PLANNING BOARD
TOWN OF ROCHESTER
ULSTER COUNTY
ACCORD, NEW YORK
(845) 626-2434
torpbzba@hvc.rr.com
MINUTES OF January 11, 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 Fred O’Donnell, Vice Chair John Dawson Melvyn Tapper
Adam Paddock Maren Lindstrom
Shane Ricks
Also present:
Patrick Williams, Alternate. Mary Lou Christiana, Attorney for the Town. Rebecca Paddock Stange, Secretary.
Chairman Baden noted that as there were absent members at this meeting, Mr. Williams would be seated as a regular member for this meeting to replace Mr. O’Donnell.
ANNOUNCEMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
Chairman Baden noted that the Town Board has sent out a notice for anyone who is interested in returning or applying for openings on Boards or Commissions to turn in a letter or email a letter to the Supervisor of the Town by January 25, 2016. Mr. Tapper is up for re-appointment, Chairman Baden wasn’t sure if he was going to turn in a letter or not.
The Town Board has also scheduled a Public Hearing regarding the Town Code, Officers and Employees. There is a section that covers training. The 4 hours will still need to be done each year, but they were going to modify it so that that all new members would have to take the basic PB or ZBA training course online and also a basic SEQRA course within 3 months. The current is that you have to take a class within 6 months. What they want to do is any brand new member will have to take those beginning classes within the first 3 months. They will still count towards their 4 hours of training for that year. The PH will be at the January Audit Meeting which is January 28, 2016 at 5:30PM
TRAININGS
Chairman Baden noted that there was a sheet in the PB Member’s files. There are 4 generic online classes that are always available. He also included other trainings that are available.
He then thanked all of the members for getting their trainings in for 2015.
ACTION ON MINUTES
Chairman Baden noted that the Minutes would have to be tabled.
PB OFFICE E-MAIL CHANGE
Chairman Baden noted that there is a new e-mail address for the office now and they are still working on getting it in working order. The reason the minutes weren’t done was that the Secretary spent a lot of the past week trying to resolve the fact that the PB Office e-mail address just went away. The Town is in the process of changing over e-mail addresses for everyone and they are going to go to a town wide system of e-mailing.
PB 2015-04 SBD New Application
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 the Public Hearing would be opened in a few minutes, the Board just needed to go over a couple things first. This is a Type 1 Action because the property has a home on it that is on the National Register. It was referred to the NYS OPRHP and have not heard back other than the fact that they received it.
The Secretary noted that she did send them the update that they requested- the map and that there would be no new construction proposed at this time . That was under the old e-mail address.
Chairman Baden noted that they do have 30 days to respond and the 30 days has not passed yet, so they can’t take action because of that. The Board did hear back from the local HPC and they responded with the following e-mail dated 12/31/15
“To: Planning Board TOR, Mike Baden, Chair
PB Members
From: Historic Preservation Commission, TOR
Re: Marie Christine Hellin, Minor Subdivision — 68.4-3-13
As you have noted, the stone house and other structures at 90 Upper Whitfield Road are listed on the National Register of Historic Places. They are part of an area of the Town that includes some of the most historic and valuable buildings in the TOR, including Upper Whitfield Road, Store Road, Lower Whitfield Road and Whitfield Road.
The concern of the Historic Preservation Commission is that new structures on the subdivided lots at 90 Upper Whitfield Road could have detrimental impact on the original lot with its historic structures.
The HPC requests the opportunity for communication with Marie Hellin, Bert Winne and any others who will be designing buildings and landscaping on the new lots. Our contact numbers are telephone 256-5587 or e-mail N613A@aol.com.
Thank you for contacting us for our input
Sincerely,
Alice Cross, Chair,
Historic Preservation Commission”
Bert Winne had also forwarded on an e-mail to the PB Office that was between Mrs. Cross and Christopher Blake, who is the applicant’s nephew, who is an architect.
Chairman Baden continued and noted that the Board has also received a response from the Highway Superintendent, Wayne Kelder:
“At this time my only comments in regards to the above mentioned minor subdivision is that it appears that all parcels have the ability to have access to the Town Road. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact my Office.”
Chairman Baden noted that the Board was still waiting for some sort of certification that the 2 new lots would support water and septic. That can either be something direct from UCHD or an Engineer.
Mr. Winne noted that he and Mr. Blake were in the middle of working on that.
Chairman Baden noted that he would still have until next month because they can’t close the PH at this meeting because they still needed to give the State Historic those 30 days to respond. So that isn’t holding them up any. He would imagine that by the February Meeting, they would be able to have a decision on this.
Mr. Winne questioned what the protocol was if they didn’t hear back from the other agency?
Chairman Baden noted that the Board has to wait 30 days and if they don’t respond within those 30 days, then the Board can go ahead and take action. Typically they don’t respond on a simple subdivision like this. At times they have asked for screening to buffer the view, but he doesn’t know if they will or won’t say anything in this case. If the Board gets anything between this meeting and the next, it will be forwarded on to Mr. Winne. Chairman Baden noted that we would need more copies of the final plan when that time comes.
Mr. Winne questioned if he needed to follow up with the Highway Dept?
Chairman Baden noted that from his letter, it was okay. When he went to construct they would need a driveway permit. From the letter, though, it’s assuring the Board that there is access and that is all that the Board needs to know.
SEQRA:
At this time the Board reviewed Part 2 of SEQRA. Chairman Baden noted that doing this before they hear back from NYS OPRHP, they may potentially need to re-open this if something comes back from them. Chairman had serious doubts that this would be the case in this application.
1. Impact on Land
Proposed action may involve construction on, or physical alteration of, the land surface of the proposed site. This item was checked off as ‘Yes’ under the example: ‘h’, ‘other impacts’: Proposed construction of 2 houses and related septic and driveway.
4. Impact on groundwater
The proposed action may result in new or additional use of ground water, or may have the potential to introduce contaminants to ground water or an aquifer. This item was checked off as ‘Yes’ under the example:
‘a’, The proposed action may require new water supply wells, or create additional demand on supplies from existing water supply wells, ‘NO or Small Impact may occur.
All other items were checked off as ‘No’.
14. Impact on Energy
The proposed action may cause an increase in the use of any form of energy. This item was checked off as ‘Yes’ under example, ‘e’, ‘Normal residential utility.
10. Impact on Historic and Archeological Resources
The proposed action may occur in or adjacent to a historic or archaeological resource. This was checked off as ‘Yes’ under examples:
‘a’ The proposed action may occur wholly or partially within, or substantially contiguous to, any buildings, archaeological site or district which is listed on or has been nominated by the NYS Board of Historic Preservation for inclusion on the State or National Register of Historic Places. ‘No or small impact may occur’.
‘e’. If any of the above (a-d) are answered “Yes”, continue with the following questions to help support conclusions in Part 3:
i.The proposed action may result in the destruction or alteration of all or part of the site or property.
ii.The proposed action may result in the alteration of the property’s setting or integrity.
iii.The proposed action may result in the introduction of visual elements which are out of character with the site or property, or may alter its setting. All items checked as ‘No or small impact may occur’.
At this time the Board reviewed Part 3 as prepared by the Chairman as follows:
“There is either no or only a small impact for each identified category of the SEQRA Part II form, as determined by the lead agency Town of Rochester Planning Board. No further analysis or review is necessary.”
Mr. Dawson motioned for a Negative Declaration under SEQRA. Seconded by Mr. Ricks. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden: Yes Tapper: Absent
O’Donnell: Absent Lindstrom: Absent
Ricks: Yes Dawson: Yes
Paddock: Yes Williams: Yes
Motion carried. 5 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, 0 abstentions, (including alternate)
At 7:20PM Chairman Baden opened the Public Hearing.
Mr. Winne noted that the applicant currently had +/- 14 acres with an existing stone house. The application is for a 3 lot subdivision where two lots will be vacant and the house will remain on +/-3.6 acres and the other two will be +/-3.1 and +/-3.9 acres each. The plan is to put a home on the +/-3.9 acre lot for the applicant who is currently living in the stone house.
Chairman Baden stated that all 3 lots will have frontage and a driveway on a Town maintained road and meet the required setbacks. No variances are needed. Lots will all have individual well and septic.
Jill Shufeldt was recognized to speak and noted that she had a letter from a neighbor that she wanted to submit.
Chairman Baden read it into record as follows:
Chairman Baden noted that when the Board reviewed the maps at the last meeting, the wetlands were on adjoining parcels.
Another member of the public was recognized to speak. He questioned how wide the frontages were on the 3 lots?
Mr. Winne noted that one lot had about 150’ of frontage and the other one has between 85 and 90’ of frontage. The existing lot with the stone house has about 500’.
Nicole Rishard was next to speak. She lives near the proposed vacant lots. She noted that she has spent about 8 months trying to deal with water issues. They realize that parts of the land is disruptive because water pops up somewhere else. The area all along the proposed drive and down into the corner is pretty soaked most of the year except for the blazing hot times. She is concerned that the trees that are there now, if they were disturbed, that might create a mudslide and she’s already had to deal with quite a bit of water damage with her foundation. There is also a tremendous amount of wildlife in that area.
Chairman Baden noted that in viewing the DEC’s website, it shows the wetlands on Mr. Tricomi’s property and the DEC buffer zone doesn’t even extend in to that property. The Board can reach out to the DEC over the course of the next month and they weren’t included as an involved agency because there was no permitting necessary from them because this is not in the actual wetlands.
Jill Shufeldt noted that there is a huge beaver pond that was not there when the DEC mapped it originally.
Mr. Baden noted that the proposed location of the house is far away, but the Board can still send this to the DEC to get their views on it.
A member of the public asked how much room was needed for a driveway on the lot with 90’ of frontage.
Chairman Baden notes that it was normally 12-15’.
Ms. Rishard requested that if the area was cleared that there be re-plantings as she has a bad feeling about drainage problems.
The Board agreed that they would send the application to the DEC for their comments.
Mr. Dawson motioned to hold the public hearing open till February. Seconded by Mr. Paddock. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden: Yes Tapper: Absent
O’Donnell: Absent Lindstrom: Absent
Ricks: Yes Dawson: Yes
Paddock: Yes Williams: Yes
Motion carried. 5 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, 0 abstentions, (including alternate)
PB 2015-05 SBD New 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
Jeffrey Harden and Renata Perlman were present on behalf of the application.
Mr. Harden noted that they would like to take 2 acres out of a +/-42 acre piece of property. It was originally mapped by Mr. Brandt in 1999. This is the lower side of the Samsonville Fire House, before Golden Lane. Ms. Perlman also owns contiguous property.
Chairman Baden noted that they could review it with this map, but to go further in the process, they will need a new map drawn.
Mr. Harden requested to only survey the two acres out of the 42.
Chairman Baden noted that would be acceptable. What they would be doing is listing the rest as remaining lands and show an inset up in the corner identifying the property and showing the whole piece there. In the subdivision code, they would need to show the zoning district schedule and so on. That would be what needs to be filed. Both lots will have frontage on Samsonville Road.
Mr. Dawson questioned if they would continue to use the existing driveway or add another one?
Mr. Harden noted that currently they are thinking of doing nothing with the property. Just selling the existing house is the current plan. Parcel A is an existing home and existing driveway, less the pool and the deck.
Mr. Paddock questioned if they needed to see an existing septic?
Chairman Baden noted that the septic and well should be shown to make sure they are on the property that is being subdivided off. Otherwise they would have to do a shared well and septic agreement.
Mr. Harden would be using Matt Bow in Dutchess County as a surveyor.
Mr. Ricks questioned if there was any reason with leaving the layout like this? There was a totally useless area being created.
Mr. Harden noted that on the other side of that is Ms. Perlman’s workshed. They also own the adjacent property. They want to be able to access this property still. There is some terrain and a wall that are why this is laid out this way.
Mr. Ricks noted that when you subdivide land and leave a useless piece like this, it’s not always good planning.
Mr. Harden noted that there was a little cemetery in t hat area as well.
Mr. Ricks understood. He just sees that sometimes people put these little corner pieces of land out there that become totally useless and he always questions why they are doing it.
Ms. Perlman noted that before her husband died, he planted 150 fruit and nut trees and she still wants to be able to get to them so she can keep them maintained. She doesn’t want to have to go through the other person’s driveway or through an area that has no road. They’ve been coming across that area for decades.
Chairman Baden noted that he looked at the property on parcel viewer and there are no wetlands, there is a pond but there are no flood plain issues. It’s not in an Ag District. It is on a County Road, but it meets the exception agreement to not be referred to the County PB.
Mrs. Christiana noted that the Board could not schedule the public hearing without an updated, current survey.
Mr. Harden questioned if he got the map to the Board in between now and the next meeting could it be looked at in the meantime?
Chairman Baden noted that they could do that. He also mentioned that because it is an existing structure he didn’t believe it needed to be referred to the Highway Dept. or the Fire District.
PB 2015-06 SBD New 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 and Ms. Wiedenbaum were present on behalf of the application.
Mr. Winne explained that this was a private roadway off of Rock Hill Road. The applicant owns +/-53 acres and would like to cut out +/-5.77 acres, which borders on the existing lands. The existing house will then remain with +/-47 acres. There is an old existing trailer on the property proposed +/-5.77 acres.
Ms. Wiedenbaum noted that in the 1960s there were 3 cabins. Those were gone, but there are still 2 well houses. The trailer was not inhabitable to her knowledge.
Chairman Baden confirmed that the narrow strip coming in was part of the property and was not just a right of way coming in off of Rock Hill Road.
Mr. Winne answered yes. It was part of the property.
Ms. Wiedenbaum noted that the piece that she wants to separate now was once its own piece with its own deed.
Mr. Winne noted that the strip of land is 25’.
Chairman Baden noted that the biggest issue that exists is that under the code you are allowed to subdivide a lot that does not have direct road frontage with a shared driveway. There would need to be a shared driveway over that narrow portion which means they would need to do a Road Maintenance Agreement (RMA). The concern here and he realized that it was pre-existing, but he read from the Town Code 125-22J:
(1) Insufficient frontage with access via shared driveway. The Planning Board may grant a waiver from required lot frontage and other street requirements of this Law upon written request and application by the developer to the Planning Board to permit a subdivision which would result in access to no more than two single-family dwellings or lots which do not have the required minimum lot frontage and are proposed to gain access from a shared driveway through the establishment of a right-of-way. 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. The Planning Board shall review such application in the manner as prescribed under the Town of Rochester Code section § 140-10(D)(3) and no approval shall be granted unless, a release has been given the Town and approved by the Town Board making clear that the Town is exempted from all responsibility for the maintenance of the same and the lot in question is not capable of being subdivided further or is so restricted. Evidence of satisfactory shared arrangements for ownership and maintenance of the drive shall also be provided in the form of deed covenants and a road maintenance agreement. See also § 125-28 R hereof.
Mrs. Christiana thought that the PB could grant a waiver.
Chairman Baden noted that they were granting a waiver from the required lot frontage. The Board can review this application, however a shared driveway has to have a 50’ minimum right of way and the applicant only has 25’. The minimum pavement width has to be 16’. They do not own the front lot shown on the map. They own what is labeled as lot 2 and the long narrow strip. If you look at the top part of the map you can see the whole layout. They can go to the ZBA and get an area variance potentially that would be reviewed by the ZBA.
Mr. Paddock questioned if they could do the front section as existing non-conforming and just move it out to 50’ on the back lot?
Chairman Baden noted that it had to be 50’ from the road. It’s about access essentially. It could continue as is, but because they are putting it into two lots they are saying it can have two structures now.
Mr. Ricks noted that there were two options. Go to the ZBA or see if they could get an additional 25’ of right of way from their neighbors.
Mr. Winne thought that the existing pavement on the driveway is about 12’ wide. It has potential to get the 16’.
Chairman Baden noted that the 50’ right of way is really the issue.
Mr. Winne noted that there is a road bed of the driveway, but only about 12’ has been actually paved.
Mr. Ricks noted that they would just need an additional 25’ of right of way to satisfy the Town’s requirements. He wasn’t sure how well they know their neighbors, but they could tell them that it wasn’t for building the driveway; the driveway would remain where it is.
Ms. Wiedenbaum noted that they have only been here for about 4 months, but they have already talked to the Deans, who own the front lot on the road, about purchasing the piece.
Chairman Baden noted that if they were going to purchase it, the easiest thing to do would be a lot line adjustment if they wanted to purchase it and keep it as one lot. Then the 25’ is enough for the one lot.
Mr. Ricks noted that if that didn’t happen, they could try and pursue the other right of way. He noticed in Mr. Winne’s map noted that when the Deans obtained their deed, they don’t have rights to come off of this strip. It might be to their advantage to come off of the strip and then they might give them the extra width that they needed.
Mr. Winne noted that they already had a driveway onto Rock Hill Road with a driveway right beside theirs.
Mr. Winne questioned what the chances were of the variance?
Chairman Baden noted that he couldn’t predict one way or the other. This was an area variance, and they would have to show that they couldn’t achieve it in any other way. They were essentially asking for a 25’ variance from the law and that was a pretty substantial variance.
The Secretary noted that the lots were separated before, which made the situation unique.
Chairman Baden agreed noting that would play in their favor. The ZBA is going to ask if they attempted to get the 25’ from their neighbors on either side. They will want to see if there is any other way that they can do this.
Mr. Winne noted that if they say, no—then the step would be to go to the ZBA?
Chairman Baden answered yes.
Mr. Winne noted that there was a stone wall along the one side of the driveway that would be in the right of way area.
Mr. Ricks noted that the first thing the ZBA is going to question is if they looked at all of the ways to do this and one of those would be to approach their neighbors to try buying property.
Ms. Wiedenbaum questioned if this was really necessary seeing as the property was separate at one time?
Chairman Baden noted that she should make that argument to the ZBA for them to grant the variance. The PB can’t vary the code, only the ZBA can. The PB can say that you can subdivide without 50’ of frontage, but the code doesn’t allow for the PB to change the shared driveway. They still need the 50’ right of way. The ZBA is the only Board that can do that. For an Area Variance she will need to show that she has tried alternative methods and that there is no other way to achieve it.
The Secretary gave the applicant an application to look at so they could read and educate themselves on what the Area Variance process entails and the criteria that the ZBA uses to make their decisions.
Chairman Baden read the criteria for an Area Variance in 140-66:
C. Area variances.
(1) The Zoning Board of Appeals shall have the power, upon an appeal from a decision or
determination of the administrative officials charged with the enforcement of this law, to grant area
variances as defined herein.
(2) In making its determination, the Zoning Board of Appeals shall take into consideration the benefit to
the applicant if the variance is granted, as weighed against the detriment to the health, safety and
welfare of the neighborhood or community by such grant. In making such determination the Board
of Appeals shall also consider:
(a) whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a
detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the area variance;
(b) whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the
applicant to pursue, other than an area variance;
(c) whether the requested area variance is substantial;
(d) whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district; and
(e) whether the alleged difficulty was self-created, which consideration shall be relevant to the
decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals, but shall not necessarily preclude the granting of the
area variance.
(f) The Zoning Board of Appeals, in the granting of area variances, shall grant the minimum
variance that it shall deem necessary and adequate and at the same time preserve and protect
the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community.
Chairman Baden noted that as this law shows, one of the first things they will ask is if you can do it another way. Certainly include in the case to the ZBA that these were actually separate parcels at one time and how long they were separate and how long they’ve been together.
If the applicant wanted to get on the ZBA agenda, she needed to contact the ZBA Office by the 14th of January to get on the January 21st agenda.
Ms. Wiedenbaum questioned again that if both neighbors said ‘no’ to selling her the additional 25’ of right of way then her only alternative would be a variance?
Chairman Baden noted that the shared driveway situation will only service 3 properties. If they don’t have 50’ of frontage on a public road, they need 50’ of right of way to that road.
Mrs. Christiana also reminded the applicant that if the Deans were going to purchase the property, they could consider a Lot Line Improvement.
PB 2016-01 LLI New Application
Lot Improvement – Lot Line Adjustment
Shirley Mathews-Audrey Abrahamsen/Nelson DeGondea
Proposes conveyance of +/- 4.35 acres from Matthews to Abrahamsen and DeGondea involving two contiguous parcels. The lot improvement will remove the lot frontage on a public roadway for Matthews, requiring a shared driveway for access. 762 Queens Hwy. S/B/L #68.1-2-6.113 and #68.1-2-6.112, ‘R-2’ zoning district
Mr. DeGondea was present on behalf of his application. He noted that he is decreasing Lot 2 by 4 acres and leaving the main house with Matthews as is on lot 3. The problem when he came in for a pre-app was the need for the RMA between the two parties because of the shared driveway.
Mr. Ricks noted that the right of way for lot 3 goes through lot 2.
Mr. DeGondea noted that he is hoping to gain an Ag exemption on lot 2, but he needs a certain amount of acreage. He also noted that the driveway is inaccurate on lot 3. The shed and driveway is shown over the property line and that is not the case.
Chairman Baden noted that they would just ask for that correction on an updated map.
Chairman Baden motioned to approve the Lot Line Improvement with the conditions that the RMA is approved by the attorney for the Town and that the location for the driveway is corrected on lot 3. Mr. Dawson seconded the motion. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden: Yes Tapper: Absent
O’Donnell: Absent Lindstrom: Absent
Ricks: Yes Dawson: Yes
Paddock: Yes Williams: Yes
Motion carried. 5 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, 0 abstentions, (including alternate)
Zoning Permit PreApplication
Site Plan
LH Equine Properties LLC
5888 Route 44/55, S/B/L #76.3-2-35.11, ‘AR-3’ zoning district
Owners, Julie Harris and Olga Leszynski were present along with their representative, Karen Reynolds.
Chairman Baden noted that the Town Board changed the zoning on this parcel from R-2 to AR-3 because commercial stables were not allowed in an R-2 District. This process took place over the summer.
Ms. Harris noted that they want to build an indoor riding ring to teach kids lessons. The existing apartments are proposed to be converted into 4 guest rooms and 4 office spaces.
Chairman Baden questioned the width of the driveway.
Mrs. Reynolds noted that the driveway was 10-12’ in width.
Chairman Baden questioned if this was wide enough?
Ms. Harris stated that they take horse trailers in and out of there fine. It is actually a shared driveway with the smaller property owned by Leszynski. The larger parcel is owned by the two of them.
Chairman Baden noted that it may need to be improved based on the increased usage. He questioned if there would be shows or just lessons?
Ms. Harris noted that there would be individual lessons and clinics.
Chairman Baden noted that if the public is coming to watch shows or events, sprinklers would be needed in the building.
Mrs. Reynolds noted that if there are less than 100 people, then they are not needed and that is their intention.
Mr. Dawson thought that the driveway may need to be widened.
Chairman Baden agreed and noted that it will need to be checked with the CEO for Fire Code Access.
Mr. Ricks noted that if the current rentals are part of the facility, they should be reviewed all at once.
Chairman Baden agreed and noted that the use of the apartments needed to be clarified. He further noted that there appears to be adequate room for parking. It will need a 30’ clearance around the perimeter as required by the Fire Code. They should also clarify whether or not this is in a County Ag District. They should also show any areas that will be fenced in and he also questioned the plan for manure storage.
Ms. Harris noted that since this is 30 acres, she was planning on composting.
Mrs. Reynolds brought elevations of the proposed barn and noted that it would be 16’ at the peak. It would be post and beam and steel on the sides.
Chairman Baden noted that they also needed to show where staff would be parking and any signage that they would have on the property. They would also need signage around the barn saying ‘No Parking’ as they needed to keep that 30’ perimeter clear for emergency vehicles. He also requested a copy of the deed to clarify the shared driveway.
Mrs. Reynolds noted that the parking for 2-3 cars would be graveled. They’d like to cover as little of the ground as possible.
Chairman Baden noted that they would prefer the applicant to use gravel as anything more permanent might trigger stormwater. As this property is on NYS Route 44/55, it will need to be referred to the Ulster County Planning Board. It will also need to be referred to the Ulster County Health Dept since there will be water and toilets for the public in the barn. The applicant also needs to contact NYS DOT as this access is off of a State road, so it will also be referred from the Board for comments. A condition of the Board’s approval will be for the applicant to obtain any other needed approvals.
Mrs. Reynolds noted that they will indicate anything that is required on the plan.
Mr. Ricks noted that they will need to show existing and approved lighting and sidewalks as well. There was lots of labeling to be done on this plan.
Chairman Baden agreed and noted that they would also need to see all signage details and need the specifications on the lighting and specifications on the sidewalks as well. The parking area needs to be labeled and the dimensions labeled as well. Anything that is or will be on the ground needs to be shown. He questioned if the applicants knew if there were any wetlands on the area?
Ms. Harris indicated that there were no wetlands, but there were wet areas.
Mr. Paddock questioned if there were going to be events, and if so how many per year?
Mrs. Reynolds noted that there would be about 2. There would be a maximum of 100 people with about 2 people per car. At most she anticipated 50 cars.
Chairman Baden noted that they should indicate any over flow parking area on the plan as well. He’d also like to check with the CEO on the number of people where sprinklers are not required. He also believes that there is a restriction on hay storage in the barn.
Mrs. Reynolds noted that there would be no hay storage in the barn.
Chairman Baden noted that any written comments from any agencies that Mrs. Reynolds has contact with should be submitted to the Board to put on file.
PB 2015-03 SBD AMEND DECISION
Minor Subdivision
Gordon Brown (owner)/Chris and Heather Brown (applicant)
Proposes subdivision of a parcel resulting in 2 lots with a shared driveway of +/- 5.03 acres and remaining lands of +/- 351 acres, 136 Sundale Rd., S/B/L #60.4-1-2.112, ‘R-5’ and ‘FD Overlay’ zoning districts
Located within Ulster County Ag District #3, Located within the 100 year flood plain.
Chairman Baden noted that after Mr. Eggers, surveyor, received Mr. Brown’s decision, he contacted the PB Office to question condition #3:
“The section of the shared driveway surface located within the FEMA flood hazard zone shall be certified as being located above the flood hazard zone elevation. Should such requirement not be the existing case, construction to raise any portions not in compliance shall occur prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the proposed structure indicated to be located on Lot 1 and such certification made to the building inspector.”
Mr. Eggers noted that to certify the elevation it starts at $1,000, and if the bridge needs to be raised, it can be hundreds of thousands of dollars. His argument was that the applicant has stated in the 80+ years he has lived there, it’s never flooded.
Chairman Baden noted that before he gets the building permit for the new lot, they will need to get a building permit and the CEO will need to address the access and flood hazard at that time anyway.
Mr. Dawson didn’t think it will be an issue.
Mr. Ricks motioned to amend page 2, #15 of the Findings as follows:
“15.The existing driveway crosses the Rochester Creek. The shared driveway is noted as located within the FEMA flood hazard zone and compliance with the Code of the Town of Rochester Chapter 81, Flood Damage Prevention, surface construction above the elevation of the flood hazard zone will be required. The applicant’s surveyor reports a base flood elevation for the FEMA flood hazard zone has not been established. The Board notes the applicant has occupied the property for 80 years and flooding has not been an issue. [amended 1/11/2016]
Seconded by Mr. Paddock. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden: Yes Tapper: Absent
O’Donnell: Absent Lindstrom: Absent
Ricks: Yes Dawson: Yes
Paddock: Yes Williams: Yes
Motion carried. 5 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, 0 abstentions, (including alternate)
Mr. Ricks motioned to remove Page 4, condition 3 of the Resolution as follows:
2. The section of the shared driveway surface located within the FEMA flood hazard zone shall be certified as being located above the flood hazard zone elevation. Should such requirement not be the existing case, construction to raise any portions not in compliance shall occur prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the proposed structure indicated to be located on Lot 1 and such certification made to the building inspector.[amended and removed 1/11/2016]
Mr. Dawson seconded the motion. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden: Yes Tapper: Absent
O’Donnell: Absent Lindstrom: Absent
Ricks: Yes Dawson: Yes
Paddock: Yes Williams: Yes
Motion carried. 5 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, 0 abstentions, (including alternate)
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 9:30PM.
Respectfully Submitted,
Rebecca Paddock Stange, Secretary