Planning Board Minutes September, 2013

MINUTES OF September 24 , 2013 the Town of Rochester PLANNING BOARD, held at the Town Hall, Accord, NY.

 

Chairman Baden asked that everyone stand to say the Pledge to the Flag.

 

The Secretary did roll call attendance.

 

PRESENT:                                                                ABSENT:                                         Michael Baden, Chairman Baden                                            Melvyn I. Tapper
Robert Rominger, Vice Chairman                                          Anthony Ullman
Adam Paddock                                                            Fred O’Donnell
Shane Ricks  

 

Also present:
Rebecca Paddock Stange, Secretary.   

 

ANNOUNCEMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS
Chairman Baden noted that there no other announcements other than training opportunities.  

 

 TRAININGS
  • Oct. 1          6:30PM – 9:00PM         SEQRA Training  
UC Planning Board               
Ulster County Community College, Stone Ridge    FREE
  • Oct. 1          5:30PM – 7:30PM Planning for Better Roads       
Columbia Land Conservancy                       
Columbia Greene Community College, Hudson       FREE
  • Oct. 29         5:30PM – 7:30PM Better Road Design and Management       
Columbia Land Conservancy               
Columbia Greene Community College, Hudson       FREE    
  • 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    
ACTION ON MINUTES
As Board Members didn’t have an opportunity to read the minutes in their entirety, they were tabled until October.
PB 2013-04 SUP          PUBLIC HEARING
Special Use Permit
Scott MacScott, for Special Use Permit to expand a Non-Conforming residential use with bathroom and shed expansions pursuant to § 140-42 of the T/ Rochester zoning code , 24 Blevins Rd., S/B/L #59.7-2-57, ‘R-2’ zoning district.

 

Mr. MacScott was present on behalf of his application.

 

Chairman Baden noted that this was a Special Use Permit because the applicant wanted to add onto his home under a non-conforming use and according to our Code it required a Special Use Permit. At the last meeting the Board asked for a copy of the deed. The deed that was supplied by Mr. MacScott was for another parcel owned by the applicant across the street from the parcel in question.

 

Mr. MacScott had a copy with him and supplied the correct deed to the Board.

 

Chairman Baden noted that this was classified as a Type 2 Action under SEQR and he motioned for such. Mr. Ricks seconded the motion.
Vote:
Baden:  Yes                                             Tapper: Absent
O’Donnell:      Absent                                  Rominger:       Yes
Ullman: Absent                                  Ricks:          Yes
Paddock:        Yes                                     
                                                                        
Motion carried. 4 ayes, 0 nays, 3 absent, 0 abstentions

 

Mr. Ricks questioned if everything was already built that was being proposed?

 

Mr. MacScott answered yes. But he will be scaling it back now to the limits. There are two extensions. One is for a bathroom and one is for a storage shed. The shed storage has one wall out of 3 that is on it already and that will be scaled back to the left hand side of the map and the other side is the bathroom extension and that is the one that goes over onto his neighbor’s property. And that is the primary concern is that he wants to get that off and remove all traces of him being over that property line.

 

Chairman Baden questioned where the road was in relation to the addition. On the map it is at the exact opposite side.

 

Mr. Ricks questioned if the applicant’s name was MacScott or McGraw?

 

The applicant answered that it is now MacScott. He changed it once he got married.

 

Mr. Ricks noted that he was confused because the name on the deed and the application differ.

 

Mr. MacScott noted that there are steep slopes on the property and if he built on any other side it would be extremely high on stilts.

 

Mr. Rominger questioned if because this was only shown as 6” off of the property line, did the Board want a survey?

 

Mr. Ricks noted that they have the deed that relates the house to the property lines.

 

Mr. Rominger noted that this would be left up the Building Inspector then.

 

Chairman Baden noted that the feeling he got from the Board last time was that they would leave it to the Building Inspector as long as they conditioned their decision and worded it appropriately that it couldn’t further exceed the current non-conforming setback. Then it would be in the Building Inspector’s hands to make sure that it was correct.

 

Mr. Rominger noted that since the building has changed, the Building Inspector didn’t really know where the original setbacks are.

 

Mr. Ricks questioned if the applicant had a surveyor’s map that showed the property lines in relation to the house? Or just what the applicant sketched?

 

Mr. MacScott noted he just had his sketches, but he would be able to put a wire between the two poles and the Building Inspector could measure it that way. He could guarantee he wasn’t going to go over the line again.

 

Mr. Rominger was fine with that.

 

Chairman Baden noted that the deed helps them to know that it is a straight line from surveyor post to surveyor post. That was his concern that possibly it was not a straight line, but according to the deed it appears to be so.

 

Mr. Ricks could see the neighbor wanting to see it on a survey. The pipe could be pulled out and moved a foot or two by anyone in a second. A survey is what really shows it.

 

At 7:10PM the Chairman opened the Public Hearing.

 

Thomas O’Brien who was the only bounding owner was present and questioned if the setback was 6”?

 

Chairman Baden noted that what the applicant was applying for was a 6” setback on the bathroom which according to his calculations is the existing setback. The other setback would be 3’ 7” where the existing building is.

 

Mr. O’Brien asked if the building was the edge of the roof line.

 

Mr. Rominger noted that that was any part of the building- the overhang or roof.

 

Chairman Baden noted that according to the applicant, it was the furthest point of the building.

 

Mr. O’Brien questioned what the setback was to the right side of the drawing. (The property line that wasn’t shown on the map.)

 

Chairman Baden noted that this was in the R-2 Zoning District. So that would be a side yard setback which was a minimum of 40’. But this looks like it exceeds that. It is already allowable. The reason that this is a non-conforming use is because the lot is smaller in acreage than is allowed in that Zoning District.

 

Mr. O’Brien noted that there is a shed on that line within a couple of feet of the line.

 

Mr. MacScott noted that there was an existing shed on the property. It was 8’ x 12’.

 

Chairman Baden noted that because it was under 144 sf that it didn’t require a building permit and had a 10’ setback from the property line.

 

Mr. O’Brien noted that this was just built a couple of years ago.

 

Chairman Baden noted that they could check with the Code Enforcement Office and see if they have any comments. Because it’s existing, it really doesn’t have anything to do with this application.

 

Mr. O’Brien noted that his home was about 100’ or more away from Mr. MacScott’s home straight up a hill. He overlooks the applicant’s house. It’s a very steep slope. Blevins Road in front of his house is probably about 30’ lower than his house.

 

Chairman Baden noted that he drove by the property and noted that it did take him a while to find where the house and the road were located.

 

Mr. O’Brien questioned what the additions were actually used for? The application mentions a kitchen, not a shed.

 

Mr. MacScott noted that he wasn’t proposing a kitchen anymore, it would be a shed. And the other addition would be a bathroom. The storage would be accessed from outside the house.

 

Mr. Rominger motioned to close the Public Hearing at 7:20PM. Seconded by Mr. Paddock. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden:  Yes                                             Tapper: Absent
O’Donnell:      Absent                                  Rominger:       Yes
Ullman: Absent                                  Ricks:          Yes
Paddock:        Yes                                     
                                                                        
Motion carried. 4 ayes, 0 nays, 3 absent, 0 abstentions

 

Chairman Baden noted that normally he would come prepared to make a decision, but because there were still a lot of questions on this application and they did not have the correct deed he did not. He would put it together and the Board would take it up at the October 8th meeting. He noted that he would take the Board’s feelings and paraphrase them and incorporate them into the decision noting that they would allow these additions and have them not exceed the existing non-conforming setbacks including roofline. He would also send a letter to the CEO asking about the shed even though it wasn’t a part of our application.  

 

Mr. Paddock questioned if because this was so close to the property line, should the Board be requiring a survey? Like Mr. Ricks was saying, if the survey post was leaving to the side, it’s already thrown off by a possible 3”. There’s a neighbor here, there are existing structures that were kind of there, then not there and sometimes they get dealt with and sometimes they don’t. 6” is just a really tight space.

 

Mr. Ricks questioned Mr. O’Brien if the property corners looked like they are where they have always been?

 

Mr. O’Brien guessed so as far as he knew. They were there long before he was born. He doesn’t know when it was ever surveyed.

 

Mr. Ricks understood the point of requiring a survey, but then again, the house is where it is, the slope is where it is and it’s not going to change anything one way or another to affect the neighbor. So it would be a big added expense for the applicant.

 

Mr. Rominger noted that this will really only be an issue when one of the owner’s goes to sell their property in the future.

 

Mr. Paddock noted that this was why he was asking the question. Would this put any liability on the Town or the Board in the future if this thing happens to be two inches over when they do a survey?

 

Chairman Baden didn’t think so because they are approving an addition that is not going to exceed the current setbacks. It is sort of up to the Code Enforcement Officer and Mr. MacScott to make sure it’s correct.

 

Mr. Ricks noted that if the Board doesn’t have a survey they really don’t know anything for certain.

 

Chairman Baden noted that if the Board really wanted a survey they could request one.

 

Mr. Paddock noted that he really hated to put the applicant through that expense, but he was worried about the neighbor and the liability, but if those are both satisfied that was fine.

 

Mr. Rominger noted that the neighbor doesn’t seem to be disturbed by this.

 

Chairman Baden noted that he would put this together for next month. Mr. MacScott will get a copy of the written decision in the mail.

 

PB 2013-05 SPA          New Application
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

 

Donald Ross, Attorney was present on behalf of the application. He noted that New Cingular Wireless PCS is AT & T. His remarks would cover both this Airport Road site and the next application on the agenda the 6140 Route 209 site. He noted that both sites were owned by American Tower and they were both 150’ monopole. On both towers, AT&T is at a position of 136’ up. There is antennas and associated equipment for AT&T already on these towers as well as other carriers. T-Mobile and Verizon are on both of them.

 

Mr. Ricks questioned what these new antennas would do for the people of the town?

 

Mr. Ross answered that they would provide 4GLTE service. These are additions, not replaced. LTE requires different antennas. The antennas themselves are probably about a foot wide and about 8’ tall and bout 7” deep. They are described further in the plans that his colleagues submitted as part of the application. They applied for a building permit originally and were told that they needed to proceed to Site Plan Approval with the Planning Board. Hence they are here tonight and he was asking for the Board’s approval in accordance with a new Federal Law which passed last year. Section 6409.

 

Chairman Baden noted that he was very aware of this and that he learned with his feet to the fire last year because the Board had an application before them as it passed, so he became very familiar with it. He believed the Board was very familiar with it as well. He spoke with the Town Attorney regarding this as well. Her opinion was that while the new law says that they cannot deny it, it doesn’t say that they can’t review it. Her opinion is that they should continue the site plan review process which would mean going to Public Hearing next month and then more than likely having a decision next month. He didn’t anticipate having a lot of issues because of the sheer fact that this does fall under those categories. The Town Attorney’s opinion is that the Board still can and should hold the Site Plan process because the Town Code states that is what is to be done.

 

Mr. Ross respected her judgment on that. He just wanted to state for the record that he didn’t really agree with that position. He thought that there needed review in accordance with any other building permit request. You can’t have a tower with antennas on it that would cause that tower to collapse. There was obviously some health and safety things that had to be factored into that. He would say that if they asked his opinion, he would say that the Site Plan Approval process was pre-empted by Federal Law. The Federal Communications interpretation of the statute is that administrative approval is not pre-empted by the Federal Law. Ideally the outcome is that the Board reviews the application under the Federal Law and determines that the application doesn’t involve any substantial change to the tower.

 

Chairman Baden agreed with Mr. Ross on that, but he believed from his own standpoint that since it was referred to the Board by the CEO as a Site Plan, that they are obligated to follow through with what they are allowed to do and certainly that includes the Public Hearing. Normally the Board would review things like this to the Town Planner, he didn’t plan to on this because there is no reason to send this to the Planner because he would not be able to add anything to the discussion. Anything from an engineering standpoint is going to be reviewed during the building permit process, so that part of the Site Plan review, he is not following through on because it would be a waste of everyone’s time and money on everyone’s part. Based on the Town Attorney’s opinion and because it was referred to the Board they would continue it as a Site Plan review which means that they would schedule it for a Public Hearing.

 

Mr. Rominger questioned what percent of the Town would be covered by these new antennas?

 

Mr. Ross wasn’t really sure. They would have to provide some sort of map and typically those types of things are proprietary and AT&T would keep those things to them in. If they would like him to provide a copy of that he could, but it doesn’t factor into the Board’s decision.

 

Mr. Rominger noted that he understood that it was proprietary, but they get a lot of people in Town that say that they aren’t getting covered. There is a lot of the Town that isn’t covered, so AT&T and Verizon and Cingular keep coming back to the existing two Towers providing cover along Route 209 or whatever area that they want to cover, but the rest of the Town is getting nothing from Verizon, or Cingular or AT&T. Are there any plans to seek additional towers to provide more service to the Town?

 

Mr. Ross did not know the answer to that question. For AT&T they have a program called “Mark the Spot” and what it essentially says is if you are driving in an area that is essentially dead you mark the spot effectively by letting AT&T know that there is a dead spot. AT&T takes those comments from those customers into account. Engineering wise it is easier to get on existing facilities. Also time and money wise.

 

Mr. Rominger stated that usually the antennas are not spreading deeper into the Town. There is a lot of our Town that has no cell signal at all and he knows it’s easier for AT&T to use the existing towers.

 

Mr. Ross noted that new Towers were not subject to the new Federal Law- 6409. They still needed to go through the whole 9 yards of review to get a tower put up. What he could do was if there were areas that the Board felt were dead spots he could go back to AT&T and let them know. This is a brutally competitive industry and these guys are all looking for an edge, so he could say that all of the 4 major carriers that are left, upstate NY was one of the more populated places that still doesn’t have the full 4G.

 

Chairman Baden noted that there were 3 towers in the Town and there were significant areas in the Town that had no service. It’s a large issue to the Town’s residents more so about broadband because Time Warner is the Town’s cable provider and they are reluctant to expand as well into areas unless there are a certain amount of customers. So there are areas of this Town that flat out have no cell, no cable, no broadband.

 

Mr. Ricks noted that still; every time you drive from here to Kingston there is a 6 mile section from above Stone Ridge where there is no service. Mr. Ricks noted that no one has ever done a thing to that.

 

Chairman Baden noted that that exists mostly because Mr. Gill won’t let a cell tower go on his property. He asked that Mr. Ross go back to AT&T and tell them that the Town is very willing to talk with them about new towers in areas that don’t have coverage.

 

Mr. Ross noted that this wasn’t an empty gesture. They would listen. They want new customers.

 

Mr. Rominger noted that the suggestion is not that we take existing towers higher; it would be that we take additional towers deeper into the Town. It was kind of part of the original promise. That the Town would allow the towers along Route 209 and then they would eventually get broadband deeper into the Town and so far all they are doing is getting more antennas on Route 209 and nothing about the rest of the Town. And he realized that doing a tower was a difficult process and maybe they didn’t want to go through it.

 

Mr. Ross saw the map of the Town on the wall to get a better understanding of the areas that the Board was referring to as lacking coverage.

 

Mr. Ricks questioned how many antennas were on the tower right now?

 

Mr. Ross would have to look into that. He knew that AT&T had 6 antennas on each tower- the Airport Road and the Route 209. The new antennas are panel shaped antennas.

 

Chairman Baden noted that right now there are antennas at 146’, 136’ and 125’.

 

Mr. Ross noted that the 6 AT&T antennas that are now on the two towers are at 136’ and are the old technology.

 

Mr. Ricks noted that there were two other companies on the towers as well. T-Mobile and Verizon. How many antennas did each of them have?

 

Mr. Paddock noted that they had gone through this with T-Mobile and they had said that there was a maximum number that could be held by each tower and it was really way under the number.

 

Mr. Ross noted that he was just speaking generally as a guy that works on the leasing aspect from a business perspective that he thought usually each of the carriers are limited by the tower owner to 12 antennas and the associated equipment. Usually the towers have room for at least 3 and sometimes 4 carriers. He’s just speaking in laymen’s terms. He referred to the sketch that was submitted as a reference to the Board on what the antennas looked like.

 

Chairman Baden noted that because these antennas were being added to the existing antennas on the tower, in his opinion this wouldn’t change the visual footprint that much because they were adding them where there were already antennas. They weren’t going higher or lower.

 

Mr. Ross noted that if they went to a different level, they would have to pay more rent to the landlord. He noted that the old antennas still stay up because a lot of people still have the 3G technology.

 

Chairman Baden noted that the Town owns the property and American Tower owns the tower and he’ll have to read through the lease, but he questioned if AT&T needed written permission from the Town as the landowner authorizing for the application. They have already submitted a letter from American Tower for this application. He didn’t know if a letter from the Town was also needed to apply. He requested that Mr. Ross looked further into this.

 

Mr. Ross would and would get back to the Board.

 

Mr. Paddock questioned what the Board could really review under the new FCC law?

 

Chairman Baden noted that if it was substantially changing to footprint. A substantial change isn’t so much in terms of numbers, but in terms of visual aspect. If they were adding it at a new different height, it might be considered differently, but because they are adding where they already exists…

 

Mr. Ross noted that they aren’t going higher or lower or wider they weren’t doing any excavation or widening of the ground space. There are no changes of ground equipment other than some new fiber cable and dc power cables.

 

Chairman Baden questioned if the wires came through inside or outside the tower?

 

Mr. Ross would have to look into this. He believed that on a monopole they were inside.

 

Chairman Baden noted that there were no additional structures being added to the ground—it would all be within AT&T’s current equipment shed.

 

Mr. Ross agreed.

 

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

 

Mr. Ricks questioned if they could do these two applications together- the Route 209 and Airport Road applications because they were the same and then they weren’t doing everything twice?

 

Chairman Baden said okay, only that Route 209 would be required to be referred to the Ulster County Planning Board because it was within a County Ag District and they were required by the law to refer it. He was on the County PB and he knew that this would be a ‘No County Impact’ response from the UCPB. They are in the process right now because of the Federal Law 6409 changing their exception agreement to say that these types of applications don’t need to be referred to the County, but they haven’t adopted it yet. It’s in discussion.

 

Mr. Ross noted that he was doing a similar project in the Town of New Paltz last month and this was the same situation. The UCPB meeting noted that they were working on a new process.

 

Chairman Baden noted that they were working on it and it may even be voted on at the October meeting.

 

Mr. Ross stated for the record that he understood what 239 of the General Municipal Law said and he understood the obligation there, but as far as the administrative approval process that the FCC – he would say that UCPB approval was no longer required.

 

Chairman Baden noted that this was probably why the County comment would come back as a “No County Impact”, but to protect both the Town and the applicant he would prefer to refer it because he wouldn’t want to give someone an open door for an Article 78.

 

Mr. Ross noted that, respectfully, they would be very confident that they could win that, but he understood the Board’s position.

 

Chairman Baden questioned if anyone had any questions on the Route 209 application since they were going to do these together? They were essentially the same.

 

Mr. Ross noted that there is a GPS system- which was a small difference between Airport Road and Route 209.

 

Mr. Ricks questioned what the remote radio units were for?

 

Mr. Ross noted that they weren’t very large, they were almost the size of a box and they went behind the antenna and the carriers had RRU’s behind the antennas and they were able to change the tilt of the antennas to reflect whatever waves were coming in or going out. They effectively could angle the antennas remotely. He thought a lot of it was automatic. He didn’t think there was a mission control guy sitting around doing it.

 

Mr. Paddock questioned why they were only installing additional equipment on only 2 of the 3 towers in the town.

 

Chairman Baden noted that a zoning permit has been sent to the Code Enforcement Officer for that City Hall Road tower, so he believes in the next couple of months they would be seeing that one as well.

 

Chairman Baden motioned to classify the Route 209 application as an Unlisted Action under SEQRA. Seconded by Mr. Ricks. No discussion.
 Vote:
Baden:  Yes                                             Tapper: Absent
O’Donnell:      Absent                                  Rominger:       Yes
Ullman: Absent                                  Ricks:          Yes
Paddock:        Yes                                     
                                                                        
Motion carried. 4 ayes, 0 nays, 3 absent, 0 abstentions

 

Chairman Baden motioned to schedule the 100 Airport Road application and 6140 Route 209 application for Public Hearings at the October 8, 2013 PB meeting. Seconded by Mr. Rominger. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden:  Yes                                             Tapper: Absent
O’Donnell:      Absent                                  Rominger:       Yes
Ullman: Absent                                  Ricks:          Yes
Paddock:        Yes                                     
                                                                        
Motion carried. 4 ayes, 0 nays, 3 absent, 0 abstentions

 

Chairman Baden motioned to refer the 6140 Route 209 application to the UCPB for review. Seconded by Mr. Rominger. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden:  Yes                                             Tapper: Absent
O’Donnell:      Absent                                  Rominger:       Yes
Ullman: Absent                                  Ricks:          Yes
Paddock:        Yes                                     
                                                                        
Motion carried. 4 ayes, 0 nays, 3 absent, 0 abstentions

 

Chairman Baden noted that it was close enough that he believed that the UCPB could get it on their agenda for their October meeting. He further noted that they would finalize SEQRA next month prior to the Public Hearing and he anticipated being able to do approvals if the Public Hearings were closed next month.

 

Mr. Ross questioned if the final decision would reflect Federal Law 6409 was discussed?

 

Chairman Baden noted that it would. He respected Mr. Ross’s opinion and he hoped that Mr. Ross’s respected the Board’s.

 

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. Charles was not present, but the Board had enough information to discuss the application.

 

Chairman Baden noted that this was a referral from the Town Board for Open Development. This was the first one that the Board has seen in a while. What it basically is that someone wants to have a building permit on a non mapped road. It is a road that is not shown on a subdivision map or is not an existing public road. So, in order to do it, they have to go through the Open Development process. He drove up there and looked at the lot. It is on Deer Haven Road. The lot is actually on both sides of Deer Haven Road. He was very impressed with the condition of Deer Haven Road. It was in better condition than some of the Town’s dirt roads. It was pretty obvious where he was planning on doing this because he was clearing trees the day he went up there. Personally he didn’t see any issues with it. What it would entail from the applicant was that there was a checklist in the member’s packets. The lot is approximately 3 acres in size. At this point the Board should go over the checklist to see what applies to Mr. Charles case. The right of way was already named, so that wasn’t applicable. The road needed to be reviewed by the Highway Superintendent on the condition of Deer Haven Road. A Road Maintenance Agreement between himself and the Town was required and needed to be signed off on by the Town Attorney and he was responsible for those review fees. Also, the Fire Dept. needed to sign off on the road for emergency access.

 

Mr. Ricks wanted to know if there was a minimum width for the right of way.

 

Chairman Baden noted that it was 15’ according to State Law. Once he gets the RMA he will have to file that with the County and submit proof that he’s done so. Other conditions can be added on to it if they care to. Personally from driving up there, the road was in very good condition. He was impressed with how good it was.

 

Mr. Rominger questioned if there were other homes on this road?

 

Chairman Baden noted that there were houses leading up to it.

 

Mr. Rominger questioned if they had any way of knowing who had been maintaining it?

 

Chairman Baden noted that they didn’t because there was no filed RMA. He noted that he would have the Secretary pass the checklist off to the applicant.

 

OTHER MATTERS:
Zoning and Subdivision Local law referrals from Town

 

Chairman Baden noted that the Board received an official referral from the Town Board for the Zoning and Subdivision Law. The PB tried to hold a workshop meeting but decided it wasn’t worth it because they didn’t have the right documents. They now have them and they were in the Board Members’ folders and the workshop meeting was scheduled for the next evening September 25th. He wasn’t sure if they would have a quorum. Chairman Baden would be there, but he wouldn’t be taking part as a Board Member. They could still discuss it and they could still make recommendations to the Town Board, they just couldn’t vote on them.

 

Brenda Striano, CEO Secretary, Jerry Davis, CEO, and Chairman Baden would be there to answer questions. What he asked was that everyone bring the copies of the documents they have received thus far.

 

Mr. Rominger noted that this would be a tedious process. The documents to primarily work off of for tomorrow night’s meeting were the Task Force’s documents.

 

Chairman Baden noted that the green is what was proposed to be changed that they agreed to, anything in blue was what they agreed to but changed the wording on. Anything in red was the stuff from Chairman Baden’s original proposal that they either disagreed with or took no action on. He noted that the document that the Town Board actually referred to them was the Attorney’s document and that is what the Board is actually supposed to comment on which may or may not have mistakes in it from the Task Force. The Town Attorney fully admitted that she may have made some mistakes.

 

Mr. Rominger noted that because it was tedious, so the reason that he wanted to have the CEO, CEO Secretary, Chairman Baden and the PB Secretary at the workshop meeting was to help give the Board insight into some of the proposed revisions. Obviously this was not a politically motivated document – this was more of a product of them needing help to do their jobs. There were many sections in here where it was just insignificant changes. What they plan to do tomorrow night is to go directly to the ones that are significant and see what they did and if the Board agrees or disagrees. Obviously they all wanted a lot of this in there were some parts that were changed from what they wanted and some things that they never took action on. So that the question is as a Planning Board do they want to say, ‘no, change the wording back to this or ‘why didn’t you address this?’

 

Mr. Ricks wanted to know if the Task Force went through the whole document or if they just picked out certain items? He was wondering how thorough of a job they did.

 

Chairman Baden noted that he was at the first two meetings and they started from the beginning and went page by page and assessed the changes. As far as he knew they got through everything. There are some sections- like the Telecommunications section that they didn’t think it was something that they could really comment on and they thought it should be sent to the Planner and they asked the Town Board to send it on to the Planner. To his knowledge it still hadn’t been sent on. It was up to the PB if they wanted to proceed if they don’t have a quorum.

 

Mr. Paddock noted that with less people it might be more streamlined and more efficient and they could probably get what they need to get done.

 

Mr. Ricks wondered how quickly they really would be able to do it since it took the Task Force months to go through.

 

Chairman Baden noted that the make up of the Task Force wasn’t necessarily made up of people who understood planning and zoning as much as the PB members. The PB members at least understood the law and the reasons for them being laws where there was no one present at the Task Force meetings to tell them the reasons. That was why Mr. Rominger wanted Mr. Davis, CEO, Mrs. Striano, CEO Secretary and Chairman Baden at the meeting so the Board could ask questions as to why things were suggested. The PB would be the first group who is going to do that. The TB didn’t do that and the Task Force didn’t do that.

 

Mr. Paddock questioned if Mr. Rominger had a handle on this? Was there anything that they needed to look at in particular?

 

Mr. Rominger noted that he has not looked through it yet because tonight was the first time that they received the redlined document that would help them see the changes that were being proposed. The reason to have Chairman Baden there would be to help the Board get through the important parts of the documents and explain the reasoning behind the proposed changes.

 

Mr. Ricks wondered if a hot topic for the Task Force might have differed from one that  Chairman Baden had a had.

 

Chairman Baden noted that the Task Force didn’t review anything that wasn’t in the proposal. They didn’t review the whole Code; they just went section by section and looked through the proposed changes in red.

 

Mr. Rominger noted that they were going to have to skip a lot to be able to get through this tomorrow night. He was counting on Chairman Baden to focus on the important sections to review.

 

Chairman Baden noted that the Task Force did agree to a lot of it. The Town Board has shown indication that they would be supportive of whatever the Task Force presented.

 

Mr. Rominger noted that they would still be looking at if they agreed with what the Task Force agreed with and make sure that they are in compliance with NYS Law and so forth. Those are comments that they want to try and pass along.

 

Chairman Baden noted that was also why he wanted the CEO and CEO Secretary at the meeting. There were sections in there that the CEO felt very strongly about and he didn’t feel right trying to relay his reasons. That was why they would be in attendance.

 

Mr. Rominger noted that if they get started and they cover 10% of it after 45 minutes and they see that it’s too much, they could close the meeting whenever they feel necessary.

 

Chairman Baden noted that the only reason he was pushing for this meeting so quickly was because the Town Board meeting was on September 26th. If they only get part way through, that’s what they get. He has not seen the Town Board look like they are going to move forward with this prior to the election. If it doesn’t get done at the workshop meeting, it doesn’t get done.

 

Mr. Paddock questioned if there was anything that Chairman Baden really felt strongly about that the PB should focus on?

 

Chairman Baden noted that the telecommunications section really needed to be updated.

 

Mr. Rominger noted that could be a simple solution. They should have a new written law that should be done by a committee comprised of the Town Attorney, the Town Planner and a couple of Planning Board Members.

 

Chairman Baden noted that private roads really needed to be addressed as well. He continued to note that he sat in on two of the Task Force’s meetings and the Chairman basically said if they didn’t have a unanimous vote on anything, it wouldn’t be moving forward. If one person didn’t agree, it wasn’t in green print.

 

The Board decided that they would view this tomorrow at the workshop meeting.

 

UCPB referral waiver matrix
Chairman Baden noted that the UCPB has proposed a new waiver matrix. What they were proposing to change were the wireless antenna. Any substantial increase per the nationwide collocation of wireless antennas will no longer need to be referred if this is adopted by the County PB, which will probably be voted on at the October meeting. They also made a change in accessory apartment for variance which involves the ZBA. He just wanted to make the PB aware of it.

 

SEQRA policy
Chairman Baden noted that as of October 7, 2013 the new SEQRA Documents will be going into effect. With that in mind, he wrote up a SEQRA policy for the Board to review. The Board could vote on this now or at the next meeting. Basically he wanted the PB and the applicant to know when they needed to short form and when they needed the long form, so that they didn’t have to have a lot of applicants spend a lot of money to do long forms when they don’t need them. The new short form has a lot more questions than the old form and it will be a lot more accurate. If the DEC’s workbook works like it is supposed to, the applicant should be able to fill the forms out on their own.

 

The Board decided to review it and discuss it at the next meeting.

 

UCPB Terms
Chairman Baden noted that his term on the County PB was up this year. He asked the Board to authorize the Secretary to send a request to the Town Board to reappoint Chairman Baden to the UCPB for another term.

 

The Board agreed.

 

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 8:35PM.

 

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