

MINUTES OF March 12, 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
Fred O’Donnell                                                  Robert Rominger, Vice Chairman
Anthony Ullman
Adam Paddock
Shane Ricks

 

Also present:
Rebecca Paddock Stange, Secretary.  Robert Case, Alternate.    

 

ANNOUNCEMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS
Chairman Baden noted that there were no new announcements or communications.   

 

Trainings:
Mr. Ricks and Mr. Ullman went to the training- “Tools for Assessing Visual Impacts.”
Upcoming trainings:

 

  • Thurs. March 28 – Green Infrastructure (SUNY Ulster)
  • Thurs. April 11 – Ready2Go – Shovel Ready Training (SUNY Ulster)
  • Sun. April 21 – Tues. April 23 – NY Planning Federation Conference – Saratoga Springs
Chairman Baden noted that he was attending the NYPF Conference in Saratoga Springs for sure as he was nominated by Supervisor Chipman and the Secretary, Mrs. Paddock Stange, and he was won the Levine Community Service Award.

 

ACTION ON MINUTES
There is one change to the February 2013 minutes. It reads as if Mr. O’Donnell made and seconded a motion. That was not the case and would be corrected. Motion to accept the February 2013 minutes and to make these changes was made by Mr. O’Donnell and seconded by Mr. Ricks.
Vote:
Baden:  Yes                                             Tapper: Absent
O’Donnell:      Yes                                             Rominger:       Absent
Ullman: Yes                                             Ricks:          Yes
Paddock:        Yes                                     
                                                                        
Motion carried. 5 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, 0 abstentions

 

Mr. Ricks recused himself at 7:05PM from the Board as the next application to be reviewed was his own.
Mr. Case, Alternate was seated on the Board to take his place by the Chairman.
PB 2013-01 SBD          Continued Application Review, SEQRA, Public Hearing     
Minor Subdivision       
RV Associates, Inc.; Shane Ricks, applicant, Application for Minor Subdivision. A 2 lot subdivision creating 2.7 acre and 24.5 acre parcels to be subdivided from an existing 27.2 acre parcel. Mettacahonts Rd., S/B/L #76.2-5-3.112, ‘B’, ‘AP Overlay’, and ‘FD Overlay’ zoning districts.

 

Mr. Ricks was present on behalf of this application.

 

Chairman Baden noted that the Highway Superintendent, Wayne Kelder, issued the Driveway Work Permit. The only other thing they had to do on this application was to refer it to the Ulster County Planning Board. Because there was a portion of the property in the flood plain and the property is in the County Ag District. He noted that the County regrettably did not have a quorum and therefore could not take action on this application. And therefore the Board could not take action on it either for 30 days or until they received a response from the County. As it was not likely that the County would meet again and render a referral by March 18th (the date the 30 day wait was to expire), the Board would not be able to consider a decision at this meeting. He apologized and noted that they would do SEQRA determination and open the public hearing. They could close the hearing, but would not be able to review a decision. Because this was no fault of the applicant, Chairman Baden questioned if the Board would consider holding a workshop meeting on the 4th Tuesday in March to consider a decision? They could discuss this later.

 

Mr. Ricks noted that this piece of property surrounds Valley Self Storage on 3 sides. It goes from Route 209 up to Mettacahonts Road with the Rochester Reformed Church on one side and Skate Time 209 on the other side. He was looking to take 2.7 acres out of the 27.2 acre piece. Someone is interested in buying the 2.7 acre parcel and putting a small single family dwelling on it. He also wanted to point out that the flood plain is nowhere near the parcel that is being created.

 

Chairman Baden noted that the flood plain is mostly on the Church property and some of Mr. Ricks property extends into the flood plain. The Town itself has many parcels in the flood plain and this is why we have so many referrals to the County PB.

 

Mr. Ullman questioned if land would be cleared as a result of this?

 

Mr. Ricks noted that the lot is wooded, but the person purchasing the property would just clear an area to build the house and driveway areas along with septic and well. The lot would remain mostly wooded.

 

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

 

The Board checked all questions as ‘No’.

 

Chairman Baden asked for a motion to determine a Negative Declaration under SEQRA as there are no signs of significant impacts due to the action.

 

Mr. Ullman questioned the Code. He noted that the Code gives preference to make sure the road frontage stays wooded. Would it make sense to condition that the road frontage remain wooded?

 

Chairman Baden noted that they could bring that up at the time a decision is considered. He didn’t believe that the trees were a concern of the Negative Declaration, which they were considering at this time.

 

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

 

Chairman Baden noted that NYS law requires that SEQRA be completed on Subdivision applications prior to opening the Public Hearing.

 

At 7:15PM Chairman Baden opened the Hearing to the public and asked for comment.

 

There was none.

 

At 7:15PM Mr. O’Donnell motioned to close the Public Hearing seconded by Mr. Case. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden:  Yes                                             Tapper: Absent
O’Donnell:      Yes                                             Rominger:       Yes
Ullman: Absent                                  Case:           Yes
Paddock:        Yes                                             
                                                                        
Motion carried. 5 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, 0 abstentions

 

Chairman Baden had hoped that the Board could issue a Conditional Approval at this meeting even without hearing back from the UCPB. He consulted with the Town Attorney and she advised it wasn’t allowed. He would email Mr. Eggers who prepared the map, and let him know the language that needs to go on the final map.

 

At 7:18PM Mr. Ricks rejoined the Board and Mr. Case sat back in the audience.

 

PB 2013-01 SPA          Continued Application Review
Site Plan Review
Elm Rock Inn LLC, for Site Plan Review. An expansion of a residential use Bed & Breakfast to hold onsite events pursuant to Section 140-35 of the Town of Rochester Zoning Code, 4496 Route 209, S/B/L #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. Davis, Engineer and Ms. Weeks, Applicant were present on behalf of the application.

 

Chairman Baden noted that the Board had heard back from the OPRHP and HPC both saying that they had no concerns with the project and OPRHP had no concerns with the Town assuming Lead Agency on the project. The Board did not hear back from the Town of  Marbletown, UCHD, or NYSDOT. Under SEQRA they are given 30 days to respond which would be March 17th. Until the Board heard back from these agencies, or until their time period of 30 days expired, they could not officially assume Lead Agency under SEQRA. In the past month Chairman Baden had been authorized by the Board to prepare a review letter which he did. Mr. Davis brought updated copies of the site plan to the meeting.

 

Mr. Davis noted that he would be meeting with the NYSDOT at the site on Thursday morning to go over site distances and based on what happens there they would revise the site plan again as necessary. He invited the Chairman to attend the meeting. Mr. Davis also noted that the site plan submitted this evening showed the tree lines along the neighboring parcels. They were mostly pine trees. He didn’t count them all, he based the site plan on aerials of the parcel and pictures taken. You can see the neighboring home of the Hornbeck’s, but it’s not bad. He also added the flood plain to the plan as requested and the location of the existing signage. He showed the fenced in turn around and dumpster/ utility area as well.

 

Ms. Weeks noted that the fenced in area was kind of dilapidated and they would like to eventually change that whole system.

 

Chairman Baden noted that driveway would be something that he’d be interested in hearing back from the DOT about.

 

Mr. Davis noted that the area there was an area that needed to be brush hogged and cleaned up in the proposed parking. He’s been talking with Marbletown trying to get a sense of what they wanted to be done on their end.

 

Ms. Weeks noted that they were more concerned with using the most stringent parking regulations.

 

Chairman Baden noted that Mr. Moriello, the applicant’s attorney, called the office on this day and relayed that it was his understanding that the Town of Marbletown Building Inspector was going to issue a letter saying as long as the most stringent parking was used they didn’t have a problem with it. They also wanted assurance that the Carriage House would remain as it was currently being used.

 

Mr. Davis felt that they were moving in the right direction. They were just trying to pull all of the appropriate agencies together to get responses from them.

 

Mr. Ricks questioned if any walkways from the building or the parking area to the tent area were going to be proposed?

 

Mr. Davis noted everything would remain grass.

 

Mr. Ullman questioned how the Board was going to go about assessing noise issues?

 

Chairman Baden noted that it was really up to the Board. They will base what they want to do upon what the applicant submits. This will be referred to the County Planning Board and the Town PB will have to discuss on how they want to see this addressed. Noise in this use is addressed under 140-20 in the Code.

 

Mr. Ullman noted that the noise levels produced from the project being proposed couldn’t be more than 10 decibels above the existing ambient noise levels.

 

Ms. Weeks questioned how that would be measured?

 

Chairman Baden noted that sound studies have their standards for noise levels. That was why he was asking for them to show the trees and existing landscaping features as they would be factored into the noise levels and buffers.

 

Ms. Weeks noted that the tents would have sides and she was curious how and which to measure- would it have to be an expert doing this?

 

Chairman Baden noted that a lot of time the applicant’s engineer handles it.

 

Mr. Ullman didn’t think the trees there would do anything to buffer the noise.

 

Ms. Weeks announced that she was an audiologist and trees are a significant sound barrier.

 

Mr. Ullman noted that the key is to figure out the data now and do an existing noise level measure and to use the studies and guidelines to project what the noise is going to be as produced from the proposed project.

 

Mr. Paddock noted that the Inn at Stone Ridge had a similar tent set up—maybe they could go to look to them as an example?

 

Chairman Baden noted that there are studies and formulas to get this information that the Board is seeking.

 

Mr. Ricks noted that over at the Rondout Valley Campground when they play music outside they could hear it for miles. If the tents have walls and they point the speakers towards Route 209, maybe they could change that.

 

Chairman Baden noted that it seems that noise and parking are the two biggest issues here. He reminded the applicant that they needed to submit a written justification on how they came up with the parking.

 

Mr. O’Donnell noted that they should also be certain that the temporary lighting that they propose should be adequate to cover the entire parking area.

 

Mr. Davis noted that lighting will be different for different events. They will find out what the worse case scenario would be and work from there.

 

Mr. O’Donnell suggested checking with Marbletown to see what their lighting requirements are as well.

 

The Board had a copy of Marbletown’s lighting guidelines at the meeting and noted that Rochester’s were more restrictive, so they would need to be the ones that were followed.

 

PB 2013-02 SUP          New Application
Special Use Permit Review
Brenda C. Reiss, for Special Use Permit Review. An expansion of an existing mixed use to allow apartment, office, or low impact retail on the first floor.  Existing use is U.S. Post Office and 6 apartments, 30 Main Street S/B/L #77.9-1-50.1, ‘H’ zoning district.  

 

Ms. Reiss was present on behalf of her application.

 

Chairman Baden noted that this was an expansion of an existing mixed use to allow apartment, office, or low impact retail on the first floor.  Existing use is U.S. Post Office, which would be continued and 6 apartments, 30 Main Street S/B/L #77.9-1-50.1, ‘H’ zoning district. No changes were being proposed to the building or the parking.

 

Ms. Reiss noted that the only serious change was the lot line that was done about a year ago. Originally there was retail along with the apartments, but that hasn’t been that way for a long time.

 

Chairman Baden agreed noting that the reason for the referral from the CEO was because it has been so long since retail space was in that building.
Chairman Baden noted that the lot line adjustment abandoned the old road to the Community Center and has given a large area for parking sufficient enough to show 15 spots. An updated site plan would need to be shown to show all of the existing post office/apartment parking and proposed parking as well. Parking in front of the building has been an issue for a long time. What is being proposed there is 5 spaces and no parking the rest would be no parking out front. There is an area sort of behind and to the other side of the building that is for employees and mail trucks. The Board needs to consider if there are enough spaces according to the uses. Residential use requires  spaces per unit, which would make 12 spaces be required for the apartments. The Post Office is 2700 sf and the Code calls for 200 sf per parking space. That would be 13 spaces.

 

Mr. Ricks noted that he goes to the Post Office a lot and cars can’t see if there are trucks parked along side of them. He’s seen people all the time there almost get clobbered by on coming traffic that they just can’t see.

 

Chairman Baden noted that Main Street is a County Road, so this will be referred to UCDPW, so he thinks that issue will be taken up there.

 

Mr. Ricks felt that the parking area was plenty big enough.

 

Mr. Paddock questioned if the DPW would determine if the parking spaces out front would stay?

 

Chairman Baden noted that the worst case scenario would be for the DPW to come back and say there could be no parking out front. The Board would address that if it came about. Right now the Board needs to come up with a number of spaces that they feel based on the use will be adequate.

 

Mr. O’Donnell noted that there will need to be Handicap spaces.

 

Chairman Baden noted that there is a space right in front of the Post Office.

 

Mrs. Reiss noted that Post Office parking is very short term.

 

Chairman Baden noted that they are dealing with 900 sf of retail space. He couldn’t imagine there would be more than 4 patrons at a time. This application does not need to be referred to the UCPB because no structure or parking changes were taking place.

 

Mrs. Riess noted that they could always expand the parking in the rear of the building if needed be.

 

Chairman Baden noted that he could see 6 spaces for upstairs, 5 for the post office and 15 for retail- which would bring the number of spaces needed to 26. That wouldn’t be counting the spaces for Post Office employees.

 

Mr. Ullman questioned if that count included parking for retail?

 

Chairman Baden noted that yes, he figured those numbers for retail at 175 sf. He felt that 5 spaces would be enough for the Post Office. The only issue he sees is if the DPW comes back and says that there shall be no parking in front of the Post Office. In some places it is illegal to back out on to a roadway.

 

Mr. O’Donnell thought that maybe they could do 3 parallel spaces out front?

 

Chairman Baden noted that they are going to be concerned with access and curb cuts. The County doesn’t require everything that goes commercial to have curb cuts like the State does. They do it case by case.

 

Chairman Baden noted that he has come up with 31 spaces including Post Office employee parking.

 

Mr. Paddock questioned if any of the added spaces have to be handicap accessible because of the change to retail?

 

Chairman Baden noted that yes, they would need to be marked by a sign. The applicant would need to figure out what they needed in terms of that.

 

Mr. O’Donnell motioned to schedule the Public Hearing at the April meeting. Seconded by Mr. Paddock. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden:  Yes                                             Tapper: Absent
O’Donnell:      Yes                                             Rominger:       Absent
Ullman: Yes                                             Ricks:          Yes
Paddock:        Yes                                     
                                                                        
Motion carried. 5 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, 0 abstentions

 

Chairman Baden re-iterated that this fell under the exception agreement that the Town has with the County Planning Board and therefore it did not need to be referred.

 

OTHER MATTERS:
LGRMIF Grant update
Chairman Baden noted that he has been working with the Secretary and the Town’s IT guy in developing a program to keep the office records. He wrote the grant to create a database of 50 years worth of files that have never been able to be cross referenced to be searched. The office also purchased a lap top and have a data entry person that needs to be done with the work by June 30th.

 

Zoning and Subdivision update
Chairman Baden noted that he went to the February Audit Meeting anticipating to continue presenting the proposed revisions to the Code and he was met with questions regarding the authority of charging him with this task. It was not expected. The Town Board may form a committee to review the proposed revisions.

 

The way they came about was in 2009 the Town Attorney and the Town’s Consultant both told the Building Dept. and PBZBA Offices to keep track of problems they came across and they would fix them as time went on. This was worked on last year and it was presented to the Town Board and they were kept abreast of the progress and now they are questioning the process.

 

Workshop meeting
Chairman Baden questioned how the Board felt about a workshop meeting to go over Mr. Rick’s draft decision because of the delay brought upon the applicant by the UCPB?

 

Mr. Ullman didn’t think it should be a matter of policy to hold special meetings for certain applicants.

 

Chairman Baden noted that the only reason he made the suggestion was because this was brought about because of the County’s lack of quorum and it will be No County Impact.

 

The Board was in agreement not to hold a workshop meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. O’Donnell motioned to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Mr. Ullman. No discussion.
All members present in favor.

 

Chairman Baden adjourned the meeting at 8:15PM in honor of Alternate Board Member Case’s late Mother.

 

Respectfully submitted,
                                                        
Rebecca Paddock Stange, Secretary       
                                                        Approved April 9, 2013