PLANNING BOARD
TOWN OF ROCHESTER
ULSTER COUNTY
ACCORD, NEW YORK
(845) 626-2434
torpbzba@hvc.rr.com
MINUTES OF February 8, 2016 Meeting of the Town of Rochester PLANNING BOARD, held at the Town of Rochester Community Center, 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 John Dawson
Adam Paddock, Vice Chair
Shane Ricks
Maren Lindstrom
Patrick Williams
Lawrence DeWitt
Also present:
Mary Lou Christiana, Attorney for the Town. Rebecca Paddock Stange, Secretary.
ANNOUNCEMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
Chairman Baden welcomed Mr. DeWitt to the Board as a new member. Mr. O’Donnell resigned his position and Mr. DeWitt was appointed by the Town Board to take his place.
Mr. DeWitt noted that he’s been in the area for about 5 years and he lived in New York for all of his adult life working in the energy/environmental area. His son went off to college a number of years ago, so he found property here and settled down in Rochester.
Chairman Baden noted that Mr. Williams was also appointed as a full member of the Planning Board by the Town Board. His term goes through 2022.
Mr. Tapper was not re-appointed. He was on the Board for at least 3 terms, 20 some years. He did a lot for the Board, he held the position of Chair and Vice Chair at times. Chairman Baden just wanted to acknowledge him in the Minutes and what he brought to the Board.
The Board is currently without an Alternate because Mr. Williams was moved up to a regular Board Member. If anyone knew of anyone who was interested, Chairman Baden suggested that they write a letter to the Supervisor. The only requirement was that they were a resident of the Town and over 18 years old.
CRESTED HEN CORRESPONDENCE:
Chairman Baden noted that there was a letter from Claude Suhl since the last meeting that commented on how well the Board handled the application.
TRAININGS:
Chairman Baden handed out the monthly training list that he compiles monthly.
Not on the training list is a training on Solar Energy and Zoning at Ulster County Community College on 3/22/16.
ACTION ON MINUTES
Mr. Ricks motioned to accept the December and January Minutes. Seconded by Mr. Dawson. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden: Yes Dewitt: Abstain
Lindstrom: Yes Ricks: Yes
Paddock: Yes Williams: Yes
Dawson: Yes
Motion carried. 6 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent, 1 abstentions
PB 2015-04 SBD Continued Public Hearing
Minor Subdivision
Marie Christine Hellin
Proposes subdivision of a parcel resulting in 3 lots of +/-3.607 acres, +/-3.892 acres, and +/-3.093 acres
90 Upper Whitfield Rd., S/B/L #68.4-3-13, ‘AR-3’ zoning district, Property listed on the National Register
Mr. Bert Winne LLS was present on behalf of the application.
Chairman Baden noted that OPRHP submitted a letter dated January 14, 2016: ‘While we have no concerns with the proposed subdivision, we would be concerned with the potential visual impact with any new construction of the new lots because the rural setting is important to the significance of the historic property. We recommend that new construction be carefully reviewed and that steps are taken to be sure that the impact to the historic house and out building is minimized. Use of tree lines to divide the lots and significant setbacks from the road and between buildings, appropriate colors and height restrictions are typical and effective measures that would help to reduce the visual impact to the historic property.’
Chairman Baden noted that during the first Public Hearing last month there were concerns regarding wetlands. The Board contacted the DEC and they came back stating that the wetland is on the neighboring property. There are no water bodies that appear on the regulatory maps on the property of the project so a permit is not required. They say that the project site is near or in Freshwater Wetland, M21 Class 1. It appears that there is a small portion of lots 2 and 3 within the 100’ adjacent area in the south east end of the subdivision. A permit would be required for any soil disturbance within the adjacent area. A wetlands permit is required for any physical disturbance within these boundaries or the 100’ adjacent buffer. Chairman Baden noted that if you look at the map it was a very, very small portion down at the bottom that is in the 100’ adjacent area. It wasn’t in the wetland itself. That is a mapping estimate. If this had been mapped by the DEC onsite, they would have told the Board that. It sounds like it has not been mapped. He can tell everyone that from his experience, they err on the side of caution usually when they map these. It’s a very small area. What is proposed in the subdivision doesn’t have any disturbance in that area, so while it’s good that everyone knows and it will be noted in the decision, his personal feelings were that it wasn’t an issue to the subdivision.
Everyone agreed. If they were disturbing the area where they proposed to build the house would be about 400’ away from it, this is not an issue. If the disturbance exceeds one acre, they would have to do a stormwater pollution prevention plan anyway.
Mr. Paddock questioned if that was just the wetlands buffer or if it was also the 100 year flood plain.
Chairman Baden noted that it was just a wetland buffer. They were not in the 100 year flood plain at all. The M21 wetland is a fairly sizable wetland.
Ms. Lindstrom noted that it looked to be pretty slopey in the back of this property so they wouldn’t really be able to build there anyway.
Chairman Baden agreed and noted that when you get right off of the property it drops off considerably.
Chairman Baden noted that the Board also requested certification that the 2 new lots could support water and septic. A letter was submitted by Rex Sanford, Professional Engineer stating that the area can support wells, sewage systems and reserve areas and could be approved by the UCHD.
Ms. Lindstrom noted that there looks to be quite a few houses around this area.
Mr. Winne explained where the slopes were on the property, and how they would not be in close proximity to those.
Chairman Baden opened the hearing to the public.
There was no public comment.
Mr. Dawson motioned to close the Public Hearing. Mr. Paddock seconded the motion. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden: Yes Dewitt: Yes
Lindstrom: Yes Ricks: Yes
Paddock: Yes Williams: Yes
Dawson: Yes
Motion carried. 7 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent, 0 abstentions
Chairman Baden noted that SEQRA was done, it was a Type 1 with a Negative Declaration.
Mr. Ricks questioned if the issue with the “Old Mill Road” was fixed?
Mr. Winne noted that it was on some research maps/deeds that he used and he would take it off.
At this time the Board reviewed the Draft Findings as follows:
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 applicant has granted representation power to Bert C. Winne III, LLS.
3. The application proposes subdivision of a 10.592 acre parcel of land into 3 lots of +/- 3.607 acres, +/-3.892 acres, and +/- 3.093 acres.
4. The parcel to be subdivided is known as S/B/L 68.4-3-13.
5. The parcel is located in the ‘AR-3’ zoning district.
• Lots 1, 2 and 3 as proposed, meet or exceed the bulk standards requirements for the ‘AR-3’ zoning district.
6. The parcel is located on Upper Whitfield Rd., a T/ Rochester controlled public roadway.
• Review of the plat indicates the proposed lots exceed the required minimum road frontage.
7. The current use of the parcel is residential with improvements of a single-family stone house dwelling, garage, driveway, and private well and septic.
8. A single family dwelling, driveway, well, and septic are proposed for Lot 2 and Lot 3. A building permit and private well and septic approvals are required prior to construction. There are no proposed changes to Lot 1.
9. Review of the parcel indicates the property and single family dwelling were listed on the National Register in 1995, known as the Zachariah Barley Stone House.
10. The application was determined to meet the requirements of a Type I SEQR action based on the listing on the National Register with no other agencies having permitting authority. A Negative Declaration was determined upon review.
11. Referral was made to the NYS Historic Preservation which indicated “While we have no concerns with the proposed subdivision, we would be concerned with the potential visual impact of any new construction on the new lots because the rural setting is important to the significance of the historic property. We recommend that new construction be carefully reviewed and that steps are taken to ensure that the impact to the historic house and outbuildings is minimized. Use of tree lines to divide the lots, significant setback both from the road and between buildings, appropriate colors, and height restrictions are typical and effective measures that would help to reduce the visual impact to the historic property.”
• The Board notes participation in the National Register program is voluntary by the property owner. The Board cannot impose any restrictions on the property, but has conveyed the concerns and will strongly recommend the owner consider private deed restrictions to achieve satisfaction of the concerns.
12. Referral was made to the T/ Rochester Historic Preservation Commission which expressed “concern that new structures on the subdivided lots at 90 Upper Whitfield Road could have detrimental impact on the original lot with its historic structures.” Request was made for the opportunity to consult with the applicant, architect, and surveyor.
• This information was conveyed to the applicant’s representative.
13. The subdivision was reviewed by the T/ Rochester Highway Supt. who indicated each lot has the potential for a driveway accessing the town public road.
• Based on the field review, the Board concludes public road access can be attained.
14. The Board required certification the proposed lots could support private individual water and septic. The applicant secured the services of Rex Sanford, PE, who conducted site visit and testing. He states “There is adequate soil depth, slope, and area to support a house, well, sewage system, and 100% reserve area that could be approved by the Ulster County Health Department.”
• The Board accepts his report as certification private individual well and septic can be achieved on the lots.
15. Concern was raised at public hearing as to the proximity of the parcel to NYS and NWI wetlands. This was investigated by the Board. Approximate location of the wetlands has been determined by mapping provided by the NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation. The DEC reply indicated “Your project/site is near or in Freshwater Wetland M-21, Class 1. It appears there is a small portion of both lots 2 & 3 are with the 100 foot adjacent area in the southeast area of the subdivision… A permit would be required if any soil disturbance occurred within the adjacent area. Be aware that a Freshwater Wetlands permit is required for any physical disturbance within these boundaries or within the 100 foot adjacent area. To have the boundary delineated, please contact the Bureau of Habitat.”
• The Board concludes upon review of the provided map, the wetland area is unlikely to be impacted or disturbed by the proposed subdivision due to location of the proposed improvements. The Board will make requirement of a subdivision plat note indicating the proximity and possibility of encroachment as notification to present and future owners as a precautionary measure.
Mr. DeWitt questioned if the Board was concerned with construction in the wetland buffer?
Chairman Baden noted that they would have to have them delineated by the DEC and would have to apply for a permit.
Draft findings were prepared by the Chairman and were read and discussed by the Planning Board.
Adopted February 8, 2016 by the following vote:
Ayes: 7 Nays: 0 Absent: 0
Motion to adopt findings by: Mr. Dawson
Second by: Ms. Lindstrom
* * * *
At this time the Board reviewed the Draft Resolution as follows:
RESOLVED,
The Town of Rochester Planning Board grants Minor Subdivision-Conditional Final Approval to Marie-Christine Hellin permitting the subdivision of lands situate at 90 Upper Whitfield Rd, known as S/B/L 68.4-3-13 and located in the ‘AR-3’ zoning district, into 3 lots with the following conditions. The subdivision plan, as dated November 24, 2015, is approved subject to amendment as described below.
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. Applicant shall present a Final Plat for signature with these amendments.
a. The title block shall state Final Plan and final revision date.
b. The statement “This property may border a farm, as defined in Chapter 75 of the Town of Rochester Code. Residents should be aware that farmers have the right to undertake farm practices which may generate dust, odor, smoke, noise and vibrations and which may involve insecticides, herbicides, pesticides, etc.” shall be added to the plat.
c. The statement “The parcel is located near or in Freshwater Wetland M-21, Class 1. A small portion of both lots 2 & 3 may be within the 100 foot adjacent area in the southeast area of the subdivision. A permit would be required if any soil disturbance occurred within the adjacent area. A Freshwater Wetlands permit is required for any physical disturbance within these boundaries or within the 100 foot adjacent area. To have the boundary delineated, please contact the NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation, Bureau of Habitat.” shall be added to the plat. Approximate location of Freshwater Wetland M-21 shall be indicated.
d. Lot 1 shall have the approximate well and septic location indicated.
e. Each lot shall have front, side, and rear setback lines delineated by dotted line.
f. Each lot shall have the lot dimensions of road frontage described in total feet.
g. “Upper Whitfield Rd.” shall be labelled and the reference label “to Old Mill Rd.” shall be deleted.
h. The “Zoning Requirements” chart shall be corrected to reflect the ‘AR-3’ zoning district minimum development standards from the Schedule of Use.
2. 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 Final Plat.
3. All required Local, County, State, or Federal permits shall be secured for the current or future use of these lands.
a. Specifically, a Town of Rochester building permit shall be secured prior to construction of the proposed structures on Lot 2 and Lot 3.
b. Specifically. A Town of Rochester driveway access permit shall be secured prior to construction of the proposed driveways accessing the public roadway on Lot 2 and Lot 3
c. Specifically, Ulster County Dept. of Health permit(s) shall be secured prior to construction of the well and septic areas on Lot 2 and Lot 3.
d. Should the disturbance of land for construction be greater than 1 acre of disturbance a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) may be required filed with the NYS DEC.
ADDITIONAL COMMENT REGARDING NATIONAL REGISTER DESIGNATION:
The Planning Board concurs with NYS Historic Preservation and Town Historic Preservation Commission the potential visual impact of any new construction on the new lots rural setting is important to the significance of the historic property.
The Board strongly reinforces the NYS Historic preservation recommendation that new construction be carefully reviewed and that steps are taken to ensure that the impact to the historic house and outbuildings is minimized. Use of tree lines to divide the lots, significant setback both from the road and between buildings, appropriate colors, and height restrictions are typical and effective measures that would help to reduce the visual impact to the historic property.
The Board is not empowered to require this condition of approval, however the Board encourages the applicant to consider imposing private deed restrictions to achieve these measures and maintain the historic significance.
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.
Ms. Lindstrom questioned if 1.c. included septic.
Chairman Baden answered that it did. Any disturbance.
The Board agreed to Delete 1.g. which had required a north arrow be added to the plan. It was already on the map. They replaced 1.g. to required labeling “Upper Whitfield” and deleting “Old Mill Road”.
The Board deleted the reference to an “RMA” in condition #2.
Draft resolution was prepared by the Chairman and was read, discussed, and amended by the Planning Board in public meeting.
Adopted February 08, 2016, by the following vote:
Ayes: 7 Nays: 0 Absent: 0
Motion made by: Mr. Dawson
Second by: Ms. Lindstrom
PB 2015-05 SBD Continued Application
Minor Subdivision
Phillip and Renata Perlman
Proposes subdivision of a parcel resulting in 2 lots of +/-2.003 acres and +/-40.496 acres
856 Samsonville Rd., S/B/L #60.3-3-48.500, ‘R-2’ zoning district
Jeff Harden and Renata Perlman were present on behalf of the application. They noted that they were taking +/- 2.003 acres out of a +/- 43 acre lot. They were proposing to take out a small area around the house. They would be selling the +/-2 acres and keeping the rest. There are no structures or improvements proposed on the remaining +/-43 acres. There was a cemetery between the two lots and the reason the lots were configured this way was to give them access to the other lot via a tractor.
Mr. Ricks questioned what was in the little shed listed on the plan?
Mrs. Perlman noted that it was just old lumber.
Ms. Lindstrom questioned if because there were no other structures proposed, this wouldn’t be a shared driveway?
Chairman Baden noted that each lot had their own frontage, so a shared driveway was not needed.
Mr. Paddock questioned if the topography in the rest of the frontage would preclude from future access?
Mr. Harden mentioned that the land was all flat, so the topography wasn’t an issue.
Chairman Baden noted that because this was a 40 acre lot there wouldn’t be a need for well and septic certification. That only comes into play when someone is creating a smaller lot. With 40 acres, the Board was confident a building site could be located.
Mr. Dawson motioned to schedule the public hearing for the March Meeting. Seconded by Ms. Lindstrom. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden: Yes Dewitt: Yes
Lindstrom: Yes Ricks: Yes
Paddock: Yes Williams: Yes
Dawson: Yes
Motion carried. 7 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent, 0 abstentions
Chairman Baden note that even though this was on a County road, it didn’t need to be referred to the UCPB because it was 2 lots and under the exemption. No other agencies needed to be contacted as everything was existing and there were no flood plains or wetlands and the property wasn’t in an Ag District.
Mr. Dawson motioned to classify the action as Unlisted under SEQRA. Mr. Paddock seconded by motion. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden: Yes Dewitt: Yes
Lindstrom: Yes Ricks: Yes
Paddock: Yes Williams: Yes
Dawson: Yes
Motion carried. 7 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent, 0 abstentions
Chairman Baden noted that the plans needed to have the right to farm note and the development standards for that district added to it. He would check the plan over further once it was submitted.
PB 2015-06 SBD Continued Application
Minor Subdivision
Richard Newman
Proposes subdivision of a parcel resulting in 2 lots with nonconforming shared driveway of +/-5.77 acres and +/-47.00 acres, 181 Rock Hill Rd., S/B/L #77.2-3-52, ‘R-2’ zoning district
Bert Winne, Surveyor and Marlene Wiedenbaum were present on behalf of the application.
Chairman Baden noted that this was an application which is applying for a subdivision with one of the lots not having lot frontage and it was reviewed at the last meeting and thought that they would need to get a variance for not having the 50’ of right of way for the shared driveway. The Chairman and the Town Attorney looked into the law a little further and determined that they were wrong. The Planning Board can grant a waiver, so the applicant does not need a variance. When they get to it tonight, they have written a letter to the Board stating their request for the waiver and the reasons for that request.
At this time Mr. Winne submitted an updated copy of the plan. He noted that he has an enlargement of the piece that they want to subdivide on one section of the map and they have a deed plot of the entire +/-52 acres that they own. Presently there is an old lane that comes in which they own that runs back and was what was used to previously access proposed lot #2 and also accesses proposed lot #1. It is only approximately 25’ in width, but it has been traditionally the access to both of these lots. Originally lot #2 came down to where the stone wall is, but being they are going to create a new line anyway and have to go through the planning process, they have decided to give privacy to the house and construction on lot 2 when it happens. They have moved that that property line down the road about 125’ from where the original boundary was, which was along the stone wall. That was the change from what was previously submitted. Presently lot 2 will be 4.503 acres and it was 5.77 when they first submitted it.
Chairman Baden noted that at one time it was said that there were trailers on lot #2?
Ms. Wiedenbaum noted that there were still trailers on the property.
Chairman Baden questioned if there was already water and septic on that lot?
Ms. Wiedenbaum noted that there were 2 artisan wells. There was septic, but she doesn’t know exactly where it is. In addition to the trailers that are still there, although they are defunct, she looked at old aerial maps and there were 3 cabins on the property as well, so she is assuming there is septic near where those were located.
Chairman Baden noted that the Board would need some sort of certification that that lot can support water and septic. A letter from an engineer or UCHD would be acceptable. They were also proposing that the trailers would eventually be removed?
Ms. Wiedenbaum would leave that up to whoever buys it.
Chairman Baden noted that the Board would probably make a condition that they would need to be removed before any building permits were issued for that lot. Because the law says that the Planning Board may grant a waiver from required lot frontage and other street requirements of this law, the 50’ right of way is a part of the Street Requirements (Section 125-22J and Section 125-29R.) So, because it is worded as “other street requirements” he and the Attorney for the Town spoke and agreed that the PB could grant a waiver. This is an existing driveway. Was there a structure on Lot 1 now?
Mr. Winne answered yes. There was a house and a barn and a garage.
Mr. Dawson commented that was why they moved the lot line.
Chairman Baden noted that they would also ask to see the setbacks drawn in around those structures. The Board needs to guarantee that the existing structures meet the setbacks. They would want to see them on lot #2 as well and show them on lot 1 for the barn and the house. The garage is an accessory structure in front of the house, but the Town doesn’t allow that now, but it’s pre-existing so it’s not an issue. So, show on lot 1 the setback.
Mrs. Christiana, Attorney for the Town noted that the map shows that they are 133’ in measurement in that area.
Chairman Baden agreed and noted that was fine, he wouldn’t need to show setback lines, the distance was already indicated on the map.
Mr. Paddock questioned if they would need to show the septic on lot 2?
Mr. Ricks noted that they really didn’t need to because it was old and defunct.
Chairman Baden noted that they should locate where the septic and well is for lot 1, just to show that it was not on lot 2.
Chairman Baden noted that the correspondence that they sent was their request for the waiver as follows:
February 2, 2016
“Dear Mr. Baden, Ms. Christiana and Members of the Planning Board,
In regards to your letter of January 19, 2016, we are requesting a waiver pertaining to the need for 50 feet of road frontage and the need for a 50′ right-of-way via a shared driveway because we don’t have
the required 50′ right-of-way, or the required 50′ road frontage.
The property in question has a long history as two separate parcels, one that is 45 acres and another that is 5.64 acres with a shared access to Rock Hill Road. We are requesting the waiver so we can sell about 4.64 acres out of that 5.64 acres.
Our research from the attached prior deeds to the property shows that as far back as 1942 the proposed subdivision was a separate parcel as follows:
– 1942 the entire property was deeded separately as (approximately) 45 acres, 5.64 acres and a lane and sold by Davis to Gallanter;
– 1955 Gallanter sold to the Trad Brothers only 45 acres and a lane;
– 1964 (prior sales from Gallanter to George Gershen Rappaport/Rappaport to Ben and Sarah Gilman)
Gilman to Trad Brothers 5.93 acres;
– 1975 Trad Brothers sold 5.93 acres to Ed Trad;
-1984 Ed Trad sold 5.93 acres to Ed and Angelina Trad; Ed Trad sold 45 acres and a lane to Ed and Angelina Trad;
2015 Angelina Trad sold 45 acres, a lane and 5.93 acres to Richard Newman.
In regards to the right-of-way, the 1964 deed (Gilman to Trad Brothers) describes “…a road easement, over the presently existing road bordering on the lands of aforesaid formerly Levine, running from the said Public Highway back to …as described in the aforesaid deed in Liber 665 at page 367. This right of way is supported throughout the above prior deeds and continues in Schedule A of the 2015 Newman deed from Angelina Trad.
Further research from aerial tax maps show that up to at least 2004, the separate 5.64 acres serviced three cottages and two (presently uninhabitable) trailers with the only access to the main road, Rock Hill, was via the already established shared driveway.
The driveway, described in schedule A of the Newman deed, runs east to west beginning at the 45 acre parcel, along the westerly side of the 5.64 parcel to the main road. It is approximately 25 feet wide from the existing stone walls on either side. It is paved from the main road to the open paved area leading to an enclosed garage on the 45 acre parcel. The paving is approximately 13′ wide, with at least 3′ clearance on each side for emergency vehicles. We have submitted a survey of the driveway and a road maintenance agreement to share responsibility 50/50 by both parties for a total of two single family residences.
In conclusion, we believe that the above information and supportive deeds meet the requirements of Zoning Code 125-22J for the Board to issue a waiver. We thank you so very much for your time and especially the effort put forth to resolve our request and we hope that you are satisfied with our submission.”
Mr. Dawson made a motion to grant the waiver for road width. Seconded by Mr. Williams. No other discussion.
Vote:
Baden: Yes Dewitt: Yes
Lindstrom: Yes Ricks: Yes
Paddock: Yes Williams: Yes
Dawson: Yes
Motion carried. 7 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent, 0 abstentions
Mr. Dawson motioned to schedule the Public Hearing for March 14, 2016, seconded by Ms. Lindstrom. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden: Yes Dewitt: Yes
Lindstrom: Yes Ricks: Yes
Paddock: Yes Williams: Yes
Dawson: Yes
Motion carried. 7 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent, 0 abstentions
Ms. Lindstrom motioned to classify the application as an Unlisted SEQRA Action. Seconded by Mr. Dawson. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden: Yes Dewitt: Yes
Lindstrom: Yes Ricks: Yes
Paddock: Yes Williams: Yes
Dawson: Yes
Motion carried. 7 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent, 0 abstentions
Chairman Baden questioned if the Board thought they should refer this application to Mr. Kelder, Highway Superintendent.
The Board agreed that it was existing, so there was nothing to review.
2016-01 SPA New Application
Site Plan
Arrowood Farms LLC (applicant) and Let Lee (owner)
Proposes expansion of an existing use of a +/-10.4 acre parcel Agricultural Tourism Enterprises with brewery and tasting room and seasonal harvest festivals. 236 Lower Whitfield Rd., S/B/L #68.4-4-23.110, ‘AR-3’ and ‘AP Overlay’ zoning districts Located in Ulster County Ag District #3
Blake Arrowood, Applicant, Jake Manglio partner, Let Lee, property owner and Barry Medenbach, Engineer were present on behalf of the application.
Mr. Arrowood noted that Arrowood Farms is proposing their agricultural space to grow their own hops, grain, ducks, sheep- all of that working together and will be going into a new brewery and tasting room. This is off of Lower Whitfield Road.
Mr. Lee noted that they planted hops last spring. This is across the street from Westwind Orchards. This is formally Wayne Kelder’s property. He purchased 48 acres from Mr. Kelder. They planted an acre of hops. They have 400lbs of yield of hops which is a good start. This coming year will be a full crop. It takes about 4 years to fully mature.
Mr. Arrowood noted that the plant can last up to 50 years.
Mr. Medenbach noted that this was a new building that they put up last year. The Brewery has Health Dept. approval. They built a parking lot and what they want to do now is to sell the beer, eggs, and farm products. The footprint of the parking lot is out there now in gravel. They have a nice stone patio and they are still making some improvements.
Chairman Baden noted that this was referred as Ag Tourism from the CEO. A brewery, tasting room, and seasonal harvest festivals.
Mr. Arrowood noted that there are some big times seasonally in their farming operation, mainly the hop harvest which happens at the end of August, beginning of September. That is something that is extremely labor intensive. This year they had about 15 friends and neighbors who came and helped them. They just want to do that again, and as the harvest grows, be able to have more neighbors be able to share that with them. As well as with the pigs and the sheep, when they harvest them throughout the year, to have a BBQ and have folks come out for that as well.
Mrs. Christiana questioned if these were invited guests? That’s different than paying guests. That’s just a party.
Chairman Baden questioned the setup of the festivals? Paying customers, or just inviting people to come and take part?
Mr. Arrowood noted that they would be inviting people to come and take part.
Mrs. Christiana clarified that the applicants would be specifying the people who were coming, it wasn’t a general public thing.
Chairman Baden noted that was a difference. If they were inviting people to pay and come take part, then they were dealing with a little different commercial enterprise.
Mr. Arrowood noted that the tasting room would be open at that time for people.
Chairman Baden noted that was kind of a different thing. It wasn’t like they were going to have a big festival with music.
Mr. Arrowood agreed that wasn’t their intention.
Chairman Baden noted that they were located in a County Ag District. The applicants did fill out the Ag Data statement, but he thought that they may be needed to make an addition to it because they needed to recognize the orchard across the street as an Ag Enterprise. It would just need to be amended. Hollender would also need to be added as she also has a farm stand. He also noted that the applicants already have their liquor license where they submitted their paperwork as well.
The applicants noted that they do put deer fence up around the hops. The hops grow on poles.
Ms. Lindstrom motioned to schedule the Public Hearing for the March Meeting. Seconded by Mr. Paddock. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden: Yes Dewitt: Yes
Lindstrom: Yes Ricks: Yes
Paddock: Yes Williams: Yes
Dawson: Yes
Motion carried. 7 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent, 0 abstentions
Mr. Dawson motioned to refer the application to the County PB. Seconded by Mr. Paddock. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden: Yes Dewitt: Yes
Lindstrom: Yes Ricks: Yes
Paddock: Yes Williams: Yes
Dawson: Yes
Motion carried. 7 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent, 0 abstentions
Chairman Baden noted that he will have to do a little research regarding SEQRA, but he believes it may be a Type 2 Action. The Board should type it as Unlisted just because they are referring it to the County PB.
Mr. Dawson motioned to classify the application as an Unlisted Action under SEQRA. Seconded by Mr. Paddock.
Vote:
Baden: Yes Dewitt: Yes
Lindstrom: Yes Ricks: Yes
Paddock: Yes Williams: Yes
Dawson: Yes
Motion carried. 7 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent, 0 abstentions
2016-02 SPA New Application
Site Plan
LH Equine Properties LLC aka Crystal Creek Equestrian Center. Proposes a change of use and new construction of a +/-30,78 acre parcel for Commercial Stables with new construction of a 9800 sq ft indoor riding arena with attached barns. Proposed use to include riding lessons, clinics and student presentations. Existing 6 apartments to be converted to 1 office, 1 classroom, and 4 apartments to be rented to guests/students. Co-owner and instructor live onsite in existing residences. 5883 Route 44/55, S/B/L #76.3-2-35.11, ‘AR-3’ zoning district.
Karen Reynolds, representative and property owners, Julie Harris and Olga Leszynski were present.
Mrs. Reynolds noted that the LH Equine owners would like to build a large indoor arena with attached barns, riding lessons, clinics, student presentations with 20-30 persons, 8-10 horse trailers at a time, 2 apartments to be used as office/classroom/guest rooms. The classes will be minimally used. A couple of hours a week, especially when cold. She met the DOT at the site. The existing driveway is 12’ in width and the right of way that is shared between this property and Mrs. Leszynski’s personal property is 20’ in width. The PB said that the driveway should be widened to 20’. The right of way is already 20’, so they feel that it doesn’t need to be widened because typically during a normal day it would be about 1 car in and out at a time. That’s not a lot of traffic on a regular day.
Chairman Baden questioned what the width was of the actual driveway surface?
Mrs. Reynolds answered 12’.
Chairman Baden noted that was why he thinks that they need to have it widened, because they need to be able to have the potential for 2 way traffic for fire access.
Mr. Ricks noted that it should be widened some on each side so that if there was a pick up with a horse trailer, one coming in and one coming out, they could get by each other.
Mrs. Reynolds noted that it didn’t need to be asphalted.
The Board agreed that it could be graveled, but it needed to be 20’ wide because this was going to be a commercial use and not just a residential use, it needed to be able to support a fire truck going in and out.
Mrs. Reynolds confirmed that the right of way of 20’ needed to be graveled.
Chairman Baden questioned the Attorney for the Town. Because they were widening the driveway into the other property, did they need the other property to become a co-applicant?
Mrs. Christiana answered that they did not. It said that there was a right of way on the plans. They would want the written right of way that runs with the land so it wasn’t something that could be taken away.
Chairman Baden noted that the right of way may need to be amended just to indicate that widened access.
Mrs. Christiana questioned if there was a written deeded right of way?
Mrs. Reynolds did not know. She would check with Mr. Eggers the surveyor. She didn’t believe it would be a problem.
Chairman Baden noted that they may just need a copy of the deed.
Mrs. Harris supplied the Board with a copy of the deed.
Mrs. Reynolds noted that one other thing to keep in mind is that part of the enlarged access to Route 44/55 is part of public land, so she thinks there is about 10’ of strip that is owned by the State.
Chairman Baden agreed nothing that because it was 44/55 it wasn’t a normal right of way, there was a weird jog in it. That was the utility line.
Mrs. Reynolds noted that you could see the line of the neighboring property and that was the property line. She believed it was about 14’.
Chairman Baden noted that it wouldn’t really matter. As long as the State was requiring it.
Mrs. Christiana agreed and noted that the deed did show a 20’ right of way. The deed reference should be on the map.
Chairman Baden noted that as far as the barn went, the applicant submitted the elevation plan to the Board at the last meeting. It would look just like a barn.
Mr. DeWitt questioned if there were horses on the property now?
The applicants answered yes. Horse trailers have been in and out of the property. They keep the horses in temporary shelters now.
Mr. DeWitt questioned who was in charge of traffic safety- getting in and out of the property?
Chairman Baden noted that it depends on who controls the road. In this case it is a State road, so it would be NYSDOT. They have to issue a driveway permit.
Mr. DeWitt was just wondering in terms of that turn. He rides his bike by it and he has to cross the road right in there to get into Upper Granite Road and cars whip through there really fast and you don’t really have a lot of time to see them coming. When he read the application he was concerned.
Chairman Baden noted that the PB does look at that, but the NYS DOT will look at it and see if the site distance is adequate or not.
Mrs. Reynolds noted that they have met with the DOT at the site and she gave them a drawing with a 20’ radius and then DOT gave her their standard driveway entrance for a minor commercial property, so that is what she indicated on the plan. They said that concept will work, but they wanted to see the driveway rotated so that it came out perpendicular to 44/55 and then they said that the final plan would need to be 20 scale and to show the site distance and show speed limit reference markers. That was basically the main thing. They have a conditional approval where the DOT says that there doesn’t seem to be a problem. He was on site and he says that it seems to work.
Chairman Baden noted that any notes that the DOT asks for on their site plan, the PB would need on their site plan as well.
Ms. Lindstrom questioned who would determine if a sign needed to be put up for horse crossing or something like that?
Chairman Baden noted it depended on who owned the road. On a State road it would be the State who would approve it. If the PB felt that a sign needed to be put up, they would consult with the State.
Mr. Ricks noted that they wouldn’t be riding horses on the road.
Ms. Lindstrom agreed, but was just curious based on what Mr. DeWitt stated about it being a tough corner to navigate across the street.
Mr. Ricks had a question on the apartments. They mentioned about converting the 4 rentals. Would they be more like motel rooms or would they stay as apartments?
Mrs. Reynolds noted it would be more like a hotel room.
Mrs. Harris noted that there wouldn’t be a kitchen in it. It would be more like a motel room, with a microwave and a coffee maker and a small refrigerator if they wanted to bring something in. Someone would stay for a weekend or something like that. It would be more like a B & B without the breakfast.
Chairman Baden noted that the CEO had said that because they were currently apartments, he didn’t have a problem with it just transitioning over, but the PB would get something in writing from him just to have in the PB files so that it is clarified that he understands what the use is.
Ms. Lindstrom questioned if the rentals had kitchens in them already?
Mrs. Harris noted that they did. They would like to eventually like it to be a little more upscale than a dorm type room. What her hope to attract is people coming up from the city that want to have a farm experience. Like a B & B without the breakfast.
Chairman Baden noted that they live onsite, but it’s less than 4 rooms. They would clarify with the CEO as to if he wants to classify it another way.
Mr. Dawson thought the site plan was very well done.
Chairman Baden noted that they are setback enough from the road that the fencing isn’t an issue. They also cut back on the parking but there is still more than enough.
Mrs. Reynolds noted that she indicated existing and proposed lighting and the cut sheets for the proposed lighting.
Chairman Baden noted that this property is not in a County Ag District. He recommended once they were up and running to contact Bert Samuelson of the County to discuss including it in the County Ag District. He also noted that no sprinklers would be needed in the structure as it was going to have less than 100 people at a time.
Mr. Dawson motioned to set a public hearing for the March Meeting. Seconded by Ms. Lindstrom. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden: Yes Dewitt: Yes
Lindstrom: Yes Ricks: Yes
Paddock: Yes Williams: Yes
Dawson: Yes
Motion carried. 7 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent, 0 abstentions
Mr. Dawson motioned to refer the application to UCPB. Seconded by Mr. Paddock. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden: Yes Dewitt: Yes
Lindstrom: Yes Ricks: Yes
Paddock: Yes Williams: Yes
Dawson: Yes
Motion carried. 7 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent, 0 abstentions
Ms. Lindstrom motioned for an Unlisted Action under SEQRA. Seconded by Mr. Williams. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden: Yes Dewitt: Yes
Lindstrom: Yes Ricks: Yes
Paddock: Yes Williams: Yes
Dawson: Yes
Motion carried. 7 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent, 0 abstentions
Mr. Dawson motioned to refer the application to the Accord Fire Dept. Seconded by Ms. Lindstrom. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden: Yes Dewitt: Yes
Lindstrom: Yes Ricks: Yes
Paddock: Yes Williams: Yes
Dawson: Yes
Motion carried. 7 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent, 0 abstentions
Mr. Dawson motioned to refer the application to the NYS DOT for comments. Seconded by Mr. DeWitt. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden: Yes Dewitt: Yes
Lindstrom: Yes Ricks: Yes
Paddock: Yes Williams: Yes
Dawson: Yes
Motion carried. 7 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent, 0 abstentions
2005-12 SBD Amend Conditional Preliminary Approval Phase 2 and 3
2014-01 SBD
Major Subdivision
Catskill Farms, Inc. aka Mountain Laurel Estates
Proposes amending of decision 2014-01 SBD granting Conditional Preliminary Approval for Phase 2 and 3 of a +/-90.44 acres subdivision of land into 15 lots. Applicant proposes amending decision to shorten the access road and reconfigure the parcel into 8 lots of varying size ranging from 5.0 acres to 19.50 acres.
Private road Dawson Lane (off Samsonville Rd.), S/B/L #60.1-2-2.15 and 60.1-2-3, ‘R-2’ zoning district.
Mr. Dawson recused himself from the application at 8:45pm.
Mr. Medenbach was present on behalf of the application.
Chairman Baden noted that the applicant submitted a short EAF, but SEQRA was already completed on this application, so he returned the form to the applicant. He continued to note that this application had Conditional Preliminary Approval for Phase 2 & 3 that was previously granted.
Mr. Medenbach noted that this subdivision was originally approved for 22 lots. 7 of those lots received final approval and were built on. The next two sections totaled up to 14 or 15 more lots. And now the new developer doesn’t want 15 lots. He wanted to bring the 15 lot approval and bring it down to 8 lots. They are basically combining some of the lot areas and shortened the road a little. They still have a common driveway. The road extension they shortened it some, but it still needs to be expanded about another 300’ from where it terminates now. He used the same lot numbering as best as they could. There was a gap from 12-21. 21 and 22 were already approved.
Chairman Baden noted that they are looking at amending phase 2 and 3. He noted that there is a shared driveway indicated for 3 of these lots. The code was never really intended to come off of a shared road like this. The shared driveway in the code was intended for a lot that didn’t have road frontage.
Mr. Medenbach noted that was what they had here. There wasn’t really much difference except everyone in the subdivision wouldn’t be contributing to those last few lots. It was still an 18’ driveway, it was more of who was paying to maintain it.
Chairman Baden understood what Mr. Medenbach was saying, but asked why they wouldn’t’ just continue the public road all the way to the end?
Mr. Medenbach noted that this was what the owner wanted to do, plus it gave them more privacy. The shared driveway would be about 1,100’ to where the lots split.
Chairman Baden noted that was a pretty long shared driveway.
Mr. Paddock questioned if there was a question of the road maintenance agreement?
Chairman Baden noted that it was all set up.
Mr. Ricks thought that he remembered that the road had some issues?
Mr. Medenbach wasn’t really sure.
Chairman Baden noted that he would like to see the private road extended all the way down. The shared driveway is more of a situation of going to a public road situation. It’s called insufficient frontage with access via shared driveway. It was really intended to be when there wasn’t enough public road frontage. To him this was kind of like the old days when people would build a private road and then say that the last 4 lots were a shared driveway and in those days you didn’t have to count those lots.
Mr. Medenbach noted that those were for different reasons. He would go back to the developer and see what he says.
Mr. Ricks questioned what about at least to the next property line, 6 & 7. Would that work okay?
Mr. Medenbach noted that physically anything could work.
Ms. Lindstrom noted that as a buyer and looking at this, she would be wondering why she didn’t get a road. It didn’t seem like a good selling proposition.
Mr. Medenbach noted that the kind of people who buy these big lots, they want the privacy. They want to say that their other neighbors don’t have the right to use their driveway. It is sometimes a business decision and marketing. This particular developer does a lot of rural homes and is very successful at it. That is why he wants to go down to 15 lots.
Chairman Baden noted that was fine, but he just wanted to see the cul-de-sac brought down.
Mr. Ricks noted that as long as it was legally okay, it was fine with him. They would have a driveway maintenance agreement and it would be their responsibility. What was it really bothering the town?
Mrs. Christiana noted that she would read through that law again, but she didn’t read that as the intent for that law.
Chairman Baden asked that in the meantime Mr. Medenbach check with his client to see if he would be willing to either reconfigure those lots, or bring the cul-de-sac down to the intersection where 7, 8, 9, and 10 meet. It is a different standard for shared driveway than private road.
Mr. Ricks agreed that the whole purpose of the shared driveway section was for access via insufficient frontage, which is something that the applicant is creating himself.
Chairman Baden agreed. The shared driveway has always been used in the past because they didn’t have the required road frontage.
Mr. Medenbach noted that there are other benefits to a shared driveway. The county or state may not want 3 driveways coming off of one section of highway, they may prefer to see them shared.
The slope of the driveway on lot 11 was questioned.
Mr. Medenbach noted that they were all 10% or less. They did all profile of those. The house locations are all approximate. He has not yet done test hole work on this section of the development.
Chairman Baden noted that the Board will need permits or a letter of certification saying the lots can support well and septic. His only real concern is with the shared driveway and would like to see the cul-de-sac either moved closer or reconfigure the lots slightly.
The Board commented that the configuration of lots 8 & 9 were very awkward.
Mr. Medenbach noted that he didn’t have an answer, but would go back and see what the owner would like to do.
The applicant would come back next month with map changes and road changes.
Chairman Baden noted that the application would be referred to the UCPB as it is on a County Road and it would need to have a public hearing. There would be no SEQRA review as they are just amending the preliminary approval and would need water and septic for final. They would need to build or bond the road for final and the SWPPP would need to be updated as well.
Mr. Medenbach noted that they may need to modify the SWPPP for this section.
Chairman Baden noted that the DEC was an involved agency.
Mrs. Christiana noted that they weren’t doing SEQRA here.
Chairman Baden noted that they would refer to the UCPB and Town of Olive when they had a complete application.
OTHER MATTERS:
Mr. Dawson returned to the Board at 9:08PM.
NEW VICE CHAIR:
Chairman Baden apologized that he didn’t mention this at the beginning of the meeting with the other appointments, but the Town Board appointed Mr. Paddock as the new Vice Chair of the PB, and himself as the Chair for 2016.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Dawson motioned to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Mr. Ricks. No discussion. All Members present, in favor.
As there was no further business, Chairman Baden adjourned the meeting at 9:10PM.
Respectfully Submitted,
Rebecca Paddock Stange, Secretary