PLANNING BOARD
TOWN OF ROCHESTER
ULSTER COUNTY
ACCORD, NEW YORK
(845) 626-2434
MINUTES OF February 13th, 2017 Meeting of the Town of Rochester PLANNING BOARD, held at the Town of Rochester Community Center, Accord, NY.
Chairman Baden asked everyone to stand for the pledge to the Flag.
The Secretary did roll call attendance.
PRESENT: ABSENT:
Michael Baden, Chairman
Maren Lindstrom
Lawrence DeWitt
John Dawson
Patrick Williams
Rick Jones
Alonzo Grace
Also present:
Ed Pomerantz, Alternate member. Shaye Davis, Secretary. Mary Lou Christiana, Town Attorney
ANNOUNCEMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
Chairman Baden introduced the new members on the board.
TRAININGS
Chairman Baden explained that he will be conducting a training on March 25 primarily for new members.
ACTION ON MINUTES
Chairman Baden stated that the November 2016 minutes are tabled at this time. The December minutes were accepted last month, however an amendment must be made to remove Mr. Dawson from voting on his own application. He had recused himself and was incorrectly shown as voting.
Mr. Williams motioned to amend the December 2016 minutes. Mr. Dewitt seconded.
Motion Carried. All in favor
7 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent, 0 abstentions
Ms. Lindstrom motioned to accept the January 2017 minutes. Mr. Dewitt seconded.
Motion carried. All in favor
7 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent, 0 abstentions
2017-02 LLI New Application
Lot Improvement
Catskill Farms – Ryan and Stephanie Jacoby
Proposes transfer of ±0.13 acres between 2 contiguous lots
Dawson Lane, S/B/L 60.1-2-3.8 and S/B/L 60.1-2-2.160, R-2 zoning district
Mr. Dawson recused himself at 7:12pm. Chairman Baden seated alternate member Mr. Pomerantz in his place for the review.
The owner of Catskill Farms, Charles Petersheim explained to the Board why the lot line improvement is proposed.
The Board discussed the application and came to the conclusion that the application should be handled as a subdivision and not a lot line improvement, as it is part of a recently approved subdivision.
Chairman Baden noted that the Town of Olive would have to be notified that the subdivision application is being reviewed by the Planning Board.
Ms. Lindstrom motioned for a public hearing contingent upon receiving the subdivision application and maps by February 27th 2017. Mr. Jones seconded.
Motion carried. All in favor.
7 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent, 0 abstentions
Mr. Williams motioned to refer the application to the Ulster County Planning Board, if determined required. Ms. Lindstrom seconded.
Motion carried. All in favor.
7 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent, 0 abstentions
Ms. Lindstrom motioned to classify the application as an unlisted action for SEQRA review. Mr. Dewitt seconded. A roll call vote was taken.
Motion carried. All in favor.
Chairman Baden – Yes Vice Chairman Lindstrom – Yes
Williams – Yes Grace – Yes
DeWitt – Yes Jones – Yes
Pomerantz – Yes
7 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent, 0 abstentions
Mr. Dawson returned to the board at 7:22pm. Mr. Pomerantz stepped down from the board
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.
Chairman Baden explained that even though the Planning Board had not received a decision from the Zoning Board of Appeals the Public Hearing for the Krupp application was announced to be held open until February’s Planning Board meeting. Chairman Baden noted that the Zoning Board of Appeals was to meet the following Thursday.
No action was taken on the application.
No comments from the public.
Mr. Dawson motioned to hold the Public Hearing open until March 13th 2017 Planning Board meeting. Ms. Lindstrom seconded.
Motion carried. All in favor.
7 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent, 0 abstentions
2016-08 SUP Continued Application, Public Hearing
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 7:26pm. Chairman Baden seated alternate member Mr. Pomerantz in his place.
Chairman Baden explained the application and where the board was at with reviewing it to the board and public.
The Board discussed the Ulster County Planning Boards’ determination that there was no County impact with this application.
The Board discussed that since the way Mr. Dawson is going to access his property is not off of State Route 209 that he does not need to bring the driveway access up to NYS DOT standards. If Mr. Dawson decided to use the access from State Route 209 he would then have to bring it up to NYS DOT standards.
The Board discussed the deeds and right of ways that the neighbors had provided.
Chairman Baden noted that Old Mine Road is not a town road. It was proposed to be but was never improved to be dedicated. The right of way is a private right of way.
Town Attorney Christiana noted that the right of way had nothing to with the meeting or application and that it is completely a civil matter. The Planning Board has no legal rights to enforce the right of way.
Mr. Dawson explains his intentions for the property to the board and public.
The board has no further questions.
The Board reviewed Part 2 of the SEQRA EAF form. All questions were determined to be no or small impact. Part 3 was reviewed.
Ms. Lindstrom motioned for a negative declaration under SEQRA. Mr. DeWitt seconded. A roll call vote was taken.
Motion carried. All in favor.
Chairman Baden – Yes Vice Chairman Lindstrom – Yes
Williams – Yes Grace – Yes
DeWitt – Yes Jones – Yes
Dawson – Yes
7 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent, 0 abstentions
Chairman Baden read the Assessment Conclusion of Phase 1 for the property.
At this time the Chairman opened the public hearing
Mrs. Smith, a neighbor, asked where the access to the property was going to be.
Mr. Dawson replied stating that the access was from Samsonville road and that was it.
Mrs. Smith explained her concern for the gate blocking Old Mine Road for emergency reasons.
Town Attorney Christiana replied stating that the right of way has nothing to do with this application and is to be taken up privately.
There were no more comments from the public.
Ms. Lindstrom motioned to close the public hearing. Mr. Williams seconded.
Motion carried. All in favor.
7 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent, 0 abstentions
At this time the Board reviewed the draft Findings prepared by the Chairman as follows:
Findings of the Planning Board
1. The Planning Board has received zoning referral for Special Use Permit for Multiple Permitted Uses from the Code Enforcement Officer and an application, EAF, Site Plan, and related documentation from the applicant.
2. The application proposes construction of a single-family dwelling, reuse of an existing structure for retail establishments – vehicle and equipment, and establishment of a commercial parking area on an existing concrete slab.
3. The parcel is located in the ‘I’ zoning district pursuant to the Town of Rochester zoning code.
4. The parcel is additionally located in the ‘AP Overlay’ zoning district.
5. The parcel to be developed is known as S/B/L 76.1-1-9.1
6. The parcel is located within 500 feet of the Ulster County Ag District #3. An Agricultural Data Statement was prepared and presented.
7. The parcel has road frontage on US Route 209, a NYS DOT maintained highway. NYS DOT was informed of the application and in return sent commercial access diagram.
8. The parcel also has access from the east via an easement known as “extension of Old Mine Rd” over private property from Samsonville Rd and access from the west from Town of Rochester maintained Rd. Old Mine Rd.
9. The parcel existing use is for residential and commercial storage use. There is a history of agricultural and industrial use of the property, however it is currently not in active use. The site is a former chicken farm and was the site of a pipe organ manufacturing facility which operated 2007-2013. It was also reported being used to park trucks for a refuse company.
10. Existing improvements on the parcel include
a. 4800 sf existing wood frame structure
b. 2500 sf existing storage building
c. Existing single-family dwelling
d. Existing concrete pad
e. Existing well and well house
f. Existing septic
g. Existing electric service
h. Paved and gravel driveway
11. The site plan proposal shows
a. Construction of a 24’ x 24’ single-family dwelling.
b. Location of replacement septic system.
c. Location of a temporary 950 sf mobile home.
d. 6@ commercial parking 20’ x 40’ stalls on existing concrete pad.
e. Reuse of the 4800-sf existing structure
f. Reuse of the 2500 sf existing storage building
g. Continued use of the single-family dwelling
12. The applicant states
a. There are three ways to enter the property. #1 old mine Rd from the west, #2 old mine Rd to county route 3, and #3 the parcel has a 50-ft. driveway out to route 209.
b. The proposal is to install a temporary mobile home on the property that will be removed after building a single-family residence.
c. The existing 40’ x 140’ building will be used for retail establishment (vehicle and equipment) online only. It will be used for restoring classic cars and there are no employees. The applicant alone builds the cars; at most four or five cars per year.
d. The existing concrete slab 170’ x 40’ will be used for parking (commercial) that will be used for functioning heavy equipment.
e. There is any existing single family residence on the property that will remain.
f. The 2.765 acres to the west owned by Eric Gilles is presently a heavy equipment service garage, that the parcel has a 50-ft. deeded right of way to county Route 3 that is the primary entrance and exit.
g. The property is not open to the public.
h. There will be no new signs.
i. There will be no new lighting. There are existing porch lights on the 40 x 140 building.
13. The public expressed concerns of
a. Traffic and highway safety
b. Emergency vehicle access
c. Access over the parcel via a right of way that was once proposed and mapped as an extension of Old Mine Rd. to Samsonville Rd,
d. Environmental issues due to a past fire on an adjacent property
e. Concerns of the site being used for a car rally
14. The Planning Board finds
a. Each use proposed is permitted in the I zoning district with securing a Special Use Permit.
b. Review of the schedule of district regulations indicates each use proposed requires 1.5 acres lot area per use. The uses proposed plus the existing residential use require a minimum of 6 acres. Use of existing structures which violate setback dimensions will be “grandfathered” as per adaptive reuse standards in § 140-10(A)(3). New structures will not further violate setback dimensions. Therefore, the uses proposed comply with the schedule of district regulations.
c. Neighbors of the parcel express concern with access to “extension of Old Mine Rd.” to access Samsonville Rd. and the placing of a gate to impede access. Several neighbors provided deeds which appear to indicate a right of way access over the property. The Planning Board has investigated and notes the roadway exists on filed maps. However, the roadway in question is not a public roadway and the Planning Board has no jurisdictional power to enforce deed conditions. As such, the Planning Board has no authority to direct the applicant to allow access over the parcel. Therefore, it takes no position on the issue of concern. However, as the “extension of Old Mine Rd.” is shown on the filed plans, the Planning Board, pursuant to §280 of NYS Town Law, shall require such condition “no permit shall hereafter be issued for any building in the bed of any street or highway shown or laid out on such map or plan”.
d. The applicant commissioned a Phase I environmental assessment study. The agency conducting the study concluded “no significant and environmental liability issues or recognized environmental conditions associated with the subject property were identified”. The Planning Board takes cognizance of and accepts the report as accurate.
e. The Board reviewed and determined “car rallies” are not being proposed with the use.
f. NYS DOT commercial access standards may be required, however the Planning Board believes the Route 209 access to be residential only and will require such by condition. Therefore, the Planning Board leaves this requirement to the NYS DOT to decide.
g. Ulster County Board of Health approval will be required for the updated septic.
h. Water usage will be minimal as it is only used for residential purposes. Therefore, no further review of the AP Overlay district standards is required.
i. Lighting, signage, and landscaping details are not required as no change is proposed.
15. The application was required to be referred to the Ulster County Planning Board which returned a comment of “No County Impact”.
16. The application was determined to be an Unlisted SEQRA use. A Negative Declaration was determined.
Draft findings were prepared by the Chairman and were read, discussed, and amended by the Planning Board in public meeting at the time of adoption.
Adopted Feb. 13, 2017
Ayes: 7 Nays: 0 Absent: 0
(Planning Board member Mr. Dawson, recused from application, Alternate member Pomerantz seated)
Motion to adopt findings by Ms. Lindstrom
Second by Mr. Jones
The Chairman then presented a draft decision to the board.
RESOLVED,
The Town of Rochester Planning Board
Grants Special Use -Conditional Approval to Humphrey Enterprise, Inc and John Dawson permitting Multiple Permitted Uses; specifically, construction of a single-family dwelling, retail establishments – vehicle and equipment, and commercial parking for the lands situate at Old Mine Rd. and US Route 209, known as S/B/L 76.1-1-9.1, and located in the ‘I’ and ‘AP Overlay’ zoning districts.
The Site Plan dated Nov. 28, 2016 as revised Dec. 15, 2016 is approved with the following conditions.
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 Site Plan.
2. Prior to issuance of certificates of compliance and occupancy and commencing residency, the following specific permits shall be secured. All conditions imposed in the granting of these permits shall be made a part of this Special Use approval. Should any conditions imposed by these other agency permits cause conditions to be in conflict, the more restrictive condition shall prevail. Should any permit approvals necessitate a change to the approved Site Plan, the matter shall be referred to the Planning Board for consideration.
a. A Town of Rochester building permit shall be secured. All applicable provisions of New York State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code associated with the use and/or structure shall be met. The facility shall be inspected and certified for compliance.
b. Ulster County Board of Health approval shall be secured for water and septic use
c. NYS DOT permit shall be secured for access, if determined to be required by that agency. No change may be required of the use as it is primarily residential.
d. Should any permits be determined required for the sale of motor vehicles or motor vehicle parts, the applicant shall secure such permit.
3. Pursuant to §280 of NYS Town Law, “no permit shall hereafter be issued for any building in the bed of any street or highway shown or laid out on such map or plan”.
4. The applicant shall be allowed to place a mobile home on the parcel for use as temporary dwelling during the construction of the single-family dwelling. All permits shall be secured for the mobile home as is deemed required by the code enforcement officer/building inspector. The mobile home shall be removed from the property prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the new dwelling.
5. The applicant shall remove that portion of the concrete pad which will violate the 75’ side yard setback dimension for non-residential use in an I zoning district.
6. The Route 209 access driveway shall be maintained to NYS Fire Code regulation and standards.
7. The retail establishments – vehicle and equipment and commercial parking uses shall be operated with the following conditions.
a. All commercial traffic access for the commercial parking and retail establishments uses shall be from Samsonville Rd. via the easement granted to the parcel.
b. Commercial parking shall only be allowable in the designated spaces as shown on the approved Site Plan.
c. All automobile or vehicle parts, new or used, shall be stored within buildings or screened.
d. Vehicles that are temporarily on the property awaiting repair shall be stored in an area which meets the minimum yard requirements applicable for the I zoning district.
8. Sound, including any sound or noise producing elements shall comply with Town of Rochester zoning code §140-20 (F) at all times, excepting any sound which may be generated by the normal and customary residential use of the property.
9. All activities involving the storage, transfer or disposal of inflammable and explosive materials shall be provided with adequate safety devices against the hazard of fire and explosion.
10. All activities involving the possible contamination of surface or ground water shall be provided with adequate safety devices to prevent such contamination.
11. There shall be no changes in signage allowed from existing site conditions, except that which may be determined by the Code Enforcement office to not require Planning Board review and approval. Should changes be sought at a future time, the code standards at the time of application shall be applicable.
12. There shall be no changes in outdoor lighting allowed from existing site conditions, except that which may be determined by the Code Enforcement office to not require Planning Board review and approval. Should changes be sought at a future time, the code standards at the time of application shall be applicable.
13. There shall be no additional landscaping required, however the applicant shall maintain, and replace if diseased or damaged, the existing vegetation screening.
14. Any deviation from or amending of the approved and signed Site Plan shall require resubmission to the Planning Board, except as may be permitted as determined by the Code Enforcement Officer.
15. All Local, County, State, and Federal Laws or Codes shall be complied with and all required Local, County, State, or Federal permits shall be secured for the current or future use of these lands.
Effect of Approval:
1. This Special Use approval and associated conditions shall be binding upon the applicant and all successive owners and/or lessees of the land so long as such use shall occur.
2. This approval shall remain effective as an authorization to secure the required permits and establish the use for a maximum of one year from this date of approval unless the applicant shall have submitted written request and the Planning Board shall have adopted such resolution granting an extension and provided the applicant has submitted proof of having diligently pursued the implementation of the plans.
The Town of Rochester Planning Board further grants the authority to the Chairman to certify condition 1 has been completed without further resolution and to sign and date the plat at such time.
Draft resolution was prepared by the Chairman and was read, discussed, and amended by the Planning Board in public meeting at the time of adoption.
Adopted Feb. 13, 2017, by the following vote:
Ayes: 7 Nays: 0 Absent: 0
(Planning Board member Mr. Dawson, recused from application, Alternate member Pomerantz seated)
Motion made by Mr. Williams
Second by Mr. Jones
Chairman Baden – Yes Vice Chairman Lindstrom – Yes
Williams – Yes Grace – Yes
DeWitt – Yes Jones – Yes
Pomerantz – Yes
7 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent, 0 abstentions
Mr. Dawson returned to the board at 8:17pm. Mr. Pomerantz stepped down from the Board
2016-06 SBD Continued Application, Public Hearing
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.
Mr. Medenbach was present along with the property owners.
The Board reviewed the new maps. They decided that the map presented meets fire code.
Mr. Jones stated that the driveway in lot 1 needed to be widened in order to meet code requirements.
The Board replied with that the map did in fact meet fire code.
Ms. Lindstrom motioned to classify the application as an unlisted action for SEQRA. Mr. DeWitt seconded. A roll call vote was taken.
Motion carried. All in favor.
Chairman Baden – Yes Vice Chairman Lindstrom – Yes
Williams – Yes Grace – Yes
DeWitt – Yes Jones – Yes
Dawson – Yes
7 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent, 0 abstentions
The Board reviewed Part 2 of the SEQRA EAF form. All questions were determined to be no or small impact. Part 3 was reviewed.
Mr. Dawson motioned for a negative declaration under SEQRA. Ms. Lindstrom seconded. A roll call vote was taken.
Motion carried. All in favor.
Chairman Baden – Yes Vice Chairman Lindstrom – Yes
Williams – Yes Grace – Yes
DeWitt – Yes Jones – Yes
Dawson – Yes
7 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent, 0 abstentions
The Chairman opened the public hearing. There was no public comment.
Ms. Lindstrom motioned to close the public hearing. Mr. Dawson seconded.
Motion carried. All in favor.
7 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent, 0 abstentions
At this time the Board reviewed the draft Findings prepared by the Chairman 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 owner granted representation power to Medenbach & Eggers PC.
3. The application proposes
a. Lot line adjustment removing parcel boundaries of the lot known as S/B/L 67.-2-40
b. Merging the resulting land with lot known as S/B/L 67.-2-39
c. Subdivision of the proposed ±80.6-acre parcel resulting in 3 lots, ±11.8 acres, ±7.5 acres, and ±61.3 acres.
4. The current use of the parcel is residential and vacant land.
5. Existing site conditions include 2 single-family dwellings with private well and septic, several sheds, stone wall, wire fence, and foundation of former mobile home site with dug well.
6. New construction is proposed of a single-family dwelling with private well and septic on proposed Lot 2.
7. The application was determined to meet the requirements of an Unlisted SEQRA action.
• A Negative Declaration was determined upon review.
8. The parcel is in the AR-3 zoning district.
• The Board concludes Lots 1, 2, and 3 as proposed, meet or exceed the bulk standards requirements for the AR-3 zoning district upon review of the preliminary plan.
9. The Board reviewed if the proposed lots have safe and legal access.
• A gravel shared driveway known as “Melody Lane” is utilized by the existing 2 single-family homes and is further utilized by parcel identified as S/B/L 67.-2-41. This lot contains a single-family dwelling.
• The Planning Board determined the existing shared driveway serves 3 lots and 3 dwellings. The proposed subdivision would expand this to serve 4 lots and 4 dwellings.
• Town of Rochester subdivision code §125(22)(J)(1) allows the Planning Board to consider lots which do not have 50 ft. of road frontage on a public or private road which will utilize shared driveway.
• Town of Rochester subdivision code defines “shared driveway” as
A private vehicular access from a public or private road which serves a maximum of two lots (three including the lot it has access over) and is granted by right-of-way.
• The Planning Board further determined pursuant to Subdivision code §129(R)(2)
o Shared driveways shall be permitted provided the shared driveway shall be utilized by no more than a total of three single-family residential lots including the lot it has access over and meet the specific standards of §125-22.J hereof, and further provided that the Town of Rochester is given satisfactory evidence, in the form of deed covenants and a road maintenance agreement, that the private status of said road is permanent and that the following construction standards are met:
o Standards for Shared Driveways
o Minimum Right-of-Way 50 feet, Minimum Pavement Width 16 feet, Minimum Shoulder Width 2 feet
o Pavement may consist of any all-weather surface satisfactory to the Town Engineer (if one shall be appointed) and Town Highway Superintendent. All drainage plans shall also be subject to approval of the Town Engineer (if one shall be appointed) and Town Highway Superintendent.
• Based on the code and the proposed shared driveway servicing 4 lots, the Planning Board concluded the shared driveway would require to be upgraded to private road standards for this proposal. Private roads, as per subdivision code
o They shall meet town road specifications for Minor Streets except road surface may consist of any all-weather surface satisfactory to the Town Engineer (if one shall be appointed) and Town Highway Superintendent.
o They shall meet all provisions of the New York State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code and provide for safe access for emergency personnel. The Fire District Chief shall be referred the plans to make recommendations to the Planning Board.
o Minor Streets 3 feet-minimum shoulder width, 2 feet-minimum clearance beyond shoulder, 18 feet-minimum pavement width
• Barry Medenbach PE provided request to waive the requirement for private road as per subdivision code §125-5, A written request was provided stating
o Current status of the shared driveway is in good condition and gravel surfaced.
o It is at least 12 ft. wide and contains suitable turnaround area for vehicles including fire trucks.
o Letter was included from the Accord Fire District Chief supporting this statement.
o Included was copy NYS 2016 Fire Code addendum for standards for emergency vehicle access for detached one family dwellings constructed under the NYS Residential Code.
o The engineer proposes a 50’ x 20’ turnout area for emergency vehicles be constructed within the first 500’ of the shared access. Existing driveways would also serve as additional turnout area.
o A 60’ x 20’ turnaround area is proposed at the terminus of the shared access area.
• The Planning Board reviewed and discussed the request at Jan. 12, 2017 regular meeting. The Planning Board has no enforcement power over NYS Fire Code, however must review access of subdivision proposals under the standards of the code.
o The request was granted by unanimous resolution Jan. 12, 2017 allowing the applicant to utilize a shared driveway to serve 4 parcels, and further granting the applicant relief from shared driveway dimension requirements of the subdivision code. The resolution was granted conditionally pending clarification from the Code Enforcement Officer of interpretation of NYS Fire Code.§511.2.3 Turnouts. Driveways in excess of 500 feet (152 400 mm) in length and less than 20 feet (6096 mm) in width shall be provided with turnouts along the driveway that are a minimum 20 feet in width for a length of 50 feet (15 240 mm) in length. The turnouts shall be placed at intervals not to exceed 500 feet (152 400 mm) along the driveway.
o Reasoning was based on the letter from the Fire Chief, 2016 NYS Fire Code addendum allowing 12’ minimum width for fire access roads which serve four or less single-family dwellings, and the proposal to construct a turnout.
o The Planning Board discussed and will require additional turnout area in the vicinity of the existing dwelling driveway on Lot 1 to be cleared to maintain a 20’ x 50’ turnout area.
o The Planning Board will propose for decision a condition of approval requiring compliance with NYS Fire Code, as adopted 2016.
10. The Board reviewed if the proposed lots could support water and septic.
• Lot 2 has an expectation of being able to support private well and septic as shown and is certified on the preliminary plan by Medenbach & Eggers PC
• Lot 1 & 3 have existing well and septic
11. 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.
Draft findings were prepared by the Chairman and were read, discussed, and amended by the Planning Board in public meeting at the time of adoption.
Adopted February 13, 2017 by the following vote:
Ayes: 7 Nays: 0 Absent: 0
Motion to adopt findings by Mr. Dawson
Second by Ms. Lindstrom
The Chairman presented a draft decision for the lot line adjustment
RESOLVED,
The Town of Rochester Planning Board has reviewed the preliminary plat dated 12/21/2016, revised dated 2/10/2017 and certifies the Lot Improvement proposed will meet Town of Rochester lot development standards for the AR-3 zoning district as described in § 140-8 of the Town of Rochester zoning code and further represent an exempt lot improvement in accordance with
§ 125-18 of the Town of Rochester subdivision regulations.
Adopted February 13, 2017 by the following vote:
Ayes: 7 Nays: 0 Absent: 0
Motion to certify by Mr. Dawson
Second by Ms. Lindstrom
The Chairman presented a draft decision for the subdivision
RESOLVED,
The Town of Rochester Planning Board grants Minor Subdivision-Conditional Final Approval to Michael and Jeanette Bazinet permitting the subdivision of lands situate at 38 Melody Lane, known as S/B/L 67.-2-39 and located in the AR-3 zoning district, into 3 lots with the following conditions. The subdivision plan, as dated December 21, 2016 as revised February 10, 2017, is approved with conditions.
CONDITIONS of APPROVAL:
1. Applicant shall present a Final Plat for signature with these amendments.
a. 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.
b. A plan note shall be included to clearly state “The Planning Board approves the use of a shared driveway as shown on this plan to service no more than 4 single-family dwelling units. Should application be made for additional dwelling units in excess of 4, such waiver shall be revoked and the shared driveway shall be made to conform to NYS Fire Code standards.”
c. The lot identified as “Lands of Bazinet to be made a part of lot 3” are incorrectly labelled. S/B/L should state 67.-2-40. This shall be corrected.
d. A second 20’ x 50’ fire access turnout area shall be shown on the plat in the vicinity of the driveway to the existing dwelling on Lot 1.
2. A Road Maintenance Agreement shall be presented and approved by the Attorney for the Town.
3. The attorney for the town shall review and approve the road maintenance agreement. Any costs or fees associated with such review shall be the responsibility of the applicant.
4. The applicant’s engineer shall provide a letter or Ulster County Health Department certification shall be presented certifying lot 2 is capable of supporting water and septic
5. 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.
6. Prior to a certificate of occupancy being issued for the proposed dwelling on Lot 2, the shared driveway
a. shall be constructed and maintained in compliance with NYS Fire Code and be of sufficient width, grade and location to accommodate access by all emergency vehicles and services to the lands which are the subject of the subdivision application.
b. shall provide a minimum unobstructed width of 12 feet and a minimum unobstructed height of 13 feet, 6 inches
c. The two proposed 20’ x 50’ turnouts shall be constructed to the dimensions and location as shown on the subdivision plat. A minimum total of 32’ in width shall be clear for the 50’ of length. As per NYS Fire Code, driveways in excess of 500 feet in length and less than 20 feet in width shall be provided with turnouts along the driveway that are a minimum 20 feet in width for a length of 50 feet in length.
d. The proposed 20’ x 60’ turnaround shall be constructed to the dimensions and location as shown on the subdivision plat.
e. shall comply with all provisions of §277 of NYS Town Law as presently existing or as amended in the future and shall be maintained in a good and passable condition under all weather conditions to provide access to all emergency vehicles.
7. All required Local, County, State, or Federal permits shall be secured for the current and/or future use of these lands.
a. Specifically, a Town of Rochester building permit shall be secured prior to construction of the proposed dwelling on Lot 2.
b. Specifically, Ulster County Dept. of Health permit(s) shall be secured prior to construction of the well and septic areas on Lot 2.
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 1-5. 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.
EFFECT of APPROVAL:
1. This Conditional Final Approval shall expire 180 days from this approval date unless conditions 1-5 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 and the road maintenance agreement 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, the road maintenance agreement and any other related filings to the T/ Rochester Planning Board within 30 days of such filing.
Draft resolution was prepared by the Chairman and was read, discussed, and amended by the Planning Board in public meeting at the time of adoption.
Adopted February 13, 2017, by the following vote:
Ayes: 7 Nays: 0 Absent: 0
Motion to adopt by Ms. Lindstrom
Second by Mr. Jones
Pre-application Meeting
Minor Subdivision
Brian and Susan Gray
Proposes 2 lot subdivision of a ±5 acre parcel from a ±40.742 acre parcel.
1198 Queens Hwy, S/B/L 60.3-2-2.2, R-5 zoning district, property contains and contiguous to mapped NYS wetland KR-3
David Gray and his father Brian Gray were present on behalf of the application.
David Gray noted that they would like to divide 5 acre a parcel off of the property to build a home. He noted that he would like to build a 26 by 60 foot long manufactured home on a slab on the right hand side of the parcel in the fields.
Chairman Baden noted that it is in the 5 acre zoning district because of the large wetland that meets the property line. The applicant would have to meet the setbacks for the R-5 district. The front yard would have to have 50 feet of frontage from the road setback which would be a total of approximately 75 feet from the center of the road. Side yard you would need a 50 foot clearance on both side of the house from the property line including the rear yard. The applicant would also need to apply to the town for a driveway permit along with securing board of health permits for water and septic. Chairman Baden also mentioned to contact the Department of Environmental Conservation for the wetlands because there is a 100 foot buffer.
David Gray noted that it is way over 100 feet from the wetlands.
Mr. Dawson asked about the driveway.
Mr. Gray said that he measured how long it would approximately be with it reaching about 230 feet.
Chairman Baden asked the Board if they see any concerns or issues. He also noted that the board will need to see a sketch plan or preliminary line showing the parcel line but not much more than what is on the map now. The map needs to show where the proposed house is going to be and if it is close to the property lines then show the setback dimension, show the driveway, well and septic and on Brian’s property need to show the house, well, septic and driveway. The wetlands will also need to be shown.
The Board and the applicant discussed various different subjects retaining to the property.
Chairman Baden stated that if all the information needed is provided the application will be able to be on the agenda for the next meeting and will be set for public hearing in April.
Pre-application Meeting
Major Subdivision/Special Use Permit
Taavo Somer (applicant) and Rondout Country Club, Inc. (owner)
Taavo Somer and Nadine Carney from Peak Engineering were present on behalf of the application.
Mr. Somer explained that what they are proposing. There is an existing golf course and club house, there was tennis courts and a swimming pool on the property and there is existing barns on the property as well as parking. What they are proposing to do in the first phase is obtain a special use permit to make it a resort. They would put the tennis courts back, the swimming pool, increase the club house and actually make that a hotel and guest rooms and also make an event barn on the property and then eventually small cabins along the ridge to the west and additional parking.
Mr. DeWitt asked the applicant about the cabins along the ridge.
Mr. Somer noted that they are 600 square foot cabins.
Mr. Jones asked where the road was.
Mr. Somer showed Mr. Jones on the map where Whitfield Road was located.
Mrs. Carney noted that the cabins would only be accessible by walking or some sort of golf cart thing. No personal vehicles would be driving to them.
Mr. Jones asked if the cabins would have bathrooms.
Mr. Somer noted that the cabins would be grouped for septic and well.
Mrs. Carney noted that each cabin would have one bedroom one bathroom space.
Chairman Baden stated that it is more like a campground type of thing then.
Mr. Somer noted that it is more part of the hotel.
Mr. Somer explained that the second phase would be a subdivision of 12 lots.
Mr. Dawson asked if Mr. Somer would be eliminating the golf course.
Mr. Somer stated that yes; they would be getting rid of the golf course.
Chairman Baden asked if the different phases were different proposals.
Mrs. Carney noted that they want to go for the master plan approval and they construction or the build out would be phased.
Chairman Baden noted that the property associated with phase 3 is not part of the golf course and is a separate parcel.
Mrs. Carney stated that they wanted to have a short discussion about it because it’s used for agricultural and right now it’s split and has access to Mill Hook R d but going through the center of the property is wetlands. The owners of the other property have access to the lot through an easement with the neighbors. We have not contacted the Department of Environmental Conservation about crossing from the Mill Hook side through the wetland but it potential to be accessed and does propose a very long private road.
Chairman Baden noted that his first reaction was trying to find access over to Mill Hook Rd in some way for so as not to have a very long dead-end private road. Baden asked the applicant if they would dedicate the road to the town or would it be continued as a private road.
Mrs. Carney asked how open the town to accepting new roads is.
Chairman Baden stated that the he does not know and that it would be up to the new highway superintendent.
Mrs. Carney said that getting the first section of the road dedicated to the town and the rest of it being private could be an option.
Mr. Jones stated that his former community tried to make their private road a town road but the answer was no because it was just too expensive to bring it up to town standards.
Chairman Baden stated the town wouldn’t have the cost it would be the applicant. With the amount of proposed houses on the private road he would lean towards the road being paved.
Mr. Jones asked what the contours of the property were.
Chairman Baden stated that the map shows the property is mostly flat.
Mr. Jones asked that since the property is so flat where is all the drainage from the development going to be going and is there going to be a retention pond of some sort because the water from the road needs to be kept from the wetlands because it will have oil and gas and other things. The same question goes for where the cabins will be located.
Mrs. Carney noted that treated storm water could go to the wetland because you don’t want to take natural run off that would go in that direction away from that direction. But the storm water would need to be treated.
Chairman Baden noted that you could potentially bring a road in between the wetlands, if the mapping is accurate.
Mrs. Carney said no, that wouldn’t be possible and showed the board where the roadway would be. She stated that knowing where the planning board stands on the length of the private road is good.
Chairman Baden asked, noting that the road would be long, but is there any possibility of bringing the road back out to 209?
Mrs. Carney noted that the grade would be a problem.
Mr. Dawson asked how long the road actually is that they are proposing.
Mrs. Carney stated that the first section is just 1300 feet. The additional section would be an extra 2000 feet.
Mr. Dawson asked if the proposal was a minor subdivision on the first section.
Chairman Baden stated that it is considered a major subdivision because it is more than 4 lots not on existing road frontage.
Mrs. Carney stated that the way they planned it out is that two lots would have frontage on Whitfield Road and the rest of the lots would have frontage on the proposed road. She also noted that they can approach the town and see where they stand with it now.
Chairman Baden noted that it is a town board decision ultimately but the Highway Superintendent would advise. Chairman Baden also noted that in the code that there is a section for planned resort development which is allowed in the AR-3 zoning district. You would need a minimum side area of a 100 acres. It allows hotels, motels, resorts, ranches and other accommodations plus accessory uses including but not limited to onsite retail, dining and recreation uses plus amenities. It does require 50% minimum open space so if you created these lots as individual building lots to eventually sell off this wouldn’t work then. If you were creating the houses to be part of the resort, like a time share or something like that, you may want to explore that kind of resort because there are a lot of bonuses you can receive by doing a resort that way.
Mr. DeWitt stated the applicant proposed to subdivide the 137 acre property with approximately 75 acres being developed as single family residential lots and 62 acres being for the resort.
Mrs. Carney shows where the 75 acres and the 62 acres would be on the maps. Mrs. Carney stated that 75 acres would be the residential lots that will be subdivided. The 62 acres will be part of the resort.
Mr. DeWitt asked about the land above the subdivision and what it is.
Mrs. Carney noted that that section of land is wetlands and would go with the subdivided lots.
Chairman Baden stated that the applicant would need 50 percent of the total acres be open space for Planned Resort Development. So they would need 60 something acres of open space to be able to make it work. You wouldn’t be able to sell it off it would have to stay with the resort and be one parcel. But you can great time-share situations or long-term rental properties with the residential area. The town has never had a something of that sort. The resort section was written in the code when the Hudson Valley Resort was talking about creating a golf course community. So the standards were written based around that project which never got off the ground. The Board has never actually had an application but he just wanted to bring it to the applicant’s attention as a possibility. It might not fit what they are trying to do. If they are trying to sell the residential properties as individual lots and then it doesn’t work but if the option of hanging on to those lots does work it might be something to explore.
Ms. Lindstrom said what if you do greater density and leave a big part open as a conservation easement and then you get bonuses also for that. So then the lots for the residential can be smaller and you cluster them more and get bonuses.
Chairman Baden stated that the applicant could create a conservation easement, There’s another section in our subdivision code. You can do clusters of housing in return for leaving common open space, but it has to be useable space, it can’t just be wetlands. It becomes common space for all the residents.
Mr. Jones stated if you kept everything in the same ownership and you clustered it here you avoid all the issues you’re going to have with being so close to the wetlands. So using the conservation subdivision technique you might get density.
Chairman Baden noted that the two wouldn’t work together, that conservation subdivision only comes about if the applicant is creating separate lots. It doesn’t work if it was all one lot. But the planned resort development he can still use the clustering technique because they buildings all staying on the same property. They’re not creating setback issues because you just need minimum distance between homes. Then you would also need community water and sewage for all those properties. There’s a lot of ways you could do this. The conservation easement as long as they can get board of health approval they can make the lots smaller unless you can get individual well and septic.
Mrs. Carney stated that there are a lot of different things that can be done. So as far as road access as part of the residential section is there a standard for that or does it references a private road or shared driveway.
Chairman Baden noted that it would still need to meet fire code for dwellings but, depending on how many dwellings it’s servicing, the widths and dimensions of that would be governed by New York State Fire Code which would probably be 20 feet wide but it wouldn’t have to be paved. The other thing that he sees is that there isn’t going to be any roadway access to those cabins, just for a golf cart, but there might need to be some sort of fire access to those cabins big enough for a fire lane that can support the weight of a fire truck.
Mrs. Carney stated that they’re going to have maintenance vehicles that will be going through there as well so we would have to provide something anyway.
Chairman Baden noted that it would just have to be something for maintenance and fire lane not a road where people can go to unload their car at their cabin.
Chairman Baden asked the applicant if there was any consideration if the applicant didn’t do the residential to keeping the golf course or is every scenario eventually going to get rid of the golf course.
Mr. Somer stated that they are doing studies on it right now but with the purchase of the land and running a golf course the projections right now is that it would take 96 years to break even.
Golf courses are pretty much all being converted to something different.
Chairman Baden noted that golf course area might be able to be considered open space but we would certainly have to discuss it.
Mr. Somer asked about the height restriction of the hotel building.
Chairman Baden stated that height restriction is 35 feet. You can certainly ask for a variance. If the applicant did go the route of the planned resort development he would receive a bonus of a height of 60 feet or 4 stories, whichever is less.
Mrs. Carney stated that the plan is to do improvements to where the existing parking area is for the daily use as far as the restaurant and the hotel and then event uses would have an overflow parking lot somewhere else on the site. They just wanted to point it out now.
Chairman Baden noted that if the applicant was to make any changes to the parking lot areas it would have to be up to planning standards which are all spaces 10’ by 20’.
Mr. Dawson stated that they’re not planning camping or campers just the hotel and resort kind of thing with the cabins with the events.
Mr. Jones stated that the biggest thing he’s heard on the events is the noise and safety.
Chairman Baden asked if the barn they spoke of would be enclosed, but noted that there isn’t a lot of residential property in the near area.
Mrs. Carney stated that where that is it doesn’t meet any criteria and noted that the board can request limited time of use.
Mr. Somer asked as in terms of the resort itself anything for us to consider.
Chairman Baden stated that it’s going to be a very unique parking situation so we’ll kind of leave it you for the number of parking spaces that will be needed. The board will need justification of how the applicant arrived at that number as well. The spaces will need to meet the parking standards. Fire access to all the buildings so if there’s not roadway directly up to the buildings the board would have to make sure there is a fire lane of some sort and whatever distance between the cabins to make them meet fire code. The board would defer to whatever the health department requires for the water and septic systems for the cabins. In terms of the resort area the height maximum is 35 feet or 2 and a half stories if the applicant wanted more than that and didn’t go the planned resort route they would need to go for a variance. The board would probably need some kind of architectural rendering or at least an example for any of the larger building and what they’re going to look like.
Mr. Jones asked if they do decide to go with single family homes that would be sold off what would be the size of the homes.
Mr. Somer said the homes would be around 2000 square feet each.
Chairman Baden asked if they would build and sell or just sell the land.
Mr. Jones added asking if it would be the same style or different style homes.
Mr. Somer stated that they would build and sell and that the homes would be similar in style.
Chairman Baden said that with this size of application the board would want to send it to the county for a gateway meeting because there’s so many different agencies involved. The applicant would want to get it more finalized and then send it for a gateway meeting.
Chairman Baden asked if there were any historical buildings on the property.
The applicant responded with a no.
Chairman Baden noted that the board would most likely bring in the town consultant so there would be fees for that.
Pre-application Meeting
Special Use Permit
Valeria Gheorghiu (applicant) and Joyce Burstein (owner)
Proposes Private Educational Facility and Residential use of a ±5 acre parcel
863 Samsonville Rd, S/B/L 60.3-2-36.1, R-2 zoning district
Chairman Baden noted that initially this application was ruled that it needed variances but he had a meeting with the building inspector, the Town Attorney and the Zoning Board of Appeals chair and the applicant and refined the application a little more and it is now proposed as a private educational facility and residential use.
Ms. Gheorghiu stated that she would like to create a home work situation to integrate her communities here and down in New York City through what she calls a living justice center primarily centered on sustainability in our communities and ourselves and for the earth. The core of that would be restorative justice integrating body work to alternate the mind and body connection while we process what kind of accomplishment we can resolve. It’s an innovative idea including the yoga community along with the restorative justice communities. Ms. Gheorghiu explained to the board and the public what restorative justice was and how it worked.
Chairman Baden noted that since Samsonville is a county road the board would need to get the county department of public works involved as far as the access to the proposed parking area.
Ms. Gheorghiu noted that she had a report from the Department of Public Works and she spoke with Kim DeFresne and he indicated that they have to have ingress and egress points at the top boundary of the lot line because they need 500 feet of visibility which means they would have to clear out all the brush. He also mentioned that if the parking is for half a dozen cars then there’s no reason for a storm water drain.
Chairman Baden asked the applicant if they had an estimate of the number of people they would be servicing at one time.
Ms. Gheorghiu said not more than once or twice a week peace keeping circles.
Chairman Baden asked what their attendance would be at those meetings. He also said noted that by doing the math based on the square footage of the center he would say possibly 15 spaces would be his guess. But he’s not sure if she’s thinking less than that.
Ms. Gheorghiu said she was thinking less than 15 because it’s local community peace keeping circle.
Chairman Baden noted that the board has to plan for the maximum number of people that could possibly be there at one point because they can’t allow the guests to be parking on the road and create a hazardous situation.
Ms. Gheorghiu replied she would pick up people on the weekend retreats and would encourage people to carpool to reduce the amount of cars. Ms. Gheorghiu said she thought at most 8 cars.
Mr. Dawson asked how many people would be there at one time.
Ms. Gheorghiu said that at most 20 people generally 8 people at a weekend retreat due to housing the guests.
Mr. DeWitt asked if there is an area where there could be overflow parking if necessary.
Ms. Gheorghiu said that yes they are planning a proposed parking next to the lot line and to add parking to the back of the lot where it is flat.
Mr. DeWitt asked the applicant if they were more concerned about the scope of the size of the parking on the back of the lot.
Ms. Gheorghiu said that she’s more concerned about the scope of the size and that there is 100 feet.
Ms. Lindstrom stated that they could do something along the lines of more formal item number 4 or something for the main parking lot at the front of the property and the overflow can be if it’s flat enough just packed down grass.
Chairman Baden said that the one concern would be that plan might create a one way traffic situation but asked is there a way from the proposed parking that you could create passage from there to the back of the lot.
Ms. Gheorghiu replied saying yes, that’s what they were planning.
Chairman Baden stated that when the applicant gets the time she should make up a proposal to the board for the number of parking spaces with a written justification of how the applicant arrived at that number.
Ms. Gheorghiu noted that she did speak with the Department of Health and, given that it is under 10 people that would be staying in the retreat center overnight, she would not need a temporary residence permit nor would the applicant need a well and septic system upgrade. The applicant also said that if the people prepare their own food there would be no permit needed for the kitchen either. She also said that if they went over their number of people and do at some point want to have events where the applicant provides food she can get a temporary permit. The applicant said that with the cesspool they told her that since there is less than 25 people an upgrade is not necessary to whatever system is there.
Chairman Baden said that he didn’t know what the different departments would say and that he’s glad the applicant contacted them and spoke before the application was started and then find out things couldn’t be done. He also stated that it seems like the applicant is well on their way and now it’s a matter of refining the drawing to present a little more. A site plan drawn to scale, showing the location insight map and cover the parking, the structures on the property along with the well and septic and whatever lighting from the parking lot to the building. If there’s already lighting, the applicant can take pictures. If people are going to be using the parking lot at night then there will have to be some sort of light guiding the way.
The applicant asked what if there were foot paths.
Chairman Baden said that the board will need to see where they are going to be and it’ll just need to be drawn in and that it doesn’t need to be a paved or hard surface or anything just needs to be walkable and ADA compliant. That’s where the town comes in; the applicant could speak to the building department about that. If there’s any landscaping being put in or existing they will have to show that on the map as well. Along with the neighbors houses to show how far away they are to see if there needs to be trees or fences put up.
The applicant asked if there was a minimum grade for the slope of the driveway going up the back of the lot.
Chairman Baden said that there isn’t a minimum for the driveway but for the parking lot itself. He also asked if the parking lot area was already cleared or if the applicant was going to be clearing more land or disturbing more than one acre in the process. He also stated that they would need a minimum of 1 handicap space as close to the building as possible.
Ms. Lindstrom asked if there would be any signs.
Ms. Gheorghiu said that yes.
Chairman Baden said that the board would need a mock-up of essentially what the sign is going to look like and show the dimensions and where it’s going to be.
Ms. Gheorghiu asked if there were any rules on signs.
Chairman Baden stated that there is a whole section on signs in the code book.
Ms. Gheorghiu said that the ADA compliance may require parking in front of the building that wouldn’t comply.
Mr. Dawson said that as long as it’s close to the entrance. It doesn’t have to be in front of the building.
The applicant asked if the bays for the fire station would work.
Chairman Baden stated that they wouldn’t be able to put the parking spot there. The paved drive area in front of the bays probably couldn’t be used in any way. He noted that they may want to put up some sort of low fence of some nature so people wouldn’t pull up in there.
Ms. Gheorghiu said that she liked the idea of having a community garden in front of the bays with raised beds so no one would be able to park there. The applicant asked that if in a couple of years she did want to start services where she does provide a law office possibly under a class 2 home occupation how would they go about that and would it be tied to the residential use or would they need a variance.
Chairman Baden stated that they would have to go back to the Code Enforcement Officer and find out if that use would need another permit or not and that the decision is all up to the Code Enforcement Officer says.
Mr. Dawson motioned to adjourn the meeting at 10:18pm. Mr. Williams seconded.
Motion carried. All in favor
Respectfully Submitted,
Shaye Davis, Secretary
Accepted on March, 13th 2017