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

MINUTES OF May 9, 2016 Meeting of the Town of Rochester PLANNING BOARD, held at the Town of Rochester Community Center, Accord, NY.

Vice-Chairman Paddock asked that everyone stand to say the Pledge to the Flag.

The Secretary did roll call attendance.

PRESENT: ABSENT Michael Baden, Chairman Shane Ricks
Adam Paddock, Vice Chair Maren Lindstrom
Lawrence DeWitt
John Dawson
Patrick Williams
Also present:
Mary Lou Christiana, Attorney for the Town. Rebecca Paddock Stange, Secretary. Rick Jones, Alternate

ANNOUNCEMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
Chairman Baden noted that correspondence regarding Crested Hen Farms was received regarding the addressing of the bald eagles on Crested Hen property. He wouldn’t go into the details of it as it was a 6 page document, but basically the DEC has imposed some conditions in addition to the PB conditions because of the bald eagles, but they do say that they are out of the 660’ buffer which must be an eagle buffer. He encouraged the Board to read it and if anyone from the public asks Board Members questions, as he has gotten a number of inquiries himself about the eagles, now everyone can say that the DEC has addressed it.

TRAININGS:
Chairman Baden would be emailing the training list to the members.

ACTION ON MINUTES
Mr. Dewitt noted that there was some confusing phrasing during the Shuhan, ‘Acorn School’ section of the minutes. The Board agreed and that section would be edited to be clearer.

Mr. Dawson motioned to accept the April 11, 2016 Minutes. Seconded by Mr. Paddock. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden: Yes Dewitt: Yes
Lindstrom: Yes Ricks: Absent
Paddock: Yes Williams: Yes
Dawson: Yes

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

Lot Improvement
Paul and Jenna DeSilva
Proposes combining 2 contiguous lots of 0.524 acres and 0.256 acres resulting in one parcel of 0.78 acres
671 Upper Cherrytown Rd., S/B/L 59.12-1-32 and 59.12-1-33, R-2 zoning district

Terry Ringler was present on behalf of the application and noted that the DeSilva’s deed that is referenced is actually the newly executed deed that hasn’t been recorded yet. There is no recording information for it yet and they are still waiting for that to come in. It has been transferred and he can submit a copy of that to the PB. Parcel A is owned by Jenna and Paul according to the County at this time. That has been transferred to Paul.

Mrs. Christiana noted that it has to be of record.

Mr. Ringler stated that it was in the process of being filed. Their attorney is in the city and they were trying to get it done before the meeting, and Mr. Ringler doesn’t know if that has actually happened yet. He has a copy of the executed deed.

Chairman Baden noted that as of this past Thursday, the County still showed it as being owned by both.

Mr. Ringler agreed and noted that it takes the County months to get those things changed on a County Website.

Mrs. Christiana agreed, but noted that they give you a receipt immediately of the book and page.

Mr. Ringler and agreed and noted that he doesn’t have that information yet, but the deed has been executed that has transferred the title.

Mrs. Christiana understood, but noted that the Board has to do whatever is of record on the map.

Mr. Ringler understood as well and stated that they would bring the filed deed when they brought the final maps in for the PB to sign.

Mrs. Christiana noted that could be a condition that the Board doesn’t sign until the recorded deed is submitted. That was fine.

Mr. Ringler noted that was in reference to Parcel A. What is going on is that Mr. Desilva’s father had purchased parcel a long time ago. A friend of theirs had purchased parcel B about the same time. They’ve had it in the family for a very long time, the father passed away, the father’s friend passed away, and their friends sold Parcel B to the Desilva’s a few years ago. It had a very dilapidated building on Parcel B and the DaSilva’s received a demolition permit from the Building Dept. to take it down prior to the Lot Line Improvement application. The building has been removed and Mr. Desilva would like to put a new garage up there. The off sets on that lot would not permit him to put a garage up. He’d like to have it be about 2’ bigger than the existing building that was there. In order to remedy that, he’s proposed to remove the line between the two lots and create the one tax lot and therefore he wouldn’t have that offset line between his building and the new garage.

Chairman Baden noted that it would still be an undersized lot, but it would be better. Instead of two undersized lots, they would now have one undersized lot, which is an improvement.

Mr. Dawson questioned the plan not showing where the applicant would like to put the garage and where the other building was?

Mr. Ringler noted that it was gone. He took it down the day before Mr. Ringler did the survey. It was rubble and not really much to show. As far as the new building, the applicant would have to work with the Building Inspector as far as the offsets got. Mr. Ringler would be laying out the building to make sure it met the setback when that time comes, but they weren’t sure when that would be.

Chairman Baden questioned what the stream was that was flowing through the property. He noted that when he pulled the property up on Ulster County Parcel Viewer he was surprised that there was no flood plain along this stream.

Mr. Ringler noted that there was no flood plain and it was just a seasonal stream, however it was still classified. They weren’t proposing any improvements within the stream bank area.

Chairman Baden noted that something to consider when the applicant does go to build the garage, he believed that the Town had 100’ setbacks from a classified stream.

Mr. Ringler believed that Mr. Davis, Building Inspector, told the applicant that he was exempt from the buffer because he was replacing a building that was already there.

Chairman Baden understood.

Mr. Ringler noted that the applicant had already researched that before he did the Lot Line Improvement so he could be sure that he could put up a building.

Chairman Baden noted that it had to be on the USGS maps and it had to be a principal structure. He continued to note that this was a Type II action under SEQRA by definition.

Ms. Lindstrom motioned to approve the Lot Line Improvement with the condition that the Board receives the recorded deed for Parcel A showing Mr. Desilva as the owner prior to the Chairman’s signature. Seconded by Mr. Dewitt. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden: Yes Dewitt: Yes
Lindstrom: Yes Ricks: Absent
Paddock: Yes Williams: Yes
Dawson: Yes

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

2016-02 SBD Continued Application, Public Hearing
Minor Subdivision
William D. and Rose Farrell (owner) and William R. and Alyssa Farrell (applicant)
Proposes 2 lot subdivision of a 5.01 acre parcel, with existing shared well agreement
44-46 Tobacco Lane, S/B/L 77.9-1-14.112, H and AP Overlay zoning districts, Located within 500’ of Ulster County Ag District 3

Allyssa Farrell was present on behalf of the application. She presented revised maps to the Board.

Chairman Baden noted that this is lot 2 of a former subdivision that is being divided into two lots. He questioned if the applicant was going to continue the use of the current driveway?

Mrs. Farrell noted that they were going to use the driveway for another year.

Chairman Baden noted that the Board submitted the application and map to the Highway Superintendent and he replied with not concerns. Because lot 2.2 and lot 2.1 both have frontage on a public road, the Board doesn’t really care about the shared driveway. They can continue to use it, but because lot 2.2 could get its own driveway, it’s not something that they need an RMA for or anything like that, they can continue to use it if they so choose, but it’s between the two parties. It’s not something that the Town gets involved in. When they do decide to make their own driveway for lot 2.2, the applicant would need to go to the Highway Superintendent to get a driveway permit and he will tell the applicant the best location. Chairman Baden also noted that lot 2.1 is sharing a well with lot 1 and now they have added the approximate line of the water pipe and they added the septic location for the two existing homes. Both lots meet the schedule of district regulations for the Hamlet District. The Right to Farm note will also need to be added to the plans.

At this time the Board reviewed part 2 of the Short Environmental Assessment Form. All questions were answered as “No or small impact may occur”.

Mr. Dawson motioned for a Negative Declaration under SEQRA. Seconded by Ms. Lindstrom. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden: Yes Dewitt: Yes
Lindstrom: Yes Ricks: Absent
Paddock: Yes Williams: Yes
Dawson: Yes

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

At 7:30pm the Public Hearing was opened.

There was no public comment.

At 7:30pm Mr. Dawson motioned to close the public hearing. Seconded by Ms. Lindstrom. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden: Yes Dewitt: Yes
Lindstrom: Yes Ricks: Absent
Paddock: Yes Williams: Yes
Dawson: Yes

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

At this time the Board reviewed the Draft Decision, starting with the Findings as prepared by the Chairman.

Findings of the Planning Board:
1. The Planning Board received zoning referral for a Minor Subdivision from the Code Enforcement Officer. Required documentation, as detailed in this decision, was provided for review and the application was considered complete.
2. The owner granted representation power to William R. and Alyssa Farrell.
3. The application proposes subdivision of a ±5.08 acre parcel resulting in 2 lots of ±2.69 acres and ±2.39 acres.
4. The parcel to be subdivided is known as S/B/L 77.9-1-14.112.
5. The current use of the parcel is residential with improvements of two single-family dwellings, shed, gravel driveway, and private well and septic.
6. The subdivision proposes to separate the dwellings and improvements onto 2 lots. No new improvements are proposed at this time.
7. The application was determined to meet the requirements of an Unlisted SEQRA action.
• A Negative Declaration was determined upon review.
8. The parcel is located in the H zoning district.
• The Board concludes Lots 2.1 and 2.2, as proposed, meet or exceed the bulk standards requirements for the H zoning district.
9. The parcel is located in the AP Overlay zoning district.
• The Board concludes Lots 2.1 and 2.2, as proposed, are for residential use and exempt from the standards of the AP Overlay zoning district.
10. The parcel is located within 500’ of Ulster County Agricultural District #3.
• An agricultural data statement was submitted.
• The application is required to be referred to the Ulster County Planning Board, however is exempt by the signing of the exception agreement by both Boards stating this type of application will have no county impacts.
11. The Board reviewed if the proposed lots have safe and legal access.
• The parcel is located on Tobacco Rd., a Town of Rochester controlled public roadway. The subdivision was referred to the Town of Rochester Highway Superintendent for review who replied with no comments at this time.
• Lots 2.1 and 2.2 have the required road frontage. A shared driveway is currently utilized, however the town takes no position on this as both lots have the possibility for individual legal access.
12. The Board reviewed if the proposed lots could support water and septic.
• Lot 2.1 has septic. Water is achieved via a shared well with Lot 1 on subdivision map filed with the Ulster County Clerk as map #1105. A rights to use and rights to access statement is included in the existing deed filed with the Ulster County Clerk Liber 4172 Page 157 and will remain.
• Lot 2.2 has existing well and septic.

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

Adopted May 9, 2016 by the following vote:
Ayes: 6 Nays: 0 Absent: 1

Motion to adopt findings by: Mr. Dawson
Second by: Mr. Paddock
At this time the Board reviewed the Decision as follows:
RESOLVED,
The Town of Rochester Planning Board grants Minor Subdivision-Conditional Final Approval to William D. and Rose Farrell (owner) and William R. and Alyssa Farrell (applicant)permitting the subdivision of lands situate at 44-46 Tobacco Rd., known as S/B/L 77.9-1-14.112 and located in the ‘H’ and ‘AP Overlay’ zoning districts, into 2 lots with the following conditions. The subdivision plan, as dated April 14, 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, 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:
1. Applicant shall present a Final Plat for signature with these amendments.
a. 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.
2. The attorney for the town shall review the shared well proposal and approve the agreement. Any costs or fees associated with such review shall be the responsibility of the applicant.
3. 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 shared well agreement and Final Plat by the Attorney for the Town.
4. 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, 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.
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 May 9, 2016, by the following vote:
Ayes: 6 Nays: 0 Absent: 1

Motion made by: Mr. Dawson Second by: Ms. Lindstrom

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

Mrs. Parks was present on behalf of Mrs. Shuhan and the application.

Chairman Baden noted that there were new submissions from the applicant.

Mrs. Parks noted that one of the other parents who also were volunteering to help out with the application was an environmental designer and she did the site plan.

Chairman Baden noted that this was very well done for an applicant doing it on their own. They recommended sending the site plan as a pdf version in the future as the file that they sent electronically was enormous and clogged up the email system.

Mrs. Parks noted that there is also a sketched version of the parking lot and this sketch should correspond with a blown up version of the parking lot. There is a long driveway and they have at least 10 parking spots within the rectangular area near the school and then there is over flow parking along the driveway. What she understood is that she needed to show at least 6 spots for parking.

Chairman Baden noted that was sort of the number that he had come up with when he met with Mrs. Shuhan initially. Certainly the Board can weigh in what they think is needed.

Mr. Dawson noted that he drove past there and he thought it was the previous weekend and there was something going on.

Mrs. Parks noted that it was the previous Thursday.

Chairman Baden agreed that he drove by as well and there were cars parked all along Lucas Ave.

Mr. Dawson noted that he saw cars parked all up and down the driveway. He noted that was why they were trying to get the parking situated. He was going to say right now that just by seeing that and without going up into the site, he didn’t know if any parking improvements have been made, but apparently there is a parking problem now. He believed that there were 6 or 7 cars on Lucas Ave and then they were backed right up the driveway also. He knows that some people are afraid to pull in because they are afraid of traffic and afraid that they won’t be able to get out and sometimes no one is parked in there because they are all afraid of that same situation. That’s why the Board try to make driveways wide enough so that they can see they can get in and out. They get scared that if they park to the side they are going to get stuck. That’s why the width of the driveway is really important.

Chairman Baden noted that he drove by that day as well. There were a number of cars parked alongside Lucas Ave. Lucas Ave had quite a wide shoulder there and all the cars were safely off of the road. They weren’t even on the shoulder, they were in the grass. But, when he looked down the driveway there were number of cars parked on either side. His concern is that if there are cars parked along the driveway that if a fire truck were needed, it may not have been able to get through.

Mrs. Parks noted that was their May Day festival. It’s a Spring fair on that particular day. It wasn’t a normal group nor was it reflecting the school community because they had invited a sister Kindergarten from Gardiner to attend this May Fair. It was their first year and they haven’t done a Spring festival, so Mrs. Shuhan had invited that school plus a smaller group out of High Falls. That was an unusual day.

Chairman Baden understood that it wasn’t the norm because he had never seen that occurrence before, but the Board couldn’t have allowed the driveway itself. Along Lucas Ave, the Town doesn’t really have any enforcement over that—it would really be up to the County or the State police if they chose to enforce that or not.

Mr. Dewitt questioned if the ground in there was soggy? He knew it ‘Wetland’ on the plans.

Chairman Baden noted that there is a considerable wetland behind the school.

Mrs. Parks noted that it doesn’t get wet for another 8’ from the road, so where the cars were parked it was dry.

Ms. Lindstrom questioned if there was the ability to widen the ‘L’ of the driveway for parking so that you could do one parking towards to road and then more parking towards the rear of the property?

Mr. Paddock questioned what the width was of the actual driveway itself?

Mrs. Parks noted that the narrow part is 14’ wide. The long red, is 14’ across.

Chairman Baden noted that that was of some concern because really for a safe access it really needs to be 20’ wide because that would allow a fire truck and a car to be passing each other in an emergency situation.

Mr. Dewitt asked what the shoulders were like for that 14’ road.

Mrs. Parks noted that it was just brush. It was pretty flat, so they could clear the brush.

Mr. Dawson noted that it was gravelly ground, so it was well drained and hard ground.

Chairman Baden noted that they might just need to clear the brush back to get that 20’.

Mr. Williams noted that where it said ‘proposed house’ and ‘proposed driveway’—That’s part of the property they are talking about as well?

Mrs. Parks noted that was another property.

Chairman Baden noted that you can see that there is a very small area that is not wetlands. These are Federal Wetlands, not DEC Wetlands, so they don’t come with the same regulations that the DEC wetlands come with. You can construct on Federal Wetlands. DEC has much different rules and regulations.

Mrs. Parks noted that when Mrs. Shuhan conveyed to Mrs. Parks the meeting that took place between Mrs. Shuhan and Chairman Baden, Mrs. Shuhan said that she needed to show just a minimum of 6 parking spots. If they make sure that no one parks in that driveway, just as a safety measure, and they can show that at least 12 cars plus and ADA parking spot can fit in the parking area, would that suffice.

Chairman Baden noted that honestly, 6 was kind of an arbitrary number. The Chairman was trying to get the number of people who would be there all day long from Mrs. Shuhan and he believed she said it was 3. They kind of went from there and said, okay, maybe a parent or two might be dropping their children off and staying for some reason, so 6 was kind of the number that they arrived at. It was certainly up to the Board if that was the number they were comfortable with. The Code allows the Board to tailor the number of spaces to the use specific. The driveway in itself still needs to be widened to 20’. That’s Fire Code that needs to be met.

Mr. Paddock questioned when kids were being dropped off in the morning, does class or school start at a specified time, or is it kind of as they come?

Mrs. Parks noted that it was as they come because they were little ones, so it was anywhere between 8:30am and 9am.

Mr. Paddock noted that within a half an hour 20 families were dropping off kids. That was his concern that 6 parking spots weren’t enough.

Mr. Dewitt questioned if they dropped them off or did they park and take them in.

Mrs. Parks noted that usually they pull right in and there’s pretty much a good flow and drop off is pretty quick and there is space enough to turn around.

Chairman Baden questioned if the parent was physically walking the child into the school?

Mrs. Parks noted that sometimes they were. For the most part, most of the year, except when it is really cold, the children start outdoors so it’s 15’ from where the cars are dropped off and all the teachers are there and they receive the children right in the play yard.

Chairman Baden noted that Mrs. Shuhan had indicated in her application that this would be Pre-K through 3rd grade and when he was reading the minutes, Mrs. Shuhan was just talking about Pre-K and Kindergarten now?

Mrs. Parks noted that it is just Kindergarten, but she believes that Mrs. Shuhan left that 3rd grade as a possible option. She’s had a number of families ask her if it’s possible for her to expand her school. Mrs. Shuhan isn’t thinking about that right now, but she thinks that Mrs. Shuhan put that in her language as an option.

Chairman Baden questioned what the highest number of students would be anticipated?

Mrs. Parks answered that not every child comes every day. For example, Wednesdays and Thursdays have a full 20 children. Mondays there are about 12. It does vary, but Mrs. Parks believed all together at the most she can take 24 children.

Chairman Baden questioned if approximately 25 children would be a safe number?

Mrs. Parks noted that Mrs. Shuhan does have rules about the number of caregivers per child ratio, and Mrs. Shuhan does follow that, but yes, Mrs. Parks believes 25 would be a safe number.

Chairman Baden noted that he was trying to calculate the highest number of cars anticipated. So, the highest amount of cars would be 25.

Mrs. Parks noted that she’s seen about 8 cars at a time at the most.

Mr. Dewitt questioned if there were any more school events besides the May Day?

Mrs. Parks answered that there would be an Autumn Festival of some sort…

Chairman Baden noted that the problem when they have these festivals where they were going to have parents and potentially grandparents and other people and they were looking at a large number of cars, they didn’t really have the capability for the parking on site. That is a concern because the Board definitely cannot allow them to park along the driveway. To park along the driveway they would need to make the driveway about 30’ in width. The parking spaces have to be 10’ wide by 20’ long under the Town’s code, so the driveway would need to be widened to 30’ to be able to park along that stretch of driveway, and then it would only be parking along one side of the driveway. That is what he saw when he looked down. There was a lane open, but he doesn’t think a fire truck could have gotten through or even potentially an ambulance.

Ms. Lindstrom questioned if it would be easier to solve it by just saying really widen that out versus doing another ancillary parking area?

Chairman Baden didn’t even know if widening the driveway to 30’ would even give them enough parking spaces. It’s a long driveway, but it’s not that long where it would create another dozen parking spaces.

Mr. Dewitt questioned how formal was the Town on the surfacing of a parking lot? Did they accept grass?

Chairman Baden noted that as a secondary parking area, used once in a while the Board can accept grass, but they would still need a large area. It could be grass if it were a temporary area that they were only using 3 or 4 times a year. The Board would have to look at it to see if they would accept it. It would have to be compacted to some degree. It needed to be drivable and it wouldn’t be able to be in the wetland.

Mr. Dawson noted that he knew that land very well and anywhere on that property would work. It would be just a matter of getting a bulldozer there and knocking it down. The material is there, and they don’t have to really add any new material.

Chairman Baden showed a potential location depending on the surfacing. The Board would need some photographs showing them what the area looked like. That could be the temporary parking area for occasional use. It’s often referred to as ‘overflow parking’ for those number of events that they were going to have. It wouldn’t be used as regular parking and the Board wouldn’t approve it as regular parking, but for May Day or a Fall Festival—the overflow people. The Board would much rather see them in a planned area rather than blocking the driveway.

Mr. Paddock questioned if the school received any kind of deliveries? Any types of trucks coming back in that area?

Mrs. Parks didn’t believe so. Because they were doing gardening and the children work on a garden, they have had deliveries of mulch—large quantities, but they come on days when school is not in session. School is only Monday through Thursday and then on Fridays Mrs. Shuhan has a small program for mom’s and babies on in the morning. All other work and deliveries come on the weekends.

Chairman Baden questioned how many people they would have on a Friday? Because Mom’s and Babies are parking and staying the whole time.

Mrs. Parks believed that was a small group. 6-8 at the most and less instructors than a normal day.

Chairman Baden noted that 10 spaces would probably be more viable than the 6. Mrs. Shuhan hadn’t mentioned this part of the program to him. She just mentioned that children would be dropped off. If this is the case, they really need a minimum of 10 parking spaces if Mrs. Shuhan was going to have 6-8 mothers and babies plus 2 instructors.

Mrs. Parks questioned if this was something that they needed to address prior to?

Chairman Baden noted that this needed to be referred to the Ulster County Planning Board. The Board could not refer it until they had a complete application. It could be set for a public hearing, but the Board couldn’t close the public hearing until they get comments back from the County PB. It would also need to be referred to the Ulster County Dept. of Public Works to review the driveway because a County Road is accessed. Because of so much of the Federal Wetlands, he wanted to refer it to the Army Corp of Engineers to see if they had any concerns. Also it would be referred to the Accord Fire District. So, the Board could go ahead and set it for public hearing for the June meeting. It is a Special Use Permit Application, so they would not need to complete SEQRA before they opened the hearing.

Mr. Dewitt questioned if Mrs. Shuhan was working backward from any specific deadline?

Mrs. Parks noted that she believes that Mrs. Shuhan was hoping to be all in place by September when she starts the new year.

Chairman Baden noted that Mrs. Shuhan indicated to him that there was some sort of certification that was needed from the State to transition from what Mrs. Shuhan is doing now, and the State needs to see an approval from the Town.

Mrs. Parks noted that Mrs. Shuhan is hoping to have everything by September, but Chairman Baden was correct, because for Mrs. Shuhan to apply to the School State Dept. and for that application to the State to be processed over the summer, they would need this Special Use Permit sooner rather than later.

Chairman Baden noted that if the public hearing was opened up in June, and even if the Board didn’t get that information from the applicants until June, they could submit the information to the County for their July meeting…. He didn’t see the approval happening from the PB until July at the earliest based on time frames and the materials they currently had to review. That’s barring any unforeseen things. If the Board was comfortable with it, he was okay with scheduling the public hearing for June to begin that process, they just wouldn’t be able to close it until they hear back from all agencies.

Mrs. Parks questioned if the work needed to be done?

Chairman Baden noted that the Board needed to see a new drawing that shows where those 10 spaces were going to be and shows the widened driveway.

Mr. Dawson noted that those would be part of the conditions and the work being done would be part of the conditions and they wouldn’t get Final Approval until that work was done.

Chairman Baden noted that they would need to do the work before they could get their Final Approval. They couldn’t refer this to the County until the plans are revised and complete. The Board needs to see the 10’ x 20’ parking spaces shown and designated—not just an area. He noted that the applicant might need to now enlarge their site plan so they can show a little more detail on it. The site plan that they submitted is very good and suffices as an overview, but now that they were getting into the parking, the Board really needed to see more detail. There also were a number of other requirements as well that need to be on the site plan itself. There is legal language and things needed to be referenced. It had all been provided to Mrs. Shuhan during her meeting in April with the Chairman. He suggested checking to see if they still had it. If not, they could get it from the Town Codes on the Town’s website. It was under the Zoning Code and it was Section 140-46. The site plan submitted is good for a sketch plan, but once they get into the final stages, it’s a little more formalized. 140-46 will outline exactly what is needed.

Mrs. Parks questioned if the plot plan needed to be done by a professional surveyor.

Chairman Baden noted that it did not need to be done by a professional, as long as it was done to scale. If they were doing a subdivision, it would need to be done by a surveyor because it would need to be filed with the County. This site plan does not get filed with the County, it stays in the Town Offices. As long as it is done to an accurate scale.

Mrs. Parks thought they were missing a document that went with this. It was a zoomed in view of the parking spot. It was in the email, it was a zoomed in picture of 8 spots.

Chairman Baden noted that if they were going to show an overflow parking area, they would need to show a large rectangle and it would need to be outlined in rows. You can park two cars end to end, but you can’t do 3 that way. People need to be able to leave in an emergency situation.

Ms. Lindstrom noted that in her opinion, maybe a surveyor or engineer, although costly, would save them time because they know how to draw it all up. They may spend so much more time trying to do this on their own.

Chairman Baden agreed and noted especially with their time constraints—this was something that a surveyor or an engineer could draw up pretty easily.

Ms. Lindstrom noted that they would have to weigh what was more important—the expense or the time frame that they were under.

Mr. Paddock questioned if they needed any kind of lighting details?

Chairman Baden noted that another thing that the Board really needed to see on the plan, and again, this was detailed in Section 140-46, is if there is exterior lighting—the location of those and the types of fixtures. If they were adding any new lighting it needed to be dark sky compliant, which is downward shielded. LED is preferred by the County PB. If they aren’t proposing anything new, any info they can supply on the existing lighting is helpful. Also, any landscaping—if there are large trees in the area surrounding the building itself, or if there is a hedge row—that needs to be shown. The Board also needs to see a labeling of all of the properties surrounding theirs showing the boundary lines and the names. This is why they are really better off having a professional draw it because they know all of these things and they just do it automatically. Like he said, the site plan submitted was very well done and the Board certainly could review this, but when they get into the final stages, someone who is not familiar with the process is going to delay their approval because it is extremely likely that they will neglect to add a requirement to the plan and it will hold up the approval process because they will have to make revisions and come back to the Board for another month.

Mr. Dewitt noted that one of their parents might be a surveyor or have those skills.

Chairman Baden agreed. It didn’t need to be a survey map per se, but the only reason they say a surveyor is because they know the details of what to include.

Mr. Dewitt noted that if Mrs. Parks listened to the previous applications, even professionals sometimes leave things out that are required.

Chairman Baden noted that really the Board needs to see the revised parking, the existing road, and the proposed widening of the road as well.

Mr. Dawson questioned if the round circle was the garden?

Mrs. Parks noted that it was a meditation garden, but now it’s just a little pathway.

Mr. Dawson questioned what the large grassy area was beneath the yurt?

Mrs. Parks noted that was the play area.

Mr. Dawson noted that behind the meditation garden was a nice flat area for parking.

Chairman Baden questioned how many cars would they realistically have at one of these festivals? 30?

Mrs. Parks noted that the last May Day was the largest event she’s ever seen the school have. She’s been at the school for the last 4 years. She knew that a bunch of families car pool… maybe it was 25? People aren’t going into the school area because they know that they don’t want to start to get bottle necked.

Mr. Paddock noted that just like Christmas at the mall—you have to plan for the worst case scenario.

Chairman Baden noted that if they had 10 permanent spaces, they would need to come up with 20 more temporary spots or overflow. Parking is one of the things that people often don’t think about, but it’s one of the biggest issues that the PB has to think about because it blocks safety and safety is the Board’s biggest concern with applications.

Mrs. Parks wanted clarification for the overall process. Not only would they need to propose and show these changes as requested, but also have that work done? Was there even a point in having the public hearing?

Chairman Baden noted that they could start the process. It’s always good to start it and in this case because it is a special use permit and not a subdivision, they don’t have to do SEQRA first. If something else pops up from the public that poses a question to the Board that needs to be addressed, they can’t close the public hearing until they get all of the information to all of their unanswered questions. Then the Board has to submit the application to the other agencies to review, but the PB can’t submit to them a partial statement—it has to be everything. The County PB meets the first Wednesday of the month, and they issue comments back to the PB. The PB can either follow their comments, over rule their comments by a super majority (5 members), or they may have no comments and a ‘No County Impact’. His suspicion is that they will have comments on this application. At this point, there are so many incomplete things about the application that the applicant needs to bring everything back to the whole Board so that the whole Board can address the revisions.

Mr. Dewitt questioned what the applicant’s latitude was for that 20’ wide driveway? Does it have to be crushed rock?

Chairman Baden noted that the term in the Fire Code is passable in all weather conditions. If it’s wet and muddy, a fire truck isn’t going to get in there. If it’s fairly well compacted and maybe they need to add a little crushed stone in wet spots. If it’s already 14’, the Board needs to see what it is now and what it will be expanded to. The details on the parking spaces also need to be shown and the other details on the final plan as per Code requirements. Chairman Baden would be willing to go over all of that with someone over the phone to walk them through it. If they hire a professional, they will know what to do. He can’t say one way or the other, but perhaps in the long run, based on their time frames, the applicant might be better off hiring a professional.

Mrs. Parks noted that they had an old survey, but it was discovered that the gentleman who did the map has died.

Chairman Baden noted that the applicant has a survey that they could bring to someone as a starting point. Any surveyor or engineer could do the work. There were a number of them in the area and the Board doesn’t recommend any particular person.

Mrs. Parks thinks that they had a Medenbach grandchild in the school.

The Board all informed Mrs. Parks that then they have a connection already.

Mr. Dawson made a motion to schedule the application for a public hearing on June 13, 2016. Seconded by Mr. Dewitt. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden: Yes Dewitt: Yes
Lindstrom: Yes Ricks: Absent
Paddock: Yes Williams: Yes
Dawson: Yes

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

Mrs. Parks was confused about the difference between getting the revisions to the site plan done and the physical work on the ground done now.

The Board clarified that the applicant doesn’t do any physical work until they receive their decision from the PB. Right now they need the maps. Don’t start any work now incase things change. It needs to be shown on the map of what is existing and what is proposed. If they do end up going with Mr. Medenbach, they know all of this.

PreApplication
Site Plan
Dana McClure (applicant) and Karen McClure (owner)
Proposes expansion of use for Agricultural Tourism Enterprises
579 Samsonville Rd., S/B/L 68.1-1-15.112, AR-3 zoning district

Karen and Dana McClure were present on behalf of the pre-application discussion.

Dana McClure explained that she and her husband moved to the area 6 years ago to start a small organic farm. They are in Olive Bridge. They have been cultivating that land and have produce, chickens and her mother, Karen McClure, moved up 2 years later and they are growing things on her land as well and she also has a barn on her property from the 1850’s. Dan Palmese subdivided the property and sold her mother his old house and he built a new house on the other parcel a little up the hill. Her mother has 4 acres that Mr. Palmese used to grow on. They’ve been slowly renovating this barn and trying to bring it back to life and they want to do as much farming as possible.

Karen McClure noted that they’ve been working closely with the Building Inspector on the barn renovation.

Chairman Baden noted that the applicant did submit a small drawing.

Dana McClure noted that her mother had a survey that she scanned in to use as a template, so it is to scale. This is a draft and she was just looking for feedback. She was hoping to use the barn as a farm stand that they can open up occasionally, whenever they have surplus produce and then also to do private monthly dinners. Her husband has been a chef for 20 years and this is the whole reason they moved up here, to have a small, organic farm and then to cook and prepare the food that they grow. They wanted to make use of the barn to do private, invite only harvest celebrations with a max of 30 people. A June harvest dinner would be at the end of June, a July harvest dinner would be at the end of July. It would be 80% of what they grow. They don’t do meat, so they would have to use local vendors for that. They have about 70 birds for free range eggs. They also do maple syrup, produce, they have fruit trees, and fresh cut flowers. They have sold to markets, some restaurants in the City, which is hard to do, so they’ve given up on that plan. They’ve sold some stuff to the co-op as well. This is really a way for them to try and do these dinners, to sustain and to keep moving forward.

Chairman Baden questioned what on the drawing was existing, and what was proposed?

Dana McClure noted that everything pretty much was existing. A few garden beds exist now, but they would be making more. The barn and farm house exists. The detached garage exists. They have cleared the space for the parking lot. It’s actually 60’ x 120’.

Chairman Baden noted that with a 120’ space they would be able to put 12 parking spots on each side.

Dana McClure noted that was what they have shown and it would need to be 25’ in the middle.

Chairman Baden agreed that would work.

Dana McClure noted that they cleared that area, but it still had stumps that needed to be removed. They needed to know how many spaces would be needed for 30 guests.

Chairman Baden noted that they would only get 24 cars there, but obviously with 30 guests they wouldn’t be coming in individual cars.

Dana McClure noted that she read the parking specs in the Town’s Code and it was referenced that there could be 4 guests per car, but she didn’t think that people would really car pool to these things.

Chairman Baden agreed. He would think that for 30 guests, 24 cars would be reasonable. What about employees?

Dana McClure noted that the staff would be her husband and herself and maybe 2 assistants and maybe a server—so maybe 5 total. There was other parking, which was her mother’s parking. Her mother has the two car garage and then there is parking over on the side of the house that is existing for 2 cars as well.

Chairman Baden noted that they would want to show and label separate staff parking and those spots would still need to be 10’ x 20’ for each space, but if the applicant was saying 5 or 6 people…. Obviously the parking for the house is covered by the garage, so that’s okay. For the use itself they would need to see those spaces. Where would they hold these events—in the barn?

Dana McClure answered, yes. In the barn. People would come in the entrance that they would need to remove some trees on the driveway, which is currently 14’ wide. The driveway goes all the way around, but she would imagine using that entrance to go into the parking lot and then walking along an illuminated path to the barn, but to also have them exiting the same way, so people would be coming and going at the same time. The driveway is 14’ wide and is solid packed and it’s on a County Road.

Karen McClure noted that she has an easement on the other side of her through driveway to get onto the road. That other end of the driveway which has the easement over it is really wide.
Chairman Baden noted that the Board would need to see a copy of the easement.

Mrs. Christiana noted that it might only be an easement for a residential purpose. It might be an easement for commercial purposes.

Karen McClure noted that they really were only going to propose to use it as an emergency exit.

Dana McClure noted that was why they were thinking that it might be better or even safer to have the traffic go in and out the same way.

Mr. Dawson felt that if the neighbor was good with it and they had an easement and it all worked out that could work in their favor.

Chairman Baden felt that they were better off with one way because then with it only being 14’ wide wouldn’t be their issue. If it was going to be 2 way, it would need to be 20’ wide. He didn’t think the County would want another exit there. The Board would need to check the deed with the easement to make sure that it allowed commercial use, not just a residential use even though it was agricultural. He verified that the applicant’s parcel was not located in a County Ag District.

Dana McClure noted that they just spoke with the Cornell Cooperative people about it, and they missed the application deadline for this year.

Chairman Baden suggested that the applicant consider applying for it next year.

Mr. Dewitt questioned if there was a reason why the portion of the driveway with the easement was configured the way it was?

Karen McClure noted that it doesn’t stay really narrow, it opens up so you can go either way. It’s steep in that area.

Mr. Paddock questioned where the cooking was going to be done?

Dana McClure noted that there was a box on the plan that represented an outdoor grill station. They would do a lot of outdoor prep, but they have also looked into using the eat kitchen in the Cornel kitchen in Sullivan County which is actually closer for them. They looked into Dept. of Health Permits, so they would need a food processing license and from Ag and Markets a temporary food service application which would allow them to do a certain amount of dinner and then for any off site prep, they would be using the Cornel kitchen. The initial idea was to do their own commissary kitchen on this parcel, someday so they could prepare their own products from the farm, but that is so far in the future- it’s like 5-10 years away so they didn’t think it would make any sense to put into the discussion because they don’t know where that would go.

Chairman Baden questioned how the public would get from the parking area to the barn?

Dana McClure noted that they would walk along the gravel driveway and it will be illuminated with led ground lights.

Chairman Baden noted that they would need to show where the lights would be and they would almost be better showing a small gravel path or flag stone path because they really can’t approve the public walking along the driveway if that’s going to be used as a driveway. It could be right next to it and if it’s well packed grass, that’s okay too. They show the lighting on the plan, so that’s good.

Mr. Dewitt questioned if they could do solar lighting along the walkway?

Chairman Baden noted that the applicants would need to show a spec sheet of the proposed lighting.

Karen McClure noted that the whole area is lit up because on the tool shed, and in another location, there is existing lighting that is downward shielded, but they are on a light sensor, so as soon as it gets dark it lights up the whole area.

Dana McClure noted that there is a pretty intense light on the front of the farm house and then on the tool shed, it lights up quite a bit of the property. The lights they just installed on the front of the barn are those goose lamp kinds that light up the area in front of the barn.

Chairman Baden noted that the flood lights, the County won’t like. If they were by the house and for the house, that was one thing, but if they were using it for the business area, they would have issues with that. The problem with flood lights are that they light up everything, including your neighbor’s property. Anything that they are adding in terms of lighting they will need to show details on. They could include anything that was existing in a written narrative.

Mr. Paddock questioned if there was a lighted path to the portable toilet behind the tool shed?

Dana McClure noted that they would do the same type of led lighting along the walkway from the parking to the barn—from the barn to the toilets.

Chairman Baden noted that it didn’t’ need to be a formal path, but they just needed it safe to where someone wasn’t going to slip and fall. Grass is okay, but if it could be something a little more that would be preferred.

Mr. Dawson questioned if they were doing evening events?

Dana McClure noted that it would be early evening and they would need to look into lighting for the parking lot.

Chairman Baden noted that it didn’t need to be a tall pole mount or anything, but it could be a short globe type of thing, but it did need to be full shielded, downward.

Dana McClure questioned if it could be event type Christmas lighting? Those huge Christmas bulbs on a long string of lights?

Chairman Baden noted that they could propose it, but they would really need to show the specs on it to be sure that it would light it up enough. The Board has to be concerned with the patrons going back to their cars and if there isn’t enough light they run into a tripping hazard and that type of thing.

Mr. Paddock noted that what they do see more often is temporary event lighting. Doesn’t have to be permanent, like the tall halogen ones.

Chairman Baden noted that the problem with those is that are really spread all over the place. Basically because your parking is so close to your neighbor’s property, you don’t want to deal with the light intruding on to your neighbor’s property.

Dana McClure noted that the closest residence is on the other side – Mr. Palmese. The Waruch property is all woods.

Chairman Baden suggested downloading aerial views from the Ulster County Parcel Viewer website.

Karen McClure noted that her parcel doesn’t show up on the parcel viewer.

Chairman Baden noted that they could probably zoom into that area. If they have a section block and lot number and receive a tax bill—then it was filed.

The applicant stated that she definitely gets a tax bill.

Mr. Paddock noted that in addition to the farm stand and the dinners would there be seasonal events?

Dana McClure stated no—just the monthly dinners. They really wouldn’t want to do more than that. Her husband has been in the restaurant industry for a long time and doesn’t want to have anything to do with it anymore. The point is to culminate each month in an event and the farm stand would be great to unload extra produce that they have. That would operate in the barn as well. They wouldn’t be putting open hours out front. They don’t think they were there yet in terms of being able to commit to specific hours or days.
The Building inspector is requiring an ADA wheelchair compliant entrance, so they walked around and figured out where they could do it. On the side entrance there is a ramp that is on the interior of the barn and they are putting a little patio out back.

Chairman Baden suggested putting an ADA parking space right near the entrance to the barn. It has to have a sign and has to be ADA compliant and has to be marked. The Building Inspector would let them know what surfacing was acceptable. He suggested rather than having someone handicapped come all the way from the parking area to the barn—and they would only need one space, so near the ramp somehow would be best. They would need to get from their car to the ramp easily. If it’s grass and they are going over bumps with their wheel chair, that’s not going to work.

Dana McClure noted that they just put a lot of fill there to make it really level there so that they didn’t just have this ramp on the inside. They were thinking about putting in a little wooden walkway that was ADA compliant.

Chairman Baden noted that they could do the parking space right near the ramp. The Building Inspector could give the applicant the dimensions for the space.

Karen McClure noted that they have a lot of room for parking. If they went where all of the trees are—it’s kind of close to the neighbor, but they could do that too.

Chairman Baden noted that the area cleared for parking, in his opinion, was kind of perfect for the events.

Dana McClure wanted to keep the parking as far away from their neighbor as possible.

Chairman Baden thought it all worked—would that be gravel or crushed stone—some sort of all-weather capable surface. It could be gravel and rolled, crushed stone.

Karen McClure questioned if wood chips would work for surfacing?

The Board said it would not. It has to be compacted and all weather surface.

Karen McClure wondered if a material such as item 4 would work?

The Board answered yes. It would allow drainage through, but wouldn’t get muddy.

Mr. Paddock questioned if they would be having any amplified music.

Dana McClure noted that they want it to be like a real classy, intimate gathering. Amplified music is not in the proposal.

Chairman Baden noted that being it is on Samsonville Road they will need to call the DPW for them to view the driveway. They will need to provide a copy of the deed and easement to show that it can be used.

Ms. Lindstrom had a suggestion to use the key entrance that goes into the parking lot, make that the full 20’ that is required and then rope up or block the other driveway so it becomes the walkway and has a sign for handicap use also so the handicap person would drive in there, otherwise it would be in the walkway.

Chairman Baden agreed and noted they would have to widen it to 20’. The applicant should also contact the Ulster County DPW to talk about what they want to do and they will make a recommendation as to what the applicant needs to do on their end. Chairman Baden didn’t think the County would like the other access on the driveway because of the way it intersects the road. The Fire district would have to tell the Board if the driveway is accessible. The biggest obstacle is widening the driveway, surfacing and lighting of the parking area and then the pathway and lighting to the barn and the pathway and lighting from the barn to the porta potty.

Dana McClure understood all of this and would work on a more detailed site plan showing everything existing and proposed and will put it on a larger plan. She will also submit a copy of the deed showing the easement. They are also researching plumbing in the toolshed for the future.

Chairman Baden noted that the UCHD will be a condition of approval, and they can’t submit to the Ulster County Planning Board until the PB has a complete application. They also need to add signage location and sign details as the County will require that along with lighting details. If a complete enough application is submitted, the Board can set the public hearing for July.

OTHER MATTERS:

PROPOSED SOLAR LAW:
Chairman Baden noted that the Town Board cancelled the scheduled public hearing for the proposed Solar Law that they had set for April 28th. s. Lindstrom sent comments on her own. The Town Board sent the ZRC back to address small scale solar for use on people’s personal property and that was submitted to the Town Board last Thursday. And they are looking at that and they will go from there. The Town’s plan is to start with the small and then work on the larger scale. The Town Board did receive an application for a large scale solar farm of 20 acres in an AR-3 District and they went through Section 140-8 of the Zoning Code. (Use not contemplated. An applicant if they apply for a use that is not addressed, the CEO forwards it to the TB, the TB reviews the use in that Zoning District, they can seek advisement from the PB if they choose to, then they hold a public hearing. After the public hearing they decide yes, that use is allowed or no that use is not allowed. If they decide that the use is allowed, then they forward the application to the PB to review as a special use permit—that use then becomes allowed in that particular zoning district, but cannot be allowed in any other district in Town unless the zoning law is amended through the amendment process.) The Town Board didn’t take any action on it at their last meeting. There were some questions from the public at the public comment session. The TB held a special meeting to discuss it and decided to cancel the public hearing until they got more information as they thought that they may be rushing it. The TB did say at their last meeting that they still do want the ZRC working on the large scale, but they want to move the small scale forward at this time because they thought that was pretty straight forward. In 2014 the Town adopted the Unified Solar Permit, which allows roof top up to 12 kw with just a building permit. You can do that right now. What was proposed by the ZRC, the PB will get a referral should the TB set a public hearing—for small scale use for the property as NY differentiates, by residential use, farm use, and nonresidential use. Those are the 3 categories that NYS differentiates by in terms of the net metering. You still are creating the electricity for your prime use, you are just selling back the extra. The larger scales are not using it on site- they are just a power plant and putting it back into the grid. Subdivision was included in small scale use for up to 2 acres, to be done as a part of a subdivision. The Town Board had some issues with the details of the application of the 20 acre proposed solar farm that was submitted under section 140-46 and they needed to get answers before they would move forward.

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

As there was no further business, Chairman Baden adjourned the meeting at 9:45 PM.

Respectfully Submitted,

Rebecca Paddock Stange, Secretary