Planning Board Minutes 04/17/07

MINUTES OF April 17, 2007, REGULAR MEETING of the Town of Rochester PLANNING BOARD, held at the Town Hall, Accord, NY.

Meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM by the Chairman, Steven L. Fornal.

PRESENT: ABSENT:

Steven L. Fornal, Chairman Anthony Ullman

Shane Ricks Anthony Kawalchuk

Robert Gaydos

Robert Godwin, Alternate (not required to attend)

Nadine D. Carney, Vice Chair

Melvyn I. Tapper (7:10PM)

Pledge to the Flag.

The Chairman introduced the Board to the audience.

PUBLIC HEARING

WALTRAUT CADDIGAN– c/o Cedar Ridge Development Corp, Special Use Permit for manufacturing stone countertops, 2,500 sf work space and storage, and 500 sf office and show room space, 11 & 15 Tow Path Road, Tax Map #77.9-1-24.2, Hamlet District

Jason Wright was present on behalf of this application as the President of Cedar Ridge Development Corp. Mr. Wright explained that he was proposing to take the old laundry mat in town on Main Street and use it as a small show room and work shop to cut and polish stone countertops. He would use 500 sf for office and show room space and 2,500 sf of work space and storage at 11 & 15 Tow Path Road. Everything would be inside except for a little storage outside. This location has been various businesses over the years, dollar store, cat shelter, car wash, along with the laundry mat to name a few.

Mrs. Carney motioned to type this action as Unlisted under SEQRA with an uncoordinated review making the Planning Board Lead Agency. Seconded by Mr. Gaydos. No discussion.

Vote:

Fornal: Yes Ricks: Yes

Tapper: not yet present Carney: Yes

Ullman: Absent Kawalchuk: Absent

Godwin: Not requested to participate Gaydos: Yes

Chairman Fornal opened the hearing to the public.

Brinton Baker was recognized to speak. He inquired if the Board had done a sound check at this location yet.

The Chairman and Mrs. Carney noted that this would be part of the Board’s discussion at this meeting. A sound check has not been done at this time.

T/ROCHESTER Page 2

MINUTES OF MEETING April 17, 2007

PUBLIC HEARING

WALTRAUT CADDIGAN (cont’d): c/o Cedar Ridge Development Corp, Special Use Permit for manufacturing stone countertops, 2,500 sf work space and storage, and 500 sf office and show room space, 11 & 15 Tow Path Road, Tax Map #77.9-1-24.2, Hamlet District

Mr. Baker had a business on Main Street and thought it would be good to have another business near by. He was concerned that the noise level wasn’t going to infringe on other places. He did notice that there were garage doors on the building where Mr. Wright proposes to use his tools. He didn’t know how much sound these doors would stop.

Mr. Wright noted that those doors would be replaced pretty quickly with insulated doors for sound.

As there was no further public comment Mrs. Carney motioned to close the Public Hearing. Seconded by Mr. Gaydos. No discussion.

Vote:

Fornal: Yes Ricks: Yes

Tapper: not yet present Carney: Yes

Ullman: Absent Kawalchuk: Absent

Godwin: Not requested to participate Gaydos: Yes

The Board reviewed the Ulster County Recommendation review dated April 4, 2007. The County had 2 required modifications:

Access – The applicant should coordinate with the County Highway Department to upgrade the existing curb cuts so that they can meet County Standards. By incorporating elements such as curbing and reduced curb cut width it will help to direct vehicular traffic and reduce the number of potential turning conflicts.

Lighting – If currently unshielded, any existing lighting should be upgraded to full-cut off fixtures in order to reduce off-site glare.

The Board discussed these modifications and noted that Tow Path Road is a Town maintained Road, not a County maintained road. The confusion probably comes from the fact that Main Street is a County Road that turns into Tow Path Road, which is Town maintained. The Board had to contact the County Planning Board for a referral because the property in question is within 500’ of a County Road (being Main Street). The required modification pertaining to access would therefore not be applicable.

(Mr. Tapper joined the meeting)

Mrs. Carney motioned to waive the County’s recommendation for County Access as this is on a Town Road. Mr. Gaydos seconded the motion.

Vote:

Fornal: Yes Ricks: Yes

Tapper: Yes Carney: Yes

Ullman: Absent Kawalchuk: Absent

Godwin: Not requested to participate Gaydos: Yes

Majority + 1 gives the PB the right to waive this required modification by the County PB

T/ROCHESTER Page 3

MINUTES OF MEETING April 17, 2007

PUBLIC HEARING

Mrs. Carney noted that the lighting recommendation should be a condition of the approval.

Chairman Fornal questioned where Mr. Wright planned on doing his work with the machines that would be producing the noise?

Mr. Wright had submitted a copy of an interior site plan and noted that it would be in the long bay and in the next two sections over. Those would all be workshop. A majority of the noise would be coming from the longer bay. This is the original car wash bay. A concrete block structure. Then he would put the upgraded doors on it to insulate.

Mr. Ricks noted that at the last meeting Mr. Wright stated that if there was a problem he would put the foam insulation up.

Mr. Wright agreed that he could do that.

Chairman Fornal questioned if the applicant would consider doing a double sheet rock?

Mr. Wright noted that the only problem with sheet rock because of the nature of the business with the water, it wouldn’t work. It’s a very spraying process.

Mr. Gaydos didn’t think that Mr. Wright would be generating such a noise. As he stated last month he would rather see Mr. Wright get in there and work and then do some metering of the sound to see to what extent it should be mitigated. Its tough on the man doing the work—on his ears, but in a concrete block building with insulated doors on both ends… Mr. Gaydos thought that there wouldn’t be much more noise as the wood working shop behind the fire house. That’s never been a problem to anybody.

Mrs. Carney noted that the applicant has agreed to make it a condition and he’s agreed to have it monitored.

Mr. Wright questioned at the time it would be checked, where would it be metered from?

Chairman Fornal noted that it would be metered from the closest structure. An acceptable decibel level would be based on what the DEC uses, which is 10 above Ambient Level.

Mrs. Carney noted that they would need to find out what the level is normally when Mr. Wright isn’t operating at the same time of day at the same distance. And then it would be tested when the machines are operating.

Mr. Gaydos would hate to see Mr. Wright be put through all of the insulating if the noise levels don’t warrant it. Block is a good sound barrier.

At this time the Board went through Part 2 of the Short EAF.

T/ROCHESTER Page 4

MINUTES OF MEETING April 17, 2007

PUBLIC HEARING

SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM

PART II –

A. DOES ACTION EXCEED ANY TYPE I THRESHOLD IN 6 NYCRR, PART 617.4? If yes, coordinate the review process and use the FULL EAF.

B. WILL ACTION RECEIVE COORDINATED REVIEW AS PROVIDED FOR UNLISTED ACTIONS IN 6 NYCRR, PART 617.6? If No, a negative declaration may be superseded by another involved agency.

C. COULD ACTION RESULT IN ANY ADVERSE EFFECTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE FOLLOWING: (Answers may be handwritten, if legible)

C1. Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic pattern, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems? Explain briefly:

The Board discussed the potential for an increase in noise and they further discussed mitigating it by insulating the area in question against the noise

C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, archaeological, historic, or other natural or cultural resources; or community or neighborhood character? Explain briefly:

C3. Vegetation or fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species? Explain briefly:

C4. A community’s existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources? Explain briefly:

C5. Growth, subsequent development, or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action? Explain briefly:

C6. Long term, short term, cumulative, or other effects not identified in C1-C5? Explain briefly:

C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or type of energy)? Explain briefly:

D. WILL THE PROJECT HAVE AN IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS THAT CAUSED THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREA (CEA)?

E. IS THERE, OR IS THERE LIKELY TO BE, CONTROVERSY RELATED TO POTENTIAL ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS?

No, the Board held the Public Hearing and the only comment was about the potential for increased noise which was addressed.

Mrs. Carney motioned for a Negative Declaration under SEQRA. Seconded by Mr. Ricks. No discussion.

Vote:

Fornal: Yes Ricks: Yes

Tapper: Yes Carney: Yes

Ullman: Absent Kawalchuk: Absent

Godwin: Not requested to participate Gaydos: Yes

Mr. Tapper questioned if Mr. Wright had found out if the septic was redone?

T/ROCHESTER Page 5

MINUTES OF MEETING April 17, 2007

PUBLIC HEARING

Mr. Wright had talked to Waltraut Caddigan, the owner of the property and she said that there was a problem and she had taken care of it. The four family house and his business would both operate on the same system. As his business will not produce a lot of waste water or septic usage, he didn’t think it would be a problem. If he ever had a problem in the future he would fix it.

The Chairman questioned if the this was sent to the UCHD for their input?

Mrs. Carney noted that it didn’t need to be as it was recently redone and there isn’t an increase in use.

Mrs. Carney motioned for Final Approval with the following conditions:

1. The Applicant shall comply with Ulster County Planning Board recommendation reviewed dated April 4, 2007 regarding Lighting as follows:

“If currently unshielded, any existing lighting should be upgraded to full-cut off fixtures in order to reduce off-site glare.”

2. Applicant agrees that noise levels shall be monitored and if found to be above acceptable levels, applicant shall mitigate with insulation barriers where noise is produced.

Motion seconded by Mr. Gaydos.

Discussion:

Mr. Gaydos confirmed that Mr. Wright would be able to operate and then be monitored for noise.

Mrs. Carney confirmed this noting that these conditions will not restrict any building permits.

Vote:

Fornal: Yes Ricks: Yes

Tapper: Yes Carney: Yes

Ullman: Absent Kawalchuk: Absent

Godwin: Not requested to participate Gaydos: Yes

FINAL APPROVAL

JAMES DENNIN– subdivision approval for 4 lots off of Airport Road, Tax Map #69.3-1-17.1, ‘A’ District

The Board reviewed the final map, noting that the only outstanding condition of putting the “Right to Farm Note” on it was complete.

Mr. Tapper pointed out that the word, “Chapter”, was misspelled on the plans.

Mrs. Carney motioned to authorize the Chairman to sign the Final Maps. Mr. Gaydos Seconded the motion. No discussion.

Vote:

Fornal: Yes Ricks: Yes

Tapper: Yes Carney: Yes

Ullman: Absent Kawalchuk: Absent

Godwin: Not requested to participate Gaydos: Yes

T/ROCHESTER Page 6

MINUTES OF MEETING April 17, 2007

NEW APPLICATION PRESENTATION

FRANK KORTRIGHT– c/o Medenbach & Eggers, Special Use Permit for Renewal of Mining Permit, Rochester Center Road, Tax Map #68.3-2-14, R-1 District

Mr. Kortright was present along with representatives, Ed Sprague from Medenbach & Eggers and Dominic Cordisco, Mr. Kortright’s attorney.

The Chairman noted that there was a problem here. He explained that in review of the documents, the PB has been submitted an application for a Special Use Permit renewal. The original acreage which pre-existed as an accessory use to excavation where Zoning came in. The opinion of the Town Attorney is that when Mr. Kortright went to a category of Mined Land Reclamation and it became a State Major Mine. That was a change that would have required Mr. Kortright to come in for a Special Use Permit to coincide with the DEC Permits. Chairman Fornal believed that this was in 1987. The Town’s records aren’t up to par. The DEC doesn’t send the PB that much. In 1990 Mr. Kortright received a permit to process which was another change. Either one of those should have triggered the need for Mr. Kortright to come in for a Special Use Permit on that original acreage, which did not happen. This last expansion, Mr. Medenbach was very persistent and in Chairman Fornal’s opinion, led the Board inappropriately that the PB was not to discuss the original pre-existing acreage. What happened was it was relegated to no review for the expansion. This was a Type 1 Action and was over 10 acres of land by itself. There were 8 categories under Unlisted Action. This should have been reviewed by this Board and it was not. The fact of the matter is that what’s existing –this +/-18 acres, needs a Special Use Permit to coincide with the DEC permit. What the PB will try and do on the end of all of this, so that it’s incorporated and it’s all one permit for the entire acreage. The existing +/-18 acres needs a Special Use Permit, because Mr. Kortright is not permitted for that.

Mr. Cordisco believed he understood what Chairman Fornal had said, however, Mr. Cordisco’s understanding of this is that this site has been continually mined since 1965, which well pre-dates any Zoning or Special Use Permit requirements for this Town. It was only in 2003 when Mr. Kortright was seeking to expand the disturbed area of this min to +/-49 acres that triggered the requirement that he needed a Special Use Permit from this Board. Anything done prior to the expansion was grandfathered and he’s not aware of any significant changes that would have required any Special Use Permit to be issued by this Board prior to that time. They were here in July in 2006 where the PB granted the Special Use Permit for the expansion area, which permits a total of +/-49 acres of disturbed mined area. The Board granted the permit for that. The nature of mining is that the site itself is +/-87 acres. The entire site isn’t being mined, it gradually expands over time. Right now the Permit with the DEC is up for renewal and this Board made the right decision to tie in permit term, the Special Use Permit to the DEC Permit, so that when Mr. Kortright will apply to the DEC to renew his permit, he would also apply to the Board so that they could see the current state of the plans, how much area is proposed to be disturbed, how much has been reclaimed. So, both this Board and the DEC can see what the process is. Mr. Kortright is before this Board for nothing more than a renewal. Nothing different is being proposed other than what was discussed and approved by this Board in July of 2006.

Chairman Fornal noted that the Town Attorney sent a letter to the Code Enforcement Office. This was discussed with Mrs. Striano the Secretary of the Code Enforcement Office and with Mr. Davis, the Code Enforcement Officer. And this was the question, as to whether the existing or the pre-existing was being reviewed. Like Mr. Cordisco said that there was no change—when it became a Major Category Mine, that is a change and that’s the way the Town is seeing it. When Mr. Kortright got screening and processing, that was a change from prior existence, so that triggers a Special Use Permit.

T/ROCHESTER Page 7

MINUTES OF MEETING April 17, 2007

NEW APPLICATION PRESENTATION

FRANK KORTRIGHT (cont’d): c/o Medenbach & Eggers, Special Use Permit for Renewal of Mining Permit, Rochester Center Road, Tax Map #68.3-2-14, R-1 District

Mr. Cordisco noted that these are changes that were done historically; there was nothing new in 2006.

Chairman Fornal noted that you couldn’t process (crush stone) in Town until 1993.

Mr. Kortright stated that the didn’t have a crusher.

Chairman Fornal noted that what he was saying is that they didn’t allow processing in Town; it used to be a prohibited use in Town until 1993.

Mr. Tapper wanted to know if it was specifically prohibited or if it wasn’t allowed without a permit?

Chairman Fornal noted that it wasn’t allowed at all it was prohibited.

Mrs. Carney wanted to clarify things a little. The applicant’s permit that was in need of being renewed, was the one that was just issued by this Board?

Mr. Cordisco explained that it’s a little confusing. The last permit that the DEC issued was in 2002. And even though they applied to modify that permit and they applied in 2003 and they finally got around to issuing it in 2006, they apply a 5 year term and its retro-active. In other words, they only had from June of 2002 to June of 2007. And since the PB made their permit coterminous with the DEC Permit, this is why they are here.

Mr. Tapper wanted to know if what the Chairman was trying to say was that the Special Use Permit was wrong?

Chairman Fornal stated, no. What happened was that Mr. Medenbach led this Board to believe that this was all they were supposed to discuss. In fact when the DEC came out and said that it was a Type 1 Action, and the PB didn’t do that. So, prior to that the question becomes that when this Board renewed through the Mined Land Reclamation, what were they renewing?

Mr. Cordiso stated that they were renewing the mining permit for this site.

The Chairman stated that there wasn’t a Special Use Permit to renew from the Town.

Mr. Cordisco noted that the DEC was Lead Agency.

Chairman Fornal agreed. But there was no Special Use Permit prior to 2003 even though there was a previous Mined Land Reclamation Permit.

Mr. Cordisco noted that there has been an existing Mining Permit for this mine since 1974 when Mined Land Reclamation came into effect.

T/ROCHESTER Page 8

MINUTES OF MEETING April 17, 2007

NEW APPLICATION PRESENTATION

FRANK KORTRIGHT (cont’d): c/o Medenbach & Eggers, Special Use Permit for Renewal of Mining Permit, Rochester Center Road, Tax Map #68.3-2-14, R-1 District

Exactly, the Chairman continued that from that point on when Mr. Kortright became a Major Mine Category or a member of the Mined Land Reclamation, that was a change from his pre-existing status. Chairman Fornal has run this by the Town Attorney and he has returned a letter to the Code Enforcement Office citing his opinion, that Mr. Kortright should get a Special Use Permit for the pre-existing +/- 18 acres.

Mrs. Carney requested a copy of the Special Use Permit that was just issued.

The Secretary supplied her with the Special Use Permit issued by the PB in 2006.

Mr. Cordisco read letter dated 4/5/07 from the Town Attorney, Rod Futerfas, to the Code Enforcement Office and didn’t come to the same conclusion. The conclusion that he sees is that the fact of the matter that the mine is grandfathered prior to existence of the Special Use Permit procedures, does not exempt this from renewal when the DEC permit expires. That’s exactly what they are here before the Board for. Their DEC permit is up for renewal and they are asking at the same time that the PB renew the Special Use Permit. He doesn’t see this the same way the Chairman does.

Chairman Fornal now read from the same letter: “Inasmuch as the provisions of the Town Code provide that a Special Use Permit previously grated shall run for the same time periods as the DEC permit it is apparent that the intention of the code is for the Special Use Permit procedure to apply where there is a permit renewal necessary.” This is talking about Town Code.

Mr. Cordisco agreed. They are here before the Board for a Special Use Permit renewal.

Chairman Fornal wanted to know what they were renewing? The expanded area and not the original?

Mr. Cordisco stated that it’s a Special Use Permit for mining on the entire mine.

Chairman Fornal was confused. So, now it’s for the entire mine?

Mr. Sprague noted that it’s always been for the entire mine. It’s just a modification for the expansion.

The Chairman noted that Mr. Medenbach was adamant that the Board not address the original +/-18 acres because it was pre-existing. They were only to consider the expanded area.

Mr. Cordisco stated that even the DEC wouldn’t consider the original +/-18 acres. All of that is grandfathered. They wouldn’t do SEQRA on environmental impacts for what was already previously approved. That is what the Chairman is suggesting.

Mrs. Carney noted that the Special Use Permit granted by the PB in 2006 includes all of the acreage.

The Chairman wanted to know how Mr. Kortright can renew what they didn’t have permitted prior to?

T/ROCHESTER Page 9

MINUTES OF MEETING April 17, 2007

NEW APPLICATION PRESENTATION

FRANK KORTRIGHT (cont’d): c/o Medenbach & Eggers, Special Use Permit for Renewal of Mining Permit, Rochester Center Road, Tax Map #68.3-2-14, R-1 District

Mr. Cordisco replied that it was grandfathered. It’s been mined since 1965.

Mrs. Carney added that it’s included in the PB Special Use Permit of 2006.

Chairman Fornal wanted to further clarify the applicant’s position. What they were saying was that changes make no difference in pre-existing grandfathered use?

Mr. Cordisco answered that for mining it doesn’t. The mining is going to progress as it goes along. If you consider every additional acre opened up to be a change.

It wasn’t the acreage that Chairman Fornal was talking about. It was the fact that it became a pre-existing as an accessory use to an excavation. That’s what its pre-existing use was.

Mr. Cordisco wasn’t seeing any of what the Chairman was stating in Mr. Futerfas’s letter. Procedurally, the only thing that is in front of the PB is renewal for exactly what was granted in July 2006. As far as SEQRA is concerned, a renewal is a Type 2 Action. It’s exempt from further environmental review.

The Chairman read again from Mr. Futerfas’s letter dated April 5, 2007. “… standing Special Use Permit procedures of the Town of Rochester town Code shall apply. The fact that the mine was grandfathered prior to existence of special use permit procedures does not exempt that business from renewal of the Special Use Permit when the prior DEC permit has expired.”

Exactly. Mr. Cordisco and his applicant were asking the PB to renew it.

The Chairman stated that Mr. Kortright doesn’t have one on the original acreage.

Mr. Cordisco noted that it was exempt. The original acreage was exempt.

Chairman Fornal noted that he wasn’t prepared to go forward. This has been discussed with the Code Enforcement Office and the Town Attorney. The Town Attorney is clear on that. The original +/- 18 acres needs a Special Use Permit. So, what Chairman Fornal is looking at is that the PB has to consider in addition to the renewal of the expanded area, the original +/- 18 acres for a Special Use Permit, so that it coincides with Town and DEC coterminous. There were changes.

Mr. Cordisco questioned if Chairman Fornal understood that in 1991 the State changed the Mined Land Reclamation Law. And that most of the Town’s authority to regulate mining was removed at that time, so that there wasn’t a hodge podge of mining regulations where the DEC would say one thing and the Town would contradict that with their own conditions.

The Chairman was aware of this and also understood that a Town has every authority to have a Special Use Permit process, which they do. And when that changed and this is what Mr. Futerfas’s letter and the Code Enforcement Office all agree on is that the +/- 18 acres requires a Special Use Permit.

T/ROCHESTER Page 10

MINUTES OF MEETING April 17, 2007

NEW APPLICATION PRESENTATION

FRANK KORTRIGHT (cont’d): c/o Medenbach & Eggers, Special Use Permit for Renewal of Mining Permit, Rochester Center Road, Tax Map #68.3-2-14, R-1 District

Mr. Cordisco questioned if this was the position of the Board?

Mr. Tapper understood the point of Chairman Fornal that once Mr. Kortright got approval from the DEC for certain things, that should have triggered a Special Use Permit on that specific section, which wasn’t done. Mr. Tapper didn’t see that effect in Mr. Futerfas’s letter. He saw that the “fact that the mine was grandfathered prior to existence, does not exempt it from renewal of the Special Use Permit.” In other words, just because he was grandfathered in, does not exempt him from a Special Use Permit procedure. So, he was grandfathered in before, now he needs a Special Use Permit. That is in the letter. The fact that Chairman Fornal is taking this letter and taking it one step further…

Chairman Fornal interrupted and noted that this is the context of this letter. Maybe it doesn’t come through in the letter, but this is the discussion that was had. This isn’t an interpretation. It’s a discussion between the Code Enforcement Office and the Town Attorney and the Chairman had.

Mrs. Carney noted that the Special Use Permit issued by this Board for the expansion incorporates the original +/-18 acre mine right in it. And anything with it and basically by all the discussion about screening is all tied in. It incorporates the entire site.

Mr. Cordisco agreed and noted that they did a visual impact analysis for that and a noise study for that. They had a Public Hearing and the Board granted the Special Use Permit. All they were asking to do was to renew it.

The Chairman didn’t agree with their view on what the 2006 Special Use Permit incorporated.

Mr. Ricks noted that in the report it gave a total number of acres and the life of the mine.

Mr. Cordisco noted that he had written a very short letter to the Board dated March 30, 2007 because he wanted to stress that they weren’t here to do anything different.

Chairman Fornal noted that the unfortunate aspect of that statement, which has come here before, is where is the data to say that it hasn’t changed? Where is the noise data? He knows they have a noise study for the expansion, but what about the existing 20 years +/- 18 acre mine? Where is the existing noise data?

Mr. Cordisco stated that it is exempt from SEQRA. Even the DEC would tell the Board that. If they’ve been mining since 1965 and SEQRA didn’t go into effect until 1976. Even if he got permitted in 1974 for the mine, it wasn’t subject to SEQRA.

The Chairman wanted to clarify the applicant’s position once again. The applicant believes that the change of becoming a Major Mine in NY State was not a change? The Town’s position is that it was a change. So, he’s been operating 20 years without a Special Use Permit is what it is.

Mr. Cordisco wasn’t seeing that.

T/ROCHESTER Page 11

MINUTES OF MEETING April 17, 2007

NEW APPLICATION PRESENTATION

FRANK KORTRIGHT (cont’d): c/o Medenbach & Eggers, Special Use Permit for Renewal of Mining Permit, Rochester Center Road, Tax Map #68.3-2-14, R-1 District

The Chairman felt that they were at a standoff on this right now.

Mr. Cordisco didn’t think so. Quite simply procedurally, they were here in front of the Board for renewal of what was approved in July 2006.

Mr. Tapper wondered why this wasn’t brought up in July of 2006.

The Chairman noted that he brought this up then.

Mr. Cordisco added that the Chairman voted against it. The point is that this is not an enforcement Board.

The Chairman was aware of that, but this is a Board that is supposed to do Special Use Permits and Mr. Kortright was supposed to have one and he was supposed to have one for 20 years now. That is where their opinions differ, but that is where the Town Attorney and the Code Enforcement Office have agreed on.

Mr. Cordisco noted that simply the only thing that is before the Board at this point is the fact that they have a Type 2 Action under SEQRA, which means no environmental review and the issue of the renewal of the Special Use Permit that the Board just granted in July 2006. He doesn’t see anything further for the Board to do.

Mr. Ricks questioned what was different in Mr. Kortright’s operation than what was approved last July?

Mr. Cordisco noted that there was nothing different other than some areas have been reclaimed, as is the nature of mining.

Mr. Ricks wanted to confirm that the mine has been working under the guidelines set forth by the PB in 2006.

Mr. Cordisco answered, yes. And there was nothing else different. There were no additional acreages being proposed to be included in the overall mine site.

Mrs. Carney added that the reason they are back here is it was one of the conditions of the 2006 approval that:

Applicant shall apply to the Town of Rochester Planning Board for renewal in advance of coterminous NYSDEC/SUP permit expiration (a minimum of six months prior is recommended)

The Chairman noted that this is in the Code. The Board can put out their own notice of intent to be Lead Agency, and they can conduct their own SEQRA review.

Mr. Cordisco disagreed. SEQRA has already been determined by the DEC. It’s a Type 2 Action.

The Chairman noted that that is according to the DEC, but the Board is involved in the Special Use Permit, so under that the Board can have SEQRA.

T/ROCHESTER Page 12

MINUTES OF MEETING April 17, 2007

NEW APPLICATION PRESENTATION

FRANK KORTRIGHT (cont’d): c/o Medenbach & Eggers, Special Use Permit for Renewal of Mining Permit, Rochester Center Road, Tax Map #68.3-2-14, R-1 District

Mr. Ricks wanted to know why, if the Board approved this last year and Mr. Kortright has been operating without any problems, what was the difference and why not just renew it? The Board did this just last year.

Chairman Fornal questioned if the Board had any noise information on the existing +/-18 acres and how that impacts the surrounding properties?

Mr. Ricks noted that last time Mr. Kortright brought in a paper from all of his surrounding neighbors and they all signed it.

The Chairman stated that that information is immaterial. Those are people’s opinions and that isn’t what this is about.

Mr. Cordisco wanted to know why did they have a Public Hearing then?

The Chairman noted that its part of the process, but would it work on the counter point that if all the neighbors came in and said Mr. Kortright was too noisy, that just on that information he could be shut down?

Mr. Kortright noted that he was trying to be shut down now.

Chairman Fornal noted that he wasn’t trying to shut him down. He was trying to get mines operating in compliance with the Town’s Special Use Permits.

Mr. Kortright thought he went through this just 6 months ago.

The Chairman stated that if Mr. Medenbach had allowed the PB to incorporate the entire thing, this wouldn’t be a problem.

Mr. Cordisco noted that this was correct because the original mine is exempt from SEQRA.

The Chairman didn’t see that. That’s not the way the Town saw it.

The sense that Mr. Cordisco was getting was that Chairman Fornal didn’t see it that way.

The sense is, is this is what Chairman Fornal, the Town Attorney, and the Code Enforcement Office came to.

Mr. Cordisco didn’t see anything to that effect in the letter from the Town Attorney. He’d be happy to walk through SEQRA with the Chairman if he wanted.

The Chairman didn’t think that was necessary. He was very familiar with SEQRA.

Mr. Tapper thought that this may be something that the Chairman would need to further discuss this with the Town Attorney.

T/ROCHESTER Page 13

MINUTES OF MEETING April 17, 2007

NEW APPLICATION PRESENTATION

FRANK KORTRIGHT (cont’d): c/o Medenbach & Eggers, Special Use Permit for Renewal of Mining Permit, Rochester Center Road, Tax Map #68.3-2-14, R-1 District

The Chairman agreed. He didn’t think this Board could move forward. This is the discussion that was had with the Town Attorney. This Board will not go ahead based on the fact that this will just be a review and a rubber stamp.

Mr. Cordisco questioned if this was the direction from the Board, he would be happy to speak to the Town Attorney, but he’d like to hear that from the rest of the Board.

The Chairman didn’t think that this was really up for a vote.

Mrs. Carney questioned if the Town Attorney has seen this Special Use Permit?

The Chairman noted that as far as he knows, Mr. Futerfas has seen everything the Board has.

Mr. Cordisco stated again that at this point the renewal of the Special Use Permit is a Type 2 Action and is not subject to SEQRA and there is no Public Hearing required. The Board could by simple resolution just renew the permit.

Mrs. Carney was a little confused by the Town Attorney’s letter as well because he said that it’s not exempt from renewal of the Special Use Permit—there is nothing that says that they need to apply for a Special Use Permit.

The Chairman felt that Mr. Cordisco needed to work this out with the Town Attorney.

Mr. Cordisco wanted to know how the whole Board felt about this?

Mr. Tapper felt that was immaterial. As much as Mr. Tapper may disagree with it, if Chairman Fornal is speaking on behalf of the Town Attorney and this is the advice he’s been given.

Mr. Ricks stated that the rest of the Board didn’t speak to the Town Attorney and now he feels like he’s out of the loop on the thing and doesn’t even know what was actually said.

The Chairman felt that Mr. Cordisco needed to talk with the Town Attorney.

Mr. Cordisco requested that they be placed on the agenda for next month. He would prepare a memorandum setting forth their position and they would be back then.

Mr. Ricks felt like he was out of the loop in these instances where the Chairman speaks to the Town Attorney.

The Chairman noted that this was his responsibility.

Mrs. Carney agreed that it wasn’t clear in the letter.

T/ROCHESTER Page 14

MINUTES OF MEETING April 17, 2007

CONTINUED APPLICATION REVIEW

WILLIAM DAMBERG– proposed 2 lot subdivision in the Queensmont Estates subdivision off of Queens Hwy, Tax Map #68.1-4-2

Mr. Damberg was present on behalf of his application.

Mrs. Carney noted that she was just going to sit back for a while and get caught up as she was absent the last time this application was discussed.

Chairman Fornal stated that he had sent Mr. Damberg a letter dated March 30, 2007 stating that the Board would need to rescind their motion where they waived the conservation easement from the originally filed map. The Town Attorney had initially advised that it was okay to waive it and further research shows no case law to support waiving a conservation easement unless it’s a material change to the original circumstance. For example: if the water fall dried up. That would be a material change to the original circumstance.

Mr. Ricks wondered if the original owner would be able to waive the conservation easement. The Planning Board never required it. The owner was the one who wanted it.

Chairman Fornal noted that in the file it indicates that the owner wanted it, and then the Planning Board agreed and required it.

Mr. Ricks noted that this was a long time ago. He was on the Board and thought that the owner was the force behind it.

Chairman Fornal also noted that he had read through the DEC Law under the section for Easements and if you read that, it states that you just can’t waive these things. So, the Board shouldn’t have waived it.

Mr. Ricks noted that there’s already a driveway through it.

Chairman Fornal stated that a violation of the easement doesn’t make the fact that its there, okay. That doesn’t constitute a material change.

Mr. Ricks wanted to know who enforced the easement? It’s an easement that’s on his own property and if he drives through it, who’s going to go and stop him?

Chairman Fornal felt that maybe the Code Enforcement Officer would have to do that if someone complained that he was using it and it was a violation.

Mr. Ricks kind of felt that this was a moot point. No one is ever going to complain about the guy driving over his own property.

The Chairman was talking about what the Board needed to do to be legally responsible.

Mr. Damberg questioned what would happen if his stream crossing permit got denied? Would that be a material change?

T/ROCHESTER Page 15

MINUTES OF MEETING April 17, 2007

CONTINUED APPLICATION REVIEW

WILLIAM DAMBERG (cont’d)– proposed 2 lot subdivision in the Queensmont Estates subdivision off of Queens Hwy, Tax Map #68.1-4-2

The Chairman answered that no, it would not. The Board can’t waive it unless the actual condition that led to the conservation easement being in place changed.

Mrs. Carney noted that a lot of conservation easements don’t restrict against driveways.

Chairman Fornal noted that the driveway permit was erroneously issued. The note is very specific on the plan that a driveway was not supposed to come off of that parcel onto Queens Highway.

Mr. Damberg hasn’t been approved or denied on the stream crossing permit yet, but what he’s gathering is that it’s a lot harder to cross a Class ‘A’ Stream now than it was in 1989. And if they do deny him, he basically has a piece of property that is landlocked.

Mrs. Carney stated that they couldn’t deny it if that was the only legal access to his property.

Mr. Damberg noted that the DEC didn’t understand this conservation easement as it was never recorded with the DEC. They would rather that he not disturb the stream. Mr. Damberg has filled out the stream crossing permit application, but hasn’t been approved or denied. They are requiring a 48” culvert as the stream crossing. The Stream is normally 5’-6’ wide.

Chairman Fornal noted that it seemed logical to waive it, but unfortunately, it isn’t legal to do so.

The Chairman wanted a motion to rescind the waiver.

Mr. Damberg just wanted to clarify what “material change” meant again.

Chairman Fornal noted that this is the legal terminology for example, if the waterfall had dried up.

Mr. Damberg noted that it is unfortunate because you can’t even see the waterfall from that driveway.

Mr. Gaydos road up Queens Hwy trying to look for the waterfall and couldn’t find it. He saw some rock ledges, but didn’t see water.

Mrs. Carney wanted to know what the validity of this that it was never filed with the DEC. If Mr. Damberg can get a letter from the DEC saying that it doesn’t exist…

Chairman Fornal commented that the DEC did supply a letter to that effect. The Planning Board imposed this.

Mr. Ricks felt that if he crossed this, it was more of a civil matter.

Mr. Damberg noted that there was a huge misunderstanding when he did this. The rock ledge and the waterfall, which the conservation easement is for. The waterfall isn’t on his property.

T/ROCHESTER Page 16

MINUTES OF MEETING April 17, 2007

CONTINUED APPLICATION REVIEW

WILLIAM DAMBERG (cont’d)– proposed 2 lot subdivision in the Queensmont Estates subdivision off of Queens Hwy, Tax Map #68.1-4-2

Mrs. Carney questioned if the applicant showed the access that he needed on the map, what would the difference be?

Mr. Ricks stated that if he showed the correct accesses and he accessed it somewhere else, the Board wouldn’t know anything about it.

Mrs. Carney noted that he could show the existing driveway to be removed and the proposed access to cross the stream. If he has legal access to the property and its not landlocked—there isn’t any problem subdividing.

Mr. Damberg noted that he would put a driveway and culvert over the stream and he’d never use it again. That’s basically what would happen.

Chairman Fornal questioned if Mr. Damberg was stating that he was still going to use the existing driveway then?

Mr. Damberg stated that it was a nice driveway. He wasn’t saying it to be disrespectful.

The Chairman wanted to know what would happen if the Board conditioned that the driveway be returned as natural a state as possible?

Mrs. Carney noted that before he came to the Board he built a driveway—by no approval of the PB—there’s a driveway there. If he has legal access by some other means other than crossing this conservation easement, which he already does to that side of the property and there’s no condition limiting the other side, that should be enough.

Chairman Fornal noted that it would put him in a position that if anybody in the public heard this and decided to contest it…

Mr. Damberg noted that at this point, he could still subdivide this property because he has the 2 potential accesses, was that right?

Chairman Fornal explained that what Mrs. Carney was saying was that the other driveway being there wasn’t the PB’s issue. All the PB has to do is assure that there is legal access, which would be the DEC approving the stream crossing. Then what happens after isn’t up to the Board. However, Mr. Damberg is in the situation that if someone were going to come to the Public Hearing to contest this, he would have to have a plan B.

Mr. Damberg didn’t know when he would have his stream crossing permit. It’s in the process with the DEC now. The DEC isn’t happy with the idea of disturbing this stream.

Mrs. Carney noted that if he can show that he has no other access, but this right-of-way, then they can’t deny it.

T/ROCHESTER Page 17

MINUTES OF MEETING April 17, 2007

CONTINUED APPLICATION REVIEW

WILLIAM DAMBERG (cont’d)– proposed 2 lot subdivision in the Queensmont Estates subdivision off of Queens Hwy, Tax Map #68.1-4-2

Mr. Damberg noted that Bill Clayton, the neighbor whose yard this right-of-way goes through, might have to apply for the stream crossing because it’s not even on Mr. Damberg’s property. Mr. Clayton doesn’t want him to cross his property either. He would rather have Mr. Damberg use the existing driveway.

Chairman Fornal noted that Mr. Johannessen’s comments were to the effect that the submitted map had been modified slightly, but was not in compliance with his last review letter or the PB’s requirement of showing 2 foot contours. Instead of reviewing this again, Mr. Johannessen suggested that the PB discuss the application and find out if the applicant was going to proceed with the subdivision. In other words, Mr. Johannessen will have to go through another review to review the 2 foot contours.

The Secretary added that Mr. Johannessen had conveyed to her that he also said that the changes that were made didn’t reflect the need for the stream crossing.

Mr. Damberg’s surveyor, Terry Ringler was present in the audience and commented that the stream crossing was a pre-existing condition that was set forth and approved for a previous subdivision. That has nothing to do with this subdivision of dividing the bottom parcel off. He can get his building permit as soon as he gets his stream crossing permit to build on that piece of property. That is a condition that was left by the PB when the original subdivision was done. The original subdivision that was approved by this Board put the access for that lot over that right-of-way with the Stream Crossing. It’s already an approved right-of-way by this Board. To have to do anything more with that isn’t necessary. The only thing he has to do to get his building permit is to get his stream crossing permit from the DEC and he could go and build on that lot today. The only thing he is doing is divide the lot where it’s naturally divided by the road. No other changes to that original subdivision other than making this lot into 2 pieces so that they are divided by the natural boundary of the road. They were told that all they had to do was provide the contours that were on the original subdivision map on this map, which is what was done. They were told that all they had to do is to put those only to the ledge and not beyond.

The Chairman noted that he would relay this info to the Planner and would probably be able to have the Public Hearing at the next meeting.

Mrs. Carney agreed. If there was a problem they could just leave the Public Hearing open.

Mr. Gaydos motioned to rescind the following motion made on February 20, 2007:

Mr. Gaydos motioned to waive the conservation easement based on the above discussion. Motion seconded by Mr. Kawalchuk.

Vote:

Fornal: Yes Ricks: Yes

Tapper: Absent Carney: Absent

Ullman: Yes Kawalchuk: Yes

Godwin: Not requested to attend Gaydos: Yes

Motion to rescind the February 20, 2007 motion was seconded by Mr. Ricks.

Vote:

Fornal: Yes Ricks: Yes

Tapper: Yes Carney: Yes

Ullman: Absent Kawalchuk: Absent

Godwin: Not requested to participate Gaydos: Yes

T/ROCHESTER Page 18

MINUTES OF MEETING April 17, 2007

CONTINUED APPLICATION REVIEW

WILLIAM DAMBERG (cont’d)– proposed 2 lot subdivision in the Queensmont Estates subdivision off of Queens Hwy, Tax Map #68.1-4-2

Mrs. Carney motioned to Declare Intent to be Lead Agency with a coordinate review. Seconded by Mr. Gaydos. No discussion.

Vote:

Fornal: Yes Ricks: Yes

Tapper: Yes Carney: Yes

Ullman: Absent Kawalchuk: Absent

Godwin: Not requested to participate Gaydos: Yes

Mrs. Carney motioned to type the action as an Unlisted Action under SEQRA. Seconded by Mr. Ricks. No discussion.

Fornal: Yes Ricks: Yes

Tapper: Yes Carney: Yes

Ullman: Absent Kawalchuk: Absent

Godwin: Not requested to participate Gaydos: Yes

Mrs. Carney motioned to schedule the Public Hearing for next month’s meeting. Seconded by Mr. Ricks. No discussion.

Fornal: Yes Ricks: Yes

Tapper: Yes Carney: Yes

Ullman: Absent Kawalchuk: Absent

Godwin: Not requested to participate Gaydos: Yes

CONTINUED APPLICATION REVIEW

10P5C, c/o COLIN HOUSTON, PLS,– 4 lot subdivision, Project 32 Road, Tax Map # 76.4-3-15.115, R-1 District

Mr. Houston was present on behalf of this application.

The Board reviewed Chazen’s comment letter of April 12, 2007.

Mrs. Carney motioned to declare Lead Agency. Seconded by Mr. Tapper. No discussion.

Fornal: Yes Ricks: Yes

Tapper: Yes Carney: Yes

Ullman: Absent Kawalchuk: Absent

Godwin: Not requested to participate Gaydos: Yes

Mr. Houston noted that they had the letter from the Highway Superintendent from the second meeting that this portion of Project 32 was a Town Maintained road.

T/ROCHESTER Page 19

MINUTES OF MEETING April 17, 2007

CONTINUED APPLICATION REVIEW

10P5C, c/o COLIN HOUSTON, PLS,(cont’d): 4 lot subdivision, Project 32 Road, Tax Map # 76.4-3- 15.115, R-1 District

Mr. Houston questioned if lots 3 & 4 needed Health Dept. Approval as they were over 5 acres? Lots 1 & 2 have Health Dept. Approval. He asked if they would grant a waiver for lots 3 & 4.

The situation here is that this property was bought by a group of 4 friends. They want to split it up between themselves. The guys that are getting the 2 back lots don’t live in the area and have no plans of doing anything with the land in the time being. If they get the Health Dept. approval it’s only going to expire long before anyone goes to do anything on these parcels. They’ve demonstrated that there are descent soils in the area by getting Health Dept. approval on the first 2 lots. The slopes get gentler in lots 3 & 4 and they’ve made them above 5 acres.

Mrs. Carney didn’t think it was a great idea. She felt that when creating lots on the border line of 5 acres and knowing the topography in this area, it’s not something that she would waive. She didn’t know if the Board wanted the Planner’s opinion.

Mr. Houston stated that lots 3 & 4 were really flat and they did poking around with a bar to make sure they didn’t hit any water close to the surface. No building permit would be issued prior to getting Health Dept. approval anyway. He felt that this was just a waste of money that they’d have to spend again when and if they ever did get around to doing anything with these lots.

Mr. Gaydos didn’t remember the Board ever making anyone get Health Dept. approval for anything that was over 5 acres. He was familiar with this property and people back in that area that he knows of has above ground systems.

Mrs. Carney noted that it doesn’t matter if they get a fill bed permit; as long as they prove it’s a building site. It’s so close to 5 acres, she’d be more comfortable with that.

Mr. Ricks noted that all right-of-ways on this property need to be 50’ going to the Town Maintained road.

Mr. Houston would fix these.

The Chairman continued on with Chazen’s comment letter. 2. Proposed disturbance is greater than 1 acre, a Notice of Intent is required to be submitted to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

(NYSDEC) for coverage under Permit GP-02-01.

Mr. Houston noted that they had it prepared and had to do some more work on the grading plan before they sent it in.

T/ROCHESTER Page 20

MINUTES OF MEETING April 17, 2007

CONTINUED APPLICATION REVIEW

10P5C, c/o COLIN HOUSTON, PLS,(cont’d): 4 lot subdivision, Project 32 Road, Tax Map # 76.4-3- 15.115, R-1 District

Part 1 EAF Review

General Comment: The EAF (questions A.2 and B.4) identifies a disturbed area of .05 acres; the submitted Plan states that the limits of disturbance equals 1.21 acres; this discrepancy should be resolved. Mr. Houston explained that this was a typo and they would fix it.

A.3: The applicant should provide source information.

A.8: The applicant should provide source information.

Mr. Houston noted that the above information would be supplied. He would either type it or attach the information.

Part 2 EAF Review – Chazen has prepared Part 2 of the EAF for the Planning Board’s consideration. It is recommended that the applicant address any items identified as “potentially large impact” in the Part 3 EAF.

Mr. Houston understood this.

At this time the Board went over Part 2 as prepared by Chazen.

1. Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the

Project Site? YES

Any construction on slopes of 15% or greater, (15 foot rise per 100 foot length), or where the general slopes in the project area exceed 10%. Yes. This item was checked as a Potentially Large Impact that could be mitigated.

Construction on land where the depth to the water table is less than 3 feet. Yes. This item was checked as a Small to Moderate Impact.

5. Will Proposed Action affect surface or groundwater quality

or quantity? YES

Proposed Action will require a discharge permit. Yes. A Potentially Large Impact that can not be mitigated by a project change.

Proposed Action requires use of a source of water that does not have approval to serve proposed (project) action. Yes. A Potentially Large Impact that can not be mitigated by a project change.

Mrs. Carney and the applicant were both uncertain why this action would require a discharge permit.

The Secretary noted that Mr. Johannessen noted that disturbance was over one acre.

Mrs. Carney felt that this could be mitigated by soil and sediment erosion control.

IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS

8. Will Proposed Action affect any threatened or endangered species? (PENDING FURTHER REVIEW) YES

Other impacts: The NYSDEC has identified the potential presence of the Chestnut Oak Forest. Yes. This item was checked as a Potentially Large Impact.

T/ROCHESTER Page 21

MINUTES OF MEETING April 17, 2007

CONTINUED APPLICATION REVIEW

10P5C, c/o COLIN HOUSTON, PLS,(cont’d): 4 lot subdivision, Project 32 Road, Tax Map # 76.4-3- 15.115, R-1 District

At the request of Mr. Houston, the Board reviewed a map of the area from the OPRHP website and all agree that the site is not encompassed in the designated area for this matter and therefore, the applicant was not subject to this item.

IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHAELOGICAL RESOURCES

12. Will proposed Action impact any site or structure of historic, prehistoric or paleontological importance?

YES

Proposed Action will occur in an area designated as sensitive for archaelogical sites on the NYS Site Inventory. Yes.

This item was checked as a Potentially Large Impact that can be mitigated.

IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD

19. Will Proposed Action affect the character of the existing community? YES

Proposed Action will cause a change in the density of land use. Yes. A Potentially Large Impact that can not be mitigated by a project change.

Continuing with Chazen’s comment letter:

Planning Review

1. Improvements to the existing driveway (right-of-way A and B) should be illustrated on the drawings.

2. The applicant should identify if a maintenance agreement is in place and if the agreement will require modification as a result of the proposed subdivision. It is recommended that the maintenance agreement and existing and proposed easements be reviewed by the Town Attorney. Mr. Houston commented that there was no original Road Maintenance Agreement.

3. The applicant should identify any on-site watercourses, wetlands and floodplains; if no such features exist, a note should be provided on the plan confirming the same. Mr. Houston would do this.

4. A grading plan should be submitted. This was being worked on.

5. The applicant should demonstrate how stormwater will be managed. The applicant understood this.

6. Health Department approval is required for lots 3 and 4. The applicant understood this.

7. The zoning table is incomplete and should be revised to include proposed measurements for each area requirement. The applicant wanted people to know that these proposed house locations were not set in stone and if someone wanted to change that they could. That’s another reason that he put the building envelope on each lot. He would list that they were proposed if that’s what the Board wanted.

The Board just wanted the correct amount of information on the plan.

T/ROCHESTER Page 22

MINUTES OF MEETING April 17, 2007

CONTINUED APPLICATION REVIEW

10P5C, c/o COLIN HOUSTON, PLS,(cont’d): 4 lot subdivision, Project 32 Road, Tax Map # 76.4-3- 15.115, R-1 District

8. According to mapping provided by the applicant, the site appears to be located in an “Archeological Sensitive Area.” The Planning Board should determine if additional information should be requested from the Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation. Mr. Houston noted that it did show up in the designated area of the website map. He knew that they used very broad brush strokes when they come to determine what is an archeological sensitive area. He attended a SEQRA Seminar where they discussed this. There was a DEC representative there who wanted to caution Planning Board members saying that all it takes to get into a designated area is for someone to find an arrow head and then they designate a mile radius circle around it and every property within a mile around that arrow head are in the archeological sensitive area. He just had two projects in Marbletown where they were required to do the archeological study and spent $10,000 combined where they turned up one arrow head and one potential sharpening stone. He’s not aware of any evidence that people know that there were Indian settlements in this area. He just asked the Board that there be more information requested than just the map on the website.

The Chairman wasn’t sure.

Mr. Ricks thought that there was an old foundation on the property.

Mrs. Carney displayed the map showing the parcel in the designated area and offered that this was probably based on its proximity to the Rondout Creek.

Mr. Houston noted that there is a pretty huge area next to this parcel that isn’t considered to be Archeologically sensitive.

Mrs. Carney felt that this could be handled as part of SEQRA.

9. The applicant has submitted correspondence from the NYSDEC identifying the potential presence of Chestnut Oak Forest, considered significant from a statewide perspective by the New York Natural Heritage Program. It is recommended that the applicant submit a report, prepared by a qualified professional, confirming the presence/absence of the Chestnut Oak Forest. Mr. Houston showed on this map that this parcel was not encompassed in this shaded designated area.

The Board reviewed the map and agreed it didn’t apply.

10. Will the existing/proposed driveways/access roads be paved? Please provide a driveway cross-section. The applicant would provide the cross section. He questioned the difference between private road and driveway standards? The only portion of this that would fall over the threshold of the private road would be about the first 100’ of it. Where lots 1 & 3 peal off.

The Board was in agreement that just the first short section would be private road and the rest would be a shared driveway.

T/ROCHESTER Page 23

MINUTES OF MEETING April 17, 2007

CONTINUED APPLICATION REVIEW

10P5C, c/o COLIN HOUSTON, PLS,(cont’d): 4 lot subdivision, Project 32 Road, Tax Map # 76.4-3- 15.115, R-1 District

The Chairman questioned where the applicant felt that he stood with his application as it has been presented to the Board so infrequently.

Mr. Houston knew what he had to do. If he got a bulk of this stuff in by the next meeting was he correct to assume that the Public Hearing had a chance of being scheduled for June?

The Board felt it could be possible if he met the deadlines.

NEW APPLICATION PRESENTATION

ANTHONY JARVIS– 3 lot subdivision in the Jacob Gray Subdivision, Rochester Center Road, Tax Map # 68.3-3-6.130, R-1 District

Mr. Jarvis was present on behalf of his application along with representative, Terry Ringler, of Ringler Surveying.

Chairman Fornal wanted to know if Mr. Jarvis was aware that this parcel was proposed to be Industrial under the proposed changes to the Town Codes and Ordinances.

Mr. Jarvis was aware that it was proposed to be Industrial, but thought that he would rather see houses on that property than anything industrial.

Chairman Fornal thought that maybe for selling purposes, this wasn’t the best property to subdivide.

Mr. Jarvis noted that the property is being subdivided for his kids. He wasn’t looking to sell. He’s got 3 kids and if he didn’t do something now when it’s affordable, he didn’t see it happening.

Mr. Gaydos wanted to know what was being built now on that property?

Mr. Jarvis noted that one house was being built now.

The Board reviewed Chazen’s comment letter dated 4/12/07.

Part 1 EAF Review

A.2: The EAF identifies a disturbed area of .09 acres; the submitted Plan states that the limits of disturbance equal .54 acres; this discrepancy should be resolved. Mr. Ringler noted that these are different—‘presently’ and ‘after completion’. They can’t equal each other.

Mrs. Carney thought that what the planner was commenting on was that the plan shows the limit of disturbance as one thing and the EAF shows it as something different.

Mr. Ringler noted that they were the same.

T/ROCHESTER Page 24

MINUTES OF MEETING April 17, 2007

NEW APPLICATION PRESENTATION

ANTHONY JARVIS (cont’d)– 3 lot subdivision in the Jacob Gray Subdivision, Rochester Center Road, Tax Map # 68.3-3-6.130, R-1 District

A.6: Provide mapping from the OPRHP website confirming that the site is not contiguous to a historic place; also identify whether the site is located in an archeo-sensitive area. Mr. Ringler noted that they have a map from this agency that shows that they are not contiguous to a historic place or are located in an archeo-sensitive area. He submitted the map showing this at this time.

A.11: Provide confirmation letter from the NYSDEC. Mr. Ringler was still waiting on the letter from the NYS DEC.

B.1.g: The PM peak hour will generate 3 vehicular trips.

B.4: Vegetation/ground cover will be removed and will likely equal the total area of disturbance.

B.25: The Town of Rochester Highway Department should be identified under “other local agencies.” Mr. Ringler submitted a revised copy of the EAF fixing the above comments from Chazen.

Planning Review

1. The subject parcel is contiguous to an Agricultural District; an Agricultural Data Statement should be submitted for review. Mr. Ringler submitted this information at this time.

2. According to aerial photography and USGS topography mapping, the site is very flat and the Planning Board may wish to waive topography requirements. Mr. Ringler noted that they would request this.

Chairman Fornal asked that the request for the waiver be submitted in writing.

3. A Bulk Regulation Table should be provided that compares the requirements of the underlying zoning district to what is being proposed (lot-by-lot analysis). Mr. Ringler stated that he has this information already listed on the plan according to the Town’s Subdivision Regulations for Preliminary Plat. To reduplicate this in the table is just a duplication of the work that has already been required to be placed on the map. He assumes that this is something that the Planner likes to see and it isn’t really required by Code.

4. Existing and proposed property lines should be of a different line type. Mr. Ringler felt that this was unnecessary.

5. All structures, wells and septic locations within 200 ft. of the subject site should be illustrated on the Plan; a note confirming the same should be provided. Mr. Ringler has placed a note on the map stating that there are no visible wells or septics within 200’ of the property lines. He hasn’t been granted access onto the adjoining properties, nor has he had adjoining property owners cooperation in pointing them out. They tried, but was unable to.

6. Driveways should be shown in their entirety, including driveway aprons. The things are shown on the maps.

T/ROCHESTER Page 25

MINUTES OF MEETING April 17, 2007

NEW APPLICATION PRESENTATION

ANTHONY JARVIS (cont’d)– 3 lot subdivision in the Jacob Gray Subdivision, Rochester Center Road, Tax Map # 68.3-3-6.130, R-1 District

7. The limits of disturbance provided are not realistic; the limits provided do not allow for a yard area and room for construction vehicle maneuverability. Further, the limits of disturbance should reflect continuous disturbance between the terminus of the driveways and proposed structures and between the proposed garage and residence of Lot 1. If the existing dirt drive will not be graded or widened, a note to this affect should be provided on the Plan. Mr. Ringler noted that they have amended the map to show a “more realistic” area of disturbance, but with no guidance from the Board or in the regulations as to showing areas of disturbance, this seems to be a changing thing each time he comes before the Board. One plan there is one thing that is asked to be done and then another plan has something else that is being required. It is kind of hard as the preparer of these documents, its kind of hard to know what exactly is being looked for on each plan. It would be helpful if the Board would set some guidance as to the areas of disturbance as far as offsets, or as far as what they would like to consider as areas of disturbance. In this particular situation the Planner is asking for the disturbance for vehicles to be parked and turned around and yard areas. This is an open field that can be driven on with heavy equipment without any disturbance at all. The areas of disturbance that were shown, Mr. Ringler felt were very realistic and without any further guidance from the Board it was hard to develop these on each plan. Dennin just got Final Approval at this meeting which is the same conditions as being an open field and they weren’t required to show half of what they are being asked for for this subdivision. He has amended the map to show new area of disturbance with the only recalculation by .04 of an acre and if there is more that’s needed, he’d like to know in general for consistency.

8. The existing dirt drive on Lot 3 should show connection to the proposed residence. This has been added to the plan.

9. A typical driveway cross-section should be provided. Again, this was not asked of Dennin and this is a flat parcel.

10. The owners name and address should be provided on the Plan. This was done.

11. The Plan should identify on-site watercourses, floodplains, rock outcrops, wooded areas, and trees. If these features do not exist on-site, a note confirming the same should be provided on the Plan. Mr. Ringler didn’t think this was necessary. The Board disagreed and felt the note should just be added to the plan.

12. The most current deed information should be provided for review. This information would be submitted.

13. Individual septic and well permits should be submitted prior to final approval. They have approval for lot 1 and are in the process of getting approval for the other 2 lots.

T/ROCHESTER Page 26

MINUTES OF MEETING April 17, 2007

NEW APPLICATION PRESENTATION

ANTHONY JARVIS (cont’d)– 3 lot subdivision in the Jacob Gray Subdivision, Rochester Center Road, Tax Map # 68.3-3-6.130, R-1 District

Mr. Gaydos noted that basically Mr. Jarvis was building the house on one lot as a whole and subdividing off 2 lots.

Mr. Jarvis answered, yes, this is what he was doing.

Mrs. Carney motioned for Intent to be Lead Agency. Seconded by Mr. Tapper. No discussion.

Vote:

Fornal: Yes Ricks: Yes

Tapper: Yes Carney: Yes

Ullman: Absent Kawalchuk: Absent

Godwin: Not requested to participate Gaydos: Yes

For purposes of SEQRA, Mrs. Carney motioned to type the Action as Unlisted. Seconded by Mr. Ricks.

No discussion.

Vote:

Fornal: Yes Ricks: Yes

Tapper: Yes Carney: Yes

Ullman: Absent Kawalchuk: Absent

Godwin: Not requested to participate Gaydos: Yes

Mr. Ricks motioned to schedule the Public Hearing for May, seconded by Mrs. Carney.

No discussion.

Vote:

Fornal: Yes Ricks: Yes

Tapper: Yes Carney: Yes

Ullman: Absent Kawalchuk: Absent

Godwin: Not requested to participate Gaydos: Yes

NEW APPLICATION PRESENTATION

Nelsie Aybar-Grau & Anezka C. Sebek- Special Use Permit for 2 family dwelling, 36 Chestnut Hill, High Falls, Tax Map #77.2-4-16.121, R-1 District

Ms. Aybar-Grau was present on behalf of her application and noted that she wants to rent the upstairs in her 1 family dwelling and turn the existing den into a kitchen and rent the rooms upstairs. There wouldn’t be any change to anything other than the den into a kitchen. There are 3 entrances. The upstairs would have a separate entrance from downstairs. And the rooms would have their own bathrooms. These rooms were intended to be rented to 2 separate people as opposed to a family. There would be no co-mingling between up and downstairs. There would be no change to the number of rooms.

Mr. Ricks felt that the sketch that was submitted was adequate.

As this was a private road in a subdivision, Mrs. Carney suggested that the applicant check their deed and Road Maintenance Agreement to see if there are any restrictions.

T/ROCHESTER Page 27

MINUTES OF MEETING April 17, 2007

Nelsie Aybar-Grau & Anezka C. Sebek (cont’d)- Special Use Permit for 2 family dwelling, 36 Chestnut Hill, High Falls, Tax Map #77.2-4-16.121, R-1 District

Mrs. Carney also suggested that the applicant contact the Ulster County Health Dept. and tell them that they were converting a single family dwelling into a 2 family dwelling to see if they needed to review the existing system to see if it was adequate.

ZBA ADVISORY REQUEST

Robert & Elizabeth Young & John & Linda Parisio–

c/o Brooks & Brooks Land Surveyors, 17’ Variance for increasing a side yard setback, yet still not meeting required 40’ side yard setback, Tax Map # 68.1-2-10 & 13, ‘A’ District

Patty Brooks of Brooks & Brooks Land Surveying was present along with her client, Elizabeth Young and Mrs. Young’s grandson, David Duffy.

Mrs. Brooks explained that the lot line between the Young’s and the Parisio’s was discovered to go right through the Parisio’s house. Neither party had ever had a survey. They built their houses over 30 years ago, and back then, banks didn’t require surveys. The Young’s were considering splitting a piece of their land off for their grandson, Mr. Duffy and hired Brooks & Brooks to do the survey and this is what they found out. They approached the Parisio’s and the Parisio’s hired an independent surveyor who came up with the same findings. They had all assumed that the stone wall between the houses was the boundary, as it’s the natural one and quite appropriate. So, they were here to try and take a pre-existing non conforming situation and make it better by conveying the Parisio’s the property up to the stone wall to make that the boundary. This was agreeable to both parties.

Mr. Ricks motioned for a favorable advisory. Seconded by Mrs. Carney. No discussion.

Vote:

Fornal: Yes Ricks: Yes

Tapper: Yes Carney: Yes

Ullman: Absent Kawalchuk: Absent

Godwin: Not requested to participate Gaydos: Yes

T/ROCHESTER Page 28

MINUTES OF MEETING April 17, 2007

ACTION ON MINUTES OF MEETING

Mr. Gaydos motioned to accept the minutes of February 20, 2007. Seconded by Mrs. Carney. No discussion.

Vote:

Fornal: Yes Ricks: Yes

Tapper: Yes Carney: Yes

Ullman: Absent Kawalchuk: Absent

Godwin: Not requested to participate Gaydos: Yes

Mrs. Carney motioned to accept the minutes of the March 20, 2007 meeting. Seconded by Mr. Gaydos.

No discussion.

Vote:

Fornal: Yes Ricks: Yes

Tapper: Yes Carney: Yes

Ullman: Absent Kawalchuk: Absent

Godwin: Not requested to participate Gaydos: Yes

Mr. Gaydos motioned to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Mrs. Carney. All members present in favor.

As there was no further business to discuss, at 9:30 PM Chairman Fornal adjourned the meeting.

Respectfully submitted,

Rebecca Paddock Stange, Secretary