PLANNING BOARD
TOWN OF ROCHESTER
ULSTER COUNTY
ACCORD, NEW YORK
(845) 626-2434
torpbzba@hvc.rr.com
MINUTES OF July 14, 2014 the Town of Rochester PLANNING BOARD, held at the TOWN HALL, 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
Adam Paddock Robert Rominger
John Dawson Melvyn I. Tapper
Shane Ricks
Also present:
Cindy Fornino, Alternate member, (arrived 7:10), Rebecca Paddock Stange, Secretary, Mary Lou Christiana, Attorney for the Town
TRAININGS
Various trainings – 5 hours credit
July 29, 2014 Association of Towns/New York Planning Federation
9:15 AM – 3:45 PM Garden Plaza Hotel, Kingston $80 (advance registration required)
Chairman Baden and Mr. Paddock will be attending.
MINUTES
The June Minutes were tabled until the August meeting.
APPLICATION REVIEW
PB 2014-04 SBD Continued Application, SEQRA review, Public Hearing
Minor Subdivision
Wilfred and David Neff
Proposes subdivision of land resulting in 3 lots. The lot is located in Ulster County Agricultural District #3.
12 Pompey’s Cave Road, S/B/L #69.4-2-7.111, ‘AR-3’, ‘AP Overlay’ and ‘FD Overlay’ zoning districts
Mr. Eggers and Mr. Wilfred Neff were present on behalf of the application.
Chairman Baden noted that at the last meeting he let the Board know that it came up in research that there was another parcel across the road on Lucas Ave that was shown on the County records as being included in the main parcel that was being applied to be subdivided. There is also a house on that property.
Mr. Neff answered that his brother David, lives there.
Chairman Baden noted that what he just found out this afternoon is that parcel, to the best of the County’s research, is a part of the larger parcel. They weren’t showing the house on their records. What happened is that there is another parcel another couple of hundred yards down the road, lot #8, and according to County records as being owned by David Neff. The house is incorrectly listed as being associated with that lot. In truth it is a vacant lot. This has been that way since 1969. There are a couple of ways to remedy it. Since the Neffs are in the process of subdivision already, the lot that is across the street on Lucas, they could make it another lot in the subdivision, so instead of a 3 lot subdivision, it would be an application for a 4 lot subdivision. It would still be a minor subdivision, with an increase in the fee and the application could be amended. They would have to verify that the lot would be at least 3 acres. The County thinks it is about 3.6 acres.
Mr. Eggers asked if there was a deed for that lot?
Mr. Neff noted that he’s been paying taxes on it.
Chairman Baden noted that the taxes he was paying was on the other lot. As far as they could tell, the piece with the house is still listed with the larger parcel, so they don’t have a separate deed.
Mr. Ricks noted that years ago they used to do this without PB approval.
Chairman Baden noted that the County went back to the 70’s to check and parcel #8 has existed since then.
Chairman Baden questioned the attorney for the Town, Mrs. Christiana, if in light of this information, if they could open the public hearing? They would have to keep it open anyway because the State Historic Preservation hasn’t responded yet regarding the Historic District nearby and they have to wait the 30 days for their response.
Mrs. Christiana noted that they could open it and hold it open and make any changes that need to be made in the meantime. She questioned if the applicant wanted to open it or hold it off to next month? She suggested to open it as it had already been advertised.
The applicant decided to open it.
At this time the Board reviewed Part 2 of the Long EAF as follows as because this bordered an historic district that this application was typed as a Type 1 Action:
#3 Impacts on Surface Water
The proposed action may affect one or more wetlands or other surface water bodies (e.g., streams, rivers, ponds or lakes). The Board answered, Yes, with the following example: Other impacts: The Rondout Creek is a property boundary and Kripplebush Creek flows through the property. The Board checked this off as No, or
Small impact may occur.
#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.
Example ‘a’. The proposed action may require new water supply wells, or create additional demand
on supplies from existing water supply wells. The Board checked this off as No, or
Small impact may occur.
Example ‘c’. The proposed action may allow or result in residential uses in areas without water and
sewer services. The Board checked this off as No, or Small impact may occur.
#5. Impact on Flooding
The proposed action may result in development on lands subject to flooding.
Example ‘b’. The proposed action may result in development within a 100 year floodplain.
The Board checked this off as No, or Small impact may occur.
#8 Impact on Agricultural Resources
The proposed action may impact agricultural resources.
Example ‘b’. The proposed action may sever, cross or otherwise limit access to agricultural land
(includes cropland, hayfields, pasture, vineyard, orchard, etc).
The Board checked this off as No, or Small impact may occur.
Example ‘d’ . The proposed action may irreversibly convert agricultural land to non-agricultural
uses, either more than 2.5 acres if located in an Agricultural District, or more than 10
acres if not within an Agricultural District. The Board checked this off as No, or Small impact may occur.
Example ‘f’. The proposed action may result, directly or indirectly, in increased development
potential or pressure on farmland. The Board checked this off as No, or Small impact may occur.
#10 Impact on Historic and Archeological Resources
The proposed action may occur in or adjacent to a historic or archaeological resource.
Example ‘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. The Board checked this off as No, or Small impact may occur.
Mr. Dawson motioned for a Negative Declaration under SEQRA. Seconded by Mr. Paddock. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden: Yes Tapper: Absent
O’Donnell: Absent Rominger: Absent
Ricks: Yes Dawson: Yes
Paddock: Yes
Motion carried. 4 ayes, 0 nays, 3 absent, 0 abstentions
At 7:30PM Chairman Baden opened the Public Hearing. There was no public comment.
Mr. Ricks motioned to keep the hearing open until the August regular PB meeting. Seconded by Mr. Dawson. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden: Yes Tapper: Absent
O’Donnell: Absent Rominger: Absent
Ricks: Yes Dawson: Yes
Paddock: Yes
Chairman Baden noted that the applicant should get with the Secretary to amend the application and they could potentially have a decision ready for August.
PB 2014-04 LLI Continued Application
Lot Improvement
SunSpirit Properties, LLC and Dwight Trimm
Proposes conveyance of +/- 1 acre of land involving 2 contiguous lots resulting in lots of +/- 222.08 acres and +/- 9.08 acres. One lot is located in and one lot is located contiguous to Ulster County Agricultural District #3.
181 Cherrytown Road and 189 Cherrytown Road, S/B/L #67-2-44 (also includes lands known as S/B/L #75.2-1-6 in the Town of Wawarsing) and S/B/L #67.2-43.111, ‘AR-3’ zoning district
Mr. Eggers was present on behalf of the application.
Chairman Baden noted that at the last meeting they discussed the 4 buildings on Mr. Trimm’s property. Buildings #2 & #4 have been condemned by the Code Enforcement Officer. Building #3 is being used as a two family home and the CEO says there is no approval for that. It’s only approved as a single family. Building #1 is considered a one family dwelling, so Mr. Trimm has the equivalent of 3 dwellings on the property and the applicant would need 9 acres and that is why the applicant is asking for a 1 acre lot adjustment. This was part of why it was held off last month. The Board wanted to speak with Mrs. Christiana to get the correct language and the letter of condemnation from the CEO. Chairman Baden’s suggestion is to notate some language description next to the two condemned buildings and put a map note and let the attorney for the Town come up with the appropriate language to cover the Town in terms of the density because the PB couldn’t approve the Lot Improvement because it would go against the density and they would need a variance.
Mr. Eggers noted that they could just leave it the way it is and tell him he could only have 2 dwellings. What is here now is already approved.
Chairman Baden agreed and noted that it was approved as drawn last year, but the issue of the two buildings did not pop up until after the fact. Mr. Trimm is trying to resolve it for his future use.
Mr. Eggers noted that Mr. Trimm didn’t realize that the issue with the 3 acre zoning until after it was approved previously and then it was already a done deal and he found out that he has 3 dwelling units and needed to keep 9 acres, so they agreed to convey 1 acre back to him so he could have that. That map was filed with the County. There are also old dilapidated mobile homes, but he didn’t indicate them on the plan because they are so bad that they are laying on their sides, so he didn’t consider them enough to show them on the map.
Chairman Baden noted that the Board could certify this with a condition to get the note that they want on the map from the attorney.
Mr. Dawson motioned to certify the Lot Line Improvement with the condition of the Attorney for the Town’s Language to the effect of: “Buildings #2 & #4 have been condemned by the Town of Rochester Building Dept and for the purposes of this Lot Line Improvement shall not be occupied as dwelling units.” Mr. Paddock seconded the motion. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden: Yes Tapper: Absent
O’Donnell: Absent Rominger: Absent
Ricks: Yes Dawson: Yes
Paddock: Yes
Motion carried. 4 ayes, 0 nays, 3 absent, 0 abstentions
PB 2014-05 LLI New Application Presentation
Lot Improvement
Hilton Purvis and Theodore Klein
Proposes conveyance of +/- 1.06 acres of land involving 2 contiguous lots resulting in lots of +/- 2.01 acres and +/- 4.12 acres. Private road 120 Raycliff Drive and private road 21 Hemlock Road
S/B/L # 77.3-3-35 and S/B/L # 77.3-3-36, ‘R-2’ zoning district
Mr. Eggers was present for this application. He noted that there are two existing lots in the Ray Cliff Subdivision and Mr. Klein owns one and Ms. Purvis owns the other and she has more land than she needs and a lot of it drops off steeply. It is 2 acre zoning and most of it is steep. Mr. Klein’s lot has a house on it that won’t be affected other than adding the 1 acre to his parcel.
Chairman Baden noted that the road was in great shape, and both lots meet the zoning, no flood plain issues or anything else.
Mr. Ricks motioned to certify the Lot Line Improvement. Seconded by Mr. Dawson. No discussion.
No discussion.
Vote:
Baden: Yes Tapper: Absent
O’Donnell: Absent Rominger: Absent
Ricks: Yes Dawson: Yes
Paddock: Yes
Motion carried. 4 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, 0 abstentions
PB 2014-05 SPA New Application Presentation
Site Plan review – Commercial Stables
Flying Change Farm LLC – Diane Schoonmaker and Patrick Williams,
Proposes construction of a 73’ x 140’ indoor riding arena. The lot is located in Ulster County Agricultural District #3. 235 Airport Rd., S/B/L #69.3-1-12.2, ‘AR-3’ zoning district
Michael Moriello, Diane Schoonmaker, Patrick Williams, and Bill Eggers were present on behalf of the application.
Chairman Baden noted that this application was in front of the Board in March of this year and it was withdrawn. It was challenged to the Zoning Board of Appeals and the ZBA found in favor of the Code Enforcement Officer and it is referred back to the Planning Board again as a Site Plan Review.
Mr. Moriello, the attorney for the applicants, noted that the Board knew the history with the ZBA. The applicants were back for Site Plan Approval, they resubmitted the application and Mr. Eggers did a site plan. As he stated in his previous letter from April of this year that this action is classified as a Type II Action under SEQRA, which means that it is precluded from environmental review because of its farm classification. He didn’t think that there were any other involved agencies, with the exception of a referral to the Ulster County PB which is a recommendation from that Board. It’s pretty much the same site plan that was submitted before. Mr. Eggers did take note of the fact that they did have to change the one portion on the ownership. They also have to change the way the parking is with the access.
Chairman Baden noted that there are a number of parking spaces that are shown directly against the structure. Because of NYS Fire Code Laws governing this type of structure, there must be a 30’ wide perimeter fire lane surrounding the building. Because of that it needs to be shown and the parking spaces being shown against the building needed to be relocated. The 30’ was the distance that he received from the CEO. The PB doesn’t enforce Fire Code, but they still needed to apply the laws of fire access to their site plan reviews. It is referred as a commercial stables as was defined by the ZBA and CEO. The building itself has already been issued a building permit and a certificate of occupancy, but because it is going to be used by the public, it is before the Board for site plan review. Interior fire laws aren’t anything that the PB has authority to rule on. The PB can only make sure that fire access is properly applied in the site plan. Beyond that, there have been a number of communications from various people and he wrote some letters to various NY State Agencies in the first go around and then the application was withdrawn before those letters were seen. They did get a reply back from the Dept. of State, Brian Tollisen, in terms of the PB’s request and that letter is in the PB Member’s files. It is dated March 26, 2014. In this letter he addresses the fire code questions and specifically the 30’ open space around the building.
Mr. Ricks questioned if this was the letter where Mr. Tollisen gives 4 different opinions?
Chairman Baden answered yes. The third opinion is where he talks about the 30’ open space that needs to be preserved. The 4th opinion doesn’t apply to the Board. The first opinion is somewhat important where they talk about the Ag building. This type of building does not meet the Dept. of State and Building Code definition of Agricultural Building because it will be used by the public. However, under Ag & Markets Law, it meets the definition of a farm operation. In 2011 the Ag & Markets Law was amended to include Commercial Equine Operations and this use meets that definition because it is located in a County Ag District. Some people were questioning how this was different from the Nichols application that the Board granted a year ago and it is because Nichols was not in a County Ag District. Because this is in an Ag District, it gets greater weight in terms of leniency of definition in terms of agricultural use. Even though it doesn’t meet the building code definition for an Agricultural Building, the use itself meets the definition of farm operation as an agricultural use. Once you work your way through the different steps and realize that they don’t have to equate to each other- they serve different purposes. One is for safety purposes and one is for Agricultural purposes.
Mr. Moriello noted that the wording in the Zoning Law talks about waivers. Customarily topography is shown at 2’ intervals, although it does say unless otherwise specified by the PB. The land disturbance has already been taken place, they would ask for any contour lines or grading plans be waived.
Chairman Baden noted that in letter E. of the Site Plan Requirements of 140-46 is where they were discussing the parking. They can’t allow the parking to be shown next to the structure and since it will need to be referred to the County, he asked that the applicant submit it as quickly to the Secretary so they could get the referral out.
Mr. Eggers questioned what the number of spaces had been determined?
Chairman Baden noted it would be up to the Board’s discretion because it is a use that doesn’t fit the customary standards. He felt that from looking at it, they had enough as long as they relocated the ones against the building. They can certainly be on grass area. As long as the area is enough for the required size of 10’ x 20’ spaces especially dealing with horse trailers. 8 spaces needed to be relocated.
Mr. Ricks noted that they needed estimation as to number of vehicles.
Chairman Baden questioned if the Board was comfortable with the number of spaces being proposed?
The Board was.
The applicants noted that there would be no new signage or exterior lighting.
Mr. Dawson motioned to waive the requirement to show topography. Seconded by Mr. Paddock. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden: Yes Tapper: Absent
O’Donnell: Absent
Ricks: Yes Dawson: Yes
Paddock: Yes
Motion carried. 4 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, 0 abstentions (Rominger – recused)
The applicant noted that there was no disturbance greater than one acre that took place or would.
Mrs. Schoonmaker noted that any shows would be outside.
Chairman Baden noted that if they were putting seating inside the structure than sprinklers would be required. Part of the reasons for the waivers granted to this type of structure is because it has ground floor access at either end.
Chairman Baden noted that he researched this for purposes of SEQRA and found that on the list of Type II Actions under Farm Management Practices, this met the definition of farm operations.
Mrs. Christiana noted that it was her legal opinion that this was a Type II Action under SEQRA.
Mr. Dawson motioned for a Type II Action under SEQRA. Seconded by Mr. Paddock. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden: Yes Tapper: Absent
O’Donnell: Absent
Ricks: Yes Dawson: Yes
Paddock: Yes
Motion carried. 4 ayes, 0 nays, 3 absent, 0 abstentions (Rominger – recused)
Chairman Baden motioned to refer the application to the UCPB once the revised maps have been received due to its location in a County Ag District. Seconded by Mr. Dawson. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden: Yes Tapper: Absent
O’Donnell: Absent
Ricks: Yes Dawson: Yes
Paddock: Yes
Motion carried. 4 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, 0 abstentions (Rominger – recused)
Mr. Ricks motioned to schedule the Public Hearing for the August meeting. Seconded by Mr. Paddock. No disucscion.
Vote:
Baden: Yes Tapper: Absent
O’Donnell: Absent
Ricks: Yes Dawson: Yes
Paddock: Yes
Motion carried. 4 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, 0 abstentions (Rominger – recused)
Chairman Baden noted that Vice Chairman Rominger was not present at this meeting, he just wanted to remind everyone that Mr. Rominger has recused himself from this application.
Chairman Baden noted that the Board should try and secure the fire house to hold the meeting just in case.
Mr. Dawson motioned to schedule the Public Hearing to be held at the Accord Fire Hall if it is available and to circulate notice. Seconded by Mr. Paddock. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden: Yes Tapper: Absent
O’Donnell: Absent
Ricks: Yes Dawson: Yes
Paddock: Yes
Motion carried. 4 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, 0 abstentions (Rominger – recused)
PB 2014-03 LLI Continued application
Lot Improvement
Primax Properties, LLC (applicant) as agent for David and Claudia Waruch and Eric Gilles (owners)
Proposes conveyance of +/- .138 acres of land involving 2 contiguous lots.
Route 209, S/B/L #76.9-2-39 and #76.9-2-40 (also includes lands known as S/B/L #76.13-3-21 in the Town of Wawarsing) ‘H’, ‘AP Overlay’ and ‘FD Overlay’ zoning districts
- PB 2014-04 SUP Continued Application
Special Use
Primax Properties, LLC (applicant) as agent for Eric Gilles (owner)
Proposes development for the construction of a 9,224 square foot Dollar General retail store and associated parking/loading areas Route 209 and 6 Webster Ave., S/B/L #76.9-2-40 (also includes lands known as S/B/L #76.13-3-21 in the Town of Wawarsing), ‘H’, ‘AP Overlay’ and ‘FD Overlay’ zoning districts
Zachary Peters from Mecurio, Norton, & Tarolli was present on behalf of the application.
Chairman Baden noted that the Lot Line and the Special Use Permit will be reviewed simultaneously because if anything changes it may affect either application. They had a lengthy discussion about parking area and access from trucks. He noted that new maps had been submitted and part of that was the turning radius.
Mr. Peters submitted a truck turn around diagram and noted that they don’t want trucks parking on the shoulders either. The whole design is to provide truck deliveries in the site without having any impact on Route 209.
Chairman Baden noted that the applicant has proposed another change to the plan—to make the parking lot out of pervious pavement. It’s porous and not considered as lot coverage.
Mr. Peters noted that the design is to allow run off and water to drain into the soil. It is a pervious pavement. He asked for the Board’s opinion regarding lot coverage and number of spaces.
Chairman Baden noted that the applicant is asking of relief from the required number of parking spaces and they have requested this in writing. He has personally brought up his concerns regarding the truck loading and turn around design which has the tractor trailers backing up in the customer parking area. He appreciates seeing it in a design to show it is physically possible, but he’d like to see an alternative in some other way. He still has issues with it.
Mr. Dawson looked up and down Route 209, and to him, this is a better design than everything else that is already out there.
Chairman Baden noted that the difference is that other places have additional access to compensate for the truck traffic. Stewarts in Kerhonkson has 3 different points of access, so if one gets blocked off by a delivery- there is no back up of traffic because there is an alternative way in and out.
Mr. Peters understood the concerns, but the only other place to have another access is on Webster Avenue and the Town of Wawarsing won’t allow it.
Chairman Baden noted the number of spaces that they propose is 38 and the Code requires 53. They are asking for a 15 parking space modification from what the Code requires.
Mr. Ricks questioned what the Status was in the Town of Wawarsing right now?
Mrs. Christiana noted that at this point, the Board was just reviewing it and eventually they would have a joint Public Hearing. They were pretty much in the same spot.
Mr. Peters noted that there plan now was to address these issues that they are dealing with now and they are working on a fully detailed site plan and would like to try and get into both boards for next month’s meeting.
Mr. Ricks questioned what Wawarsing thought about the Webster Avenue access?
Chairman Baden stated that there was a County Gateway Meeting where he attending with Mrs. Christiana along with the Wawarsing representatives and one of the issues of having the access onto Webster is that Wawarsing’s Zoning Law doesn’t allow because of the site distance and also the school traffic. The original referral from Wawarsing, the building was turned 90 degrees and the access was on Webster.
Mr. Ricks noted that exiting out that way would be no different than the Stewarts, but if that is their rule that is their rule.
Chairman Baden noted that the requirement could be waived with a variance. They may have to go for variances already. The pervious pavement may have alleviated some of those. That came out of that County Planning Session that they held.
Mr. Dawson noted that the nice thing was that because the adjacent lot isn’t developed yet, they could make it a connecting parking area to the nearby lot that isn’t yet developed.
Chairman Baden noted that the Lot Improvement has been made in each individual owner’s names, with Mr. Peters being allowed to represent them. The Special Use Application was only made in Primax’s name. They need the application with the actual owner’s names on it. They need a letter from the Waruch’s that they are allowing this representation from them as well.
Mrs. Christiana noted that application should be amended to add the Waruch’s and get a letter of Authority from them. This was not on the Wawarsing PB meeting for tomorrow’s meeting. Eventually they want to have a joint meeting.
Chairman Baden didn’t think they were at that stage yet. He thought that Mr. Peter’s was trying to get a feel for the parking and as he pointed out they need a landscaping plan-
Mrs. Christiana wasn’t saying a Public Hearing, she was just saying a joint meeting as Rochester seems to have some of the same concerns as Wawarsing as to what they are going to get on the final plan upon which they will have their public hearing. Did they want to discuss the other or have a small meeting with 2 Board Members?
Chairman Baden questioned what they had to do to legally hold a joint meeting with them. Can they meet outside of the Town of Rochester?
Mrs. Christiana noted that yes they could on something that went over the property line. That is one of the exceptions of the rule.
Mr. Ricks wanted to know if they should review the lot line first?
Mrs. Christiana noted that upon review of the Special Use Permit, the lot line may change based on the Special Use Permit review.
Chairman Baden noted that the Waruch’s could convey more land. There is a couple of ways they could handle this. They just received this letter the other day. Dollar General Management says they only need 38 spaces, but it doesn’t mean the Town needs to accept that. 15 spaces is a significant difference in number. It’s a little less than 30%.
Mr. Peters noted that they did have some information on some of the other Dollar General’s in the area and they are all pretty much the same design.
Chairman Baden noted that he drives passed the one in Bethel very often, but he noticed there that there are 2 means of access. If that could be applied to this project in terms of delivery it would work well.
Mr. Peters noted that was their initial idea, but because of the floodplain…
Mr. Ricks didn’t see them filling 52 parking spaces.
Chairman Baden noted that the 8 on the side were proposed to be employee parking. As a truck backs up, those spaces are totally inaccessible as long as those trucks are there.
Mr. Ricks didn’t have a problem with waiving the parking spaces because he didn’t think there would be anywhere near there. People may come and go, but he didn’t think you would see 50 cars there at a time.
Chairman Baden noted that they could make a waiver to accept the number of parking spaces proposed, but not the layout in case they decide to work on the access some more. They could refer this to the Town’s consulting Engineering firm to look at the access and get their opinion on that particular issue?
Mr. Dawson noted that he didn’t think it would go anywhere because of where it is located is pretty limited.
Mr. Ricks noted that the only thing he could see them doing is acquiring a little more land and move the building a little and put the parking down the side.
Chairman Baden was less concerned with the parking and more concerned with the truck access.
Mr. Dawson noted that because this was a corner lot, this was the only spot to have this access.
Chairman Baden noted that the County did bring up the depth of the building in relation with other neighboring buildings. Discussion came up with moving some of the building forward and moving some of the parking to the rear.
Mr. Dawson felt that because of the way Webster drops, it becomes an issue for things entering and leaving Webster.
Chairman Baden didn’t’ know if it would be feasible to move the building forward so there wasn’t double parking in the front and they acquired more land on the side- would there be any way a truck could come in and circle the building? Then they could unload in the back of the building.
Mr. Peters didn’t believe so. You would need a whole lot of space to maneuver the truck around.
Chairman Baden noted that they would then have to acquire a significant amount of land to account for the parking they’d lose in that process.
Mr. Paddock questioned if they could get access off of Webster Ave if they got a variance? He personally wasn’t thrilled with it coming out where the school was, but like the Chairman was saying, this thing was getting shoe horned in there, but if you opened up that it would make a difference.
Mr. Dawson noted that would be great—but there were so many factors into making that happen it didn’t seem feasible.
Mr. Peter’s feelings were that they wouldn’t get a variance on it because they already do have an access.
Chairman Baden noted that there was a representative from DOT at that meeting with the County and they didn’t’ have any issue with the access.
Mr. Paddock questioned if there was any way to open up the entrance for the truck traffic?
Chairman Baden agreed—it looked really tight. It was also showing only trucks coming from the Kerhonkson side, if a truck was coming from the Accord side- it will be a different angle.
Mr. Peters noted that it wouldn’t be a problem.
Chairman Baden felt that they were right at the limit.
Mrs. Christiana agreed, she could envision people going over the curb.
Chairman Baden noted that this was a computer model in a perfect world, but a truck driver a foot or so off one way or the other, you know they are going to be outside of those limits. He thought they needed to give themselves a little more leeway on the property line and the curb line.
Mr. Ricks agreed that the width of the entrance should change.
Mr. Ricks motioned to modify the parking regulations and accept the 38 parking spots proposed by the applicant. Seconded by Mr. Dawson. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden: Yes Tapper: Absent
O’Donnell: Absent Rominger: Absent
Ricks: Yes Dawson: Yes
Paddock: Yes
Motion carried. 4 ayes, 0 nays, 3 absent, 0 abstentions
Mr. Peters submitted architectural drawings of the building. They didn’t have anything yet on the signage.
Chairman Baden felt that they would want to see a monument style sign and not a pole sign. It would be visible. They would need to see all exterior signage as proposed, parking lot landscaping and lighting.
Mr. Peters noted that it would be vinyl siding with block façade, decorative shutters. It would be brown and tan—this was a little more of a spruced up version.
Mr. Ricks thought that the roof looked nice.
Chairman Baden commented that it fit in nice with the community and he appreciated the applicant’s effort on that. He’d like to see an elevation photo simulation if possible based on the fact that they granted such a huge parking waiver. Also—nothing is proposed to be outside?
Mr. Peters noted that they sometimes have items for sale right along the edge of the building out front.
Mr. Ricks noted that if you walk on the sidewalk you can’t enter off of Webster Avenue. You can’t enter anywhere but the access. That maybe something they want to look into.
Chairman Baden questioned if there was any more information on the retaining wall?
Mr. Peters noted that the wall in the front is a 2’ max drop off and goes to 8’ in the back right near Webster Ave.
Chairman Baden directed the applicant to the sign regulations in the Code. It can be internally illuminated by a direct source, although given the yellow color, it should be kept as small as necessary. What size is the sign on the building?
Mr. Peters believed the sign on the building was 16’ x 3’. He will provide details for the next meeting.
Chairman Baden directed the applicant to the sign regulations in the Code again regarding the sign on the building.
Mr. Paddock questioned what the Town of Rochester would be able to review since the building is in the Town of Wawarsing?
Chairman Baden noted that Mrs. Christiana was looking into it.
Mr. Peters noted that the lot frontage in total is 200’. They increased the road frontage in Rochester from 34’ to 70.4’, so they have decreased the non-conformity of it in the Town, but overall the complete frontage meets the standard.
Chairman Baden noted that this would be a variance of 3.4% and under the Code the Planning Board can do that. It seems feasible taking into consideration that the applicant has almost 75’ in the Town of Rochester and 200’ total.
Mr. Peters was just trying to factor in whether or not they needed to go to the TORZBA for any approvals.
Chairman Baden and Mrs. Christiana didn’t see anything that would require a variance from the ZBA at this point.
Chairman Baden noted that they avoided the lot coverage variance by using the permeable pavement.
Mrs. Christiana noted that the Town of Wawarsing is using their engineer to review the application- so whenever they have their joint meeting, they may want to have him there.
Chairman Baden agreed.
OTHER MATTERS:
Chairman Baden noted that the Body of Truth has requested another extension for their Special Use Permit. He noted that they did put the sign up, they completed the entrance and closed the other one. They have made some steps toward completing the conditions.
Mr. Ricks motioned to grant a 1 year extension to the Body of Truth for their Special Use Permit. Seconded by Mr. Dawson. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden: Yes Tapper: Absent
O’Donnell: Absent Rominger: Absent
Ricks: Yes Dawson: Yes
Paddock: Yes
Motion carried. 4 ayes, 0 nays, 3 absent, 0 abstentions
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Paddock motioned to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Mr. Dawson. No discussion. All members present in favor.
Chairman Baden adjourned the meeting at 9:30PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Rebecca Paddock Stange, Secretary
DRAFT