Planning Board Minutes October 2013

MINUTES OF October 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                                            Melvyn I. Tapper
Robert Rominger, Vice Chairman                                          Anthony Ullman
Shane Ricks                                                             Adam Paddock
Fred O’Donnell
                                                                        

 

Also present:
Rebecca Paddock Stange, Secretary.   

 

ANNOUNCEMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS
Chairman Baden noted that the Board was short an Alternate Board Member if anyone who knew anyone that was interested to have them write a letter of interest to the Town Supervisor.

 

He continued to note that the new SEQRA Forms are now in use. The forms are online, but the new workbook is not.   

 

TRAININGS               
  • Oct. 10         8AM – 9:30AM    Phragmites: Friend or Foe?
                Hudson River Watershed Alliance
                New Paltz Diner, New Paltz                      $4 minimum breakfast    
  • Oct. 24         8:30AM – 10AM   Zoning and Planning Case Law Update
Bond, Schoeneck & King, PLLC
111 Washington Ave. Albany                      $15
  • Oct. 24         5:30PM – 8:30PM Using the New Short Form EAF
Dutchess County Planning Federation
Dutchess County Farm and Home Center, Millbrook         $5
  • Oct. 29         5:30PM – 7:30PM Better Road Design and Management       
Columbia Land Conservancy               
Columbia Greene Community College, Hudson       FREE    
  • Nov. 2          9AM – 4PM               Habitat Assessment Guidelines
(Signup Deadline Oct. 25)       Hudsonia
Cornell Cooperative Extension, Kingston FREE
  • Nov. 7          8:30AM – 10AM   Zoning and Planning Case Law Update
Bond, Schoeneck & King, PLLC
Holiday Inn, Kingston                           $15
  • Nov. 8          9AM – 3PM               Site Plan & Special Use Permit Review
                New York Planning Federation
                FDR Presidential Library, Hyde Park             $60
  • Nov. 12 5:30PM – 7:45PM Conservation Development
Columbia Land Conservancy               
Columbia Greene Community College, Hudson       FREE    
  • Nov. 14?        8AM – 9:30AM
                Hudson River Watershed Alliance
                New Paltz Diner, New Paltz                      $4 minimum breakfast
  • Nov. 14 unknown (5:30PM – 8:30PM?)      Green Infrastructure
Dutchess County Planning Federation
Dutchess County Farm and Home Center, Millbrook         $5
  • Dec. 6          8AM – 5PM               Land Use and Sustainable Development Conference
Pace Law School
NYS Judicial Institute, Pace Law School, White Plains   $75

 

ACTION ON MINUTES
Chairman Baden noted that they would table the minutes until November as there was a miscommunication between himself and the Secretary on the August minutes and there have been many meetings lately, so the September minutes were not complete.

 

PB 2013-05 SPA          Continued Application and Public Hearing
Site Plan Review
New Cingular Wireless PCS (“AT&T”) – applicant, Town of Rochester and American Tower – owners, for Site Plan approval for AT&T equipment upgrade including addition of 3 new antennas, 6 remote radio units, 2 power leads, 1 fiber line, fiber cable, junction boxes, and associated appurtenances on an existing 150’ monopole wireless telecommunications facility, 100 Airport Rd.., S/B/L #69.3-2-37, ‘R-5’ zoning district

 

Mr. Ross was present on behalf of the application.

 

Chairman Baden noted that since the last meeting he has spoken with the Town Attorney regard gin the Lease Agreement between the Town and the tower owner and came to the conclusion that a sign off from the Town was not required. It was already implied in the lease that the tower owner could sublease to other companies.

 

Mr. Ross noted that he passed along the concerns that the Board brought up at the September meeting regarding the level of service in the area and if there was any way to fill in those gaps in service. As they discussed at the last meeting that there was another application coming their way on an existing tower. There were no new site builds scheduled for 2013. They noted the information that there was a desire to get a higher level of service in the community. They should encourage customers who didn’t have service to report the dead zones to AT&T because they keep records of those areas.

 

The Board went over Part 2 of the Short EAF and answered ‘no’ to every item.

 

Mr. Rominger questioned item ‘C2’ regarding aesthetic qualities. He could see how that could be marked as ‘yes’. In general it wasn’t a big impact, but it should be listed as ‘small’ because it is adding to it and therefore changing its appearance.

 

Chairman Baden noted that because it was at an existing height where other antennas were was why he checked it off as ‘no’.

 

Mr. Ricks questioned if this was a question being asked for the whole Town in general or nearby neighbors?

 

Chairman Baden noted that they were supposed to be answering it for any potential impacts.

 

The Board agreed and changed item ‘C2’ to ‘yes’. And say ‘Minimal aesthetic impact due to addition of antennas.

 

This was about ¼ mile from Mr. Rominger’s residence. He noted that in general when they fill out these forms they list them as ‘no impact’ when in reality there are a lot of times small impacts that they should at least recognize. Not only on this application, but others as well.

 

Mr. Ricks motioned for a Negative Declaration. Seconded by Mr. O’Donnell. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden:  Yes                                             Tapper: Absent
O’Donnell:      Yes                                             Rominger:       Yes
Ullman: Absent                                  Ricks:          Yes
Paddock:        Absent                                  
                                                                        
Motion carried. 4 ayes, 0 nays, 3 absent, 0 abstentions

 

At 7:06PM, Chairman Baden opened up the Public Hearing.

 

There was no one present that wanted to comment on the Airport Road AT&T antenna addition.

 

Mr. Ross thanked the Town for being helpful during this process and there remains a respectful disagreement between himself and the Town on the applicability of Section 6409. The Town has acknowledged that there is a 6409 process, but according to their own code they still needed to go through Site Plan review. One of the things that 6409 says is that an administrative approval is all that is necessary. Mr. Ross believed that a public hearing brought them into the area of ‘discretionary approval’ and so he was just stating his objection for the record. He noted that these comments would apply to the second application as well.

 

Chairman Baden thanked him for his comments.

 

Mr. Rominger motioned to close the Public Hearing. Seconded by Mr. O’Donnell. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden:  Yes                                             Tapper: Absent
O’Donnell:      Yes                                             Rominger:       Yes
Ullman: Absent                                  Ricks:          Yes
Paddock:        Absent                                  
                                                                        
Motion carried. 4 ayes, 0 nays, 3 absent, 0 abstentions

 

Chairman Baden noted that he had a draft decision that the Board would go over as follows:

 

First the Board reviewed the Findings.

 

Findings of the Planning Board
  • The Planning Board has received zoning referral for a Site Plan review from the Code Enforcement Officer and an application, EAF, construction drawings, and related documentation has been received from the applicant.  
  • The parcel is located in the ‘R-5’ zoning district pursuant to the Town of Rochester zoning code.
  • The parcel to be developed is known as S/B/L #69.3-2-37.
The parcel is +/- 30 acres.
  • The parcel has road frontage at 100 Airport Rd., a mapped town public road.
  • The parcel use is as a refuse transfer station operated and owned by the Town of Rochester.
  • The Town of Rochester has a lease agreement with American Tower allowing use of the property for the operation of a 150 foot monopole telecommunications tower hosting three providers of wireless service and a 3000 sq. ft. fenced, enclosed area housing the related accessory communications cabinets.  
  • This telecommunications facility was granted original approval via a Special Use Permit and Site Plan approval by the Town of Rochester Planning Board with decision 2007-07SPA/SUP.
  • There are existing three (3) carriers of wireless antennas located on the monopole.  T-Mobile, AT&T, and Verizon located at 125’, 136’, and 146’, respectively.
  • American Tower has submitted a structural review report prepared by Raphael Mohamed, a licensed professional engineer in the State of New York, indicating the subject tower and foundation are adequate to support the stated loads.
AT&T’s current facility consists of six (6) panel antennas on an existing 150′ monopole, six (6) tower mounted amplifiers (TMAs) and twelve (12) 1-5/8″ coax cables at a centerline height of 136′. AT&T also has an equipment shelter located at the base of the tower.
  • The application proposes to add three (3) antennas at the existing height of 136′, six (6) remote radio units (RRUs), one (1) surge suppression system, two (2) power cables and one (1) fiber cable on the tower at the same height as the existing equipment and one (1) GPS within the leased area at the existing compound.  
  • The Application was submitted as an “eligible facilities request” pursuant to Section 6409 of the Federal Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (“Section 6409”), which was signed into law by the President on February 22, 2012.
  • Section 6409 provides that “a State or local government may not deny, and shall approve, any eligible facilities request for a modification of an existing wireless tower or base station that does not substantially change the physical dimensions of such tower or base station.
  • The federal law defines an “eligible facilities request” as “(A) co-location of new transmission equipment; (B) removal of transmission equipment; or (C) replacement of transmission equipment.”
The Planning Board has determined the application to meet the requirements of a co-location of new transmission equipment and an eligible facilities request.

 

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

 

Motion to adopt findings made by Mr. O’Donnell          Second made by Mr. Rominger

 

Adopted October 8, 2013
Ayes: 4                 Nays: 0                 Absent: 3    
Next the Board reviewed the resolution as follows:
RESOLVED,
        The Town of Rochester Planning Board grants Site Plan -Final Approval to New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC (AT&T) permitting the applicant to modify an existing 150’ monopole communications tower with the addition of (3) antennas at the existing height of 136′, six (6) remote radio units (RRUs), one (1) surge suppression system, two (2) power cables and one (1) fiber cable on the tower at the same height as existing equipment and one (1) GPS within the leased area at the existing compound for the lands situate at 100 Airport Rd, known as S/B/L #69.3-2-37, and located in the ‘R-5’ zoning district.

 

The Site Plan is approved with the following conditions.    
        
CONDITIONS of APPROVAL:   

 

  • The owner shall specifically secure a Town of Rochester building permit prior to start of any construction or land disturbance.
  • All applicable Local, County, State, and Federal laws or codes which may be determined required in conjunction with the operation of this use shall be secured or renewed as applicable.   Should any conditions imposed by such permits cause conditions to be in conflict, the more restrictive condition shall prevail.  Should any permit approvals necessitate a change to the approved Site Plan, the matter shall be referred to the Planning Board for consideration.
  • The facility shall maintain radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the Federal Communication Commission’s regulations concerning such emissions.
The antenna array shall be finished in the same color scheme and manner as the existing antennas.  This shall be galvanized in color.
  • All telecommunications equipment shall be permanently located within the existing secure fenced area.
There shall be no overnight parking of vehicles or storage of other equipment or materials on the site other than as may be necessary for short duration during the construction phase.
  • Any deviation from or amending of the approved and signed Site Plan shall require resubmission to the Planning Board, except as may be permitted as determined by the Code Enforcement Officer.
  • Any and all fees due to the Town of Rochester involving this application shall be paid in full prior to the Chairman’s signature on the plat.  The Town of Rochester Planning Board further grants the authority to the Chairman to certify this has been completed without further resolution and to sign and date the plan at such time.
EFFECT of APPROVAL:
  • This Site Plan approval and associated conditions shall be binding upon the applicant and all successive owners of the land so long as such use shall occur.  
  • This approval shall remain effective as an authorization to secure the required permits and establish the use for a maximum of one year from this date of approval unless the applicant shall have submitted written request and the Planning Board shall have adopted such resolution granting an extension and provided the applicant has submitted proof of having diligently pursued the implementation of the plans.  Absent such an extension the Site Plan shall be deemed to have expired.
Motion made by: Mr. O’Donnell                   Second made by: Mr. Rominger

 

Adopted October 8, 2013, by the following vote:
Ayes: 4                 Nays: 0                 Absent: 3        
PB 2013-06 SPA          Continued Application and Public Hearing  
Site Plan Review
New Cingular Wireless PCS (AT&T) – applicant, Town of Rochester and American Tower – owners, for Site Plan approval for AT&T equipment upgrade including addition of 3 new antennas, 6 remote radio units, 2 power leads, 1 fiber line, fiber cable, junction boxes, and associated appurtenances on an existing 150’ monopole wireless telecommunications facility, 6140 Route 209, S/B/L #76.1-3-17, ‘AR-3’ zoning district

 

Chairman Baden noted that this was the same proposal as the Airport Road one.

 

At this time the Board went over Part 2 of the Short EAF.

 

The Board checked off all items as ‘no’ except for item ‘C2’ and that it had ‘Minimal aesthetic impact due to addition of antennas.”

 

Mr. O’Donnell motioned for a Negative Declaration. Seconded by Mr. Ricks. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden:  Yes                                             Tapper: Absent
O’Donnell:      Yes                                             Rominger:       Yes
Ullman: Absent                                  Ricks:          Yes
Paddock:        Absent                                  
                                                                        
Motion carried. 4 ayes, 0 nays, 3 absent, 0 abstentions

 

At 7:20PM Chairman Baden opened the Public Hearing.

 

There was no public comment.
At 7:20PM Mr. Rominger motioned to close the Public Hearing. Seconded by Mr. O’Donnell. No discussion.
Mr. Ricks motioned for a Negative Declaration. Seconded by Mr. O’Donnell. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden:  Yes                                             Tapper: Absent
O’Donnell:      Yes                                             Rominger:       Yes
Ullman: Absent                                  Ricks:          Yes
Paddock:        Absent                                  
                                                                        
Motion carried. 4 ayes, 0 nays, 3 absent, 0 abstentions

 

At this time the Board reviewed the proposed Findings that were drafted by the Chairman as follows:
Findings of the Planning Board
  • The Planning Board has received zoning referral for a Site Plan review from the Code Enforcement Officer and an application, EAF, construction drawings, and related documentation has been received from the applicant.  
  • The parcel is located in the ‘AR-3’ zoning district pursuant to the Town of Rochester zoning code.
  • The parcel to be developed is known as S/B/L #76.1-3-17.
The parcel is +/- 67.3 acres.
  • The parcel has road frontage at 6140 US Route 209, a mapped federal public road.
  • The parcel use is as a sand bank operated and owned by the Town of Rochester.
  • The Town of Rochester has a lease agreement with American Tower allowing use of the property for the operation of a 150 foot monopole telecommunications tower hosting three providers of wireless service and a 3000 sq. ft. fenced, enclosed area housing the related accessory communications cabinets.  
  • This telecommunications facility was granted approval via a Special Use Permit and Site Plan approval by the Town of Rochester Planning Board with decision 2007-06SPA/SUP.
  • There are existing three (3) carriers of wireless antennas located on the monopole.  T-Mobile, AT&T, and Verizon located at 126’, 136’, and 146’, respectively.
  • American Tower has submitted a structural review report prepared by Raphael Mohamed, a licensed professional engineer in the State of New York, indicating the subject tower and foundation are adequate to support the stated loads.
AT&T’s current facility consists of six (6) panel antennas on an existing 150′ monopole, six (6) tower mounted amplifiers (TMAs) and twelve (12) 1-5/8″ coax cables at a centerline height of 136′. AT&T also has an equipment shelter located at the base of the tower.
  • The application proposes to add three (3) antennas at the existing height of 136′, six (6) remote radio units (RRUs), one (1) surge suppression system, two (2) power cables and one (1) fiber cable on the tower at the same height as the existing equipment and one (1) GPS within the leased area at the existing compound.  
  • The Application was submitted as an “eligible facilities request” pursuant to Section 6409 of the Federal Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (“Section 6409”), which was signed into law by the President on February 22, 2012.
  • Section 6409 provides that “a State or local government may not deny, and shall approve, any eligible facilities request for a modification of an existing wireless tower or base station that does not substantially change the physical dimensions of such tower or base station.
  • The federal law defines an “eligible facilities request” as “(A) co-location of new transmission equipment; (B) removal of transmission equipment; or (C) replacement of transmission equipment.”
The Planning Board has determined the application to meet the requirements of a co-location of new transmission equipment and an eligible facilities request.
  • The application was determined to require referral to the Ulster County Planning Board who issued a reply that this review is not required under the signed exception agreement.
Draft findings were prepared by the Chairman and were read and discussed by the Planning Board.

 

Motion to adopt findings made by Mr. Rominger           Second made by Mr. O’Donnell
Adopted October 8, 2013
Ayes: 4         Nays: 0                 Absent: 3    
At this time, the Board reviewed the draft resolution as prepared by Chairman Baden as follows:
RESOLVED,
        The Town of Rochester Planning Board grants Site Plan -Final Approval to New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC (AT&T) permitting the applicant to modify an existing 150’ monopole communications tower with the addition of (3) antennas at the existing height of 136′, six (6) remote radio units (RRUs), one (1) surge suppression system, two (2) power cables and one (1) fiber cable on the tower at the same height as existing equipment and one (1) GPS within the leased area at the existing compound for the lands situate at 6140 US Route 209, known as S/B/L #76.1-3-17, and located in the ‘AR-3’ zoning district.

 

The Site Plan is approved with the following conditions.    
        
CONDITIONS of APPROVAL:   

 

  • The owner shall specifically secure a Town of Rochester building permit prior to start of any construction or land disturbance.
  • All applicable Local, County, State, and Federal laws or codes which may be determined required in conjunction with the operation of this use shall be secured or renewed as applicable.   Should any conditions imposed by such permits cause conditions to be in conflict, the more restrictive condition shall prevail.  Should any permit approvals necessitate a change to the approved Site Plan, the matter shall be referred to the Planning Board for consideration.
  • The facility shall maintain radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the Federal Communication Commission’s regulations concerning such emissions.
The antenna array shall be finished in the same color scheme and manner as the existing antennas.  This shall be brown in color.
  • All telecommunications equipment shall be permanently located within the existing secure fenced area.
There shall be no overnight parking of vehicles or storage of other equipment or materials on the site other than as may be necessary for short duration during the construction phase.
  • Any deviation from or amending of the approved and signed Site Plan shall require resubmission to the Planning Board, except as may be permitted as determined by the Code Enforcement Officer.
  • Any and all fees due to the Town of Rochester involving this application shall be paid in full prior to the Chairman’s signature on the plat.  The Town of Rochester Planning Board further grants the authority to the Chairman to certify this has been completed without further resolution and to sign and date the plan at such time.
EFFECT of APPROVAL:
  • This Site Plan approval and associated conditions shall be binding upon the applicant and all successive owners of the land so long as such use shall occur.  
  • This approval shall remain effective as an authorization to secure the required permits and establish the use for a maximum of one year from this date of approval unless the applicant shall have submitted written request and the Planning Board shall have adopted such resolution granting an extension and provided the applicant has submitted proof of having diligently pursued the implementation of the plans.  Absent such an extension the Site Plan shall be deemed to have expired.
Motion made by: Mr. O’Donnell                   Second made by: Mr. Rominger

 

Adopted October 8, 2013, by the following vote:
Ayes: 4         Nays: 0         Absent: 3        

 

PB 2013-07 SPA          New Application
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

 

Mr. Thomas White was present on behalf of the application. He explained that this application was proposing to add a microwave dish to the City Hall Road tower. This microwave dish would enhance some of AT&T and Sprint coverage. They would be doing a similar application at the Airport Road tower as well. This will increase AT&T’s and Sprint’s bandwidth. They were putting one microwave antennae on the tower at 120’ and placing the cabinet inside the shelter in an existing rack.

 

Mr. Ricks noted that the applicant said ‘antenna’ and the Chairman used the word ‘dish’.

 

Chairman Baden noted that the application referred to it as a ‘microwave dish’.

 

Mr. White noted that it was referred as a ‘dish’ or an ‘antennae’.

 

Mr. Ricks questioned if it was different from the antennae that were part of the last application?

 

Mr. White noted that it was different. It was a 4’ round dish.

 

Chairman Baden noted that this was going to be placed at the height of 105’ according to the application and the height of the tower is 120’.

 

Mr. White noted that the dish would be below the existing antennae arrays.

 

Chairman Baden noted that on the plans it shows it above them.

 

Mr. White noted that he had an older set of drawings in front of him than the Board had. They had the correct ones. It would be as the Chairman initially indicated. This was a site to site kind of thing. What it will do is communicate with another tower- like a relay. Usually there is a hub that has two or three other dishes and he was assuming because they were putting in an application for the Airport Road tower next month that it would probably be communicating with that tower. He re-confirmed that the plans that the Board had that showed where the dish was to be located on the tower were correct. He, himself had an old set of drawings. He apologized for the confusion. It would be in between the first and second arrays of antennas.

 

Chairman Baden noted that the applicant supplied a short form EAF- the first applicants to use the new SEQRA forms. They also supplied a letter of authorization from the owner of the tower. He questioned if Mr. Wicks needed to authorize the application as well? He requested that Mr. White find that information out and also supply the Board with a copy of the lease. He noted that he hasn’t spoken with the Town Attorney about this yet, but his suspicion was that since this wasn’t exceeding the footprint of the existing antennas that this also fell under Section 6409 as was discussed in the previous applications from AT&T that evening. The federal government has pretty much taken over as long as they weren’t extending the height of the tower it fell under that 6409 category.

 

Mr. Ricks motioned to schedule the Public Hearing for November. Seconded by Mr. O’Donnell. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden:  Yes                                             Tapper: Absent
O’Donnell:      Yes                                             Rominger:       Yes
Ullman: Absent                                  Ricks:          Yes
Paddock:        Absent                                  
                                                                        
Motion carried. 4 ayes, 0 nays, 3 absent, 0 abstentions
Chairman Baden requested if between now and the Public hearing if Mr. White would just supply the lease and information on whether or not they needed Mr. Wicks’ authorization that would be good.

 

Mr. White noted that he had the application ready for Airport Road as soon as he heard back from the Code Enforcement Office.

 

Chairman Baden motioned to type the action as Unlisted under SEQRA. Seconded by Mr. O’Donnell. No discussion.
Vote:
Vote:
Baden:  Yes                                             Tapper: Absent
O’Donnell:      Yes                                             Rominger:       Yes
Ullman: Absent                                  Ricks:          Yes
Paddock:        Absent                                  
                                                                        
Motion carried. 4 ayes, 0 nays, 3 absent, 0 abstentions

 

Mr. Ricks questioned if they were going to apply for the Route 209 tower as well?

 

Mr. White responded that right now the Route 209 tower was not in their build plan. Basically AT&T comes to them and says they need some help in certain areas and right now this is what they were doing.

 

ZBA ADVISORY REQUEST
Robert Manley, Jr & Geraldine Manley – Planning Board advisory request for a pre-application for, Area Variance, applicant lacks 1.83 acres for a second dwelling on a 2.17 acre parcel in an R-2 Zoning District, Tax Map #76.4-2-6.111

 

Mrs. Manley was present on behalf of the advisory request.

 

Chairman Baden noted that the ZBA has a Pre-application in front of them right now that they are reviewing for Robert and Geraldine Manley for an Area Variance. They have a 2.17 acre parcel and they want to put a second home on it and they are in a 2 acre zoning district, so they are lacking 1.83 acres. The ZBA determined that they also own the lot next door, which is 3.4 acres and it also has a home on it, so the ZBA is proposing that they do a lot line adjustment between the two parcels and would give the 2.17 acre piece 1.4 acres, which would then make it 3.57 and so then the variance would only be .3 of an acre as opposed to 1.83 acres. They were asking the PB for an advisory opinion on the lot line adjustment.

 

The Board reviewed the information that was supplied to the ZBA by the applicant.

 

Chairman Baden noted that the only issue that he saw was that they had no idea what the terrain was like and they had no idea where the existing houses were or anything like that.

 

Mr. Ricks wanted to hear from the applicants as to their reasons for this.

 

Mrs. Manley marked where the houses were and where the proposed houses were on the drawings she supplied.
She noted that Key Bank might not let her take that 1.4 acres off of her adjoining lands because there was a $70,000 mortgage on that property.

 

Mr. O’Donnell noted that the power lines run right up the sides of that property.

 

Mrs. Manley confirmed this.

 

Chairman Baden noted that if she did take the 1.4 acres off of the adjoining property, she would still have to make sure that the existing house on that parcel met the required setbacks.

 

Mr. Ricks questioned if the other lot that Mrs. Manley owned that she was trying to place the second mobile home on had a mortgage on it too?

 

Mrs. Manley answered that it did.

 

Mr. Ricks didn’t know if they’d even be able to combine the whole thing with the mortgages on both properties.

 

Chairman Baden noted that by creating the whole thing would make 3 houses on 5.57 acres and would then need .43 acre variance.

 

Mr. Ricks noted that the banks weren’t going to want to have the mortgages on the same property. These were two different banks too.

 

Chairman Baden noted that the advisory request from the ZBA was more in regards to questioning the lot line adjustment. Obviously the mortgage is an issue on it, but it doesn’t necessarily factor into the PB’s decision on whether or not they would be favorable to a lot line adjustment or not. They weren’t ruling on it right now, they would have to get a survey map showing them what exactly was being done, but right now the ZBA was asking the PB’s opinion on how to handle it.

 

Mrs. Manley noted that as far as the variance goes that it would never be an issue because the 3.4 acre parcel would be going to her one grandson and the other would go to her granddaughter and her daughter would have a lifetime residency there. As far as it ever being sold that wouldn’t be an issue.

 

Mr. Ricks noted that as soon as one of the grandkids could get it, they could sell it. They couldn’t go by that.

 

Mrs. Manley didn’t see that ever happening.

 

Mr. Rominger noted that was not something that they could factor into their decision.

 

Mr. Ricks noted that it wasn’t something that you could say would never happen, because it could.

 

Chairman Baden noted that the ZBA was asking their opinion if they thought they would grant the lot line adjustment.

 

Mr. Ricks questioned what the zoning in this area was before?

 

The Chairman answered that the whole town was one acre zoning before 2009.

 

Mrs. Manley noted that she never knew that the zoning had changed until she called the Code Enforcement Office to get a building permit for the 2nd mobile home and then found out it had changed.

 

Mr. O’Donnell questioned how long her residence had been on Berme Road?

 

Mrs. Manley noted that it was put in in 2003 or 2004. Everything that she did to this property was done before zoning had changed. She had never even known it had changed.

 

Mr. Rominger questioned if Chairman Baden thought that the lot line adjustment looked like something that might be able to be done?

 

Chairman Baden noted that it did. Based on where the location of the houses were. The Board wouldn’t be making the decision on the variance. That decision would go back to the ZBA. In granting the lot line adjustment they would be granting it based on one house on each parcel. The variance is a separate issue. They could approve the lot line adjustment because both lots would conform to zoning as long as they met the setbacks.

 

Mr. Rominger noted that the Board could approve the lot line adjustment, and the rest of it would be the applicants responsibility to sort out—the banking problems and the variance issues.

 

Chairman Baden noted that they could make the suggestion to the ZBA to combine both lots into one, but there are practical issues being that there are 2 mortgages.

 

Mr. Ricks noted that its kind of all a moot point. If they have mortgages, the bank isn’t going to release any land off of the mortgages.

 

Chairman Baden noted that the decision was based on the land itself. Whether they do the lot line adjustment or they combine two lots into one, it would pretty much be the same variance. .43 acres.

 

Mr. Rominger noted that the Board and the ZBA should tell the applicant to sort out what they needed to do with the bank first before they proceeded with the application.

 

Mrs. Manley noted that she did and Key Bank said that they wouldn’t go along with any of it.

 

Chairman Baden noted that he didn’t know if it was a possibility, but if she merged the two lots into one and took out a new mortgage, she could pay off one of them and then just have one mortgage…

 

Mr. Ricks noted that they had two separate families here, so that wouldn’t work.

 

Mr. Rominger noted that the applicant might have to go back to the bank and have another conversation to try and come up with different possibilities.

 

Mr. Ricks noted that even if the Board could help the applicant out, the bank would still be blocking them from releasing part of the land from one lot to the other. Unless somebody just went ahead and gave them a variance to put both houses on 2.17 acres.

 

Chairman Baden noted that from a practical standpoint he didn’t think that the applicant would want to start doing the lot line adjustment before they knew if the bank would go along with it because that would cost them money. They would have to get surveys done, application fees…

 

Mr. Rominger noted that she really needed to sit down with the banks and try and convince them of what she needed them to do.

 

Chairman Baden noted that the third option was that the ZBA could grant the variance as it was on the 2.17 acres and that is a substantial variance and that was the ZBA’s decision. What the PB was addressing was would they consider the lot line adjustment. Yes, they would consider it.

 

Mrs. Manley questioned if the PB would consider the variance on the 2.17 acres?

 

Chairman Baden noted that that wasn’t up to the PB that was up to the ZBA. If they wanted to merge or change parcel boundaries, that would be when they would go to the PB. When varying the law, they would go to the ZBA.

 

Mrs. Manley noted that maybe she should just move forward with the two dwellings on the 2.17 acres.

 

Mr. Ricks noted that she would have to plead with the ZBA a hardship case.

 

Mrs. Manley noted that it was a very bad hardship.

 

Mr. Ricks continued to note that they would have to tell the ZBA that the banks wouldn’t go along with the other ways to do it and get a letter from the bank stating that for the ZBA.

 

Chairman Baden noted that the only issue with that is that the ZBA isn’t really allowed to consider private circumstances or financial circumstances. They can look at finances for Use Variances, but not Area Variances. That’s all up to the ZBA though.

 

Chairman Baden motioned to reply back that they see no reason why a lot line adjustment wouldn’t’ be approved, but given the circumstances it might not accomplish what the applicant wanted. Seconded by Mr. Rominger. No discussion.
Vote:
Vote:
Baden:  Yes                                             Tapper: Absent
O’Donnell:      Yes                                             Rominger:       Yes
Ullman: Absent                                  Ricks:          Yes
Paddock:        Absent                                  
                                                                        
Motion carried. 4 ayes, 0 nays, 3 absent, 0 abstentions
PB 2013-04 SUP          CONTINUED REVIEW/DECISION
Special Use Permit
Scott MacScott, for Special Use Permit to expand a Non-Conforming residential use with bathroom and shed expansions pursuant to § 140-42 of the T/ Rochester zoning code , 24 Blevins Rd., S/B/L #59.7-2-57, ‘R-2’ zoning district.

 

Chairman Baden reviewed where the Board was at in this application. They opened and closed the Public Hearing and the neighbor didn’t have too many issues.

 

Mr. Rominger noted that the biggest issue was without having a survey and because it was only 6” was the Board approving something that was actually on his property? And the neighbor pretty much said that he was way up above this and was looking down at it anyway.

 

Chairman Baden noted that it was covered in the draft decision.

 

At this time the Board reviewed the draft Findings as follows:
Findings of the Planning Board
  • The Planning Board has received zoning referral for a Special Use Permit from the Code Enforcement Officer and an application, EAF and sketch map from Mr. MacScott.
  • The property previously had been determined to require an Area Variance by the CEO and was referred to the Zoning Board of Appeals, however upon further review by the Town Attorney, due to the non-conforming status of the property a Special Use Permit was determined to be required under Town of Rochester code § 140-42, Changes and Additions.
  • The parcel is located in the ‘R-2’ zoning district pursuant to the Town of Rochester zoning code.
  • The parcel to be developed is known as S/B/L #59.2-2-57.
  • The parcel has road frontage on Blevins Road, a mapped private road.
  • The application proposes new construction to expand a residential non-conforming use structure to expand the bathroom and shed storage areas.  
The use is non-conforming due to the parcel being 0.25 acres in size and the required density for the ‘R-2’ zoning district is 2 acres.  The parcel predates zoning laws in the town.
The Planning Board review of the application request is based on measurements self-determined by the applicant.  No survey exists of the property and the applicant made his determinations based on the location of iron rod locations on the property boundary.  
  • The existing structure is reputed to be 6” from the parcel boundary line on the NE side and 3’-7” on the NW side.  As no survey was supplied and reviewed, the Planning Board takes no position on the accuracy of these specific dimensions from the parcel boundary line and has advised the applicant obtaining a survey would be in his best interests prior to construction.
The parcel is bounded by steep sloped property.
  • The applicant admits he has already constructed the additions to the structure absent the proper permits and has exceeded the property boundary line and encroached onto the adjacent parcel with the construction.  He proposes he will remove parts of the newly constructed structure to comply with the town zoning code § 140-42, Changes and Additions.
During the public hearing a bounding neighbor questioned the location of an existing accessory structure, a shed.  It is not a part of this specific application review.  The Chairman did review Assessor records and determined the accessory structure shown as having existed since the 1940’s.  
  • The application was determined to be a Type II SEQRA action.  No further SEQRA review is required.
Draft findings were prepared by the Chairman and were read and discussed by the Planning Board.

 

Motion to adopt findings made by Mr. O’Donnell          Second made by Mr. Rominger

 

Adopted October 8, 2013
Ayes: 4         Nays: 0         Absent: 3    
   
At this time the Board reviewed the draft resolution as prepared by Chairman Baden as follows:
RESOLVED,
        The Town of Rochester Planning Board grants Special Use Permit -Final Approval to
Scott MacScott permitting the expansion of a non-conforming residential use structure pursuant to §140-42 of the Town of Rochester Zoning Code for the lands situate at 24 Blevins Road, known as S/B/L #59.7-2-57, and located in the ‘R-2’ zoning district.

 

The Special Use Permit is approved with the following conditions.    
        
CONDITIONS of APPROVAL:   

 

  • Pursuant to Town of Rochester Code § 140-42, no addition, change or expansion of a nonconforming use shall further violate setback and/or height regulations of the district in which it is located. The Planning Board grants approval to construct additions to the existing structure so as not to exceed the current non-conforming setback distances from the parcel boundary.
  • Pursuant to Town of Rochester Code § 140-42, there shall be no increase in the amount of storm water runoff for the site over existing runoff.
  • A Town of Rochester Building Permit and Ulster County Health Dept. approval, if determined to be required, shall be specifically secured.  All Local, County, State, and Federal Laws or Codes shall be complied with and all required Local, County, State, or Federal permits shall be secured for the current or future use of these lands.
  • Any and all fees due to the Town of Rochester involving this application shall be paid in full prior to the Chairman’s signature on the plat.  The Town of Rochester Planning Board further grants the authority to the Chairman to certify this has been completed without further resolution and to sign and date the plan at such time.
  • Any deviation from or amending of the approved and signed Site Plan shall require resubmission to the Planning Board, except as may be permitted as determined by the Code Enforcement Officer.
EFFECT of APPROVAL:
  • This Special Use Permit approval and associated conditions shall be binding upon the applicant and all successive owners of the land so long as such use shall occur.  
  • This approval shall remain effective as an authorization to secure the required permits and establish the use for a maximum of one year from this date of approval unless the applicant shall have submitted written request and the Planning Board shall have adopted such resolution granting an extension and provided the applicant has submitted proof of having diligently pursued the implementation of the plans.  Absent such an extension the Special Use Permit shall be deemed to have expired.
Motion made by: Mr. Ricks                       Second made by: Mr. O’Donnell

 

Adopted October 8, 2013, by the following vote:
Ayes: 4         Nays: 0         Absent: 3       
OTHER MATTERS

 

SEQRA policy resolution
Chairman Baden noted that he would like to hold off on the proposed SEQRA Policy that the Board had been given at the last meeting. He’d like to see how the forms work before they adopt any policies. The Short Form should be mainly used from now on. They would monitor it as they went.

 

Zoning and Subdivision Local law referrals from Town
Chairman Baden noted that they had a drafted a letter to the Town Board with their recommendations that they had come up with at the September 25th workshop meeting. The Town Board only had 3 members at their October Regular meeting, and somehow they did not receive the PB’s letter. They would send it over again to the Town Board Members.

 

UCPB Referral
Chairman Baden noted that the UCPB added telecommunications towers to their exception agreement regarding cellular antennas and also that if there was a flood plain in a Subdivision without any construction or changes happening to it, it would no longer have to be referred.

 

ADJOURNMENT
Mr. O’Donnell motioned to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Mr. Rominger. No discussion. All members present in favor.

 

Chairman Baden adjourned the meeting at 8:10PM.

 

Respectfully submitted,
                                                        
Rebecca Paddock Stange, Secretary       
                                                        Approved 11/12/2013