Planning Board Minutes Jul. 2016

PLANNING BOARD
TOWN OF ROCHESTER
ULSTER COUNTY
ACCORD, NEW YORK
(845) 626-2434
torpbzba@hvc.rr.com

MINUTES OF July 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 Shane Ricks
Patrick Williams Maren Lindstrom Adam Paddock, Vice Chair Lawrence DeWitt
John Dawson

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

ANNOUNCEMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
Chairman Baden noted that the Association of Towns was holding their Summer School series in Hyde Park on July 29, 2016 for those interested in attending.

ACTION ON MINUTES
Mr. Dawson motioned to accept the June 13, 2016 Minutes. Seconded by Mr. Williams. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden: Yes Dewitt: Absent
Lindstrom: Absent Ricks: Absent
Paddock: Yes Williams: Yes
Dawson: Yes

Motion carried. 4 ayes, 0 nays, 3 absent, 0 abstentions

2016-04 SBD Continued Application, Public Hearing
Minor Subdivision
Robert and Nancy Bendell
Proposes subdivision of 1 parcel into 2 parcels
681 Granite Rd., S/B/L 84.2-1-5.200, R-2 zoning district

Mr. Zell, from Brinnier and Larios was present on behalf of the application. He presented new maps with the changes discussed at the last meeting.

Chairman Baden noted that there a couple of additions that the Board needed—the bounding owners from across the road and the approximate septic locations as being on the their own parcels. There were no flood plains on this property, there was no requirement for County Planning Board referral, there was no change to the property in regards to highway access—there was no referral’s necessary to anyone.

Mr. Williams questioned if the acreage was good?

Chairman Baden noted that it was. This was in an R-2 Zone. What the applicant is doing is dividing a parcel with two structures and selling off the front structure and parcel and keeping the one in the back. The only other discussion that was had was about the concrete pad as it was closer to the line than the setback. Chairman Baden drove by it and looked and it was just an old concrete pad. It wasn’t a structure or anything, so there was no issue with the setbacks from the property line.

At this time the Board reviewed Part 2 of SEQRA.

All items were answered as “No or Small impact may occur”. Based on the answers to Part 2, Chairman Baden checked the box that the “proposed action will not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts.”

Mr. Dawson motioned for a Negative Declaration under SEQRA. Mr. Paddock seconded the motion. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden: Yes Dewitt: Absent
Lindstrom: Absent Ricks: Absent
Paddock: Yes Williams: Yes
Dawson: Yes

Motion carried. 4 ayes, 0 nays, 3 absent, 0 abstentions

Chairman Baden opened the Public Hearing.

There was no public comment.

Mr. Williams motioned to close the Public Hearing. Seconded by Mr. Paddock. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden: Yes Dewitt: Absent
Lindstrom: Absent Ricks: Absent
Paddock: Yes Williams: Yes
Dawson: Yes

Motion carried. 4 ayes, 0 nays, 3 absent, 0 abstentions
At this time the Board reviewed the Findings of the draft decision 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 Brinier and Larios, PC.
3. The application proposes subdivision of a ±5.833 acre parcel resulting in 2 lots of ±3.827 acres and ±2.006 acres.
4. The parcel to be subdivided is known as S/B/L 84.2-1-5.200.
5. The current use of the parcel is residential with improvements of two single-family dwellings, garage, patio, storage building, block building with concrete pad, additional concrete pad, inground pool, blacktop driveway, gravel drive, and 2 private wells and 2 private septic areas.
6. The subdivision proposes to separate the dwellings and improvements onto 2 lots. Each lot will retain 1 single-family dwelling and associated improvements. No new improvements are proposed at this time.
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 located in the R-2 zoning district.
• The Board concludes Lots A and B, as proposed, meet or exceed the bulk standards requirements for the R-2 zoning district.
9. The Board reviewed if the proposed lots have safe and legal access.
• The parcel is located at the intersection of Granite Rd. and Bridge Rd. Granite Rd. is an Ulster County Dept. of Public Works controlled roadway and Bridge Rd. is a Town of Rochester controlled public roadway.
• Each dwelling has individual legal access to a public roadway and will retain such with the subdivision. The existing accesses will remain as is with no changes.
• 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.
10. The Board reviewed if the proposed lots could support water and septic.
• Lot A and B have existing well and septic and will retain such with the subdivision.

Draft findings were prepared by the Chairman and were read and discussed by the Planning Board.

Adopted July 11, 2016 by the following vote:
Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Absent: 3

Motion to adopt findings by: Mr. Dawson
Second by: Mr. Williams

At this time the Board reviewed the draft resolution as prepared by Chairman Baden as follows:

RESOLVED,
The Town of Rochester Planning Board grants Minor Subdivision-Conditional Final Approval to Robert and Nancy Bendell permitting the subdivision of lands situate at 681 Granite Rd., known as S/B/L 84.2-1-5.200 and located in the ‘R-2’ zoning district, into 2 lots with the following conditions. The subdivision plan, as dated June 17, 2016, is approved subject to amendment as described below.

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

CONDITIONS of APPROVAL:
1. Applicant shall present a Final Plat for signature.
2. Any and all fees due to the Town of Rochester involving this application shall be paid in full prior to the Chairman’s signature on the Final Plat.
3. All required Local, County, State, or Federal permits shall be secured for the current and/or future use of these lands.

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

Draft resolution was prepared by the Chairman and was read and discussed by the Planning Board in public meeting.

Adopted July 11, 2016, by the following vote:
Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Absent: 3

Motion made by: Mr. Dawson
Second by: Mr. Paddock

2016-04 SPA Continued Application, Public Hearing
Site Plan
Dana McClure (applicant) and Karen McClure (owner) aka Ravenwood Farm
Proposes expansion of an existing use for Agricultural Tourism Enterprises within a restored barn. Proposes to utilize barn as a location for weekend farm stand and private, invite-only farm fundraiser dinners to be held monthly. 579 Samsonville Rd., S/B/L 68.1-1-15.112, AR-3 zoning district

Dana McClure was present on behalf of the application along with her mother, Karen McClure.

Ms. McClure noted that she had dropped off revised site plans with the PB Secretary earlier in the month.

Chairman Baden noted that they were received. There were a few changes that they asked to be made at the last meeting, including ADA compliant parking area was doubled in size. The word “gravel” was added to the parking situation. They added a split rail fence in the front. They showed the existing driveway and the amount they were going to extend it and the pathways leading to the ADA parking area and the front entrance. This application was referred to the Accord Fire Department and they did not give any response. It was also referred to the Ulster County Dept. of Health and the Secretary called them as a follow up. They noted that they had received it, but they hadn’t looked at it and if they had concerns they would let the Board know. They never called back. It was also referred to the Ulster County DPW and they issued an email saying that they issued a permit for the driveway improvement work. They required the signage to be moved back 6’ and a tree was removed that they had concerns about.

Ms. McClure submitted a copy of the UCPW permit to the Board.

Chairman Baden noted that it was just a standard permit with standard conditions. The application was also referred to the UCPB and a response of ‘No County Impact’ was received. They were very complimentary of the work done by the application on the application and site plan.

Mr. Paddock noted that they were talking last meeting about the ADA compliant entrance and the material that had to be used—did they ever come to a conclusion on that?

Chairman Baden noted that where it was left was that it was governed by the law, and just like a building permit, the CEO will ensure it will meet standards or he won’t be able to issue the C/O. It will be addressed in that manner. He believed it can be compacted grass, as long as it is that and not mud or dirt.

At this time the Board reviewed Part 2 of the Short EAF Form.

Mr. Dawson motioned for a Negative Declaration under SEQRA. Mr. Williams seconded the motion. No discussion.
Baden: Yes Dewitt: Absent
Lindstrom: Absent Ricks: Absent
Paddock: Yes Williams: Yes
Dawson: Yes

Motion carried. 4 ayes, 0 nays, 3 absent, 0 abstentions

At this time Chairman Baden opened the Public Hearing.

Mr. Palmese was recognized to speak. Mr. Palmese noted that his home residence was 170’ from the barn where they would be holding these dinners and activities. There is an open field in between. He requested that a privacy barrier be set up alongside the property line between the barn and in the back.

Mr. Dawson noted that the map did show that there were trees in between the properties.

Mr. Palmese noted that he lived there, so he knew about the trees, but they weren’t enough.

Chairman Baden noted that being that it was fairly close to the residence and being that there would be events, the Board could ask for a fence or a berme.

Dana McClure noted that they planted 10 trees about 4’ apart each. They did that 2 years ago. As long as they could do the fence next season when they could afford to put it up, they were all for it. They would have to take the trees out and move them forward about 3’ as they were right on the property line. This was something that they could definitely do prior to holding the monthly dinners next May. They may be doing two this October, but she didn’t think there would be any more than that this season.

Karen McClure noted that this was not a good time of year to dig them up. They bought them at 4’. Some of them are 6’, 8’ and one is 10’. They are growing fast. They are Norwegian Evergreens that match other trees on the property.

Chairman Baden noted that they do grow to be fairly tall trees with not a lot of bottom branches, so he can see that as they grow they would create much privacy as the foliage is going to be higher. If they were willing to do that before next season, the Board could write the conditions that way.

Mr. Dawson noted that the other option that people have done for privacy is to plant Hemlock and stagger them on the other side of the trees to fill in.

Several people noted that the deer would eat them.

Karen McClure noted that she had spoken to Mr. Palmese this afternoon about it and Dana McClure came over and she said that she didn’t have a problem putting up the fence, but they would definitely have to move the trees.

Chairman Baden noted that the max height for a side yard fence would be 8’. The Board will put the requirement of the fence in the conditions and if the trees need to be moved, the applicant and neighbor can work out those logistics.

The Board agreed on an 8’ fence being required as the neighbor’s house is higher than the applicant’s barn.

They also have built a wall for fire wood to block the view as well. It’s located right in front of the trees—it’s 32’ long.

Mr. Palmese was amenable to the proposal of the fence to be constructed prior to next year.

Another member of the public was recognized to speak. He noted that the application stated that they would have parties by invitation. Would they be coming by car only? Is there any chance that they’d be coming in by private bus?

Dana McClure noted that there would be a maximum capacity of 30 people for events—that is why they are building the parking lot to that scale. There is a possibility, but the invites are one on one people.

The Member of the public questioned if there would be any type of entertainment.

Dana McClure noted that there would be no live music. There would only be music on their I pod inside the barn.

The member of the public questioned about live stock?

Dana McClure noted that she has a farm on her own property. This is her mom’s property. Dana and her husband have a small farm of their own similar to Kelder’s livestock. They have chickens.

Dana McClure stated that the farm stand would be open on weekends only.

There was no further public comment.

Mr. Dawson made a motion to close the public hearing. Seconded by Mr. Paddock. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden: Yes Dewitt: Absent
Lindstrom: Absent Ricks: Absent
Paddock: Yes Williams: Yes
Dawson: Yes

Motion carried. 4 ayes, 0 nays, 3 absent, 0 abstentions

At this time the Board reviewed the draft findings as prepared by Chairman Baden as follows:
Findings of the Planning Board
1. The Planning Board has received zoning referral for Site Plan Approval for expansion of an “Agricultural Tourism Enterprises” use from the Code Enforcement Officer and an application, EAF, Site Plan, and related documentation from the applicant.
2. The application proposes expansion of use for Agricultural Tourism Enterprises including (1) use of barn for weekend farm stand to sell their own produce, maple syrup, fresh cut flowers and eggs and (2) use of barn for private farm fundraiser dinners hosted one weekend/month.
3. The parcel is located in the ‘AR-3’ zoning district pursuant to the Town of Rochester zoning code.
4. The parcel to be developed is known as S/B/L 68.1-1-15.112.
5. The parcel existing use is for residential use.
6. Existing improvements on the parcel include a single-family residence, garage, barn, tool shed, parking area, driveway, and water and septic.
7. The application was determined to be an Unlisted Action under SEQRA. A Neg Dec was prepared and adopted.
8. The applicant states proposed use of the barn for
• Weekend farm stand set up inside the barn to sell our produce, maple syrup, fresh-cut flowers and free-range eggs.
• Private, invite-only farm fundraiser dinners hosted one weekend / month (Friday + Saturday night) with a max of thirty guests for each dinner. These gatherings would feature each month’s harvest with outdoor grilling held early evening.
o No amplified outdoor music
o All guests leaving the premises by 10pm
o Adequate parking in a lot far from our closest neighboring residence
o Emergency vehicle access
o Adequate and non-Obtrusive lighting
9. Applicant states the use will require the following permits be secured
• (DOH) Department of Health / Temporary Food Service Application
• (A&M) Agriculture & Markets / Article 20-C Food Processing License
• (SLA) NY State Liquor Authority Division / Temporary Beer + Wine Permit, Caterer’s Permit
10. The parcel has road frontage on Samsonville Rd., an Ulster County maintained highway.
• A County of Ulster Department of Public Works Driveway Access Permit is required.
• On May 10 2016, Kim Dufresne (Senior Engineering Aide of the Department of Public Works) came out to the property to review the access.
• He stated the applicant would need to open up the entrance to be 20’ wide and provide better visibility by clearing and trimming the trees to the left and right of the entrance. He further stated the first few feet of the entrance should be made as level as possible.
• The applicant had Central Hudson come out to help remove the tree to the right of the entrance.
11. The applicant provided a depiction of proposed signage. The Planning Board has determined this meets code standards.
12. The applicant provided spec sheets for proposed and existing lighting. The Planning Board has determined these meets code standards and are downward shielded, full cutoff fixtures.
13. The applicant proposes 24 customer parking spaces in a gravel area with lighting and 2 customer ADA compliant parking spaces. The Planning Board has determined the size, width of area between aisles, surface, and lighting meet code standards.
14. The applicant proposes 4 staff parking spaces. The Planning Board has determined this to be adequate for the use.
15. The applicant proposes to utilize portable toilets for the use. The Planning Board determined this to be adequate based on the frequency of use and determined a Health Dept. Permit may be necessary.
16. The applicant proposes no onsite water will be utilized for the use. Water will be brought in. If onsite water is to be utilized a Health Dept. permit may be required.
17. The applicant proposes an ADA entrance to the barn. This will be reviewed by the Building Inspector for meeting code standards upon construction.
18. Applicant agrees to construct an 8 foot high privacy fence to be located between the barn and the lands of Palmese prior to any private dinner use in 2017. Mr. Palmese was amenable to this solution to his dwelling’s proximity to the barn. The applicant and Mr. Palmese will determine the exact location between themselves.
19. The application was required to be referred to the Ulster County Planning Board which returned a comment of “No County Impact”.

Draft findings were prepared by the Chairman and were read, discussed, and amended by the Planning Board.

Adopted July 11, 2016
Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Absent: 3

Motion to adopt findings by Mr. Dawson
Second by Mr. Paddock

At this time the Board reviewed the draft resolution as prepared by the Chairman as follows:

RESOLVED,

The Town of Rochester Planning Board
Grants Site Plan – Conditional Approval to Dana McClure and Karen McClure permitting the expansion of use Agricultural Tourism Enterprises for the operation of a weekend farmstand inside the barn to sell produce, maple syrup, fresh-cut flowers and free-range eggs and private, invite-only farm fundraiser dinners hosted one weekend per month for the lands situate at 579 Samsonville Rd., known as
S/B/L 68.1-1-15.112, and located in the ‘AR-3’ zoning district.

The Site Plan dated June 14, 2016 is approved with the following conditions.

Conditions of Approval for the Operation of a Farmstand with Private Invite-only Farm Dinners:
1. Any and all fees due to the Town of Rochester involving this application shall be paid in full prior to the Chairman’s signature on the Site Plan.
2. Prior to issuance of a certificate of compliance and commencing operation the following specific permits shall be secured. All conditions imposed in the granting of these permits shall be made a part of this Site Plan 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. (DOH) Department of Health / Temporary Food Service Application
b. (A&M) Agriculture & Markets / Article 20-C Food Processing License
c. (SLA) NY State Liquor Authority Division / Temporary Beer + Wine Permit, Caterer’s Permit
d. Any and 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.
e. The Building Department shall determine the maximum occupancy for the facility according to the NYS Uniform Building and Fire Code and such occupancy shall be visibly posted.
f. The driveway shall be constructed and maintained to NYS Fire Code regulation and standards. An Ulster County Dept. of Public Works permit and certification of completion shall be secured and a copy filed with the Planning Board.
g. Parking areas shall be installed as shown on the Site Plan and be made to meet Town of Rochester code.
h. Should the applicant desire onsite water use for the farmstand in the future, Ulster County Dept. of Health permit or approval may be required.
i. Portable toilet use shall be allowed for the use. Such shall be maintained in a clean and sanitary state and shall be made to meet Ulster County Dept. of Health regulations, if determined required.
j. Site Lighting and signage shall be installed and constructed as to type and where indicated on the site plan.
3. Applicant shall construct an 8 foot high privacy fence to be located between the barn and the lands of Palmese prior to any private dinners in 2017.
4. 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.
5. Farm dinners shall be restricted to 30 persons and be restricted to invitation only system.
6. Public vehicular access for the use shall only be by the driveway as designated on the Site Plan. A sign or other mechanism shall be posted at the access entrance located over the lands owned by Palmese to restrict customer or guest access on days of operation.
7. Parking shall only be allowed in the spaces designated on the approved and signed Site Plan. Parking shall not be allowed within the public road right-of-way or within the driveway or designated Site Plan traffic aisles at any time. Two parking spaces shall be made to meet accessible parking code standards and signage shall be posted indicating such parking restriction.
8. There shall be no amplified live music permitted onsite. Sound, including but not limited to, live music, recorded music, public address systems, or any other 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 agricultural use of the property.
9. 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 Site Plan 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.

Adopted July 11, 2016, by the following vote:
Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Absent: 3

Motion made by Mr. Williams
Seconded by Mr. Paddock

2016-03 SUP Continued Application, Public Hearing
Special Use
Acorn School, Motria Shuhan (applicant) and Joe Esposito (owner)
Proposes change of use of an existing structure for a Private Educational Facility grades N-3
2911 Lucas Tpke., S/B/L 77.1-2-42.31, R-2, AP Overlay, and FD Overlay zoning districts, Located in Ulster County Ag District 3

Mrs. Shuhan was present on behalf of her application.

Chairman Baden noted that they had a new Ag Data Statement that was submitted along with new site plans prepared by Medenbach and Eggers. He noted that the site plan was changed considerably and for the better. The driveway will be widened to 20’ and will be circular. They have now been able to increase the number of parking spaces from the 10 previously requested from the Board to 20 spaces. There will be two parking for staff which already exists. They show them as 18’ x 8’ and they need to be 10’ x 20’. They should be fine as there is plenty of room to make it 10’ x 20’. The size of the other parking areas also needed to be noted. Other than the access widening, circular driveway and parking—there were no other changes?

Mrs. Shuhan noted that they needed to extend a culvert from 15’ to 20’ to conform to the extended driveway.

Chairman Baden noted that some of the parking area would be in some of the wetlands area probably. It’s not an issue because they are Federal wetlands and not State wetlands. The area of disturbance is under 8,000sf according to the map.

The Board was satisfied with the site plan.

Mr. Dawson motioned to refer the application to the UCDPW, UCPB, ACOE, and Accord Fire District. Seconded by Mr. Paddock. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden: Yes Dewitt: Absent
Lindstrom: Absent Ricks: Absent
Paddock: Yes Williams: Yes
Dawson: Yes

Motion carried. 4 ayes, 0 nays, 3 absent, 0 abstentions

Chairman Baden noted that they would open the public hearing, but could not close it until they hear back comments from those agencies.

Mr. Williams questioned if it was clarified if it was pre-K through 3rd grade?

Chairman Baden noted that she is only applying for Nursery School through Kindergarten. The initial application said, “N-3” and that was a NY State designation. At this point the applicant is only applying for N-K. The number of students was about 20-25 and not all at the same time. One members noted that there was another event last week where there was parking along Lucas Ave. Hopefully this new parking set up will fix that. He heard that people were parked close to the line. The PB can’t enforce it—it’s a County thing—but really people should not be parking along Lucas. He was glad they were able to expand the parking to this number to accommodate the cars and keep that from happening in the future.

Mr. Paddock loved the layout and was very impressed.

Chairman Baden agreed and felt it would be much safer.

There was no public comment.

Mr. Paddock motioned to hold the Public Hearing open. Seconded by Mr. Dawson. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden: Yes Dewitt: Absent
Lindstrom: Absent Ricks: Absent
Paddock: Yes Williams: Yes
Dawson: Yes

Motion carried. 4 ayes, 0 nays, 3 absent, 0 abstentions

2005-12 SBD Review Final Approval Section 2
2014-01 SBD
Major Subdivision
Catskill Farms, Inc aka Mountain Laurel Estates
Review of Final approval of Section 2 of a +/-90.44 acres subdivision of land encompassing 15 lots. Applicant proposes 8 lots of varying size ranging from 5.66 acres to 22 acres.
private road Dawson Lane (off Samsonville Rd.), S/B/L 60.1-2-2.15 and 60.1-2-3, R-2 zoning district

The Board decided to discuss the map for this application after “Other Matters” as there was no one present on behalf of this application.

Pre-Application Presentation
Valeria Gheorghia, applicant. Brenda Reiss, owner. 19 Tow Path Road, Applicant proposes mixed use of law office, real estate brokerage, coffee shop, yoga, and other community related activities,

Ms. Gheorghia was present on behalf of the application. She noted that she is a lawyer and studied environmental law and also completed an eco-village design course as well as a permaculture design course. She is currently in the process of completing a restorative justice certificate and she also teaches yoga. Her hope is to integrate all of her interests and businesses in one place, so she is creating a new business model called “Procreate Commons”. This property used to be the general store in the area. She would like to help communities who are looking to buy land to come together and live more sustainably. The property itself would serve as both a headquarters and a micro chasm of a potential eco-village as she consults her future clients and show them and walk to the grounds as an example. She is currently in the process of applying for her real estate brokerage license. This property is 1 acre.

Mr. Paddock questioned the parking spaces—they were proposed to pull in and then back up on the road?

Chairman Baden agreed and noted that would need to be addressed as they couldn’t approve an application that proposed that kind of parking set up.

The applicant understood this. She has a farm-stand/craft booth proposed that will be selling the various goods from the different enterprises on the property. Permaculture is about creating sustainable human settlements that create their own foods, medicines, crops—and this is all an effort to help promote buyer regional permaculture plans where they can serve as a hub for different permaculture places in the community. There is a little path by a rain garden. The fence and driveway will be eliminated because they are an eye sore. They will try and extend the patios so there can be outdoor seating in both the front and the back. They will put some more rain gardens in. There is some flooding in the basement, so they hope to mitigate that with a lot of rain gardens and rain barrels around the house. They will also have some solar panels and a little greenhouse attachment to the kitchen area. There will be a collective community space for people to meet and design their enterprises and community space. There are two offices in the back of the building. One would serve as her own law office and then the other would be the real estate brokerage office and she would probably live in the upstairs room. She hopes to have a pizza oven outside. She would like to have some examples of livestock—some sheep, goats, and chickens with a compost in the back that will be fenced off. She also hopes to have a few little naturally built booths and they would be work spaces for workers to make their goods.

Mr. Dawson questioned where the septic and well were?

The applicant noted that the septic would be under the garden and the well is between the trees by the house. There would be some native medicinal plants and other native plants. There will be a tiny house near the forest for someone to dwell in like a steward of the land that would be responsible for the animals. She hopes to dig a pond in the back because of the drainage problems and have some ducks and aquaponics. There will be a yoga platform for outdoor yoga and there will be some apple trees and peach trees. There will be a community garden. Past the community garden there will be a sugar house to make some maple syrup and she would hope to have an outhouse and a shower system using rain water harvesting. This was one acre and would be fairly compact, but interspersed with native habitat. There was a house in foreclosure next door.

Mr. Dawson liked it and everything that she wanted to do, but he thought that the lot size was going to be an issue to have that many buildings and ponds.

The applicant spoke with the Code Enforcement Officer and he said that 90% of the lot could be developed.

Mr. Dawson noted that the septic and other things are considered part of the development.

Chairman Baden noted that the green areas aren’t considered part of the developed areas.

Mr. Dawson noted that they kept to the 35’ setbacks.

Chairman Baden noted that animals are a permitted use in the Hamlet district with site plan review from the Planning Board. Did the CEO classify this as Site Plan or Special Use?

The applicant stated that it was classified as a Special Use.

Mr. Paddock questioned how many people at once would be on the property.

The applicant didn’t have an answer.

Chairman Baden noted that they would have to re-think the parking because they couldn’t allow it to be backing out on to a public road.

The Board suggested talking to the neighbors to get a right of way over the cemetery driveway for people to pull into their property over that.

The applicant would look into this.

Mr. Paddock noted that with all of the stormwater collection—did they need a stormwater plan?

Chairman Baden noted that they didn’t need a formal one because the property is only 1 acre to begin with. Had they spoke to an engineer about any of this?

The applicant was meeting with an engineer later that week.

The Board agreed that this was a great idea and a great re-use of the property. The applicant should look into the easement over the cemetery driveway.

Mr. Paddock did a rough estimate of parking and came up with at the very least having 11 cars on the property at one time.

Chairman Baden noted that they had flexibility in the parking—but the applicant had to present their case in writing so the PB could review it and see if they agreed or not.

Chairman Baden noted that with the one acre, they could have one dwelling. The room upstairs would be considered as part of the mixed use and then the care taker cottage would be considered the dwelling.

The applicant would let the Board know when she was ready to come back with a more formal application.

OTHER MATTERS:

Mr. Dawson recused himself from the discussion.

Mr. Jones, Alternate joined the Board in his place.

The Board reviewed their decision as amended in 2016 along with their requirements for the guarantee of improvements and the conditions. This was the first Major Subdivision that they did a final approval on since they re-did the code.

Chairman Baden noted that they either had to build or bond the public improvements which would either be the roadways and the road is already done up to lot 14. That exists as of current. The rest of this is what was called Phase 2 and 3 and is now being done as one as Section 2. They will either have to build or bond the roads, stormwater improvements… they already have an approved Home Owner’s Association and they are just going to amend the language in it to include the new lots and the Attorney for the Town would be reviewing all of those agreements.

Mrs. Christiana agreed noting that they would just really be updating them so they reflected the current plan as opposed to the old one.

Chairman Baden agreed and noted that originally this was going to be 22 lots and was now going to be 15 lots. They were actually going to jump the numbers from 12 to 20 because 20, 21, and 22 were already approved. That’s just a naming. That is basically between Mrs. Christiana and the Town Board will have to sign off on the bonding, but the Board doesn’t really get involved with it other than making sure that it exists.
The Board reviewed the Code requirements noting that they would need descriptions of the easements for services or utilities. The one common easement that needs to be here is the stormwater area on Lot 7. The Board made them grant an easement over that land to access that stormwater to the home owners association. That has to be resolved. The HOA has to have an easement over so that if the home owner chooses not to maintain it, then the HOA can go and maintain it.

Mrs. Christiana noted that typically the HOA just maintains it and doesn’t worry about the individual home owner.

The Board agreed and would leave that to her review with the applicant.

Chairman Baden understands that they are going to guarantee the road at this time and build the road as they sell the lots. Also, Lots 8 and 9 are going to have a shared driveway for that short section, so there would be an agreement between those owners as well. They are working on the septic and when the Chairman spoke to Mr. Medenbach, the engineer for the project, he said that he hadn’t been able to access the sites yet, but they were clearing enough that he could get into each lot to do soil tests. With these larger lots, they can either give Board of Health approval or they can certify from a licensed engineer that the lots are capable of having water and septic.

Mrs. Christiana questioned if Rec Fees were ever discussed?

Chairman Baden didn’t believe that there were any paid with the original subdivision.

Mrs. Christiana noted that typically if someone is building something of this size that will contribute noticeably to the population and they don’t’ provide for a baseball field, or a club house and a pool, the Town requires Recreation Fees.

Chairman Baden noted that the Board does have the ability to ask for those. It’s basically a fee that goes to the Town to be put in a capital fund in lieu of putting in their own recreation areas. He’s reluctant because they haven’t spoken about it until just now. It is mentioned in the Code, but he would research it more at a later time.

Mr. Jones questioned Lot 5. Did that indicate that it was an existing well? It seemed close to the road.

Chairman Baden noted that Lot 5 and 12 were already approved lots. They were approved as part of Section 1 as 1 lot. In the new subdivision they wanted to split that into 2 lots. The boundary line of the lots was actually between 5, and 6 and 10 and 12. That was the boundary of the property line. So, currently lot 5 and 12 are an approved lot which is probably why that existing well is there. The Board of Health signed off on those wells. The Board could make a condition that the HD would have to sign off on that well’s proximity to the roadway. The house is a proposed house site at this point, but it appears that the well was drilled already.

Mr. Jones just wondered in terms of winter maintenance and if they were going to use salt on the roads…the well was really close.

Chairman Baden noted that he would email the applicant and Mr. Medenbach and ask them to speak to the HD about that well. In terms as what they have to do for the Board’s approval, it is the last 3 pages of the Decision. The Two 20’ right of ways. Mr. Medenbach was going to look into this. There were two right of ways that came in from DeWitt Road and the original decision said that they had to be dissolved. There is also a road labeled as ‘wood road’ and he would question this as well.

The Chairman would write a letter to the applicant with any questions discussed tonight.

Mr. Dawson returned to the Board and Mr. Jones returned to the audience.

Local law referral from Town Board RE: small-scale solar
Chairman Baden put this on the agenda again. The Town Board held the public hearing last Thursday and the comments that the Board wanted were submitted along with the request to have more time in the future to review it. One of the public comments was a presentation of a large and small combined solar effort. What the Town Board did is held the Small Scale open, but they referred that proposal to the ZRC and added Troy Dunn to the ZRC as well and are asking them to review it as well. Chairman Baden and Mr. Fornal were the ones who wrote and presented the combined law. The model for the combined solar law came out after all of the discussion on the small scale. They modelled it after that, but didn’t copy it word for word. They expanded on it slightly based on the conversations on the back of the model law. It’s pretty well done, but the actual model law is pretty bare bones, but in the back of it is about 20 pages of suggestions.

ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Dawson motioned to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Mr. Paddock. No discussion. All Members present, in favor.

As there was no further business, Chairman Baden adjourned the meeting at 9:20 PM.

Respectfully Submitted,

Rebecca Paddock Stange, Secretary