PLANNING BOARD
TOWN OF ROCHESTER
ULSTER COUNTY
ACCORD, NEW YORK
(845) 626-2434
torpbzba@hvc.rr.com
MINUTES OF March 14, 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 Adam Paddock, Vice Chair John Dawson Maren Lindstrom
Shane Ricks
Patrick Williams
Lawrence DeWitt
Also present:
Mary Lou Christiana, Attorney for the Town. Rebecca Paddock Stange, Secretary.
ANNOUNCEMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
Chairman Baden noted that Rick Jones was appointed as the new alternate member of the PB. He was unable to attend this evening as he had a death in the family. He was on a Planning Board in Monroe before moving here. He is also on the ECC.
TRAININGS:
Chairman Baden handed out the monthly training list that he compiles monthly.
The big one that is coming up is the Zoning for Solar at UCCC on 4/22.
APRIL MEETING:
Chairman Baden noted that he was unable to attend the April Meeting, he would leave it up to the Board as to if they wanted to reschedule or have Mr. Paddock Chair the meeting.
The Board agreed to have Mr. Paddock Chair the meeting.
COMMUNICATIONS RECEIVED:
Chairman Baden noted that the Board was copied on a letter from the RELC regarding Crested Hen and their conservation easement and that was in the files.
ACTION ON MINUTES
Mr. Dawson motioned to accept the February Minutes. Seconded by Mr. Williams. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden: Yes Dewitt: Yes
Lindstrom: Absent Ricks: Yes
Paddock: Absent Williams: Yes
Dawson: Yes
Motion carried. 5 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, 0 abstentions
PB 2015-05 SBD Continued Application, Public Hearing
Minor Subdivision
Renata McElroy 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
Ms. Perlman and Mr. Harden were present on behalf of the application.
Chairman Baden noted that this was 2 lots off of Samsonville Road and they were splitting off the area where the existing residence is and leaving the remainder. He thought they were in pretty good shape and didn’t have any other questions.
At this time the Board reviwed Part 2 of the Short EAF. All questions were answered as ‘No or Small Impact May Occur’. Chairman Baden noted that because of this Part 3 did not need to be prepared.
Mr. Ricks motioned for a Negative Declaration under SEQRA. Seconded by Mr. Dawson. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden: Yes Dewitt: Yes
Lindstrom: Absent Ricks: Yes
Paddock: Absent Williams: Yes
Dawson: Yes
Motion carried. 5 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, 0 abstentions
At this time the Chairman opened the Hearing to the Public.
Chairman Baden noted that the applicants were splitting off +/-2.003 acres and leaving +/-40.496 acres remaining. The 2 acres will have the existing house on it and the 40 acres would be left vacant.
A member of the public requested to know what the current zoning was in that area?
Chairman Baden answered that it was R-2.
Mr. Gray was recognized to speak in the audience and noted that the property was on a bad corner of Samsonville Road. There was a problem with site visibility and it was a bad spot for accidents. He didn’t have any problems with this, but thought there would be accidents there.
Chairman Baden noted that if they were going to build on the vacant land, it would need to be reviewed by the County DPW. Site distance would be addressed during that review.
Mr. Williams motioned to close the Public Hearing. Seconded by Mr. Dawson. Chairman Baden noted that there was public concern for access to the larger parcel.
Mr. Ricks questioned if they should have the county review it now?
The Board looked at Parcel Viewer mapping and noted that the frontage was 309’ and there was a slight curve.
Chairman Baden felt that making the applicant aware that they needed County Approval for the access was adequate. They were making the applicant aware that if they were going to apply for a building permit in the future, it might be an issue down the road in regards to access.
Mr. Dewitt asked if the PB’s actions now didn’t have to anticipate any further construction?
Chairman Baden noted that the Board was creating a building lot, but they were saying that it had 50’ of frontage which was the requirement. Depending on what their use was there were different levels of access, for a residence, there is one level… if they were to do something commercial there was another level of access…
Mrs. Christiana, Attroney for the Town agreed and noted that if they were the County would come out and do site distance studies.
Chairman Baden agreed and noted that the County might say that they couldn’t put a residence there because they didn’t have appropriate site distance. Or they might say that the applicants need to take some curve out of the road, or cut down trees or mitigate it. They aren’t guaranteeing that something can be done with the lot, they were guaranteeing that the lot met Town Code.
Mr. Harden understood that there may be certain remedies for their potential problem, but none of which were guaranteed to be granted.
Chairman Baden noted that they did not ask the DPW’s advisement on this because the lot that was being created with the residence has an existing access that has already be granted by them. Potentially the applicant could always do a shared driveway over that access as a potential.
Vote to close Public Hearing:
Baden: Yes Dewitt: Yes
Lindstrom: Absent Ricks: Yes
Paddock: Absent Williams: Yes
Dawson: Yes
Motion carried. 5 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, 0 abstentions
At this time the Board reviewed the Draft Findings of the Draft Decision and adopted the following:
Findings of the Planning Board
1. The Planning Board received zoning referral for a Minor Subdivision from the Code Enforcement Officer. Required documentation, as detailed in this decision, was provided for review and the application was considered complete.
2. The applicant has granted representation power to Geoffrey Harden.
3. The application proposes subdivision of a +/-42.499 acre parcel resulting in 2 lots of +/-2.003 acres and +/-40.496 acres.
4. The parcel to be subdivided is known as S/B/L 60.3-3-48.5.
5. The current use of the parcel is residential with improvements of a single-family dwelling, garage, gravel driveway, wood walkways, landscaping, and private well and septic. There is a large area of vacant land with agricultural use.
6. The subdivision proposes to separate the dwelling and improvements onto its own lot. No new improvements are proposed.
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 1.1 and 1.2, as proposed, meet or exceed the bulk standards requirements for the ‘R-2’ zoning district.
9. The parcel is located on Samsonville Rd., an Ulster County controlled public roadway.
• Review of the plat indicates the proposed lots exceed the required minimum road frontage.
10. The subdivision was not referred to the Ulster County Dept. of Public Works for review as no changes in highway access or use category are proposed at this time.
• Based on the subdivision review, the Board concludes future public road access may be attained. A member of the public expressed concerns as to the site distance capability of the approximately 300’ section of Samsonville Road where Lot 1.2 has road frontage. The Planning Board has made the applicant aware of the concerns and notes future highway access for Lot 1.2 shall require application to that Department prior to any construction.
11. The Board reviewed if the proposed lots could support private individual water and septic.
• The Board concludes future private individual well and septic can be achieved on the lots. Lot 1.1 has existing approval and Lot 1.2 could support due to the size and geographic characteristics of the land.
12. The Board questioned the narrow “sliver of land” of approximately 21 feet width located next to the residential structure lot to be retained as part of the larger lot. The applicant responded this was necessary to allow for access with her tractor from a neighboring parcel, also owned by the applicant. The applicant further states, this area is relatively flat and cleared and has an existing path over land controlled by Sunnyside Cemetery. Access is not possible where the large lot and contiguous lot meet due to steepness and wet land.
• The Board concludes that, although the narrow strip of land does not add value or usable land to proposed lot 1.2, it serves a unique necessity to the current landowner and therefore has no concerns with the approval of the metes and bounds of the subdivision.
13. The application qualifies for referral to the Ulster County Planning Board, however is exempt from review due to meeting the requirements of the exception agreement signed by both Boards.
Draft findings were prepared by the Chairman and were read, discussed, and amended by the Planning Board.
Adopted March 14, 2016 by the following vote:
Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Absent: 2
Motion to adopt findings by: Mr. Dawson
Second by: Mr. Williams
At this time the Board reviewed the Draft Resolution of the Draft Decision and adopted the following:
RESOLVED,
The Town of Rochester Planning Board grants Minor Subdivision-Conditional Final Approval to Renata McElroy Perlman permitting the subdivision of lands situate at 856 Samsonville Rd, known as S/B/L 60.3-3-48.5 and located in the ‘R-2’ zoning district, into 2 lots with the following conditions. The subdivision plan, as dated January 21, 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 with these amendments.
a. The title block shall state Final Plan and revision date.
b. The statement “This property may border a farm, as defined in Chapter 75 of the Town of Rochester Code. Residents should be aware that farmers have the right to undertake farm practices which may generate dust, odor, smoke, noise and vibrations and which may involve insecticides, herbicides, pesticides, etc.” shall be added to the plat.
c. The statement “Future public road access for Lot 1.2 shall require a Highway Access permit from the Ulster County Dept. of Public Works” shall be added to the plat.
d. A chart shall be added stating the ‘R-2’ zoning district minimum development standards from the Town of Rochester zoning code “Schedule of Use”.
2. Any and all fees due to the Town of Rochester involving this application shall be paid in full prior to the Chairman’s signature on the Final Plat.
3. All required Local, County, State, or Federal permits shall be secured for the current 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 March 14, 2016, by the following vote:
Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Absent: 2
Motion made by: Mr. Dawson
Second by: Mr. DeWitt
PB 2015-06 SBD Continued Application
Minor Subdivision
Richard Newman
Proposes subdivision of a parcel resulting in 2 lots with nonconforming shared driveway of +/- 4.503 acres and +/- 48.00 acres, 181 Rock Hill Rd., S/B/L #77.2-3-52, ‘R-2’ zoning district
Marlene Wiedenbaum was present on behalf of the application.
Chairman Baden noted that this was an application which is applying for a subdivision in an R-2 Zone. He noted that there was a minor mistake with the acreage calculations on the maps that was an easy fix. He further noted that this lot does not have the 50’ of road frontage and the existing access is 25.5’ and has been used as access for both lots for a considerable amount of time. The 4.5 acres used to be a separate 5 acre piece and was combined along the way with the larger piece. They now want to re-split those out and make the pre-existing 5 acre lot a little smaller to give themselves a buffer between the existing homes on the larger lot and the smaller lot. The applicant also submitted a letter from Engineer, Rex Sanford, stating that the 4.5 acre lot will be able to support well and septic. Chairman Baden noted that the larger lot has existing septic and water and those locations need to be shown on the plan to confirm that they are located on the larger parcel.
Mr. Ricks noted that there was a letter submitted from Mary Davis who is a bounding owner, but he thinks her drainage problems that she talks about in the letter come from the lot next door to her that stripped the property clean. He asked the applicant if she has changed anything on her property that might have diverted water runoff onto her neighbor’s property?
Ms. Wiedenbaum answered that there has not been any recent construction.
Mr. Ricks stated that he tried his best to make sense of the letter that the Board received and it sounds more like a situation that was created by another neighbor.
Ms. Wiedenbaum agreed with Mr. Ricks and thinks the water issues were created by another neighbor. She noted that she intends to do a conservation easement on the 48 acres so that the rest of it cannot be developed.
Mr. Williams questioned if the access to lot 1 and 2 included the Dean property?
Ms. Wiedenbaum answered no, her two lots (1 & 2) will continued to be used just as they had in the past. Dean did not share their access.
Chairman Baden noted that Lot 2 will have an easement over that land and will have a Road Maintenance Agreement (RMA) in place before the plans get signed and they will be filed with the County.
At this time the Board reviewed Part 2 of the Short EAF. All questions were answered as ‘No or Small Impact May Occur’. Chairman Baden noted that because of this Part 3 did not need to be prepared.
Mr. Dawson motioned for a Negative Declaration under SEQRA. Seconded by Mr. Ricks. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden: Yes Dewitt: Yes
Lindstrom: Absent Ricks: Yes
Paddock: Absent Williams: Yes
Dawson: Yes
Motion carried. 5 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, 0 abstentions
At this time the Chairman opened the Public hearing.
A representative from the Murtha Family Trust was recognized to speak. She noted that this was a non conforming shared driveway that was 16’ wide paved. She didn’t believe this was adequate for emergency vehicles. She has a driveway near there and she is very concerned. She herself opened up a wood lot and even though it was just a wood lot she had to have a 50’ driveway per the Highway Dept’s stipulations. She noted that the Wiedenbaum’s property has not been used for 2 lots in 25 years. If she had to create a 50’ driveway, everyone else needed to also. It’s the law of the land.
Chairman Baden agreed that the law states the need for 50’ of road frontage, but there are allowances for a waiver to be allowed to be granted by the PB. The applicant presented her case to the Board and requested the waiver and based on the fact that it was 2 separate lots at one time. The were a number of trailers on that lot and they are still there, but the trailers on the property are currently unhabitable. There is no guarantee just because they are allowing this shared driveway that the building inspector will issue a building permit for the smaller lot due to the access. The Board considered that lot based to the fact that it did exist prior and that it was in existence for a long time as two lots, was combined somewhere along the lines as 1 lot and now they are wishing to re-separate it.
The Murtha Family Trust representative noted that it was combined about 50 years ago. They were requesting that it was not granted because of the safety of their homes. It was two lots at one time, but that was before fire trucks became the size that they were and when ambulances were station wagons. It was a full 25’ back then and now it’s only like 16’.
Mr. Dean was recognized to speak. He borders the driveway that they were talking about. He was at 173 Rock Hill Road. He questioned if the Board had a survey for his lot? Could they see the two driveways?
Chairman Baden noted that Mr. Dean’s lot was shown on this map, but it just shows the borders. The Dean’s driveway and house was not shown.
Mr. Dean noted that his house was 50’ away from their driveway.
Mr. Dean’s son was also concerned with the preserve? What kind of people would be coming in and out of there?
Chariman Baden noted that it wasn’t a preserve. What she mentioned tonight, which has no bearing on the subdivision, was that they were putting a conservation easement on it which means it can’t be built on. It was a private easement, and it sounds like they are putting it on the 48 acres. It has no bearing on the subdivision.
Mr. Dean’s son was concerned with hikers trampling on it.
Chairman Baden noted that it wouldn’t be open to the public, it was a conservation easement in that the land would be put in a trust and would be protected and remains as it is.
Mr. Dean noted that he had 250’ on their driveway. Was that shown there?
Chairman Baden noted that it was.
Mr. Ricks noted that there was a note on the map.
Mike Wassell was next to speak. He was also not aware of the conservation easement. Can the easement be written into a permanent covenant that is attached to that larger lot so that actually happens and can’t be undone?
Chariman Baden noted that in reviewing the subdivision, the Board cannot mandate that easement. If they are choosing to do it on their own, it was the applicant’s choice.
Ms. Wiedenbaum noted that was exactly what is was for. They wanted to put the property into a conservation easement so that when she was gone, no one could ever develop it. Anyone along Clove Road, if they bought any of those lots, then they have the 50’ access and can develop them.
Mr. Wassell thanked her noting that was his biggest fear.
Mr. Dawson motioned to close the Public Hearing. Seconded by Mr. Dewitt.
Discussion:
Mr. Ricks questioned where the Murtha Family Trust was? The Board reviewed this on the map.
Chairman Baden read the Public Comment Letter into the record submitted by Mary Davis. Her concerns were stormwater run off and clear cutting of the land. As Mr. Ricks stated it doesn’t appear that there will be any run off from this property in question, it appears that she is affected by another nearby property.
Ms. Wiedenbaum noted that the smaller lot that they are cutting off, it is already cleared for a house. Just to put their fears aside of cutting down any additional trees.
Chairman Baden agreed and noted that they could see that on the parcel viewer maps.
Chairman Baden also noted that there was a phone call received from another neighbor who wanted it known that he had no concerns.
Vote to close Public Hearing:
Baden: Yes Dewitt: Yes
Lindstrom: Absent Ricks: Yes
Paddock: Absent Williams: Yes
Dawson: Yes
Motion carried. 5 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, 0 abstentions
Chairman Baden questioned if the Board was ready to move forward on this?
Mr. Dawson didn’t see a reason to postpone it.
Mr. Ricks noted that he didn’t drive up this driveway, but when he drove along the lower road he checked out the lots.
Chairman Baden noted that he also did a driveby, but he didn’t drive down the driveway as it was private property. It meets the Town’s driveway standards. It does not meet the 50’ of right of way which is required, but the width of the actual driveway itself does meet the Town’s driveway standards.
Mr. Ricks noted that most of the time if someone has a 50’ right of way, they build the same size driveway anyway. They don’t make it 50’ wide. There are no plans of any further subdivision?
Chairman Baden noted that with a shared driveway they are only allowed 2 lots and this cannot be further subdivided by the nature of the shared driveway, unless they came up with 50’ of access some other way.
Ms. Wiedenbaum noted that was why they wanted the conservation easement.
Mr. Ricks questioned what the status was of the old trailers?
Chairman Baden noted tht they were still there, but prior to anyone building on the smaller lot they would need to be removed as they were uninhabitable. His opinion was that they were ready to move forward with the decision.
Mr. Ricks was aware that a lot of the neighbors was concerned with the conservation easement. Being that this has been brought out at the Public Hearing, is this something that the Board is going to require a copy of?
Mr. Ricks didn’t want to have that it was broght out to the public and once the applicant gets their approval then it doesn’t happen.
Mrs. Christiana stated that the Board couldn’t require it.
Mr. Dawson noted that they would have to file it with the County if they go through with it.
Mr. Ricks just wanted to make sure that everyone understood this.
Mr. Dewitt asked how controlled the actual width for emergency vehicles?
Chairman Baden answerd that it was the NYS FIRE CODE.
Mrs. Christiana noted that if they were to get approval they would have to get an RMA which would say that they would have to keep the access clear for fire and emergency vehicle access at all times and in all weather conditions and would be the applicant’s responsibility.
Mr. Williams questioned if the bounding owners were unhappy with the situation, how did the requirements to keep the access cleared work?
Mrs. Christianan noted that was also addressed in the RMA and that gets recorded in the County Clerk’s Office and gives the Town an easement for emergency vehicles and gives the applicants the responsibility of keeping that access clear at all times so that emergency vehicles can get to the property.
Chairman Baden noted that in any bounding property situationa, if a tree branch grows on to a neighbors property, and it has to be cleared for access, the neighbor has the right to do that.
Ms. Wiedenbaum noted that she has the house at the very end of that driveway. She wants to make sure that the fire trucks can get there too.
Chairman Baden noted that because they are doing a shared driveway, the RMA is required. If this driveway was remaining a driveway for one residence and not in front of the Board for the subdivision process, it would be up to the applicant to maintain it. Because they want to subdivide and the Board is essentially guaranteeing that the new lot has access and in order to do that they require them to file an RMA and it can be upheld in a court of law. If they don’t maintain it they are in violation and can be taken to court over it.
Mr. Dean wanted to know if he was required to do that as well?
Chairman Baden noted that his access was from Rock Hill Road—so he had no requirements and no responsibility. The applicant owns that parcel of land that the driveway is over.
Mr. Ricks noted that he has a right of 250’ over it though.
Mrs. Christiana noted that it was not carried over into the deed.
Mr. Dean noted that it was and they are researching that now.
Chairman Baden noted that the applcian’t s deed says its not and they own the land.
Mrs. Christiana noted that they would have a RMA where the applicant takes full responsibility.
Mr. Dean disagreed.
Mrs. Christiana noted that the right of way will be the full responsibility of the right of way whether Dean has a right of way over it or not. Whether it was carried over or not is up to them- it’s a private matter.
The Board decided to go ahead with the decision tonight.
At this time the Board reviewed the Draft Findings of the Draft Decision and adopted the following:
Findings of the Planning Board
14. 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.
15. The applicant has granted representation power to his wife Marlene Wiedenbaum.
16. The application proposes subdivision of a +/-52.503 acre parcel resulting in 2 lots of +/-4.503 acres and +/-48.00 acres.
17. The parcel to be subdivided is known as S/B/L 77.2-3-52.
18. The current use of the parcel is residential with improvements of a single-family dwelling, garage, barn, gravel driveway, several stone walls, and private well and septic. There is a large area of vacant land.
19. Proposed lot 2 has improvements of 2 trailers, 2 sheds, and garage. The trailers are uninhabitable.
20. The subdivision proposes to separate the dwelling and improvements onto its own lot. No new improvements are proposed at this time.
21. The application was determined to meet the requirements of an Unlisted SEQRA action.
• A Negative Declaration was determined upon review.
22. The parcel is located in the ‘R-2’ zoning district.
• The Board concludes Lots 1 and 2, as proposed, do not meet or exceed the bulk standards requirements for the ‘R-2’ zoning district.
• Lot 1 has insufficient road frontage on a public roadway and Lot 2 has no road frontage on a public roadway. A shared driveway is proposed.
• All other standards are met with the proposal.
• A road maintenance agreement will be required for the shared driveway.
23. The parcel is located on Rock Hill Rd., a Town of Rochester controlled public roadway.
• Review of the plat indicates the proposed lots are serviced by an existing driveway which does not meet the minimum requirements for public road frontage.
• The applicant submitted request for waiver from the required 50’ right-of-way for a shared driveway as per §125-22(J)(1) of the subdivision code.
• The Board unanimously granted the waiver from the requirement of a 50’ right-of-way for a shared driveway based on the following information.
o *The property in question has a long history as two separate parcels, one that is 45 acres and another that is 5.64 acres with a shared access to Rock Hill Road.
o *Research from aerial tax maps show that up to at least 2004, the separate 5.64 acres serviced three cottages and two (presently uninhabitable) trailers with the only access to the main road, Rock Hill, was via the already established shared driveway.
o *The driveway, described in schedule A of the Newman deed, runs east to west beginning at the 45 acre parcel, along the westerly side of the 5.64 parcel to the main road. It is approximately 25 feet wide from the existing stone walls on either side. It is paved from the main road to the open paved area leading to an enclosed garage on the 45 acre parcel. The paving is approximately 13′ wide, with at least 3′ clearance on each side for emergency vehicles.
*The lot described as the 5.64 acre parcel is the same area identified as Lot 2, as described in the application. Lot 2 will be 4.503 acres as the applicant desired to include a land buffer between the residence on Lot 1 and the parcel boundary.
• The subdivision was not referred to the Town of Rochester Highway Superintendent for review as no changes in highway access or use category are proposed at this time.
24. The Board reviewed if the proposed lots could support private individual water and septic.
• Lot 1 has existing well and septic.
• Lot 2 was reviewed by a licensed engineer who provided expert opinion after conducting testing and soil analysis “there is adequate soil depth, slope, and area to support a house, well, sewage system, and 100% reserve area that could be approved by the Ulster County Health Department.”
• The Board accepts this report and opinion.
25. The applicant stated at public hearing the intention to investigate the establishment of a conservation easement for Lot 1. This is a private decision to be decided entirely by the applicant. The Planning Board makes note of the intention, but has no authority to require such action or to consider such action in deciding to approve or disapprove the subdivision.
Draft findings were prepared by the Chairman and were read, discussed, and amended by the Planning Board.
Adopted March 14, 2016 by the following vote:
Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Absent: 2
Motion to adopt findings by: Mr. Dawson
Second by: Mr. Williams
At this time the Board reviewed the Draft Resolution of the Draft Decision and adopted the following:
RESOLVED,
The Town of Rochester Planning Board grants Minor Subdivision-Conditional Final Approval to Richard Newman permitting the subdivision of lands situate at 181 Rock Hill Rd., known as S/B/L 68.4-4-23.110 and located in the ‘R-2’ zoning district, into 2 lots with the following conditions. The subdivision plan, as dated December 14, 2015, is approved subject to amendment as described below.
The Town of Rochester Planning Board further grants Minor Subdivision-Final Approval permitting the subdivision of lands upon the satisfactory completion of conditions of approval 1, 2, and 3. 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:
4. Applicant shall present a Final Plat for signature with these amendments.
a. The title block shall state Final Plan and revision date.
b. Lot 1 size shall be corrected to reflect +/-48 acres (shown as 45 acres).
c. Lot 1 well and septic approximate location to be illustrated and labelled on the plat.
5. A Road Maintenance Agreement shall be presented and approved by the Attorney for the Town. The applicant shall be responsible for any and all fees associated with the approval.
6. 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. This shall include the fees for the review of the Road Maintenance agreement and Final Plat by the Attorney for the Town.
7. All required Local, County, State, or Federal permits shall be secured for the current and/or future use of these lands.
8. The shared driveway
a. shall be maintained in compliance with Town of Rochester subdivision regulations and be of sufficient width, grade and location to accommodate access by all emergency vehicles and services to the lands which are the subject of the subdivision application.
b. shall comply with all of the provisions of §277 of NYS Town Law as presently existing or as amended in the future and shall be maintained in a good and passable condition under all weather conditions to provide access to all emergency vehicles.
EFFECT of APPROVAL:
4. This Conditional Final Approval shall expire 180 days from this approval date unless conditions 1, 2, and 3 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.
5. The owner shall file in the office of the Ulster County Clerk such approved plat bearing the Chairman’s signature and the approved Road Maintenance Agreement within 62 days from the date of signature or such approval shall be deemed to expire without further notice in accordance with NYS Town Law §276.
6. The owner shall have the responsibility to return three (3) Ulster County Clerk certified copies of the filed plat, the road maintenance agreement, and any other related filings to the T/ Rochester Planning Board within 30 days of such filing.
Draft resolution was prepared by the Chairman and was read, discussed, and amended by the Planning Board in public meeting.
Adopted March 14, 2016, by the following vote:
Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Absent: 2
Motion made by: Mr. Ricks
Second by: Mr. Dawson
2016-01 SPA Continued Application, Public Hearing
Site Plan
Arrowood Farms LLC (applicant) and Let Lee (owner)
Proposes expansion of an existing use of a +/-10.4 acre parcel Agricultural Tourism Enterprises with brewery and tasting room and seasonal harvest festivals.
236 Lower Whitfield Rd., S/B/L #68.4-4-23.110, ‘AR-3’ and ‘AP Overlay’ zoning districts
Located in Ulster County Ag District #3
Blake Arrowood was present on behalf of the application.
Chairman Baden noted that this property was located on Whitfield Road across from Westwind Orchard. The applicants are proposing to convert an existing brewery into a tasting room. They already have an area for parking. The application was previously typed as unlisted and in his research he found out that it does qualify for a Type 2 Action under SEQRA.
Chairman Baden motioned to amend the SEQRA Typing to a Type 2. Seconded by Mr. Dewitt. No discussion.
Baden: Yes Dewitt: Yes
Lindstrom: Absent Ricks: Yes
Paddock: Absent Williams: Yes
Dawson: Yes
Motion carried. 5 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, 0 abstentions
Mr. Ricks noted that he knows a lot of breweries have music and events in addition to the tasting room. He felt that this was something that the Planning Board needed to know more about.
Mr. Arrowood noted that it would be open on Thursday from 6pm-9pm, Friday from 4pm-9pm, Saturday from 12pm-9pm and Sunday from 12pm -6pm.
Mr. Ricks noted that if they were open till 9pm at night would there be a bar where people could go and get a drink?
Mr. Arrowood noted yes, when they were open they could buy pints and growlers.
Mr. Ricks questioned if there would be tables where people could sit?
Mr. Arrowood answered yes.
Mr. Ricks questioned if there would be music at the events?
Mr. Arrowood noted that there was none planned.
Mr. Ricks questioned if this would be considered a Brew Pub?
Mr. Arrowood noted that in 2012 NYS Farm Brewing Legislation was amended to allow tasting rooms to sell beer by the pint. It is still defined as a tasting room.
Mr. Ricks questioned if they were going to serve food?
Mr. Arrowood noted that they were going through the Dept. of Health to get approved to serve finger foods.
Chairman Baden noted that if it became more of a café the Code Enforcement Officer would re-review the use and address it.
That was why Mr. Ricks wanted clarification because he thought you could only serve samples.
Mr. Williams questioned the Health Dept. requirements.
Chairman Baden noted that the Ulster County Planning Board said they would need the UCHD to review the septic for the use being applied for and also the water to support the proposed use as well.
Chairman Baden questioned how much water they were anticipating to use.
Mr. Arrowood answered between 300 and 500 gallons a day.
Chairman Baden noted that he would like the applicant to submit a copy of the Health Dept. report and would require to have any existing approvals to be reviewed.
Mr. Arrowood noted that he submitted his septic plan to the Board when he came to the office for the first time. They set it up to meet all the necessary standards that they were applying for.
Mr. Ricks questioned if they had a floor plan?
Chairman Baden noted that the Code Enforcement Officer would have that. The Planning Board only reviews the outside.
Mr. Ricks thought that they looked at floor plans in the past to see layouts—where the Men’s and ladies rooms were. Was the parking based on the number of tables and seating that they had?
Chairman Baden noted that they base the parking off of the square footage.
Mr. Ricks was all for it, but he just felt like the Board was lacking a lot of info on how the business would be run.
Chairman Baden noted that the County commented on the type of lighting they would use.
Mr. Arrowood noted that it would be all downcast lighting.
Chairman Baden noted that they would need to see the locations of all lighting and the detail sheets on those.
They were also concerned with the access details lacking.
Chairman Baden noted that he sent a memo to the Code Enforcement Officer who enforces the Fire Code and he replied that the existing access is adequate and meets Fire Code. So, the only issue from the County PB that is left open is the lighting.
Mr. Ricks noted that the County PB also asked about Special Events.
Chairman Baden noted that the Harvest Celebrations, as described, were for staff and volunteers. They weren’t charging or renting it out for parties or weddings. It would not become a commercial event facility.
Mr. Arrowood noted that they had no plans for weddings.
Mr. Dawson requested that they add the width of the driveway to the plans.
Mr. Arrowood noted that they wood. The driveway was 20’ wide.
Chairman Baden also noted that they needed to show signage for the handicapped space as well.
At this time Chairman Baden opened the Hearing to the Public.
Mr. Dewitt questioned how far the well and septic needed to be from each other.
Chairman Baden noted that they needed to be 100’ from each other.
Recognized to speak was Annmarie Maloney who noted that she was a neighbor and had no issues but was concerned with what the Harvest Festivals were about. She was concerned with the roadway being blocked off by people parking on the road. She was worried that they would be parking on the property in between her parcel and the parcel of the tasting room.
Mr. Arrowood noted that that’s for Alphalpha and grain. There would be no parking in that field.
Ms. Maloney asked about more details about the festivals. How many people? Music?
Mr. Arrowood noted that they would be open to the public.
Ms. Maloney questioned what they would do with the overflow of cars?
Mr. Arrowood noted that they had the old quarry lot the field adjacent to the 10 acre lot. Nothing would be going over by her house. To the East of the brewery.
Chairman Baden asked them to indicate an area on the plans for overflow parking to show where it will be.
How many people did they anticipate at the events?
Mr. Arrowood had no idea.
Chairman Baden noted that the Town didn’t have a noise ordinance, but they did have a section for commercial and industrial uses. Even though it is Ag in nature, it is considered commercial as well. There is a section on noise that they would need to follow. If they were going to have live music, they basically would have to keep that indoors. There would certainly be limitations to the amount. There is a difference between a full band and an individual acoustic guitar player.
Mr. Arrowood noted that all events that are planned now are tied to agriculture, hops harvest—where people could come and help with harvesting the hops and have a beer. It wouldn’t be like Woodstock.
Ms. Maloney has noted that she has done security for festivals before so her other concerns are how many porta potties they would have and where would they be?
Mr. Arrowood noted that everything would be in that 10 acre area. The property that abuts hers—that whole 10 acres is reserved for agricultural purposes.
Ms. Maloney asked if there would be camping on that 10 acres in between their parcels?
Mr. Arrowood answered no.
Ms. Maloney noted that her main concerns were sanitation and parking.
Chairman Baden noted that if they anticipated that they would exceed 1,500 for an event, they were required by the Town Law to get what’s known as a Mass Gathering permit from the Town Board. If you ever think you are going to approach that number you should apply for it.
Mr. Ricks noted that even if they were going to approach 1,000 people, this was something that the Board needed to look at.
Mrs. Christiana noted that this was really important. She understood that this was new and they didn’t really know, but “I don’t know” could be 50-100 people or 1,000.
Chairman Baden questioned how many events would happen in a year?
Mr. Arroowood noted that the hop harvest and grain harvest’s happen once a year each. Hop harvest happens in late July early August and the grain would be in late spring, early summer. They would be putting in other crops too probably. They also raise lamb and pigs. They were certainly not talking about 1,000 people, they were talking about maybe at the most 200-300 people.
Chiarman Baden noted if they were talking about that many people, they needed to see an area designated for parking, and porta potties. When they were showing the area, they would have to show their largest estimate for number of cars.
Mr. Ricks felt that they would also need to show tent locations because he doubted with that many people they would fit everyone in the tasting room.
Mr. Arrowood noted that this is new territory for them.
Chairman Baden noted that if they were looking for an approval for just the brewery and the tasting room then they might want to separate out the festival part and not include it all together.
Mr. Arrowood noted that from his understanding there is a special events permit. If they were doing something like that they would apply for that, but right now they are just seeking approval for the brewery and tasting room. He also noted that in his application, he didn’t believe he ever said ‘festivals’. He put in celebrations and to him that meant neighbors and friends and volunteers coming to help harvest.
Chairman Baden noted that the application did say seasonal harvest celebrations.
Mr. Arrowood noted that festivals did sound larger.
Chairman Baden noted that it stated, ‘hold agricultural events, hop harvest party, lamb roast and seasonal harvest celebrations.
Mrs. Christiana noted that it really depended on how big these ‘celebrations’ were.
Chairman Baden agreed. He’s seen lamb roasts be thousands of people and he’s seen them be 20 people.
Mr. Arrowood noted that they would be about 2 lambs, so they couldn’t get very far on that.
Mr. Dawson noted that he’s been to Gill’s Farm who had harvest festivals and they were just people dropping by and leaving, dropping by and leaving.
Chairman Baden noted that would be similar to what Kelder’s and Saunderskill have.
Mr. Dawson agreed and noted that they weren’t huge.
Ms. Maloney was concerned if would turn into a big musical thing.
Mr. Arrowood noted that they had no anticipation for music at all. Their focus is the brewery and the tasting room.
Site Plan improvements:
Porta Potty locations
Lighting
Parking
Road width
Possible tent locations
Define a number of somewhere
Chairman Baden asked if they could come back with a written description of celebrations and numbers.
Mr. Arrowood asked what the precedent was for the other farms mentioned?
Chairman Baden noted that it was really based off of parking.
Mr. Ricks noted that he’s never seen more than 200 peple.
Chairman Baden noted that he realized that people were going to come and go. People wouldn’t stay all day long.
Mr. Arrowood noted that festivals were a whole different ball game.
Chairman Baden asked for the changes and a written description for the next meeting.
Next to speak with Fabio Chizzola who was supportive. They were hard workers and very honest people. He was sure the ‘festival’ word that came out was just a way to promote what they were doing.
Mr. Dawson motioned to hold the public hearing open till April. Seconded by Mr. Ricks. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden: Yes Dewitt: Yes
Lindstrom: Absent Ricks: Yes
Paddock: Absent Williams: Yes
Dawson: Yes
Motion carried. 5 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, 0 abstentions
Mr. Arrowood noted that they had a date to open on April 30th.
Chiarman Baden noted that there was enough outstanding on the map where they needed the applicant to come back and address those. If they come back with those answers, he wouldn’t anticipate it would be held open again. As long as everything is done and addressed they could give a decision that night. This is not a guarantee, but if they solve those questions, he wouldn’t see it being an issue.
Mr. Dewitt asked what the mechanics were afterward?
Chariman Baden noted that once an approval was done it was just a matter of the site plan being signed. It’s a little simpler than having to file a subdivision map with the county.
The board discussed the Health Dept. approval again and Mr. Medenbach was in the audience and noted that the septic was built last year and it was designed for this use. They submitted that plan to the Planning Board.
The Board viewed these plans and noted that it says it was designed for 24 people.
Mr. Medenbach noted that he has done other tasting rooms and 24 guests is what they ask you to use. It doesn’t include food service. They are applying for that now.
Mr. Arrowood noted that they are only applying for finger foods- cheese, bread, pickles.
2016-02 SPA Continued Application, Public Hearing
Site Plan
LH Equine Properties LLC aka Crystal Creek Equestrian Center
Proposes a change of use and new construction of a +/-30,78 acre parcel for Commercial Stables with new construction of a 9800 sq ft indoor riding arena with attached barns. Proposed use to include riding lessons, clinics and student presentations. Existing 6 apartments to be converted to 1 office, 1 classroom, and 4 apartments to be rented to guests/students. Co-owner and instructor live onsite in existing residences.
5883 Route 44/55, S/B/L #76.3-2-35.11, ‘AR-3’ zoning district
Present on behalf of the application was Karen Reynolds, Architect and applicant, Julie Harris.
Chairman Baden noted that the Board heard back from the DOT and informed the Board that the applicant has made changes based on their comments.
Mrs. Reynolds noted that the DOT wanted them to come out differently for visability, so they will do that. They are not requiring curbing.
Chairman Baden noted that the driveway is 20’ wide and they will extend it to 20’ wide where it narrows and continue it all the way to the barn. The horse trailer parking is 10’ deep and parked parallel to the roads?
Mrs. Reynolds answered yes. There will only be a couple of horse trailer parking.
Chairman Baden noted that the only issue he saw was to clarify the use of the apartments with the Code Enforcement Officer. It’s a permitted use provided fire inspections are done. The proposed uses of the apartments would not require additional review. The UCPB noted that the DOT needs to be consulted (The DOT have no problems), they will work with the UCHD for their new septic and the existing will be adjusted. They had stormwater comments as well. The area around the building and driveway is about an acre already.
Mr. Williams questioned if removal of trees was included in that number?
Mrs. Reynolds noted that they didn’t calculate that as part of the disturbance.
Chairman Baden noted that they needed to see detailed calculations on that. They would need to include the road widening, barn footprint, parking, septic, any trees taken out… He noted that when they were that close to an acre, the DEC would want to see a SWPPP. He further noted that the lighting spec sheets that were submitted weren’t full cut off fixtures. The UCPB requires theym to be fully shielded, hylide or LED.
Mrs. Reynolds noted that the lights would only turn on in an emergency. The apartments would be motion sensored lighting.
Mr. Ricks counted up the disturbances that they showed and noted that they were over 1 acre. That’s a DEC rule that anything over 1 acre of disturbance would require a SWPPP.
Chairman Baden agreed and noted that stormwater really needed to be addressed. Stormwater and lighting were the two main things that were left. DOT and UCHD were being addressed.
At this time Chairman Baden opened the Hearing to the public.
Mr. Ricks noted that the stormwater would probably be very easy and only during construction. There would most likely not be any need for ponds or anything.
Mr. Spano was recognized to speak. He lives nearby and had no objections, but he was concerned with the classrooms. Was this going to turn into a riding academy? He just didn’t want to see traffic jam up on 44/55.
A woman from the public asked if the horse stalls were included in the 9,800sf barn?
Chairman Baden answered yes.
Another woman in the public questioned how mahy horses would be boarded?
Ms. Harris noted 16 stalls.
The member of the public questioned if there would be presentations or shows?
Ms. Harris noted that it was educational and for instruction. There would be no shows. There would be group instructions, 20 people at most.
The member of the public questioned how the manure would be affecting the air?
Chairman Baden noted that there is an area behind the barn and it will be open and composted. He didn’t believe it would be an issue.
There was a concern from the public about dust from the shows.
Ms. Harris noted that there were no plans for open horse shows and the dust is controlled, because she doesn’t want to breath that either.
Chairman Baden noted that the applicant is working with DOT to come up with a better entrance, and in that they are negotiating to acquire another parcel that could help them out with making it better.
Mrs. Reynolds noted that one option was to buy the property. Another was to get a maintenance agreement with the owner for site distances. They were working on achieving one of those options.
Ms. Harris noted that they were speaking with the owner about this now.
Chairman Baden noted that it may change the review.
Ms. Harris noted that they wouldn’t change the location, it would just increase the sight distance.
Mr. Dewitt was concerned with trailers making the right hand turn with the cars traveling on 44/55 going towards New Paltz really fast.
Mrs. Reynolds agreed and noted that they met with DOT and were working on making this safe and meeting the 620’ requirement down hill. That’s also why they want the driveway to meet 44/55 at a perpendicular angle. The DOT says that warning signs for driveways don’t really work.
Chairman Baden noted that if they could acquire the property or if they could remove trees or brush to make the sight distance better that would be great.
A member of the public was supportive with the business and hoped it brought people to the area.
Mr. Dawson motioned to keep the Hearing open until April. Seconded by Mr. Williams. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden: Yes Dewitt: Yes
Lindstrom: Absent Ricks: Yes
Paddock: Absent Williams: Yes
Dawson: Yes
Motion carried. 5 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, 0 abstentions
2005-12 SBD Amend Conditional Preliminary Approval Phase 2 and 3
2014-01 SBD
Major Subdivision
Catskill Farms, Inc aka Mountain Laurel Estates
Proposes amending of decision 2014-01 SBD granting Conditional Preliminary Approval for Phase 2 and 3 of a +/-90.44 acres subdivision of land into 15 lots. Applicant proposes amending decision to shorten the access road and reconfigure the parcel into 8 lots of varying size ranging from 5.0 acres to 19.50 acres.
private road Dawson Lane (off Samsonville Rd.), S/B/L #60.1-2-2.15 and 60.1-2-3, ‘R-2’ zoning district
Mr. Dawson recused himself at 9:30pm.
Applicant, Chuck Petersheim was present along with Mr. Medenbach, engineer.
Chairman Baden noted that the revised maps were greatly approved. He still has an issue with the shared driveway for lots 8 and 9 and it bisects lots 7 and 10. That’s 4 lots included and the code allows for 2-3lots. He suggested making one of the lots a flag lot and don’t involve 7 or 10, or putting the driveway on only lot 7 or 10. There was no sense to include more lots in that.
Mr. Petersheim’s intent was this.
Mr. Medenbach noted that it could be an easement, but a flag lot would keep the title cleaner. He could also put a right of way over lot 7.
Mr. Petersheim noted that they would investigate the flag lot and look at all options. The way the lots are layed out now has a lot to do with slopes. They will be marking corners and where the want to put the homes.
Chairman Baden noted that they would take this to Public Hearing and also have to re-notify the UCPB. The will need to submit the revisions prior to then. He also questioned the water quality basin on lot 7.
Mr. Medenbach noted that this was previously designed, but the stormwater would need to be updated to reflect the changes to the layout.
Mr. Petersheim noted that he will probably have the home owner of lot 7 take ownership of the basin. There is a filed RMA up to lot 7. It would reduce the need for collaboration.
Mr. Ricks questioned the RMA and how it was put together to share responsibility? They all sign the agreement, but how does everything get done?
Mrs. Christiana noted that it depended on how it was designed.
Mr. Petersheim noted that his HOA is set up so that it is filed with the State. It details exactly when the meeting is, how they elect an administrator, how the funds are kept. The administrative body is already on file and set up. Then it is just a matter of the homeowners taking over once the sponsor fazes out.
Mr. Ricks knows that sometimes people don’t step up and take the responsibility over.
Chairman Baden noted that as far as septic is concerned at this point, they would accept certification from Mr. Medenbach on each lot. Septic is more for Final Approval.
Mr. Ricks motioned for a public hearing contingnent on receiving the revised plans by April 2nd. Seconded by Mr. Williams. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden: Yes Dewitt: Yes
Lindstrom: Absent Ricks: Yes
Paddock: Absent Williams: Yes
Dawson: Yes
Motion carried. 5 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, 0 abstentions
Chairman Baden motioned to send the application to the UCPB upon receipt of the revised plans. Seconded by Mr. Dewitt. No discussion.
Baden: Yes Dewitt: Yes
Lindstrom: Absent Ricks: Yes
Paddock: Absent Williams: Yes
Dawson: Yes
Motion carried. 5 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, 0 abstentions
Preapplication Conference
Special Use
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 zoning district
Mr. Dawson came back to the Board.
Chairman Baden noted that the applicant was unable to attend this meeting and would be here for the April meeting.
The Board agreed that the Chairman could also schedule a meeting with the applicant prior to the April Meeting as well.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Williams motioned to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Mr. Dewitt. No discussion. All Members present, in favor.
As there was no further business, Chairman Baden adjourned the meeting at 9:50PM.
Respectfully Submitted,
Rebecca Paddock Stange, Secretary