PLANNING BOARD
TOWN OF ROCHESTER
ULSTER COUNTY
ACCORD, NEW YORK
(845) 626-2434

MINUTES OF December 12th, 2016 Meeting of the Town of Rochester PLANNING BOARD, held at the Town of Rochester Community Center, Accord, NY.

As Chairman Baden asked everyone to stand for the pledge to the Flag.

The Secretary did roll call attendance.

PRESENT: ABSENT:
Michael Baden, Chairman Shane Ricks
Lawrence DeWitt Patrick Williams
Maren Lindstrom
John Dawson

Also present:
Mary Lou Christiana, Attorney for the Town. Rick Jones, Alternate member. Shaye Davis, Secretary.

Chairman Baden announced Mr. Jones, the alternate, will be seated on the Board for this meeting in the place of Vice Chairman Paddock who resigned due to work commitment.

ANNOUNCEMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
Chairman Baden noted that Rebecca Paddock-Stange is moving to the Code Enforcement Office and thanked her for her years of working as Secretary for the Board.
Mr. Jones term of alternate expires this month. Mr. Ricks term expires in December and does not think he will be pursuing next year, but not definite.

TRAININGS
Chairman Baden noted that the board members have to have their hours in for training for the year.

ACTION ON MINUTES
Tabled to next month to due to all the changes of secretary.

2016-08 LLI New Application
Lot Improvement
Marc & Colleen Schain – Roy Sheldon & Jane Dobson
Proposes transfer of ±0.02 acres of land between contiguous lots
Cedar Hill Rd. (County Route 6), S/B/L 77.2-3-18.2 and S/B/L 77.2-3-17, R-2 zoning district
SEQRA: Type II (by definition)

Ms. Brooks was present on behalf of the application.

Chairman Baden discussed how the property was subdivided last year and how they spoke about the lot improvement but didn’t go through with it at that time. They have now resolved it and the neighbors are going to grant them 0.2 acres.

Ms. Brooks explained that Parcel A has the driveway on it and would like to relocate the lot line to an extension of the stone wall. All of the wood guide rail will be conveyed to Mark and Colleen Schain to help aid in the building of their home.

Mr. Dewitt asked if this was part on the road that goes downhill. Mrs. Brooks replied with a simple yes. Mr. Dewitt also confirmed that it was Cedar Hill Rd instead of Clove Valley Rd.

Chairman Baden informed the board that the lot that is conveying the land is located in both the Town of Rochester and the Town of Marbletown but since it’s two separate tax parcels and the Board is only dealing with the Town of Rochester side so it does not have to be referred to the Town of Marbletown.

Chairman Baden asked the Board if they have any questions. No comments.

Mr. Dewitt motioned to certify the lot line improvement as presented. Mr. Dawson seconded the motion.
No discussion.
Vote:
Motion carried. All in favor
5 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, 0 abstentions

2016-05 SBD Amended Application, Public Hearing
Minor Subdivision
William and Moira Sotirovich (owner) – Alex Kambouris (applicant)
Proposes subdivision of a 10.93 acre lot into 2 lots, ±2.80 acres and ±8.13 acres
Route 209, S/B/L 69.3-3-25.1, B zoning district
SEQRA: Unlisted Action

Applicant engineer Mr. Medenbach is present as well as the applicant

Chairman Baden stated last month the Board had an application for subdivision and for a special use permit. The special use has been withdrawn but in the process of doing the survey they discovered that the lot line went through the porch of Alex Kambouris’ house. Before the subdivision can be granted they have to do a lot line improvement. Conveying .22 acres. . Mr. Medenbach explained that when the home was built the setback was only 5ft and they made the lot line improvement to meet today’s standards of 25ft.

Ms. Lindstrom questioned that they resurveyed it and realized the line was going through the porch?

Mr. Medenbach replied saying it had not been surveyed in a long time and when they went to subdivide they realized the line was a little close to the home.

Mr. Dewitt motioned to accept the lot line improvement. Ms. Lindstrom seconded.
Vote:
Motion carried. All in favor
5 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, 0 abstentions

Chairman Baden notes that they are scheduled for a public hearing tonight on the subdivision. The subdivision would make it instead of 3.01 acres as listed on the original application to 2.80 acres after the lot improvement. The remaining lot remains the same 8.13 acres. He also mentioned to Mr. Medenbach that the board needs a letter stating that the 2 lots can have water and septic capability and make approval a condition for the letter.

Ms. Lindstrom asked if the lots were in a commercial zone.

Chairman Baden replied saying that they are both in the B District, which does allow residences. At current if any commercial use proposal is proposed it will have to be sent back to the planning board for review depending on what the use is but at minimum would need to have a site plan review. Chairman Baden asks if the proposed right of way will still carry through.

Mr. Medenbach says yes, and that they spoke to NYSDOT about it and that they would prefer them to use the existing entrance instead of a new one and reserve that right and make it part of the lot to access that lot from there.

Chairman Baden adds that the lot does have 50ft of road frontage so it does meet the district regulations.

At this time the Board reviewed Part 2 of SEQRA.
Chairman Baden read the draft part 2 he prepared.
All items were checked as being “No or small impact”

Ms. Lindstrom motioned for a negative declaration and Mr. Dawson seconded the motion.

Roll Call Vote:
Baden: Yes Dewitt: Yes
Lindstrom: Yes Jones: Yes Dawson: Yes Ricks: Absent
Williams: Absent
Motion carried. All in favor

Chairman Baden opens the Public Hearing and asks if anyone would like to speak. No comments.

Mr. Dawson makes a motion to close the public hearing, Ms. Lindstrom seconds the motion.
Motion carried. All in favor
5 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, 0 abstentions

Draft findings were prepared by the Chairman and were read, discussed, and amended by the Planning Board Chairman Baden reads the decision with the addition of the letter stating the capability of water and septic for the lot.
Findings of the Planning Board
1. The Planning Board received zoning referral for a Minor Subdivision from the Code Enforcement Officer. Required documentation, as detailed in this decision, was provided for review and the application was considered complete.
2. The owner granted representation power to Alex Kambouris.
3. The application proposes subdivision of a ±10.93-acre parcel resulting in 2 lots of ±2.80 acres and ±8.13 acres.
4. The parcel to be subdivided is known as S/B/L 69.3-3-25.100.
5. The current use of the parcel is vacant land. No new construction is proposed at this time.
6. The application was determined to meet the requirements of an Unlisted SEQRA action.
• A Negative Declaration was determined upon review.
7. The parcel is in the B zoning district.
• The Board concludes Lots 1 and 2, as proposed, meet or exceed the bulk standards requirements for the B zoning district.
8. The Board reviewed if the proposed lots have safe and legal access.
• The parcel is located on US Route 209, a NYS Dept. of Transportation controlled public roadway.
• Each lot will have road frontage allowing individual legal access to a public roadway with the subdivision. No current access is proposed. Future access to each lot will involve coordination with the NYS Dept. of Transportation and an access permit.
9. The Board reviewed if the proposed lots could support water and septic.
• Lot 2 has an expectation of being able to support well and septic due to the lot size. The applicant’s engineer will supply a letter certifying lot 1 is capable of supporting water and septic.
The application is required to be referred to the Ulster County Planning Board, however is exempt by the signing of the exception agreement by both Boards stating this type of application will have no county impacts. .
Motion to adopt findings by: Mr. Dawson
Second by: Ms. Lindstrom
Motion carried. All in favor
5 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, 0 abstentions

Draft resolution was prepared by the Chairman and was read, discussed, and amended by the Planning Board in public meeting. The decision was read with the addition of the letter stating the capability of water and septic for the lot.
RESOLVED,
The Town of Rochester Planning Board grants Minor Subdivision-Conditional Final Approval to William & Moira Sotirovich permitting the subdivision of lands situate at US Route 209, known as S/B/L 69.3-3-25.100 and located in the B zoning district, into 2 lots with the following conditions. The subdivision plan, as dated November 22, 2016, is approved.

The Town of Rochester Planning Board further grants Minor Subdivision-Final Approval permitting the subdivision of lands upon the satisfactory completion of conditions of approval 1 and 2. The Planning Board grants the authority to the Chairman to certify the conditions have been completed without further resolution and to sign and date the plat at such time.

CONDITIONS of APPROVAL:
1. All fees due to the Town of Rochester involving this application shall be paid in full prior to the Chairman’s signature on the Final Plat.
2. The applicant’s engineer shall provide a letter certifying lot 1 is capable of supporting water and septic.
3. All required Local, County, State, or Federal permits shall be secured for the current and/or future use of these lands.

EFFECT of APPROVAL:
1. This Conditional Final Approval shall expire 180 days from this approval date unless conditions 1 and 2 are satisfied by the applicant and the Final Plat is presented and signed by the Chairman. This period may be extended for additional 90 day periods upon application to and resolution by the T/ Rochester Planning Board.
2. The owner shall file in the office of the Ulster County Clerk such approved plat bearing the Chairman’s signature within 62 days from the date of signature or such approval shall be deemed to expire without further notice in accordance with NYS Town Law §276.
3. The owner shall have the responsibility to return three (3) Ulster County Clerk certified copies of the filed plat and any other related filings to the T/ Rochester Planning Board within 30 days of such filing.

Motion to adopt by: Ms. Lindstrom
Second by: Mr. Jones
Motion carried. All in favor
5 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, 0 abstentions

2016-07 SUP Continued Application, Public Hearing
Amendment to PB decision 1997-06 SUP
Sandy Krupp
Proposes amendment to PB decision 1997-06 SUP granting approval to convert a dairy barn into a cabinet woodworking shop.
10 Queens Highway, S/B/L 76.2-2-6.211, B and AP Overlay zoning district, Contiguous to Ulster County Ag District #3.
SEQRA: Unlisted Action

James O’Shea, the prospected buyer for the property is present and representing the owner at this meeting.

Mr. Baden noteds that the special use permit which was approved in 1997 was amended in 1998. What was changed was the added paved parking area. He continued that there is a letter to the ZBA because the quick claim deed which moved the barn from lot 1 to lot 2 caused some variance issues. When the property was subdivided at the time it didn’t need board approval. The subdivision there was a granted variance for the garage on lot 2 but when the quit claim deed happened it created the need for variances that were never received. Essentially where you see the area between the cabinet shop and the lot line the dimension is listed at 16.9ft, at the time it was subdivided the rear yard setback was 40ft but for today’s code it is 25ft and needs an 8.1ft variance for a rear yard setback. The side yard has 24.1ft and under current code needs 25ft however when they subdivided it was 12.5ft and complied with the setbacks at the time and is preexisting and non-conforming. Essentially the Board will have to refer this to the ZBA for a rear yard setback.

Mr. Jones asks if the reasoning for this is because the property isn’t grandfathered in?

Chairman Baden explains that when they granted this in 1997 the property was 1 lot however when the lot line was made it became out of compliance with the setbacks. In order for the sale of the property to move forward the applicant wants to get everything properly signed off on with the Board due to the violation. The Board reviewed through the 1997 approval and 1998 amendment and see if there are any other questions regarding that application. Chairman Baden read the conditions for the 1997 approval. When the applicant changed the site plans they did render it null and void.

Mr. Jones states that the applicant might want to change some of those conditions.

Mr. O’Shea says they do have a change of use application that they will pursue after all this is taken care of.

Chairman Baden advised that is not pertinent to this review.

Chairman Baden now reads the amendment from 1998

Chairman Baden asks if Mr. O’Shea knows what the water source is for that property.

Mr. O’Shea says the well is presently a shared well with lot 2 but they plan on making their own well.

Chairman Baden notes that he thought there was a deed filed that extinguished the shared well.

Mr. O’Shea isn’t aware of that so Chairman Baden requests he investigate that.

Mr. O’Shea states that there is no working water at the moment and that it is shut off.
Attorney Christiana asks if Mr. O’Shea is mortgaging the property.

Mr. O’Shea said no and that they plan on buying it outright.

Chairman Baden asks if the Board has any questions. No comments

Opened for Public Comment

Owners of Lot 2 (8 Queens Highway, Accord, NY 12404) stated that her concern is that they are amending the whole use of the property at this point.

The board responded saying they amending the configuration of the lines that’s shown on the plan defining what the use is, and that it is going to still be a cabinet shop unless it’s changed later on. Along with that the special use will continue until a new use is applied for.

Owner of lot 2 questioned saying that they are approving the new lines that are in the back.

The second owner of lot 2 noted that even though there is 5 lines and in the past there was resisitance for approving the 5 lines because he applied for the same 5 lines in 2002 and you’re now saying at this hearing that you’re going to approve 5 lines because I have documentation that denied those 5 lines when I went in front of the town board, and that he’ll gladly provide them to the board.

Chairman Baden responded stating that he or the board is familiar with that. Along with that they were in front of the ZBA for a variance but not a change in lines.

Owner 2 said I was told that the way it was divided now was 3 lines which confers with the original state you guys got it to the way you wanted it divided and I was told that 5 lines were too many lines and couldn’t be done, so what I’m trying to figure out is why it can be changed now and it was denied back in 2002.

Chairman Baden stated that the board is going by what the county has and that it the 5 lines filed as record in 2005 at this moment and that the board is not contesting if it is the 5 lines or the 3 lines, all were reviewing is the relationship of the structures to the 5 lines.

Owner 2 said that what their saying makes sense to him but that he’s contesting documentation that he received being denied due to too many lines and it wouldn’t be granted. If you want to open this up for litigation which is what approaching then that’s what we’ll do.

Chairman Baden responded saying that we’re not reviewing those lines, and that all their reviewing is the relationship to the buildings along with that the map was filed with the county and that the county accepted it so we can only go by what the county has and that that is how the parcel is. He then states that the owner of lot 2 might be referring to in 2002 the ZBA was approached for a variance for the garage and to my knowledge it was approved and that’s what it was filed as the 3 lines, in 2005 it was changed to the 5 lines and at that time it did not have to go to the planning board for to be approved, the owners could file that themselves.

Owner of lot 2 questioned why the town sent documentation was sent to him and reads the letter.

Attorney Christiana and Chairman Baden stated that that is exactly what they were doing at this meeting.

Owner of lot 2 asked what happened in the interim.

Chairman Baden stated the airing of the violation notice was because of the setback between the cabinet shop and the lot line is 16.1 feet and the required at the time was 40ft now the requirement under the current code is 25ft. So that is exactly why the owners of lot 1 is here right now to secure that variance and to change the site plans to match the deeds.

Owner of lot 2 said just to be clear I was denied the line adjustments that your now approving 15 years ago.

Chairman Baden stated that he’s not familiar nor is the board with what happened in 2002 and that he can research it but it has no effect. Every application is reviewed on its own merits, if the board in 2002 chose to deny it which I’m not entirely aware of but will follow up.

Owner of lot 2 states that would make sense because of the setback lines but what doesn’t make sense to me is the specifically called out the 5 lines because the town didn’t want to divide it that way.

Chairman Baden states that is point is that in 2005 this map with the 5 lines was filed and accepted by the county

Owner of lot 2 contested saying that the map showed 3 lines and had a quick claim deed so it did not show 5 lines.

Chairman Baden noted that after the quick claim deed it changed to the 5 lines because of the quick claim deed,

Owner of lot 2 asked how it changed to the 5 lines if you were holding the previous owner liable to change it

Chairman Baden stated that it wasn’t required at that time to come in front of the planning board it went to the county and the county accepted the map with the quick claim deed.

Owner of lot 2 states why does all the corresponace form the foil request stating that the town is requiring the lines be changed.

Attorney Christiana noted that the county back when the quick claim deed was done and the property was divided, those 2 times it was not required that you come in front of the town planning board to divide these 2 lots and to quick claim that portion from one lot to another, we didn’t need to approve that so whoever did this, the neighbor or you or both of you together went to the county and all of it got filed and the county now has a map 5 lines dividing the 2 lots. That then presented a problem for the town because of the setbacks that was our concerning so therefore those letters went out saying wait a second, when you divided that you created a problem with your site plan and the permits that we issue,. So there a violation and someone has to come before us and amend that site plan, get the variances needed in order to correct it and that is where we are now.

Owner of lot 2 stated that he understands and corrected Attorney Christiana saying he’s not talking about the facts of the setbacks but he’s talking about that he was called out specifically on the configuration of the lines and secondly the county office there is no map that shows that the map shows 3 lines with a quick claim deed on it.

Attorney Christiana stated that the map they have might not be the assessment map that is the subdivision lot from 2005 and then I believe it was 2006 when the quick claim deed was done. SO that’s not on the subdivision map but it’s on the assessment roll map

Mr. Jones verified that the Owners were on lot 2 and says what they desire is the 5 line subdivision.

The owner of lot 2 said no, that’s what was they went in front of the board before and that he wants the barn that is not his.

Mr. Jones stated that with the 5 lines the barn will be on their property.

Owner of lot 2 asked why there is preferential treatment now as opposed to when he requested it 12 years ago.

Chairman Baden said that this is not preferential treatment and that the board can only go by the map that was filed with the county. Chairman Baden also added that they are not reviewing the “jog” as owner of lot 2 keeps calling it, the county tells us that the 5 lines is what is filed on the tax map which is what the board reviews too.

Owner of lot 2 continued to ask why it’s okay now and wasn’t okay 12 years ago

Chairman Baden stated that they haven’t decided on anything at this point but that the board is not considering the 5 lines versus the 3 lines what they’re looking at is the relationship with the buildings with the 5 lines because that is the change. As far as we’re concerned and as far as the county is telling us that the 5 lines is the legal description of the lot. So we’re not reviewing the 3 lines to 5 lines and it may have been denied in 2002 by a board but I’m not even sure why it would’ve gone to a board because a 2 lot subdivision at that time you could just do it at that time and you took the risk that you might create variance issues and that is exactly what happened here. When the lot was subdivided and filed the plans did indeed violate the setback and that is what needs to be resolved in order for the property to be sold.

Owner of lot 2 said that it is possible it could be resolved through a variance application

Chairman Baden noted that it is in front of us now to review the site plan as part of our site plan review we have to send it to the ZBA to approve the variance that is required in order to approve the site plan. The ZBA will hold their own meeting and they will either deny it or grant the variance that is needed, once they do they will report back to us or we can approve it with the condition that they secure a variance and if they don’t secure the variance than it doesn’t move forward. So essentially we’re reviewing it just for conformity with the excising approval which is what we just read through but because the property was altered the original approval it was one entire lot. Along the way it was changed to 2 lots and then to further complicate it more it was according to the quick claim deed it was changed from 3 lines to the 5 line which I understand and it makes a lot of sense. I understand your questions and concerns and believe me having been looking at this application for about 4 years now when I realized the same thing you did with the two different maps showing two different sets of line and my suspicion is that the quick claim deed must have resolved that or something must of because the county is now agreeing with the 5 lines.

Owner of lot 2 stated the county never had any problem with it the town was the only ones that had the problem with it.

Chairman Baden stated that the question came from the town because they can’t approve something that didn’t match what our records stated and that is what were in the process of doing. We’re in the process of approving this map to match the county map to match the use that is allowed there currently. If this gentleman does continue to purchase this property and wants to change the use it will go through the code enforcement officer who will determine whatever process needs to happen.

Mr. Jones asked the applicant what he thinks he’s buying, with the 3 or 5 lines.

Mr. O’Shea said yes, with the 5 lines.

Mr. Jones asked the owner of lot 2 if he currently had the barn

The owner of lot 2 stated that no, he didn’t have the barn.

The board than verifies that the small barn next to the cabinet shop is on the owner of lot 2’s property.

Mr. Jones asked the owner of lot 2 if is concern is that it has taken 14 years to resolve this ordeal.

The owner of lot 2 stated that no, his concern is that there hasn’t been any enforcement. They were supposed to put a well in and they never put one in, they don’t take care of the property, the building’s falling apart, I mow the lawn on the side of the building, I mean that’s my concern as an adjacent property owner. And this well agreement that your town board has impored that it be done in very forceful language has never been done. It’s going back to 2002 when they asked him to drill a separate well, I supply the water right and that should’ve been changed a long time ago. So the enforcement of the time of day when the building was used there has been no respect whatsoever. During the day the windows were open and machines running and that wasn’t wha tit was supposed to be and there was no enforcement. I go to your building inspector and asked what he can do about this and he was told “sue me”. I have an adjacent property that broke an easement that I’m getting water on my property that’s destroying my property and the building inspector tells me to sue and that there is nothing to enforce. So I come here highly skeptical and very concerned because I just don’t know what’s going on here.

Chairman Baden stated that the board will definitely investigate the well issue because in approving a site plan we have to guarantee there is water available to that site in some fashion. As far as what you’re talking about with the drainage issue I believe that’s from the parcel next door not this property were talking about. Otherwise the small barn as far as were concerned is on your property now and is not part of lot 1 accoring to the county which is all we can go by. Regardless of what may or may not have happened in 2002 I will go back and read the minutes to see what happens and possibly shed some light on the questions.

The owner of lot 2 said that the trees on the property are overgrown and not taken care of and it doesn’t look like anything.

Chairman Baden than asked if there was anyone else who would like to speak regarding this amendment.

Mr. Dewitt motions to keep the Public Hearing open until February, Mr. Jones seconds the motion.
Motion carried. All in favor
5 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, 0 abstentions

2016-06 SBD Continued Application
Minor Subdivision
Michael and Jeanette Bazinet
Proposes subdivision of a 75 acre lot into 3 lots, ±13 acres, ±6.5 acres, ±55.5 acres
Melody Lane off Cherrytown Rd., S/B/L 67.-2-39, AR-3 zoning district, Contiguous to Ulster County Ag District #3.
SEQRA: TBD

Chairman Baden notes that the board spoke about this application last month and that the subdivision would be unable to move forward as it would be turned into 5 lots serviced by a shared driveway. Chairman Baden notes to Mr. Medenbach that what the Board discovered is that the existing house that is on proposed lot 3 is actually on its own lot and that would cause 5 lots sharing a driveway. So essentially that question existed that the existing driveway would be servicing a total of 5 lots. uUnder the code you can have a shared driveway that can serve only 3 lots including the one they have access over. The only way to do that would be to bring Melody lane up to private road specs which would mean widening the road.

The Board and Mr. Medenbach discussed alternate layouts to attempt to conform to the Subdivision regulations.

Mr. Medenbach stated the applicant had the Fire Chief view the property and he indicated there would be no issues with access. Mr. Medenbach wondered if a waiver was possible.

Chairman Baden stateds that he would be willing to consider a waiver with a letter from the fire department approving having 5 lots on the Melody Lane and he would investigate if the Board has the ability to consider the waiver.

Chairman Baden notes that they don’t have enough information to schedule a public hearing.

2016-08 SUP New Application
Special Use
Humphrey Enterprises, Inc (owner) John Dawson (applicant)
Proposes Multiple Uses of a 9 acre parcel
Route 209 and Old Mine Rd., S/B/L 76.1-1-9.1, I and AP Overlay zoning districts

Mr. Dawson recused himself at 8:46PM due to being the applicant.

Chairman Baden noted that the applicant is applying for 3 special uses, 1 family residence, retail establishment vehicle and equipment and commercial parking.

Mr. Dawson stated that they chose from special use terms and explains what each use will be used for.

Chairman Baden notes that there has to be 1.5 acres per use and it’s a 9 acre parcel and asks what the existing use of the property is.

Mr. Dawson says that the last use was a trash company and a pipe organ factory. The trash company used it for parking commercial vehicles and the pipe organ factory did go through the process to get a special use permit.

Chairman Baden questions if there are 4 structures on the property?

Mr. Dawson says that there are only 2 structures left. There were 4, now thereare 3, the existing residence and 2 buildings. The middle one that says concrete pad is the building they got rid of because it was no good.

Residences require special use permit. Chairman Badennoted the thought process of the code was to make this industrial and not residential but if they wanted to live there they have to go through the process of getting a special use permit.

Chairman Baden also asks if the part labeled car storage and office is there still as well?

Mr. Dawson states that building that remains andthat it has his cars in it at the moment.

Chairman Baden questions if the mobile home on the map is there or not.

Mr. Dawson states that it is proposed for where the mobile home will go while he builds the actual home.

Chairman Baden says that the map should show were the proposed house will be and that the temporary mobile should be noted it will be moved when the building is finished. He also says that there would be a condition that the mobile home will be removed.

Mr. Dawson says he will add onto the car storage and office.

Chairman Baden states that Old Mine Road is actually a part of this property and Mr. Dawson agrees and says that they own it.

Chairman Baden states that Old Mine Road is a Town road on the other side.

Chairman Baden notes that the driveway is actually on route 209 which is the driveway that’s just south of Gaydos Auto Body shop, and asks if he has a right of way over Gilles’ property.

Mr. Dawson says yes.

Ms. Lindstrom asks what the total acreage is for the property.

Mr. Dawson & Chairman Baden reply saying 9.10 acres.

The board discussed the parcel lines with the UC parcel viewer map.

Mr. Dawson says that the setbacks confuse him because if you look at industrial setbacks it’s 100ft but everything on this property is only a couple feet from property line

Chairman Baden replies saying that they are preexisting structures which makes it okay.

Mr. Dawson says that the concrete pad is 75ft so they wouldn’t use that end of it to build anything since it’s not up to today’s setbacks.

Chairman Baden says that the pad is preexisting so we would have to see a notation stating that it is 75ft from the property line.

Mr. Dawson states that it’s not a car lot, it’s not open to the public no oneis there, no signs, no lighting, it’s gated off that’s the way it will stay, I work inside and sell my stuff online and I don’t sell that many.

Chairman Baden says that the board would need a written description of what Mr. Dawson just said because the board has to send this to the county and without sending that narrative they will ask all the questions.

Mr. Dawson says that their hope is eventually, which is why they talk about ripping down that building and the house eventually and hopefully buy more land to make a larger open space to make it industrial because then you have room to do something down the road.

Ms. Lindstrom, verifies that dirt road comes off of Samsonville road

Chairman Baden chimes in saying that it’s actually a private road and that it’s been used by the public over the years but it’s actually a private road and the property owners have never enforced it.

Chairman Baden says that they do have enough to send this to the county with the written narrative of description. But will need to see the proposed house and also the 75 setback from the side yard to the concrete pad area

Mr. Dawson says that the concrete pad actually goes right through the property and under Eric Gillis’ building but he’ll show the setback anyway and asks how to re-label the mobile home.

Chairman Baden replied saying to write temporary placement during construction of 1 family house with another note saying “to be removed upon completion of 1 family house”
Chairman Baden says he’ll have to measure the property on the map to see how far the property is from the Town of Wawarsing and asks if they own all the way to the line

Mr. Dawson and neighbors of the property in the audience discuss that they’re farther down the road and not in Wawarsing.

Chairman Baden stated the property is within 500ft of the Town line

Attorney Christiana notes she was just looking at the map and sees old mine road says public but there’s a little of Rochester that is public.

Chairman Baden states that there is no wetlands issues and no floodplain issues.

Mr. Dewitt asks if there are any drainage issues with Mr. Dawson’s reply of no.

Chairman Baden stated that the only construction and disturbance involved is the adding of a new structure.

Chairman Baden asks if with these changes if it will be have to be referred to NYSDOT and decides that it probably should since it’s on Route 209

Chairman Baden asks Mr. Dawson if there would be any problems getting trucks or anything up the driveway with the slope.

Mr. Dawson states that tractor trailers used to do it before but that the only truck that would come in that way would be UPS and FedEx and that the other trucks would come in through Old Mine Road.

Chairman Baden asks if Mr. Dawson has an easement over Old Mine Road for the vehicles to come in through that way

Mr. Dawson replies saying yes, there already is an easement over Gilles’ Property in the deed to go right to Samsonville.

Chairman Baden says they’ll refer this to the NYSDOT to make sure there’s no issues with the changes being made.

Chairman Baden asks Mr. Dawson where the septic will be located.

Mr. Dawson says he was going to move it over to where the mobile home was or over down to where it says doc.

Chairman Baden states that if he moves it to where the mobile home is that he would be too close to the well

Mr. Dawson says he would move it over to where it says DOC on the map

Chairman Baden says that they will need to see that new location on the site map as well. He continues to say that if he can get us a map with the changes of the proposed home, movement of the septic make the map notes for the mobile home and show the 75ft setback for the side yard for the concrete pad. He then asks if anyone else sees anything that needs to be adjusted.

Attorney Christiana says that the trucks with the coming from Samsonville she wants to make sure that the easement includes commercial vehicles.

Mr. Dawson says that when the easement was done that was what it was intended for and that is what it is used for now for Gilles’ property.

Attorney Christiana says maybe we can just get a letter from Gilles’ to make sure it’s okay so that later down the road it’s okay and no problems will happen.

Mr. Dawson explains that there are actually 5 easements for the section.

Chairman Baden asked how many houses use the driveway from Route 209

Mr. Dawson replies saying just one house uses that driveway.

Chariman Baden then realizes that there is road frontage and a right of way for the driveway.

Chairman Baden tells Mr. Dawson that they would need the changes by the 20th of December to give time for the county to review and have it ready for the meeting.

Ms. Lindstrom motioned to set the application as complete once the changes as required are made and the description is made. Mr. Jones seconded
Motion carried. All in favor
5 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, 0 abstentions

Mr. Jones motioned for unlisted action for SEQRA with an uncoordinated review Ms. Lindstrom seconded the motion
Roll call
Baden: Yes Dewitt: Yes
Lindstrom: Yes Jones: Yes Dawson: Yes Ricks: Absent
Williams: Absent
Motion carried. All in favor

Ms. Lindstrom motioned for Public Hearing upon revision. Mr. Jones seconded.
Motion carried. All in favor
5 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, 0 abstentions

Mr. Jones motioned to refer the application to Ulster County Planning Board and NYSDOT upon revisions. Mr. Dewitt seconded
Motion carried. All in favor
5 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, 0 abstentions

Mr. Dawson returns to the Board.

OTHER MATTERS:
Chairman Baden spoke about the dates for the 2017 meetings. The meetings will be on the second Monday of every month except October due to Columbus Day and for the meeting to be moved to Thursday, October 12th.

Ms. Lindstrom motioned to publish the meeting schedule for 2017. Mr. Dewitt Seconded.
Motion carried. All in favor
5 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, 0 abstentions

As there was no further business, Chairman Baden adjourned the meeting at 9:17 PM.

Respectfully Submitted,

Shaye Davis, Secretary