PLANNING BOARD
TOWN OF ROCHESTER
ULSTER COUNTY
ACCORD, NEW YORK

MINUTES OF May 12, 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.

MOMENT OF SILENCE

Chairman Baden asked that everyone remain standing after the pledge to the flag and have a moment of silence for Sgt. Shawn Farrell of Accord who was killed in Afghanistan.

The Secretary did roll call attendance.

PRESENT: ABSENT: Michael Baden, Chairman Shane Ricks

Adam Paddock

Fred O’Donnell

John Dawson

Robert Rominger, Vice Chairman

Melvyn I. Tapper

Also present:

Cindy Fornino, Alternate, Rebecca Paddock Stange, Secretary, Mary Lou Christiana, Attorney for the Town

ANNOUNCEMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS

Chairman Baden noted that there were a couple communications that the members would see in their folders. The PB sent a letter to Mr. Kelder indicating that his Special Use Permit for his flying field had expired and a letter to the CEO regarding questions on the Reiss permit

TRAININGS

(3 day advance registration – limit 100 people per session)

Environmental Assessment Webinar

May 13 NYS DEC

May 15 Online Free

May 22 1 hour

Using Technology in Planning

June 9, 2014 Ulster County Planning Dept.

7:00 PM – 9:30 PM SUNY Ulster College Lounge

Chairman Baden noted that this was about the new parcel viewer online. Unfortunately this was the night of the June PB Meeting. He asked the Board to think about if they would want to change the meeting date for the month of June

ACTION ON MINUTES

Chairman Baden noted that there were some corrections to the April 14, 2014 Minutes that needed to be made. On the first page Mr. O’Donnell is listed as being present, he was actually absent and throughout the rest of the document he is listed as voting on motions. On Page 12 when ‘6409’ needs to have the word, ‘Section’ in front of it for clarification. On Page 13 there is a motion from Mr. Dawson and there is no second. Also, when Mr. Dawson was recused he was still listed as voting and it should have been Mrs. Fornino voting because she was seated in his place.

The Board tabled the Minutes until the June Meeting.

Chairman Baden noted that there was a request to amend the March 10, 2014 Regular Meeting Minutes after they were voted on. He went back and listened to the tape and the request was correct. It was very difficult for the Secretary to hear the tape because that was the meeting that we were at the Fire House and were very spread apart. In the PB Member Packets there is a new Page 8 from the March 8^th minutes with the new sentences highlighted.

Chairman Baden motioned to amend the March 10, 2014 minutes as printed. Seconded by Mr. O’Donnell. No discussion.

Vote:

Baden: Yes Tapper: Yes

O’Donnell: Yes Rominger: Yes

Ricks: Absent Dawson: Yes

Paddock: Yes

Motion carried. 6 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, 0 abstentions

APPLICATION REVIEW

PB 2014-01 SBD Continued Application and Public Hearing

Major Subdivision – Preliminary Approval

Mount Laurel Estates Phase II and III, c/o Dawson Homes, Proposes subdivision of land for Phase II and III resulting in 15 lots of a 22 lot subdivision, Dawson Lane (private road off Samsonville Rd.), S/B/L #60.1-2-2.15 and #60.1-2-3, ‘R-2’ zoning district

Mr. Dawson recused himself from the Board as this was his application. Mrs. Fornino took his place.

Chairman Baden noted that at the last meeting there was some question as to whether the Preliminary Approval that was granted in 2006 or 2007 for Phase 2 and 3 was still valid. The attorney for the town and the Chairman had reviewed the law and came to the conclusion that it was no longer valid. Phases 2 and 3 will have to start over with review, but a majority of the documentation is the same. The project hasn’t changed any, so the Board can accept that documentation. SEQRA has already been completed with a Negative Declaration and that remains valid. The Board did refer it to the County Planning Board because it borders the Town of Olive and it was returned with a “No County Impact” comment.

Mr. Dawson noted that nothing has changed. Conceptually the whole subdivision was approved at one time, but because he decided to Phase it and those approvals have run out, he has to go through the steps again and update a few things. Other than that not a thing has changed.

Chairman Baden noted that the only thing that he saw was that his initial application showed that the last 4 lots were going to be a private driveway which at the time was allowed. It no longer is in our code, so the private road needs to be extended to the end. Because the road isn’t built he didn’t think that it really affected anything.

Mr. Dawson noted that he didn’t think it affected anything either.

Chairman Baden noted that he probably would need to re-file his agreement with the County because it specifically talks about those last 4 lots be serviced by a private driveway. He would need to get something from the DEC saying that the stormwater is still in effect or if it needed to be changed in any way. That would be for Final Approval though.

Mr. Dawson noted that they did update it and sent it to the DEC.

Chairman Baden noted that the Board would just need some sort of documentation that the DEC received and accept it. Then the Board would also need the roads and stormwater improvements either built or bonded. These things would be gone over during the decision making time for this application.

At 7:14PM Chairman Baden opened the Public Hearing.

There was no public comment.

At 7:14PM Mr. Rominger motioned to close the Public Hearing. Seconded by Mr. O’Donnell.

Discussion:

Mr. Tapper questioned that being this was so long ago—was there a road that was going to tie into another subdivision?

Chairman Baden noted that there was not. He included in the draft decision that he discovered that there were two right-of-ways connecting to Dewitt Road that the Applicant had agreed to dissolve because the neighbors on Dewitt Road didn’t want them and it wouldn’t have been a useful roadway.

Mr. Dawson acknowledged this and would abide by that condition. It wasn’t a practical road because of the steep slopes.

Vote:

Baden: Yes Tapper: Yes

O’Donnell: Yes Rominger: Yes

Ricks: Absent Fornino: Yes

Paddock: Yes

Motion carried. 6 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, 0 abstentions

Chairman Baden noted that if the Board was ready to do a decision, they could do that tonight, but because Mr. Dawson was on the Board and there were a lot of other people on the agenda, he asked if it would be okay to hold the decision for this application until the end of the meeting.

Everyone was fine with this.

PB 2014-03 SPA Continued Application and Public Hearing

Site Plan

New Cingular Wireless PCS (AT&T), applicant, American Tower Corp. and Zeno Wicks, owner Proposes expansion of a telecommunications facility, proposes to add three (3) antennas at the existing height of 120′, one (1) microwave dish at a height of 116′, six (6) remote radio units (RRUs),one (1) surge suppression system, two (2) power cables and one (1) fiber cable on the tower at the same height as the existing equipment and one (1) GPS within the leased area at the existing compound. Further, three (3) guy wires have been added to the tower for structural purposes. 82 City Hall Rd., S/B/L #68.3-2-47.110, ‘R-2’ zoning district

Mr. Dawson rejoined the Board and Mrs. Fornino returned to the audience.

Don Ross and Chanel Madigan were present as representatives from Phillips Lyttle on behalf of the application. Tim Ruff was also present on behalf of the application from Aerosmith.

Chairman Baden noted that the Board did have one missing item that they identified from the previous meeting, which was the letter of authorization. It was from the previous owner and the applicants have furnished a new one from American Tower, the current owners. He continued to note that they did discuss the possibility of adding a small sign out on City Hall Road.

Ms. Madigan noted that they had a sign on order and submitted a copy of the proposed sign that said, “82 City Hall Road”.

Chairman Baden noted that was exactly what the Board was looking for.

Mr. Rominger questioned the wires that were added. Did the Code Enforcement Officer agree that these were installed properly?

Mary Lou Christiana, the attorney for the Town noted that the CEO was in the process of reviewing them. The PB looks at the application like they do not exist.

Chairman Baden noted that since they are not an enforcement Board, they couldn’t take into account that the guy wires were installed without a permit. That was the CEO’s purview only.

Ms. Madigan noted that Phillips Lyttle was handling the situation with the CEO.

Chairman Baden noted that during the decision for this application, they will be addr3essing some things regarding the guy wires. The antennas cannot be installed until those guy wires are signed off on properly, because without the guy wires, the antennas won’t be supported. The guy wires must be approved first. If they aren’t approved, the antennas can’t go on according to the structural report submitted by the applicant.

At 7:22PM Chairman Baden opened the Public Hearing.

Ms. Madigan noted that this is an application for 3 proposed antennas to be installed on the existing 120’ tower at 82 City Hall Road. They propose to add three (3) antennas at the existing height of 120′, one (1) microwave dish at a height of 116′.

Chairman Baden reminded the public that the 3 guy wires that they all agree have been mounted on the tower without permits, they are also a part of this application. The PB is not an enforcement agency, so they have no power to declare them to be removed or changed in any way. Any comments regarding the removal of them, while the public is welcome to say them, the PB can’t factor these comments into their decision. A number of members of the public have submitted letters to that end, and while the Board understands the concerns, it’s not something the PB has the power to enforce.

Jason Broome who stated his address as “lives underneath the monstrosity” was recognized to speak. He understood that there was very little that the PB could do because of Federal Guidelines. He asked that they took into account that the community is almost 100% against any new antennas or equipment. People could care less about getting better reception up there. This thing is only going to make better reception for AT&T. It’s not like AT&T is going to do anything for the people that don’t get cell reception now. They aren’t offering to give anything to the community. All they are doing is creating more profits for themselves. All of this stuff is getting built on the back of one mess after another. These guys drive up and down the road on Sunday mornings looking for the cell tower. Hopefully they’ll be able to read the new sign. They are showing up at people’s houses, knocking on doors and ringing door bells. Dropping off materials at people’s houses. Whoever is sitting at the Board table has no accountability to the cell tower owner who is a new owner. He didn’t know why Global Tower was on the application as they didn’t own it anymore. It’s frustrating for someone who lives in the Town to hear from the PB that no one can tell Code Enforcement anything. It just goes round and around. He doesn’t understand it and it has been a mess since the beginning. What he is asking is for the PB to consider the effects. It does effect the neighborhood people, the environment. The last time these people went in and put in the illegal construction, they knocked down someone’s fence on the road. He asked the PB to do whatever they could do. These guys are here for one meeting and as they saw the last time, they couldn’t even get the address right.

Jack Nodar, who lives on City Hall Road, was next to speak. He was here when the tower first went in. It was opposed, but they found a way to get around it. This is the typical example where trucking and industry fails. This is in the wrong place to start with. This is not a clothes line; this is a piece of industrial equipment that has been stuck in the back hills of a residential area. It was wrong to begin with and as time goes on, everything changes. The biggest thing that accountability has gone to the wind. The drivers had accountability as to where they were going, they prepared ahead of time. Now it’s not done that way. All who live there have experienced how irresponsible the drivers are. They should have learned where they were going ahead of time. You don’t get to the place and then start knocking on doors at 6am or 9pm at night. Recently a trucker bringing in a crane came up Samsonville Road and makes a right turn on City Hall Road. You can barely make a right hand turn from Samsonville to City Hall with a regular truck and this guy was delivering a crane. There’s no accountability. The driver should have looked and known that he couldn’t make the turn. Instead, he made the turn and tore off the fence of a property owner and gets stuck there and no one can get by and then he gets free and makes it up the hill. He made a mess. The Board should go look. Sitting here at these meetings and throwing plans around, it’s too late. The tower shouldn’t be there. If they just use it the way it is in its minimal form and run in with little trucks… no one does that anymore. These little residential areas can’t handle these trucks.

Trish Stenger was next to speak. She lives on City Hall Road below the cell phone tower. She has a problem with the fact that there are corporations coming into their Town and neighborhood. It seems like every 6 months there are more antennas going up. She agrees that there is no accountability. Who owns the Tower?

Chairman Baden answered, American Tower Corporation.

Ms. Stenger noted that it was someone out of Florida and now it’s been switched to another corporation. Where were these people located?

Chairman Baden believed it was in Massachusetts.

Ms. Stenger noted that in our Town in our residential neighborhood these corporations come in and do what they want to do for their corporate interests. They have no concerns about their neighborhood. Her understanding is that when this tower first went in there was a compromise reached that there would only be so much equipment and it would only be so high. She drove down City Hall Road this winter and for the first time she saw the tower. She’d never seen it driving down the road, is it taller?

Chairman Baden answered. No. It was still the same height as when it was first constructed.

Ms. Stenger noted that there was a legal agreement reached that there would only be so much equipment on this tower. Has anyone gone back to the original court order to see if it’s in compliance?

Chairman Baden noted that they have. The judge ordered that any changes would need to come back to the PB review process.

Ms. Stenger asked if the PB would please listen to the citizens.

Chairman Baden noted that the Board hears what everyone is saying. The game has changed from the Federal standpoint. The Town is obligated to follow the Federal Laws. Cell service is considered a public utility, just like power and phone. The rules have been changed considerably, especially in 2012 regarding co-location, which is what this is. Local review hands have pretty much been tied in terms of what can and can’t be looked at anymore. So, while the Board hears their concerns and comments the majority of what they are bringing up, can’t be addressed. The PB cannot change the Federal Law and does not have the authority to address some of the things that the public has brought up. They do hear their comments and take them into consideration and he knows the applicants hear the public comments. The sign is a small attempt to try and correct and find the location better. As far as the routes that trucks take to get to City Hall Road, there is really nothing that they can do about that. They are public roads and we live in a small town and he lives off of Samsonville Road, so he is very familiar with that turn, so he knows what they are talking about. He has an extended length pick-up truck and wouldn’t want to take that turn in his truck. Why they chose to come that way, he couldn’t answer. The PB can’t hold those things against the application on the property either. The Board appreciates and hears the comments.

Mr. Ross noted that what they can do on their end, when contractors come on site, they need to take into account of these things. The sign should probably deal with the knocking on neighbor’s doors to find the site. As far as the trucks missing turns and taking equipment up the roads that isn’t suitable for the roads, the least they can do is say to folks further up the food chain is to take into account that the roads are extremely narrow.

Chairman Baden noted that he could see why they would go up Samsonville, because on a map it’s listed as a County Road, but in this case, Queens Hwy is a much better access.

Mr. Ross stated that the least they can do is let their client know to tell their contractors that Queens Hwy would be the better choice.

Chairman Baden noted that the driveway to this site isn’t at a 90 degree angle. It would be easier to access coming off of City Hall Road from the Queens Hwy end.

Attorney Christiana noted that it could be addressed under SEQRA and direct the appropriate route.

Mr. Paddock questioned if this was something to ask the Highway Dept. about?

Chairman Baden noted that there really were only two routes to go- either Samsonville Road or Queens Hwy and it’s pretty obvious that accessing City Hall Road from Samsonville Road is not the way to go. They will also make the tower owner aware of this by letter requesting that they provide those directions to the other carriers.

Chairman Baden questioned about the RF Emissions. According to the FCC above 10 meters is not in the discussion, but the Board wants to discuss cumulative effects. While the Board can’t require the applicant to do anything about it in terms of that, they do need something that guarantees that the cumulative will be in the safety range. A previous applicant did supply some sort of documentation. He realized that they do not have all of the information of the other companies in as detail as their own, but he did ask for some sort of certification that it met the standards.

Mr. Ross questioned if this would be a condition of approval?

Chairman Baden answered yes.

Mr. Ross answered that they could do this.

Chairman Baden noted that in his research he sees that this is a question being asked by other Boards and other applications. The other question he had from the report, he noticed in the structural report, with the addition of the guy wires, this was listed as 96.7% capacity. What is the safety factor that is built in to that?

Mr. Ross noted that the maximum percentage to reach capacity without doing further modifications is 105%. Each company does their own structural analysis and that is going to take into account the tower and the tower’s capacity and they may need to do additional modifications. 96% is lower than the safe range.

Chairman Baden noted that without the guy wires it was at 166%. The addition of the guy wires reduces it by 70%.

Mr. Ross noted that it’s a factor of weight of the equipment and takes into account wind speed and ice buildup on the tower.

Chairman Baden questioned in terms of the guy wires. The PB appreciates that the applicant acknowledges that they were put in prior to any approvals. Who would be taking responsibility of filing for that building permit?

Ms. Madigan noted that in the interest of expediency AT&T would be filing for it on behalf of American Tower Corporation.

Mr. Ross noted that they would cut out the middle man. They were all pretty embarrassed during the last application process.

Chairman Baden noted that since the PB was not the enforcement agency, they could not predict what the CEO is going to want to see in terms of the concrete and the rebar. He knows that Mr. Davis has been doing research and has had discussions in terms of what is the best way to verify the structural capability of those anchors. He does know that he had a concern that if the anchors were dug up, the ground would be compromised because the ground around the concrete adds a significant amount of structural integrity and once the ground is disturbed, it is lessened. He doesn’t know what the CEO has or hasn’t decided on. He would say, speaking for himself, that he would like to see any decision that the Board grants for any approval of the antennas would be contingent on any approval of building permits for those guy wires and having a Certificate of Compliance before they would allow the antennas to be added. The structural report shows that without those guy wires the antennas can’t go on the tower.

Chairman Baden noted that based on what has come up, he’d like to close the Public Hearing, but hold off on the decision until the next month. They want to make sure that they have answered all of the concerns and listed the new information properly. They would take up the decision at the next meeting.

Mr. O’Donnell motioned to close the Public Hearing. Seconded by Mr. Dawson. No discussion.

Vote:

Baden: Yes Tapper: Yes

O’Donnell: Yes Rominger: Yes

Ricks: Absent Dawson: Yes

Paddock: Yes

Motion carried. 6 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, 0 abstentions

Chairman Baden noted that it was for everyone’s benefit that they had the actual numbers of the cumulative emissions in the PB File.

Mr. Ross questioned about the building permit. Should they let the Board know when it is filed?

Chairman Baden noted that they could just copy the PB on it. Until the application is actually approved, he didn’t think that the CEO could issue a building permit.

Mrs. Christiana noted that the applicant could have conversations with the CEO in the meantime.

Mr. Ross just wanted to let the Board know that the emissions of the tower was out of the PB’s purview.

Chairman Baden was aware of this, but this way they had record of it.

Lot Improvement

Premier Contracting, Inc. and Premier Contracting, Inc. c/o Thomas Rozzi,

Proposes merging of 2 contiguous lots resulting in 1 lot of +/-2.294 acres and correction of error in filed map lot boundary, Dug Road, S/B/L #68.2-1-39 and #68.2-1-42.112, ‘R-2’ zoning district

Mr. Rozzi was present on behalf of the application.

Chairman Baden noted that this application was on the agenda at last month’s meeting, but Mr. Rozzi did not attend. He then confirmed with the Secretary that UC Real Property has Premier Contracting as the owner of the property. He then noted that the question that came out of this was the area on the map that is listed as “apparent overlap area”.

Mr. Rozzi noted that he purchased two lots and in order to get a building permit, the only place a house could go is on the back lot, which doesn’t have road frontage, so he had to combine the two, and that’s what he’s here for. There is a deed overlap area as noted in note #3 on the map. It’s shown on the deed as being owned by Winters which is his neighbor. He has no right to that property and by virtue of signing these maps; it would be irradiated once filed by the County. It was because of a misplaced pin during the surveying process.

Chairman Baden questioned if that note covered this? He didn’t want the Board to create anything that wasn’t a buildable lot.

Mrs. Christiana, attorney for the Town, noted that she would just like to have the surveyor get her a copy of Winters’ deed.

Mr. Rozzi would get that to the Secretary for Mrs. Christiana to verify.

Chairman Baden questioned if the right of way that is listed on the property would continue.

Mr. Rozzi answered, yes.

Mr. Tapper questioned if the applicant has shown a house site on the map?

Chairman Baden noted that it doesn’t need to be shown because this is a lot improvement, not a subdivision.

Chairman Baden motioned to accept the Lot Line Improvement pending receipt and the review of Winters’ deed by the attorney for the Town. Seconded by Mr. O’Donnell. No discussion.

Vote:

Baden: Yes Tapper: Yes

O’Donnell: Yes Rominger: Yes

Ricks: Absent Dawson: Yes

Paddock: Yes

Motion carried. 6 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, 0 abstentions

Chairman Baden noted that this application, by definition in Section 125-18 of the Subdivision Regs, is a Type 2 Action under SEQRA.

PB 2014-02 SBD New Application

Minor Subdivision

Lorin Conklin and Carol Kortright-Conklin

Proposes subdivision of land resulting in 2 lots

6227 NYS Route 209, S/B/L #76.1-1-31, ‘H’ and ‘AP Overlay’ zoning districts

Christopher Zell of Brinnier and Larios, PC was present on behalf of the application. Mr. Zell noted that all structures shown on the plan are existing and this subdivision was supposed to take place years ago. Erla Conklin was supposed to convey parcel 2 to Phillip Conklin. The description that is this subdivision that was done years ago and never filed. The Estate is trying to fix that now. Both parcels have access to Route 209 and no new curb cuts or changes are proposed.

Chairman Baden noted that this parcel is bordering a County Ag District so the applicant submitted an Ag Data Statement. They filled out a Short EAF as well. This will need UCPB review because of its proximity to the County Ag District. Ag & Markets Law does not fall under the County Exception Agreement.

Mr. Dawson motioned to refer the application to UCPB. Seconded by Mr. O’Donnell. No discussion.

Vote:

Baden: Yes Tapper: Yes

O’Donnell: Yes Rominger: Yes

Ricks: Absent Dawson: Yes

Paddock: Yes

Motion carried. 6 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, 0 abstentions

Chairman Baden noted that Parcel 2- the frontage on Route 209 is over 200’. Is there a reason that the line couldn’t be altered to include the driveway that services that house off of Route 209.

Mr. Zell noted that the reason that was placed as it was, was because Lorin Conklin, being the party that has control over the whole 13 acres. They wanted to follow the original description as written and that’s what they tried to do. There is a 50’ wide right of way for both parties to use and was also in the original one that was left in.

Chairman Baden noted that the reason he asks is because driving by there he noticed that that 100’ segment will never be accessed. It’s almost a complete drop off of Route 209. If they are sharing that driveway, he guesses he understands and it would need to stay with one party or the other.

Mr. Dawson didn’t see how that driveway was shared. He showed where the actual used driveways being used were on the map.

Mr. Zell noted that it needs that right of way as they come off of Route 209 to access Lot 2, and it would be crossing Lot 1.

Chairman Baden questioned if the lot line could be changed to give it 50’ of frontage at that driveway so that driveway accesses that house. It would be a much more usable situation for road frontage.

Mr. Zell noted that he could inquire, but apparently they wanted to keep it as the original agreement.

Mr. O’Donnell noted that this was a bad family situation that they were trying to make better.

Mrs. Christiana questioned who Brandon Conklin was?

Mr. Zell noted that Brandon was the son of Phillip Conklin, who was the brother of Lorin Conklin. Erla Conklin was going to give the property to both of them. The applicant is Brandon and the property owner is Lorin and Carol Kortright- Conklin.

Mrs. Christiana was trying to understand who the applicant was and if the Board had the correct letters of authorization. Lorin Conklin has given permission for Mr. Zell to represent them, but where does Brandon have permission to be the applicant?

Chairman Baden noted that the PB needed a letter of authorization to allow Brandon Conklin to act as the applicant from the actual property owner.

Mr. Zell would forward a copy of the deed to the PB.

Chairman Baden questioned if Mr. Zell could just ask if they would be able to give the 50’ of road frontage to the other lot. He understood they might say no, he just felt that the Board should ask because it made the most sense. It meets Zoning standards.

Mr. O’Donnell noted that he thought that the people involved were trying to respect the wishes of a deceased relative. He didn’t know why the Board was getting involved in this.

Chairman Baden noted that the Board was supposed to help create the best layout they could. Creating an easement for access when they could just include it with Parcel 2. If the answer is no, they completely understand. They could avoid having an easement and having to file it that way.

Mr. Zell would put the owners on the other side of Route 209 as well. He would also add the Right to Farm note as required by Town Code.

Mr. Dawson motioned to schedule the Public Hearing for the June Meeting. Seconded by Mr. O’Donnell. No discussion.

Vote:

Baden: Yes Tapper: Yes

O’Donnell: Yes Rominger: Yes

Ricks: Absent Dawson: Yes

Paddock: Yes

Motion carried. 6 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, 0 abstentions

PB 2014-03 SBD New Application

Minor Subdivision

John Schoonmaker Jr. and Alice Schoonmaker

Proposes subdivision of land resulting in 2 lots

Towpath Rd., S/B/L #77.1-3-2.11, ‘AR-3’ and ‘AP Overlay’ zoning districts

John Schoonmaker, Jr was present on behalf of his application.

Chairman Baden noted that he had a conversation with Bill Eggers, the surveyor for this property and the application is to take +/-3.16 acres from +/-303 acres. The application and map originally said the +/-3.16 acres was being taken from +/-167 was the remaining lands and not +/-303 acres. He noticed on Parcel Viewer that there was a large discrepancy in the acreage and Mr. Eggers fixed it.

Mr. Schoonmaker noted that this property is the original farm. His Grandfather bought the 167 acres and it was all combined.

Chairman Baden noted that according to the tax map it is all one parcel. What is being proposed is across from the little rectangle- directly across the street from that is this 3 acre parcel on Tow Path Road. There is an existing house there and no proposed changes. There is an issue where the water is taken from the other parcel for the well. They will need to submit a Shared Well Agreement that will need to be filed with the County so the new lot has legal access to the water. Mr. Schoonmaker can have his attorney speak with Mrs. Christiana and they can resolve what it needs to be. The 303 acre parcel does contain the Schoonmaker family house which is on the National Register. So, because of this it has to be classified as a Type 1 Action because it is on the National Register. Mr. Eggers submitted this afternoon a Full EAF and a majority of the questions do not apply, but the Board has no leeway on this. It is also in the County Ag District, so just like the Conklin application it will need to be referred to the UCPB. Mr. Eggers will also need to put the Right to Farm Note on the plans. For now, we will circulate the map as is.

Mr. O’Donnell motioned to schedule the Public Hearing for the June Meeting. Seconded by Mr. Dawson. No discussion.

Vote:

Baden: Yes Tapper: Yes

O’Donnell: Yes Rominger: Yes

Ricks: Absent Dawson: Yes

Paddock: Yes

Motion carried. 6 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, 0 abstentions

Mr. O’Donnell motioned to set this as a Type 1 SEQRA Action. Mr. Dawson Seconded by the motion. No discussion.

Vote:

Baden: Yes Tapper: Yes

O’Donnell: Yes Rominger: Yes

Ricks: Absent Dawson: Yes

Paddock: Yes

Motion carried. 6 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, 0 abstentions

Chairman Baden noted that there were no other permitting agencies, but this should be referred to SHPO.

Chairman Baden motioned to refer the application to the State Historic Preservation Organization for comments. Seconded by Mr. Rominger. No discussion.

Vote:

Baden: Yes Tapper: Yes

O’Donnell: Yes Rominger: Yes

Ricks: Absent Dawson: Yes

Paddock: Yes

Motion carried. 6 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, 0 abstentions

Chairman Baden motioned to refer the application to the UCPB because it is in the County Ag District. Seconded by Mr. O’Donnell. No discussion.

Vote:

Baden: Yes Tapper: Yes

O’Donnell: Yes Rominger: Yes

Ricks: Absent Dawson: Yes

Paddock: Yes

Motion carried. 6 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, 0 abstentions

Mr. Schoonmaker initialed the application to reflect the correct acreage of 303 acres and signed the Full EAF.

Chairman Baden also noted that there is property within the 100 year flood plain, but the structure is not, so it doesn’t effect this at all. Mr. Eggers did show the floodplain on the map.

PB 2009-03 SBD Request for Extension of Preliminary Approval

Major Subdivision

Streamside Estates Inc.. c/o Michael Baum

Requesting extension of Preliminary Approval for a 7 lot subdivision granted May 17. 2011

Cherrytown Rd., S/B/L #67-2-43.141 , ‘AR-3’ and ‘AP Overlay’ zoning districts

Chairman Baden noted that the applicants are asking for a 3 year extension. NY State Law grants Preliminary Approval for 6 months. The Town superseded that in the Town Law and granted people 3 years. His feeling is that they’ve had 3 years to do it, and he’s not saying that the Board shouldn’t extend it, but he questions whether extending it 3 years is appropriate. The only reason that they give is that it has been delayed because of an economic downfall. What he wanted the Board to discuss was if they wanted to grant a 3 year extension for something that the state only grants 6 months to. It used to be that you allowed 2 extensions of 90 days. The Legislature changed the number of times to unlimited, but still only 90 days at a time, which is kind of silly. The Town superseded it to give people 3 years. They could get final approval just by submitting the plans and bonding the road. There was no requirement for them to build anything at this time.

Mr. Paddock questioned if they could grant a one year extension?

Chairman Baden answered yes and the applicant could come back again. All they have to do is come back with their final plans. They aren’t required to build the road or the stormwater, they just have to bond them and then they could give final approval. He was hesitant to leave a Conditional Approval lingering for years and years.

Mr. Tapper questioned how this differed from Mr. Dawson’s subdivision?

Chairman Baden noted that his expired and he never received an extension. The previous law when Mr. Dawson got this was the State Law, which was 6 months with 90 day extensions.

Mr. Dawson was comfortable with granting a one year extension.

Mr. Paddock agreed noting that this might force their hand to do something by the end of the next year.

Mr. Rominger noted that if they granted the one year extension and the zoning changed in that time a 3 year extension might be more advantageous to them. Are they grandfathered if they get the one year? He had no problem with the one year.

Chairman Baden noted that he felt that the one year extension was more favorable to the Town.

Mr. Dawson motioned to grant Streamside Estates a one year extension. Motion seconded by Mr. Rominger. No discussion.

Vote:

Baden: Yes Tapper: Yes

O’Donnell: Yes Rominger: Yes

Ricks: Absent Dawson: Yes

Paddock: Yes

Motion carried. 6 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, 0 abstentions

OTHER MATTERS:

Chairman Baden noted that they have received notice from the Town of Wawarsing of an application that is within 500’ of the Town Line.

Mrs. Christiana, who is also the attorney for the Town of Wawarsing, noted that she wasn’t present at last month’s Wawarsing PB Meeting.

Chairman Baden noted that the first referral received was for the café. It is on their May 20^th agenda and he guesses that they are offering the TORPB a chance to offer comments.

Mrs. Christiana agreed and noted that the other referral for a microbrewery in the Town of Wawarsing is off of the Agenda.

Chairman Baden noted that neither one is really close to the Town Line.

No one had any concerns.

Mr. O’Donnell noted that the DOT is going to work on the rail trail down there, so it’s a good thing.

Mr. Paddock motioned for Chairman Baden to write a letter that the TORPB supports both applications. Seconded by Mr. O’Donnell. No discussion.

Vote:

Baden: Yes Tapper: Yes

O’Donnell: Yes Rominger: Yes

Ricks: Absent Dawson: Yes

Paddock: Yes

Motion carried. 6 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, 0 abstentions

DOLLAR GENERAL:

Chairman Baden noted that the Town still doesn’t have an application in front of the PB on this. There is a Zoning Permit that the CEO referred to the PB for the need of a Lot Line Improvement and Special Use Approval. They are not on the agenda for this meeting. The building is in the Town of Wawarsing and the parking is mostly in Rochester. He is aware that this is on the Wawarsing ZBA Agenda for a Public Hearing tomorrow night. The Town didn’t get a notice for that. He planned on attending and with the Board’s permission he is going to ask the ZBA that they not act on any variances until the Town of Rochester gets a chance to look at things. The variance is for lot density because they exceed the density. The TORPB, once they review it may want to suggest some changes. He also thinks because there are 4 Boards involved with this that this should go to a County Gateway meeting. It involves both Towns’ ZBA and PB’s, DOT, Health Dept. They are proposing access on Webster Avenue and he can’t tell if they are proposing an access on Route 209 as well. He noted that it’s hard to discuss this in too much detail until we get an actual application from them. There are a lot of issues on this property. The Flood Plain actually goes through a portion of the property as well.

DAWSON DECISION:

Mr. Dawson recused himself and Mrs. Fornino joined the Board.

The Board reviewed Mr. Dawson’s Draft Decision and went over the Findings as follows:

Findings of the Planning Board

The Planning Board has received zoning referral for a Subdivision from the Code Enforcement Officer.
The application proposes to subdivide a parcel of land into 22 lots resulting in a Subdivision.
The Town of Rochester Planning Board granted Conditional Preliminary Approval for the project with decision PB2005-12SBD on 9/22/2006.
The project was subsequently divided into 3 phases. Phase 1 to be lots 1-4, 20-22. Phase 2 to be lots 5-9, 14, 15, 19. Phase 3 to be lots 10-13, 16-18.
Phase 1 was completed and Final Approval granted by the Town of Rochester Planning Board on 8/28/2007 and amended 12/18/2007.
The Phase 1 plat has been filed with the Ulster County Clerk dated 12/09/2007.
Upon review of decision PB2005-12SBD and NYS Town law Condition Preliminary Approval for Phase 2 and 3 previously granted has expired with time and in no longer valid.
The application for the development of Phase 2 and 3 must be reheard by the Planning Board and will be treated as a new application; however the information, reports, and studies conducted on behalf of the original application remain valid and will be made a part of the record and considered in the review of this application.
The Code Enforcement Office advised by letter the zoning permit remains valid as determined.
The applicant has prepared a new application for Subdivision and presented to the Planning Board.
Dawson Homes, Inc. applicant is John Dawson. He became a member of the Planning Board January 2014. He has recused himself from the review.
Town of Rochester Subdivision law, Chapter 125, was completely revised by Local Law #6 of 2009 and will apply to the new review. The zoning district for the parcels has changed from ‘A’ zoning district to ‘R-2’ zoning district with the revision. Under previous law there was no distinction for Major Subdivision classification. This application meets the definition of Major Subdivision under Town of Rochester Subdivision law, Chapter 125 and will be reviewed using those standards.
SEQRA coordinated review was completed and a Negative Declaration was determined 8/15/2006. The SEQRA determination remains valid with this application.
The entire project was the subject of significant environmental review under the initial application. Chazen Engineering & Land Surveying Co. PC, Town Planner and Engineer at the time, conducted significant review on behalf of the Town.
Dawson Homes secured Ulster County Real Property approval for the named private road Dawson Lane on 5/02/2006.
Dawson Homes secured Ulster County Dept. of Public Works approval for access to Samsonville Road for the private road Dawson Lane on 10/09/2007.
The parcels to be subdivided with Phase 2 and 3 are known as S/B/L 60.1-2-2.15 and 60.1-2-3.
Phase 2 and 3 encompasses +/-90.44 acres.
All proposed lots meet the bulk standards requirements for the ‘R-2’ zoning district.
The current use of the parcels is vacant land with heavily wooded conditions. Proposed lots for Phase 2 and 3 have no existing improvements.
Phase 1 has road frontage on Samsonville Road, County Route 3 and utilizes a private road known as Dawson Lane for individual lot access.
Phase 2 and 3 will utilize and extend private road Dawson Lane for access to the individual lots. All lots, as proposed, will exceed the required minimum road frontage on a mapped private roadway.
On March 21. 2006 the Planning Board granted the applicant a waiver to allow the private road to exceed 2000 feet based on the proposed 3 cul-de-sac turnarounds and letters from emergency services providers indicating the proposed road was adequate for emergency access. This waiver will continue to apply provided NYS Fire Code requirements are met in extension of the private road.
The previous proposal provided for utilization of a private driveway for lots 13, 16, 17, and 18. With Subdivision Code amendment in 2009 this is no longer allowable and the private roadway designation will be required to be extended.
NYS DEC has agreed to the delineation of nearby wetlands to the project as mapped by the applicant’s consultant and DEC staff has signed the filed map of Phase 1.These wetlands are located contiguous to Phase 1 parcels.
The Chairman conducted a visual onsite examination of the condition of the Dawson Lane and the existing stormwater improvements and reported they are in excellent condition and functioning as planned.
Applicant voluntarily agreed with Phase 1 approval to provide a “100 foot buffer to restrict clear cutting of trees except for clearing and grading related to utilities, drainage improvements, and removal of dead or diseased trees” by filed map restriction with Phase 1. This restriction will apply with the development of Phase 2 and 3.
A Stormwater Management Plan was prepared for the entire project. It will require recertification from the NYS DEC for the continued development of Phase 2 and 3.
A Stormwater Maintenance Declaration, Private Driveway Right-of-Way and Maintenance Declaration, Private Right-of-Way and Private Road Maintenance Declaration were filed in the offices of the Ulster County Clerk with Phase 1 dated 9/10/2007. This may require amending prior to Final Approval of Phase 2 and 3. The Planning Board will seek advisement from the Attorney for the Town on the applicability of these documents.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have recommended to protect the forest habitat of the Indiana Bat. With such the applicant agreed to restrict the “conduct of tree clearing activities be limited between October 1 and March 30 and to minimize future forest clearing activities to the greatest extent possible” with Phase 1 plat declaration. This restriction will apply with the development of Phase 2 and 3.
The application for Phase 2 and 3 was referred to the Ulster County Planning Board which rendered a decision of “No County Impact”. Such referral requirement was a change in Ulster County law in 2009 and not required during previous review.

(Edits done: Mrs. Christiana questioned the reference to the restrictions to Phase 1. The language was changed to make it more clear. The Board changed the word from “Continue” to “Apply”.)

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

Motion to adopt findings by: Mr. Paddock

Second by: Mr. O’Donnell

Vote:

Baden: Yes Tapper: Yes

O’Donnell: Yes Rominger: Yes

Ricks: Absent Dawson: Yes

Paddock: Yes

Adopted May 12, 2014 by the following vote:

Ayes: 6 Nays: 0 Absent: 1

At this point the Board reviewed the resolution of Mr. Dawson’s Draft Decision as follows:

RESOLVED,

The Town of Rochester Planning Board grants Major Subdivision-Conditional Preliminary Approval to Dawson Homes, Inc. permitting the subdivision of lands known as Mount Laurel Estates Phase 2 and Phase 3 situate at private road Dawson Lane off Samsonville Road, known as S/B/L 60.1-2-2.15 and 60.1-2-3 and located in the ‘R-2’ zoning district, into 15 lots.

CONDITIONS of APPROVAL:

Applicant shall present an independent plat for Preliminary Approval signature for Phase 2 and 3 indicating
1. The phrases “Preliminary Plat” and “Mount Laurel Estates Section 2 and Section 3” in the title block.
2. All applicable zoning data for the ‘R-2’ zoning district.
3. The proposed layout, numbering, dimensions and acreage of lots.
4. Tentative sites for houses, driveways and sewage systems, including designated building envelopes or alternatively provide documentation indicating professional engineer’s signed and sealed certification that each lot is buildable and has the ability to provide water, septic, and meet zoning district standards as proposed.
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 plat.
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.

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

EFFECT of APPROVAL:

Preliminary Approval

The subdivider, within three (3) years of the approval of the Preliminary Plan, shall install or, pursuant to Town of Rochester Code § 125-16, financially guarantee all subdivision improvements and submit the Plan in final form as provided herein. Preliminary Plan approval shall expire if a Final Plan is not submitted within three (3) years, unless the Planning Board shall have granted an extension of the preliminary approval based upon a phasing plan set forth as provided for submission of Final Plans by section, provided that no Preliminary Plan shall remain valid if a Final Plan(s) for all phases, has not been submitted within three years.

“Conditions to be Completed Prior to Final Approval Submission” are attached herein as “Attachment A” and are adopted by the Planning Board pursuant to NYS Town Law, Article 16, § 276 requirement of the Planning Board to state the requirements for Final Approval in writing.

Motion to adopt made by: Mr. O’Donnell

Second by: Mr. Rominger

Vote:

Baden: Yes Tapper: Yes

O’Donnell: Yes Rominger: Yes

Ricks: Absent Dawson: Yes

Paddock: Yes

Adopted May 12, 2014 by the following vote:

Ayes: 6 Nays: 0 Absent: 1

At this point the Board reviewed Mr. Dawson’s requirements for Final Approval as listed in his Draft Decision as follows:

TOWN OF ROCHESTER PLANNING BOARD

May 12, 2014

Attachment A

“Attachment A” is adopted by Planning Board pursuant to NYS Town Law, Article 16,

276.

The subdivider, within three (3) years of the approval of the Preliminary Plan, shall install or, pursuant to Town of Rochester Town Code 125-16, financially guarantee all subdivision improvements and submit the Plan in final form as provided herein. Preliminary Plan approval shall expire if a Final Plan is not submitted within three (3) years, unless the Planning Board shall have granted an extension of the preliminary approval based upon a phasing plan set forth as provided for submission of Final Plans by section, provided that no Preliminary Plan shall remain valid if a Final Plan(s) for all phases, has not been submitted within three years.
When the Final Plan is in substantial agreement with the Preliminary Plan, the Planning Board shall, by resolution, conditionally approve with or without modification, disapprove, or grant final approvals and authorize signing of such Plan within 62 days of its receipt by the Secretary. No additional public hearing shall be required. When the Final Plan is not in substantial agreement with the Preliminary Plan, the Preliminary Plan procedures shall apply to a Final Plan insofar SEQRA review, public hearing, notices and decision.

Requirements to be Completed

Prior to Final Approval Submission

The Final Plans shall be prepared in accordance with all provisions of Town Code §125 and §125 -17 Final Approval requirements and submitted to the Planning Board for consideration at a scheduled meeting.
Any and 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. This shall specifically include, but not be limited to, the following:
1. The private road known as Dawson Lane shall conform to all regulations of the New York State Fire Code for Fire Access.
2. Ulster County Health Department approval shall be secured for water and septic for each approved lot prior to the issuance of Final Approval. All conditions of UCHD approval shall be made a part of this approval. One (1) copy of certified approvals shall be filed with the Planning Board.
3. A stormwater management plan prepared in accord with the requirements of Town of Rochester Code125-28 and NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation guidelines and standards shall be established. Applicant shall secure and submit to the Planning Board documentation from the NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation indicating reacceptance of the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) as was prepared in 2007 prior to changes in NYS Stormwater requirements. Should any additions, deletions, or amendments be determined required by the NYS DEC the applicant shall file a copy of the amended report with the Planning Board.
As per Town Code §125 -16, the subdivider, in a manner consistent with the New York State Town Law, Article 16, §277, shall provide for the installation of the required improvements, defined in §125 -16 as those physical additions and changes which may be necessary to provide usable and desirable lots. This shall specifically include, but not be limited to, the private road and stormwater improvements. Before requesting Final Plan approval the subdivider must:
Install all the improvements approved on the Preliminary Plan or required by these standards, or
File with the Town Board a performance guarantee to insure installation and construction of those improvements at the standards required. Such guarantee shall meet with the approval of the Attorney for the Town as to form and procedure.
A Road Maintenance Agreement (RMA) as described in §125-29(R) of the Town of Rochester Code shall be established. The Road Maintenance Agreement previously filed with Section 1 may require amendment to change the access to lots 13, 16, 17, and 18 from private and shared driveway access to private roadway access to comply with 2009 Subdivision regulation updates in Town Code §125. The Attorney for the Town shall make such determination.
A Homeowner’s Association (HOA) shall be legally established. The HOA shall sign and record Management and Maintenance Agreements for Stormwater improvements and Private Road
The Stormwater and Road Management and Maintenance Agreement shall include the following:
The Road Management and Maintenance Agreement shall include all provisions for continued operation and maintenance to insure safe passage over such private road for owners and emergency vehicles.
The Stormwater Management and Maintenance Agreement shall contain all requirements and provisions for continued operation, maintenance, and inspection as per Town Code §125-28(B). It shall be approved by the Town Engineer.
Maintenance easements shall be established for all storm water management improvements designed to serve more than a single lot or dwelling to allow access to the stormwater improvements.
The operation and maintenance plan shall include the estimate of annual maintenance costs and establish responsibilities for the continued operation and maintenance of all common storm water management improvements. A provision shall be included that sediment shall, at a minimum, be removed from sediment traps or sediment ponds whenever their design capacity has been reduced by 50%.
All such facilities associated with the approved subdivision plan shall be maintained. The developer shall be responsible until no less than 90% of all lots are sold. The owner shall at all times properly operate and maintain all facilities and systems of treatment and control (and related appurtenances) which are installed or used to achieve compliance with the requirements of this law.
The applicant shall file a Statement of Release exempting the Town of Rochester from all responsibility of maintenance of road and Stormwater improvements. Nothing contained herein shall be construed in any way to require the Town of Rochester to accept dedication of any street.
The Attorney for the Town shall review and approve the Homeowner’s Association, Road Maintenance Agreement, and Stormwater Management and Maintenance Agreements prior to the issuance of Final Approval. The Applicant shall file the approved Homeowner’s Association, Road Maintenance Agreements, and Stormwater Management and Maintenance Agreements with the Ulster County Clerk and shall return one (1) filed copy of each to the Town of Rochester Planning Board.
As per agreement by filed map restriction with Phase 1 of the subdivision and as recommended by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to protect the habitat of the Indiana Bat, the conduct of tree clearing activities shall be limited to between October 1 and March 30.
As per agreement by filed map restriction with Phase 1 of the subdivision, applicant will provide a “100 foot buffer to restrict clear cutting of trees except for clearing and grading related to utilities, drainage improvements, and removal of dead or diseased trees”.
Applicant shall provide the Planning Board with documentation from utility providers of agreement to provide public utilities. Utility easements for electric, phone, and/or cablevision to the lots shall be indicated on the plat and by deed, if determined to be required.
Each lot shall bear identification numbers of NYS Fire Code standards for safety and identification purposes.
Applicant shall legally dissolve two 20’ right-of-ways allowing access to Dewitt Road shown as “Road up the Hill” and “Dug Road” on map provided by Medenbach & Eggers dated 8/30/2006 as was agreed during Phase 1 Final Approval and provide proof to the Planning Board.
The Final Site Plan plat shall bear the following notices. These notices shall also be included in deed covenants for each respective lot.
1. Title block indicating Final Plat
2. A plat and deed 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.”
3. The plat notes as included on the filed Final Plat for Section 1.
4. NYS Wetland Boundary Validation as included on the filed Final Plat for Section 1.
5. The Stormwater and Road Management and Maintenance Agreements shall be noticed on the Final Site Plan plat and in the form of deed covenants. Each existing or future purchaser/owner of each lot shall be provided with a copy of this plan.
6. All easements involving the subdivision shall be clearly identified by both metes and bounds and plat notice on the Final Plan. They shall be further recorded as deed covenants. Specific notation shall be made for the following:
  1. The Private Road and right-of-way.
  2. All elements of the HOA maintained stormwater improvements including access right-of-ways for maintenance.

All easements for public utilities and access right-of-ways for maintenance.

The Applicant shall be responsible for all costs and expenses incurred by the Town in connection with the review of the HOA, the RMA, Stormwater Improvements and any easements; including but not limited to, preparation of said agreements, engineering costs and attorney fees, and inspection by other Town representatives. The Applicant acknowledges and agrees that said engineers, attorneys, and other Town representatives are acting on behalf of the Town and in addition, the Applicant may obtain their own attorney or engineer.
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.

Motion to adopt made by: Mr. Rominger

Second by: Mr. O’Donnell

Vote:

Baden: Yes Tapper: Yes

O’Donnell: Yes Rominger: Yes

Ricks: Absent Dawson: Yes

Paddock: Yes

Adopted May 12, 2014, by the following vote:

Ayes: 6 Nays: 0 Absent: 1

Chairman Baden noted that once Mr. Dawson’s Engineer makes the changes to the plans, he will sign the maps for Preliminary Approval.

JUNE MEETING CHANGE:

Mr. Dawson rejoined the Board and Mrs. Fornino was the alternate again.

Chairman Baden motioned to change the June meeting form June 9^th to June 18^th to allow the PB Members the ability to attend the June 9^th UCPB Training, and for the Secretary to advertise and Post Notice of such. Motion seconded by Mr. Dawson.

Vote:

Baden: Yes Tapper: Yes

O’Donnell: Yes Rominger: Yes

Ricks: Absent Dawson: Yes

Paddock: Yes

Motion carried. 6 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, 0 abstentions

ADJOURNMENT

Mr. Dawson motioned to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Mr. O’Donnell. No discussion. All members present in favor.

Chairman Baden adjourned the meeting at 9:16PM.

Respectfully submitted,

Rebecca Paddock Stange, Secretary