MINUTES OF November 12, 2013 the Town of Rochester PLANNING BOARD, held at the Town Hall, Accord, NY.
Vice Chairman Rominger asked that everyone stand to say the Pledge to the Flag.
The Secretary did roll call attendance.
PRESENT: ABSENT:
Adam Paddock Melvyn I. Tapper
Robert Rominger, Vice Chairman Michael Baden, Chairman
Shane Ricks
Fred O’Donnell
Anthony Ullman
Also present:
Rebecca Paddock Stange, Secretary. Town Attorney, Mary Lou Christiana was also present.
TRAININGS
- Nov. 14 8AM – 9:30AM Climate Change Predictions for Eastern New York
Hudson River Watershed Alliance
New Paltz Diner, New Paltz $4 minimum breakfast
- Nov. 14 6:30PM – 8:30PM
Green Infrastructure, Building Natural Drainage Systems
Dutchess County Planning Federation
Dutchess County Farm and Home Center, Millbrook $5
- Nov. 19 6:30PM -8:30PM
Introduction to the Revised SEQRA Environmental Assessment Forms
Catskill Watershed Corp. 905 Main St., Margaretville FREE
Dec. 6 8AM – 5PM Land Use and Sustainable Development ConferencePace Law SchoolNYS Judicial Institute, Pace Law School, White Plains $75
ACTION ON MINUTES
Mr. Ricks motioned to approve the August Planning Board Minutes. Seconded by Mr. O’Donnell. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden: Absent Tapper: Absent
O’Donnell: Yes Rominger: Yes
Ullman: Yes Ricks: Yes
Paddock: Yes
Motion carried. 5 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, 0 abstentions
Mr. O’Donnell motioned to approve the September 24, 2013 Minutes. Seconded by Mr. Ullman. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden: Absent Tapper: Absent
O’Donnell: Yes Rominger: Yes
Ullman: Yes Ricks: Yes
Paddock: Yes
Motion carried. 5 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, 0 abstentions
Mr. Paddock motioned to approve the October 8, 2013 Minutes. Seconded by Mr. Rominger. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden: Absent Tapper: Absent
O’Donnell: Yes Rominger: Yes
Ullman: Yes Ricks: Yes
Paddock: Yes
Motion carried. 5 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, 0 abstentions
Open Development Referral from Town Board
Shawn Charles– for Open Development for a single family dwelling Deer Haven Road, S/B/L #68.2-2-50,
‘R-2’ Zoning District
Mr. Rominger noted that the first item on the agenda for Open Development Review for Shawn Charles is on hold until the applicant works out his Road Maintenance Agreement and gets a letter from the Highway superintendent signing off on the road.
PB 2013-09 SUP New Application
Special Use Permit
Andrea Ellison- for Special Use Permit to convert a single family residential dwelling to a two-family residential dwelling, 132 Schwabie Tpke., S/B/L #60.3-1-35, ‘R-2’ zoning district
Andrea Ellison was present on behalf of her application. Ms. Ellison noted that she has a 1.5 story home that she wants to make into a 2 family home. She wants to take the upper ½ into an apartment for her mother. There would be a 2nd entrance from upstairs to the outdoors and she is working with an engineer on either getting a letter signing off on the septic being suitable for the 2 family dwelling or she may need to redesign the system because she is going from 3 bedrooms to 5 bedrooms.
Mr. Ricks noted that this was an R-2 acre zoning district and the applicant had 6 acres. The required acreage per dwelling was 2, so she had enough to do this.
Mrs. Ellison noted that the parking area was currently 22 by 40 feet and could easily be widened another 8 by 12 feet.
Mr. Rominger noted that he and Chairman Baden had discussed the dimensions and they were fine. He continued to note that this was a Type II Action as defined under SEQRA and therefore wouldn’t need to go through the SEQRA process.
Mr. Ricks motioned to schedule the Public Hearing for December. Seconded by Mr. O’Donnell. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden: Absent Tapper: Absent
O’Donnell: Yes Rominger: Yes
Ullman: Yes Ricks: Yes
Paddock: Yes
Motion carried. 5 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, 0 abstentions
PB 2013-09 LLI New Application
Lot Improvement
Richard Weaver II and Frank and Viola Lampman– for Lot Improvement conveying 2.21 acres from a
+/- 67 acre parcel to a 1.39 acre parcel with resulting lot of 3.60 acres, St. Josen Rd., S/B/L #77.3-2-7.122 and #77.3-2-7.13, ‘AR-3’ and ‘R-5’ zoning districts
The applicants were not present for the application.
Mr. Rominger noted that the new lot line would be the Peterskill Stream. They are doing this because one of the applicant’s home is not on his own property. This is a Type II Action by definition.
Mr. Ricks noted that he couldn’t really see the frontage of the lot that was remaining.
Town Attorney Christiana noted that this won’t change the frontage of the larger lot.
Mr. Ullman motioned to certify the lot line improvement. Seconded by Mr. O’Donnell. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden: Absent Tapper: Absent
O’Donnell: Yes Rominger: Yes
Ullman: Yes Ricks: Yes
Paddock: Yes
Motion carried. 5 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, 0 abstentions
PB 2013-07 SPA Continued Application and Public Hearing
Site Plan Review
PEG Bandwidth – applicant, Global Tower and Zeno Wicks – owners, for Site Plan approval for addition of new microwave dish on an existing 120’ monopole wireless telecommunications facility and related equipment within an existing shelter, 82 City Hall Rd., S/B/L #68.3-2-47.110, ‘R-2’ zoning district
Thomas White was present on behalf of the application.
Mr. Rominger noted that this application was for an installation of a microwave dish on the existing 120’ monopole tower at 82 City Hall Road. As a point of clarification, this microwave unit is going to go at 85’ not 105’. The applicant has provided a structural report. Was there still any structural work going on? The report alluded to something about December of 2013.
Mr. White was not aware of any work being done.
Mr. Rominger continued noting that the applicant also provided the Board with the microwave emissions report.
At this time the Board reviewed Part 1 & 2 of the Short EAF. A draft Part 2 was prepared by Chairman Baden.
All items were checked as “No, or Small Impact may occur”.
Mr. Rominger read Part 3 as follows:
Telecommunications towers are a federally regulated industry under the control of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The applicable federal laws governing this industry include the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and Section 6409 of the Middle Class Tax Act of 2012. The FCC has further authored clarifying documentation as to the applicability of Section 6409. The Planning Board is bound by these federal laws and standards.
With regard to Question 11,.the applicant has certified the project will not exceed the guidelines established by the FCC regarding radio frequency emissions. These guidelines state in the FCC’s OET Bulletin 65,that antennae located at elevation of 10 meters (approximately 33 feet) above ground level is categorically excluded. This application proposes an additional microwave dish at an elevation of 85 feet. The Planning Board may only require the applicant maintain such standards and is not empowered to require local testing. Therefore the Planning Board has no opinion on the potential impact to human health as it is not empowered to make such independent determinations.
Regarding structural capability of the telecommunications tower, the applicant has prepared a structural report certified by a licensed structural engineer. Additionally, a Town of Rochester building permit will be required.
Mr. Paddock motioned for a Negative Declaration under SEQRA. Seconded by Mr. O’Donnell. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden: Absent Tapper: Absent
O’Donnell: Yes Rominger: Yes
Ullman: Yes Ricks: Yes
Paddock: Yes
Motion carried. 5 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, 0 abstentions
At 7:20PM Mr. Rominger opened the Hearing to the public.
Applicant, Mr. White, explained that they were taking the existing tower at 82 City Hall Road and adding one additional antenna to that structure at 85’. They are also adding a cabinet in the existing compound. This is to help AT&T to transmit data and pictures in a stronger fashion. He supplied an emissions report at the Board’s request from their radio frequency engineer, which shows that they are at .04%, so that’s less than ½ of a percent of the National FCC power density that’s allowed.
Mr. Rominger questioned if the applicant was required to provide that data to the FCC?
Mr. White answered absolutely. There was another document that he had provided the Board shows that there is no interference with any of the microwave antennas for any of the particular projects that they have been working on in NYC.
Mr. Ricks noted that ½ of a percent of emissions—is that from the new antenna that is being proposed, or is that from all of the antennas on the tower?
Mr. White answered that it was just the one antenna that they were proposing.
Mr. Ricks questioned if this would be the third antenna on that monopole?
Mr. White believed that it was the third array of antennas. There were two additional arrays on it right now. And he did not have the readings for those. They could guess as to what they may be, but there was no way for them to go to another carrier and find out.
The Town Attorney noted that those carriers have come before the Board for approval.
Mr. Rominger noted that when the FCC looks at the applicant’s emissions- they were at .04 of the allowable for that device. They weren’t adding the cumulative affect of the emissions from all of the antennas.
Mr. White answered that was correct.
Mr. Rominger stated that the applicant was well within the guidelines.
Mr. White confirmed this statement.
Mr. Ricks questioned if the other antennas on that pole were similar in the emissions that they were giving out like the applicant’s? He didn’t know if the applicant could answer this question.
Mr. White noted that he had a rough idea because he has done this hundreds of times before, but an AT&T array at 150’ in the air is something like .5% – 1.5% and it really depends, but it can go up to 5, 10, or 20% of the allowable emissions depending on the topography and where it’s pointing.
Mr. Ricks questioned how many feet was that in of the pole?
Mr. White was just saying that if they were 150’ up.
Mr. Rominger noted that if they were 33’ above—
Mr. Ricks interrupted—then they would give off more?
Mr. White answered no. It would be less. If you were standing in front of the antenna you were at .04, if you were at 150’ up in the air it would be less.
That was what Mr. Ricks meant, the lower one would give off more.
Mr. White noted that it depended on certain things, but in theory, yes.
Steve Fornal of Accord was recognized to speak. He questioned if coverage data was being required?
Town Attorney Christiana answered, no.
Mr. Fornal questioned if the microwave emissions that were recorded- were those metered or book value?
Mr. White instructed Mr. Fornal that he could look at the report if he liked.
Mr. Fornal read a statement as follows:
FCC Telecommunications Act of 1996
Section 254 (d) Universal Services
“(d) TELECOMMUNICATIONS CARRIER CONTRIBUTION- Every telecommunications carrier that provides interstate telecommunications services shall contribute, on an equitable and nondiscriminatory basis, to the specific, predictable, and sufficient mechanisms established by the Commission to preserve and
advance universal service. The Commission may exempt a carrier or class of carriers from this requirement if the carrier’s telecommunications activities are limited to such an extent that the level of such carrier’s contribution to the preservation and advancement of universal service would be de minimis. Any other provider of interstate telecommunications may be required to contribute to the preservation and advancement of universal service if the public interest so requires.”
Seeing as the primary intent of the law is to provide seamless/universal coverage, if this company is not increasing coverage (northwest and southeast near Clove Road Extension areas) does this company have such an exemption? If so, is the exemption documented and included in the current record of this proceeding?
I think the Planning Board should confer with the Town Attorney as to coverage issues. In other words, if telecom companies do not increase coverage why should their applications receive pro forma approval?
I understand that guy wires have been added to the tower for stability. If that is true, do the wires exist within the required setbacks? This should be a condition of approval.
Finally I request that a condition of approval be to hold the company responsible for removal of antenna should it go unused for a period of one year.
I also suggest the Planning Board take it upon itself to construct a letter requesting that the Town Board consider changing the Town of Rochester Code to include a stepped review regimen that allows for a simple site plan for locating on town towers while requiring a Special Use Permit w/full EIS (Environmental Impact Study) for any new tower and/or antenna desiring to locate in obvious residential areas such as where the Wicks tower is located.
Town Attorney Christiana noted that the FCC in more recent rulings has essentially tied the Towns’ hands in regards to accessory antennas and additions and things. Towns have more control in their review over new towers, but for accessories, they don’t have much.
Mr. White didn’t think that there were any guide wires on that tower. He thought it was a monopole.
Jason Broome of 98 City Hall Road was recognized to speak. Mr. Broome noted that he lived next door to this monstrosity. He stated that there was work going on at the tower and there were guide wires going up. There was a guy driving around today that was trying to find the tower.
Mr. White answered that it wasn’t his tower.
Mr. Broome noted that part of the problem is that the Planning Board was here to plan. He spoke for a lot of people on surrounding roads- Cedar Drive, Queens Highway, City Hall, Bee Hive—there were a lot of houses, a lot of people and they were upset. They didn’t want this thing there and they didn’t want new antennas every year. The Planning Board was here and they were asking them to do whatever they could in the future to prevent new antennas from going up. It shouldn’t be there in the first place. He knows the Town fought it and it is there against the Town’s wishes. He noted that the Planning Board doesn’t know what the Code Enforcement Office is doing. He could call the CEO up and he’s saying that he needs direction from the Planning Board. It’s a whole circle of a mess and him as a land owner next door, where does he go? All of them have been upset about this process. Obviously there is Federal Law that has taken away a lot of their control, but what they were asking is whatever control they could put into the Code to change the Code, please do that. He spoke with the Supervisor of the Town about having the Town put up a Tower in a different place that was appropriate away from residences or even in a place that so many people don’t have coverage. Obviously a lot of people have cell phones. When people go to buy or rent a house they ask if their cell phone would work there. Obviously the towers could have been more appropriately cited. He was asking the Town Board and the Planning Board to work together to cite the towers and antennas more appropriately. Yes, they were never going to reach the FCC guidelines, but the FCC themselves declared these things bad for your health. They are guidelines. They were basically saying that you could only be near these antennas for a certain amount of time or your health would be at risk. Therefore, the if the tower wasn’t near his house, his health would be less affected. How bad? No one knows. 30 years ago no one knew how bad asbestos was. A lot of people believe in God- you can’t see God. But he has a meter right here and if he turned it on and put it next to your cell phone, the meter would go up in the red. There were no God meters, but they had this here and it showed something. The other thing is property values. There is a lot of research that this adversely affects their property values up to 20%. He personally has been looking for another property to go to for some time because he doesn’t want to be near this thing. The other thing is noise. He’d talk to Mr. Wicks to this, but these guys are dropping materials off at their houses thinking that was where the cell tower was. They make a ton of noise. It’s a residential neighborhood. In the future, please think about their concerns when changing the Code.
Mr. Ullman questioned if there was something in the Code about equipment having to be removed if it wasn’t used?
Mr. O’Donnell noted that was in the approval for T-Mobile.
Mr. Rominger wanted to say that he could empathize with the speakers tonight. He lives on Airport Road. He had a beautiful view of Mohonk Mountain House and the Gunks and now he looks right out a cell phone tower. At first it was just a few antennas and then more and more carriers came on it. He was here from the beginning when the carriers came in and they said that it was just the beginning and they would cover the Town and really do right by the Town and expand their coverage. As far as he could tell that coverage has not been expanded. Just like Mr. Broome, he doesn’t want to see the expanded coverage come with someone applying for another 30’ on the tower so that they could get 3 more carriers so that the carriers can cherry pick Route 209. Chairman Baden and himself would like to talk with the Supervisor about getting a small committee together to work with their Planner and to be very pro-active because these Federal Rules or guidelines as far as he knows, the Planning Board’s hands are tied on. He has to defer to the Town Attorney on that because he isn’t one. But because they are so invasive to the community and restrictive on what the Board can do to control this in their own community, they have to create a telecommunications law and re-write it to make it so restrictive that they bring it right up to the edge of the Federal Rules. Otherwise what happens, happens here. They put up a tower and it’s a big ugly thing and there is a lot of equipment hanging on it and they have Stone Ridge who created the monopole and had the antennas inside and that restricted how many carriers they could have. Perhaps they could have done it differently. They wouldn’t have gotten as good of coverage, but it was clear that they needed a pro-active strategy to re-write the Codes, so that they were in better position as a Town to drive the process, not the Feds. That’s his point of view.
Mr. Ullman noted that this was a very restrictive area and no matter how pro-active the Town wants to be there was only so much you can do before you run into those Federal Regulations. Unfortunately that’s just the reality. He agreed that it was worth exploring, but he didn’t want to mislead anyone.
A member of the public questioned if the Town had any influence to camouflage so that it blended in with the landscape?
Town Attorney Christiana noted that on new towers they could review that.
Mr. Ullman recalled that they did do that on the Town towers and tried to make each of them blend in as much as they could.
Carol Fischer was recognized to speak. She would gladly trade these people a cell tower for the wood boiler that she has next door to her. At least she’d be able to open up her windows.
Trish Stanger was recognized to speak. She lived at 98 City Hall Road. The PB did this the last time that T-Mobile was here. They had an assessment that there was very little or no impact on all these different items that they went through. How did they come to that determination or judgment? Personally as a resident of the area, she didn’t feel that there was little or no impact. They couldn’t prove that there was little or no environmental impact. There was definitely an impact for the neighborhood.
Town Attorney Christina noted that what the Board was looking at and what they looked at on the last application for an antenna was just the addition of the dish. That was all they could look at under SEQRA (State Environmental Quality Review Act). They had SEQRA guidelines from the DEC. They had several guidelines as to what the Federal Government and FCC dictates. So, the applicant fills out the first portion. Then, based on the experience of the Board Members, as Board Members, on the State and Federal Regulations is how those determinations are made. All they are looking at now is this dish. She knows neighbors are looking at everything. Is the addition of this new dish going to be environmentally significant.
Ms. Stanger would respectfully disagree with the Boards assessment of Part 2. She thinks the impact is far greater than the Board is allowing for. She asked the Board to take that into consideration. She urged that whoever writes Code Enforcement to protect them as citizens and take their concerns seriously. Yes, there hands are tied by some nameless corporation. Who was driving this? It was very frustrating as a resident of the Town.
Supervisor Chipman was recognized to speak as a member of the public. He felt that everyone’s points were well taken. He wanted everyone to realize that the Planning Board was doing what they were able and capable of doing. They are limited by the Town Code and Federal Code as to what they could do. He did believe that they should re-examine their telecommunications code. Because of the Federal Laws, he didn’t know how far they could go with it. They are limited. They would have to look into that. At the same time, and he’s lived through a few disasters now, how important cell phones are in this Town. He did fight when they were putting up the Town towers against the placement of the towers and he will go to his grave believing that they were placed in the wrong spots. He knows where the gaps are in the town and he predicted it. Maybe at that time there was more attention paid to the revenue they would generate. And it is a good revenue for the Town. It did cover some gaps, but the Town should have looked at Schwabie Turnpike or Palentown, or Trails End. Clove Valley Road—those are underserved areas. And they had to look at them for not only the safety of the residents near the towers, but for the safety of the entire Town. At time cell phones were the only communications between himself and residents and there were life and death decisions made at that time. If they didn’t have cell coverage for some of these people, they would have had greater problems. He did believe they would look at that and he would do the best he could. He came here to listen tonight and he appreciated that everyone came out and what they had to say and he thanked the Planning Board.
Mr. Ricks wanted to speak to what Mr. Chipman said. He knows that when the Board had decided to do the two towers on Town property they looked at different things in here as far as coverage area and those towers were put in primarily for the traffic along Route 209. If towers were placed properly in the Town, there would be one up on Cherrytown Mountain in a non populated area with no residences nearby or by Quiet Mountain. The higher up you get, the better coverage you were going to get. Then to place these two Town towers in the bottom pit of the valley really limited the access that you could get. He voiced his opinion then and he still thinks that they were placed there more for a revenue issue for the Town. They work, but they didn’t really give the Town the coverage that they wanted. And now that most of the cell companies have the three towers now, no one is actually willing to add the extra one being that they got those two. If the Town would have held out for better locations, everyone would have been happier in the Town.
Mr. Fornal had to respond to that. The fact of the matter was that there was coverage blanks all trough Boodle Hole and City Hall Road- and now you can get coverage. They always knew that to the North and West and to the South like down there in Clove Valley that there were always gaps and there were going to be gaps and the only way to fix that would be to get some sort of repeater or another tower. They knew that then, so they did increase coverage. And what Mr. Chipman said about emergencies—he’s right a lot more people had coverage and were able to use it and there is the revenue stream.
Mr. Ricks noted that if the cell companies could have picked out 3 of their top prime locations, probably those two in the valley wouldn’t have been picked. Those were the only points he was making.
Mr. O’Donnell wanted to comment as someone who had been in the fire services for 28 years. Do not assume that if you put it up on a hill that it will cover everything in this Town. That is a mistake and it is wrong. He lives on the side of the hill in Kerhonkson. He has been a member of the Kerhonkson Fire Company for 28 years and they cannot get cell service for Fire Dispatch Service from Craagsmoor because they are pinned up against the mountain, so you can’t assume that because of where we live and the mountains—just because you put it at the highest point, is not a guarantee of that. That is a misconception. They actually get dispatched off of a tower that is North 35 miles because the one 6 miles away just shoots right over the top. Barring putting 10 towers throughout the Town, you aren’t going to get that complete coverage and he didn’t think that anyone wanted to see that many towers put up.
Mr. Rominger noted that as all of this has been built and there have been new antennas and microwave dishes and they have another one as the next application on Airport Road—at least they should talk with the Supervisor and come up with something that they have greater control of that is better for the Town and try and mitigate what the Federal Guidelines are forcing on them.
Barbara Fornal, a member of the public, was recognized to speak. She noted as far as the revenue went, she could see the towers on Town properties because of revenue, but this tower—the Town gets absolutely zero and her understanding is that the property owner isn’t even making any money on it. So, that’s a crime.
Mr. Ullman noted that would be why again, the two Town locations at the time were perceived as effective.
Mr. O’Donnell stated that the City Hall Road tower was ordered by the Court and there was no choice. If you wanted to blame someone you could blame the Middle Class Tax Act of 2012.
Mr. O’Donnell motioned to close the Public Hearing. Seconded by Mr. Ullman. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden: Absent Tapper: Absent
O’Donnell: Yes Rominger: Yes
Ullman: Yes Ricks: Yes
Paddock: Yes
Motion carried. 5 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, 0 abstentions
Mr. Rominger noted that they had a draft decision if the Board wanted to go over it, but he thought perhaps that they should wait until the next meeting and look into some of the issues regarding the construction.
Mr. White noted that he was here to discuss the microwave antenna.
Mr. O’Donnell noted that the guide wires were the issue.
Mr. O’Donnell noted that if they are improper, they may have violated their permit. Before they approve anything tonight, they should make sure they haven’t violated anything that they should be doing.
Mr. Ricks noted that there was no reason that they had to decide tonight. The Board could send a letter to the CEO and he could get them an answer by the next meeting and if there was something going on up there the Town Attorney could recommend what the Board should do.
Mr. Ullman noted that he felt that they were two separate issues. Non compliance and construction aspect is something that should be dealt with separately by the owner. His right to use is ultimately revoked, then everything goes. He didn’t see what the reason was to hold this application up because of a collateral issue, whether it was right or wrong.
Mr. Paddock would like to wait for a month to see what was going on up there. It couldn’t hurt.
Mr. Ricks noted that they had 62 days to make a decision.
Mr. O’Donnell was good with pushing it off for another month to hear back from the CEO. They shouldn’t make the situation any worse.
PB 2013-08 SPA New Application
Site Plan Review
PEG Bandwidth – applicant, Homeland Towers and Town of Rochester – owners, for Site Plan approval for addition of new microwave dish on an existing 150’ monopole wireless telecommunications facility and related equipment within an existing shelter,
100 Airport Rd., S/B/L #69.3-2-37, ‘R-5’ zoning district
Mr. White was present on behalf of the application.
Mr. Rominger noted that this application was for Site Plan approval for addition of new microwave dish on an
existing 150’ monopole wireless telecommunications facility and related equipment within an existing shelter at
100 Airport Rd.
Mr. Ricks noted that he asked this question last month as well, but he was going to ask again. Why wasn’t the applicant requesting to do this at the Route 209 Town tower?
Mr. White noted that AT&T’s build plan didn’t call for that. It was a communication between the City Hall Road tower and the 100 Airport Road tower.
Mr. Rominger motioned for an Unlisted Action under SEQRA. Seconded by Mr. Ricks. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden: Absent Tapper: Absent
O’Donnell: Yes Rominger: Yes
Ullman: Yes Ricks: Yes
Paddock: Yes
Motion carried. 5 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, 0 abstentions
Mr. O’Donnell motioned to schedule the Public Hearing for the next meeting in December. Seconded by Mr. Paddock. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden: Absent Tapper: Absent
O’Donnell: Yes Rominger: Yes
Ullman: Yes Ricks: Yes
Paddock: Yes
Motion carried. 5 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, 0 abstentions
As her services were no longer required, the Town Attorney left the meeting.
Pre-Application Conference
Conservation Subdivision
Daniel Getman- for Conservation Subdivision of a +/- 21.4 acre parcel
St. Josen Rd., S/B/L #77.3-2-7.114, ‘R-5’ zoning district
Mr. Medenbach, PE and Mr. Getman were present on behalf of the application.
Mr. Medenbach explained that they were here as a pre-application to get the Board’s feedback. This was a piece of property at the very end of St. Josen Road. The road terminates at a certain point and he wasn’t sure where it legally ended, but the property was at the end of it. He knew that the plowed into the property and turned around. They would need to figure that out. In all likelihood they would extend that. The applicant has purchased a single family house and there was a small barn and out buildings. His intent was to build an additional house in the Spring and make some other lots potentially for friends. He wanted to keep everything clustered close around the road. There used to be a much bigger barn that collapsed in a snow storm several years ago. So they would put 3 houses in addition to the existing house in what is the developed area. There was the Peterskill Stream that ran along the Eastern boundary. They would put a conservation easement all up against that as well as some of the other lands that are shown. He wanted to keep a big portion of this property in conservation. The applicant would like to start construction in the Spring on the house in what they are referring to as lot 4. He is talking to Mr. Davis, CEO and he said that he could get a permit to build that house just the way the property is now, which is what the applicant may do. They would like to put that house in a position where they would know that they could further develop the property as shown on this plan. He didn’t know if the Board has approved any Conservation Developments yet.
Mr. Rominger noted that this would be the first.
Mr. Ricks questioned if the open space area would remain in all of the parcel’s names, or would it be turned over to the nature conservancy?
Mr. Medenbach noted that it would be left as part of lot 4. There would be some additional lands on lots 3 & 1. That’s they way they are showing it now. That is subject to revision and interpretation. That would remain permanently undeveloped land and would give access to the other lots, so all of the lot owners could have access to that. If they create a separate parcel just for the open space, there are issues with that.
Mr. Ricks noted that if all of them have access to that then the people of lot 4 would be paying the taxes on it—or would it be tax free?
Mr. Medenbach didn’t know.
Mr. Getman just assumed that the taxes would be included in whatever lots owned it.
Mr. Medenbach noted that when you put a restriction like a conservation easement on a piece of property, the tax value goes down substantially. There is also the possibility that they could take it off of the tax roll if it became a state conservation. None of those discussions have taken place regarding open space yet. They aren’t sure exactly how that will be owned or operated. All they were saying now was that yes, there would be permanent open space.
Mr. Rominger noted that he has spoken with Chairman Baden and the Chairman has conveyed to Mr. Rominger that he feels that the parcel holds a lot of promise for a conservation subdivision. It seems like a good idea, they just have to go through the process and work out the exact size of the lots in regards to the density benefit. In his opinion the parcel itself looks like a good fit.
Mr. Ullman noted that the applicant just needed to figure out how they wanted to structure the conservancy.
Mr. Ricks noted that the density here is 5 acres, yet they were doing smaller lots and you would think that the person with the 1.8 acres if a big portion of lot 4 was going to be made available for their use, that they would be responsible for some of the taxes.
Mr. Medenbach answered that there were about a zillion different ways they could construct the conservancy.
Mr. Rominger noted that he received an email from Chairman Baden concerning the acreage. He noted that according to the Chairman that with the density bonus in the R-5 district that the minimum of each lot would have to be 3.75 acres.
Mr. Medenbach noted that the density bonus said that if you had more than 50% of open space that the PB may consider a 25% density bonus. How did the Chairman come up with that acreage?
Mr. Rominger noted that this was how he calculated it. He would double check it with Chairman Baden.
Mr. Medenbach noted that the total lot size right now was 21.4 acres.
Mr. Paddock questioned if there was any flood plain information?
Mr. Rominger noted that they would request that information when they moved forward in the application process.
Mr. Ricks thought that the concept was great. Was the road paved all the way to the end?
Mr. Getman said it was.
Mr. Medenbach would get information from the Highway Superintendent as to where the Town road ends.
Mr. O’Donnell didn’t see any issues at this point.
Mr. Rominger noted that the process was in the Code as far as the next steps. There was a lot of Data and a site visit,
Mr. Medenbach looked over the code in regards to the density bonus. He didn’t see how that related to a larger minimum lot size?
Mr. O’Donnell felt that Chairman Baden was giving a quarter off of 5 acres which would give you 3.75.
Mr. Medenbach didn’t agree with that. That would be your average density- not the minimum. Instead of 5 acres per lot, the average would be 3.75. He understood that logic.
Mr. Rominger noted that Chairman Baden interpreted it that each lot needed to be 3.75.
Mr. Medenbach didn’t agree with this.
Mr. Rominger noted that they would look into this further. He also noted that the Chairman also indicated that Planner review may be required for this.
Mr. Ullman noted that it also states in the code how to handle the open space.
Mr. Medenbach could provide flood plain data and slopes and they would look at a site visit with the Board. He felt that this was a good parcel for this and would come back once the density bonus was clarified.
Mr. Rominger noted to the applicant that he was on the Rondout Conservancy and would be able to talk with the applicant about that if he were interested outside of the meeting.
OTHER MATTERS:
Reschedule December Meeting:
Mr. Rominger noted that he would not be available for the regular December Meeting. He asked if the Board would be willing to push it back to the 3rd Monday- December 16th?
Mr. Rominger motioned to re-schedule the December meeting for December 16, 2013. Seconded by Mr. O’Donnell. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden: Absent Tapper: Absent
O’Donnell: Yes Rominger: Yes
Ullman: Yes Ricks: Yes
Paddock: Yes
Motion carried. 5 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, 0 abstentions
Reschedule Regular Monthly Meeting Date:
Mr. Rominger noted that Chairman Baden wanted the Board to discuss the Board’s availability to reschedule their regular monthly meetings as the Town Attorney has a running conflict on the 2nd Tuesday of every month. He asked that the Board consider either the 2nd Monday, or the 1st Tuesday.
Most Board members agreed that the 2nd Monday would work. They would reconvene this topic at the next meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Ullman motioned to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Mr. O’Donnell. No discussion. All members present in favor.
Vice Chairman Rominger adjourned the meeting at 8:20PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Rebecca Paddock Stange, Secretary
APPROVED
December 16, 2013