PLANNING BOARD
TOWN OF ROCHESTER
ULSTER COUNTY
ACCORD, NEW YORK
January 10th, 2022, 7:00 PM
(845) 626-2434 ext. 3
MINUTES OF the January 10th, 2022, REGULAR MEETING of the Town of Rochester PLANNING BOARD held at 7:00 PM via ZOOM only and streamed live via YouTube.
Chairman Jones called the meeting to order and asked everyone to stand for the Pledge to the Flag
Secretary did roll call attendance
PRESENT:
Rick Jones- Chairperson
Sam Zurofsky – Vice Chairperson
Patrick Williams
Zorian Pinsky
Maren Lindstrom
Anne Marie Moloney (7:03)
Marc Grasso
Zachary Jarvis- Alternate
ALSO PRESENT:
Town Attorney- Mary Lou Christiana
Elizabeth Axelson- Planning Consultant, CPL
Acting Secretary- Christina Ferrara
ANNOUNCEMENTS, COMMUNICATIONS and TRAININGS
• Reminder for 1/31 Workshop meeting 6:30 pm – training by Attorney Mary Lou Christiana
discussing application fees, escrow fees, SEQR, privacy issues, FOIL, open meeting law.
ACTION ON MINUTES
A MOTION was made by Mr. Williams to approve the Planning Board Regular Meeting from December 13,2021.
Second: Mr. Grasso
7 ayes, 0 nay,0 abstentions All in Favor. Motion Carried
APPLICATION REVIEW
***Draft Decisions, Certifications, and Maps of current applications pending final approval available at:
***To learn more about each parcel, enter the S/B/L into the search bar at:
https://ulstercountyny.gov/maps/parcel-viewer/
******************************************************************************
2021-01 SBD – Major Subdivision Continued Application
Nicholas Shangloo/Aneta Markowska
S/B/L 60.1-5-8 (lot 1 +/- 4.1 acres) and 60.001-5-9 (lot 2 +/- 3.8 acres)
Lot Line Improvement
Applicant proposes a lot-line improvement to combine both parcels to make one +/- 7.9-acre parcel. Parcel is in the R2 zoning district.
David Hahne was present on behalf of the applicant.
Chairman Jones explained that since this is a lot-line action on property previously subdivided that this action now reverts to a review based on the original nature of that previous subdivision. So, this is now a major subdivision review. due to lot-line elimination this now becomes a major subdivision, and the applicant will need to reapply.
Ms. Lindstrom states when there is a major subdivision with a private road, there must be a road agreement. Since they are making changes here, the question was raised as to whether the applicant had to go back to the homeowners on this road. Note both lots have a driveway noted on map and an actual roadway cut, only one driveway is currently in use. Attorney Christiana does not think there will be an issue being it is the same owners who previously were and are part of the current roadway agreement (there is also an HOA). Ms. Lindstrom gave examples of other projects (Montalvo e.g., and Patty Brooks) where getting approval from other owners was required in cases where lot line changes were being made. Attorney Christiana will further research this and inform the Chair and applicant.
Chair Jones mentioned additional fees are required both application and escrow.
Chair Jones asked Mr. Hahne if he would get in touch with him to discuss the remaining details that he needs to deal with. Mr. Hahne agreed.
******************************************************************************
2021-16 LLI Continued Application
Karen Hof
S/B/L 60.4-2-1.110 (lot 1 +/- 79.5 acres) /60.4-2-1.120 (lot 2 +/- 12.5acres)
Lot Line Improvement
Applicant proposes a lot line improvement to convey +/- 6 acres from lot #1 to lot #2. Parcels are in an R5 and R2 zoning districts, respectively.
Benjamin Russ (Son of Mrs. Hof) was present on behalf of applicant.
There were a few changes needed to the map. For one the addresses of both Hof and Greenhall are missing and need to be included on the map. Second, the SBL numbers at the ‘top’ of the map are incorrect as regards to the SBL numbers for Lands of Hof. The SBL number for the Greenhall property was erroneously included. Third the lines being eliminated are very confusing such that the board cannot tell what is staying and what is going. It was suggested that a different color or different style of line (bold versus dotted) be used so that one can tell in the driveway area what is staying and what is going. Mr. Russ agreed and will talk to his surveyor. Dotted lines for those going away and solid for those staying.
The Board agreed to allow Chairman Jones to certify the map upon a few minor adjustments.
Decision: PB 2021-16 LLI
Lot Improvement – Certification
*Pursuant to Chapter 125 and Chapter 140 of the Code of the Town of Rochester.
Applicant: Karen Hof
Owners: Karen Hof & James T. Greenhall
Reason for Request:
Applicant proposes the conveyance of +/- 7 acres from S/B/L 60.4-2-110 (+/- 79.5 acres) to S/B/L 60.4-2-1.120 (+/- 12.5 acres). Parcels are located in the R-5 and R-2 zoning district at 135 and 117 Sundale Road, Kerhonkson NY
Location: 135 and 117 Sundale Road, Kerhonkson NY
S/B/L: S/B/L L 60.4-2-110 (+/- 79.5 acres and 60.4-2-1.120 (+/- 12.5 acres)
Zoning District: R-5 (rural conservation zoning district) & R-2 (low density residential zoning district).
Zoning Permit filed: 11/15/2021 SEQR Type: Type II by definition
Planning Board Application #: 2021-16 LLI PB Application filed: 11/22/2021
* * * * *
The Planning Board has reviewed the plat and certifies the lot improvement proposed will meet Town of Rochester lot requirements for the R-5/R-2 zoning districts and, for recording purposes only, further represents an exempt lot improvement in accordance with Section § 125-18 of the Town of Rochester Subdivision Regulations. No subdivision approval is required or given by the Planning Board. The Planning Board further grants the authority to the Chairman to sign the plat certifying the lot improvement for filing purposes without further resolution upon receipt and the Chairman’s determination such plat meets the requirements of the code is in agreement with the sketch plan provided for review.
Plat shall be prepared by a licenced Land Surveyor or Professional Engineer to describe the conveyances involved by metes and bounds and shall include the Town of Rochester Lot Line Note:
“These plans are acknowledged by the Town of Rochester, and for recording purposes only, to represent an exempt lot improvement in accordance with § 125-18 of the Town of Rochester Subdivision Regulations. No subdivision approval is required or given Lot improvement parcel shall not be considered a separate building lot apart from the tract to which it is being added. ”
The owner shall file in the office of the Ulster County Clerk such certified plat bearing the Chairman’s signature within 62 days of this certification. The owner shall have the responsibility to return four (4) Ulster County Clerk certified copies of the plat to the Town of Rochester Planning Board within 30 days of filing.
A MOTION was made by Vice-Chairman Zurofsky to authorize the Chair to certify this lot-line improvement contingent upon receiving updated maps with the changes enumerated a moment ago and confirm the changes and certify that those changes have been made. Motion passed:
Second: Board member AnnMarie Moloney
7 ayes, 0 nay, 0 abstentions All in Favor. Motion Carried
*****************************************************************************
2021-25 SBD Continued Application/Public Hearing
Robert Griffitts (and others)
S/B/L 77.1-4-12.100 (lot 1 +/- 33.2 acres) and 77.1-4-13.100 (lot 2 +/-14.6 acres)
Major Subdivision
Applicant proposes a lot-line improvement to convey +/- 7.7 acres from lot 2 to lot 1. Parcels are in the AR-3 zoning district.
Heather Gabriel from Medenbach and Eggers was present on behalf of the applicant.
Another Lot Line that becomes a Major subdivision because the Lot Line change is required to be reviewed under the standards of the original action which was that of a major subdivision. So this review of this Lot line is as a major subdivision.
Chair Jones reviewed the latest map on file as well as two previous maps, from 2004 and 2006, of this subdivision. Chair Jones reviewed those two maps verbally as neither map was able to be loaded to the google drive for review by the other board members since the Secretary was out and the sudden nature of the ZOOM format of tonight’s’ meeting. Copies were also not available for distribution given the sudden nature of having to go to ZOOM format. Chair Jones reviewed verbally that there were two archaeological sites identified on this property and marked on the map from 2004, one on Lot 12 and another on Lot 14. These sites were subsequently removed on the 2006 map with an attached letter from SHPO stating they were no longer interested in any possible disturbance of this site.
Ms. Lindstrom stated when there is a major subdivision with a private road, there must be a road agreement and our code states that everyone on that private road have to agree to any changes to our Code states that everyone on the private road must agree to making a change to their private road, and this is a change.
Further discussion about SEQR and whether we can do SEQR before resolving the matter of Private Road. Neither the board nor the attorney for the board was able to source the section of the code that states this. So, it was made clear that SEQR needed to be done before the public hearing and furthermore it was the opinion of the attorney for the board that we did not have to have to answer the matter of whether all persons on the private road had to agree to the proposed change in order to do SEQR since the attorney saw no way that this impacts the SEQR determination. There was input from the representative for the applicant regarding the provision for others on the road to approve this change that representative stating that it made no sense since there is no change in ownership or driveway cuts on the road. Since no one could access the specific code and our attorney opined that it was not material to SEQR, the board proceeded to do SEQR. The matter of approval from residents on the road would remain open.
Some recollected that the code requires only the lots involved giving approval; others (Ms. Lindstrom and our attorney) recall that it was all persons on the road needed to give approval.
Chair stopped the back and forth and indicated the board would go forwarded with SEQR while our attorney researched the matter of who had to approve this change amongst the road owners while SEQR and Public Hearing was being conducted. Notably, the question of archaeological impact was determined to be a ‘no or small impact’ given the letter from SHPO.
A MOTION was made by Chairman Jones to set the application as an unlisted / uncoordinated action and a negative declaration for SEQR purposes.
Second: Board member Marc Grasso
ROLL CALL
Rick Jones- Yes
Sam Zurofsky -Yes
Patrick Williams -Yes
Zorian Pinsky -Yes
Maren Lindstrom -Yes
Anne Marie Moloney -Yes
Marc Grasso- Yes
7 ayes, 0 nay, 0 abstentions All in Favor. Motion Carried
Attorney Christiana read the Town Code definition of re-subdivision of land. If a parcel or parcels involved are owned by more than one party, or if rights given to others, all parties involved must be co-applicants or agree to re sub-division.
Attorney Christiana said the private road is not being changed, nor the driveways, what is being changed is the size of the lots. There are no rights being taken away and can continue without getting permission. If there was a new build, new driveway, more traffic it would be a different situation. Attorney Christiana opined that there is no need to get all road owners to approve this. If there was another lot created there would be, but, since there is not another lot being created, we do not have to get everyone else’s approval.
Chairman Jones states this presumably be applied in the same fashion to the David Hahne (Shangloo/Markowska application) situation. Attorney Christiana concurred.
Chairman Jones opened the Public Hearing on application 2021-25 SBD
Ira Stern – lives with his wife across the Rondout Creek just downstream from this property since 1987. Has a couple of points and questions. This part of the Rondout is the same stretch as the upcoming DeJager Realty sub-division is just downstream from my property. This part of the Rondout is very well populated with wildlife with hardly any houses in this area. When my wife and I bought our property, we donated a conservation easement to the Rondout Esopus Land Conservancy to be sure this corridor didn’t have houses right on the river, we just want that pointed out to the Planning Board that it’s a sensitive part of our Town and anything done in this area should be scrutinized as you are doing very well. Want to point out that found in that area, some discussion earlier about Peninsula Lane; the DeJager sub-division seems to be proposing to connect Peninsula Lane to Lucas Tpke which is something we think would be the wrong thing to do, maybe that would potentially affect this road and this sub-division. You stated that SHPO designation is now lifted. On original sub-division map for Peninsula Lane; the house sites were located around the archaeological restrictions. Is the house site from the previous sub-division is that being changed because this map looks different than the original sub-division map? It’s important because the location of the house will affect the river, the views from Towpath Rd.
Chairman Jones had a brief discussion answering questions asked by resident Stern. Comment by Chair was that Chair was also confused as well by the various maps from 2004 and 2006. Also Chair mentioned that the issue of DeJager property and access onto Peninsula Lane was still in discussion between the owners of both properties and were not yet resolved.
Applicants’ representative, Heather Gabriel, commented on the issue of the current map stating that there was no changed between the last map of 2006 and the new one except for the lot line In actually point of fact, after examining the map from 2006 and comparing to current proposed one, the applicant is changing the positioning of the house to place it right in the archaeological site and moving it closer to the river as mentioned by Ira Stern.
Both Ms. Lindstrom and the Chair commented that the maps are at this point confusing to all.
Tina Campt- Wants to follow up on Mr. Stern’s comment in talking about the different maps.
Wonders how some of the questions checked off on the form are influenced by the new proximity of the houses to the river. Questions of erosion and impact seemed the previous map wasn’t an issue. When board members discuss, please think through the new proximity and how in which ways you are signing off on that form.
Chairman Jones stated this is a lot-line change no changes on the house site. This is actually not true as it turns out – the house site was changed as mentioned by Mr Stern and in contravention of what the applicants representative stated.
A MOTION was made by Vice-Chairman Zurofsky to close the Public Hearing.
Second: Board Member Ms. Moloney
DISCUSSION:
Vice-Chairman Zurofsky nothing of the comments made were part of what was related to the action we are taking.
Board Member Mr. Williams -has reservations on closing Public Hearing
Board Member Ms. Moloney- no comment
Board Member Mr. Grasso -has reservations on closing Public Hearing, I think it would be nice to see the map.
Board Member Ms. Lindstrom-Abstained (due to lack of internet connection)
Board Member Mr. Pinsky- wants to make sure the issues brought up that the location of house is not changed from previous revision.
Attorney Christiana – you are ONLY approving/denying lot-line change.
Vice Chairman Zurofsky -once the lines between the parcels are approved, a homeowner can build a site, or a parcel owner can build their home and install their septic wherever they are able to obtain building and septic permits. The question of where the home site will be is not related to what we are being asked to do here and where it has been indicated on a map either that we are being shown today or in the past does not constrain a parcel owner from where they build their house. The comments were related to that and not directly what we are doing here.
Marylou stated that we are not approving the new location of the house as shown on the map.
Chair Jones further indicated that unless the previous decision from the previous map specifically located the house where it was previously located, the applicant can vary the location of the house depending on the availability of septic and water. Chair Jones was not aware of any specific requirement for the house to be in a particular area.
ROLL CALL
Rick Jones- Yes
Sam Zurofsky -Yes
Patrick Williams -Yes
Zorian Pinsky -Yes
Maren Lindstrom -Abstain
Anne Marie Moloney -Yes
Marc Grasso- Yes
6 ayes, 0 nay, 1 abstention All in Favor. Motion Carried
Holding off on decision on the lot line change (major subdivision) until board has an opportunity to look at the other maps that did not make it to the google drive.
Chairman Jones states this is tabled until next month.
PB 2021-19SBD Continued Application
Einar Normann
S/B/L 68.1-2-22.110
Minor Subdivision
Applicant proposes subdivision of the =/- 32-acre parcel to make the following: Lot #1 – +/- 27.3 acres and Lot #2 +/- 5.0 acres. Both proposed lots have sufficient lot frontage and all other lot development requirements have been met. Both Lot #1 and Lot #2 are registered National Wetlands. Parcel is in the R5 zoning district.
Chairman Jones reads the decision:
Decision: PB 2021-19 SBD
Minor Subdivision Conditional Final Approval
Applicant: Elinar & Marta Normann
Reason for Request: A 2 lot minor subdivision of S/B/L 68.1-2-22.110 (+/- 32 acres) into lot one of +/- 27.3 acres and lot two of +/- 5.0 acres. The parcel is located at 217 Van Tyne Road, Accord, NY. Parcel is flat to rolling woodlands with an existing home site, well and septic on lot 2. Lot one will need well and septic. Parcel is in the R5 zoning district and contains ACOE wetlands a DEC monitored stream and DEC forestlands of importance.
Location 217 Van Tyne, Accord, NY
Total Acreage: ± 32 acres
S/B/L: S/B/L 68.1-2-22.110 Zoning District: R-5 (Rural Conservation)
Code Enforcement Determination: Minor Subdivision
Zoning Permit: 156 of 2021
Planning Board Application: 2021-19 SBD
PB Application filed: 4/4/2021 EAF filed: 4/14/2021
SEQR Type: Unlisted, Uncoordinated –12/13/2021
SEQR Determination: Negative Declaration – 12/13/2021
Other Agency Referrals: N/A
Documents considered by the Planning Board for review
1. Zoning Permit 156 of 2021 determination of Minor Subdivision received 4/4/2021
2. Code Enforcement determination letter dated and received 4/23/2021
3. Waiver request letter dated 9/30/2021
4. Planning Board Subdivision application 2021-19 SBD dated 4/5/2021
5. Short Form EAF Part 1 dated 4/14/2021 received 4/23/2021
6. Letter of Authorization from Einar Norman to Bert Winnie, dated May 17th, 2021
7. DEC Environmental Mapper Maps of wetlands, waterbodies, forest cover of plat from Chair received May 1, 2021
8. Picture of Stream received 10/21/2021 and site plan showing location of DEC site visit by Brian Drum 10/19/2021 for potential ROW stream crossing and 10/19/2021 letter from DEC/Brian Drum concerning stream crossing.
9. Sewage system design by MSC Engineering, received 10/1/2021
10. Outstanding Items correspondence received 10/1/2021
11. Copy of deed and title stating rights-of-way, received 12/2/2021
12. Preliminary Site Plan undated, revised received 10/1/2021
Notice of Public Hearing:
1. Published in the December 2nd, 2021 edition of the Shawangunk Journal.
2. Notice by mail to known landowners within 500’.
3. Posted on the T/ Rochester Clerk bulletin board and Town of Rochester website.
Date of Public Hearing: 12/13/2021
Place: Harold Lipton Community Center, 15 Tobacco Rd Accord, NY 12404
Public Comment: (see Minutes of Town of Rochester Planning Board, 12/13/2021)
* * * *
Findings of the Planning Board
1. The Planning Board received a zoning referral and determination letter for a minor subdivision from the Code Enforcement Officer.
2. The applicant proposes the division of S/B/L 68.1-2-22.110 (+/- 32 acres) into lot one of +/- 27.3 acres and lot two of +/- 5.0 acres.
3. The applicant met with the Planning Board and presented the subdivision map for review. The Board discussed and reviewed the proposed subdivision and requested additional information, map details and some map corrections: deed, aerial photo of parcel, setbacks, ROW access, addition of topographical details, the addition of DEC Forest Layers, the location of existing & proposed structures and driveways.
4. The parcel is in the R-5 zoning district. Rochester R-5, Rural Conservation Zoning District is intended to preserve large open areas of the town that are difficult to develop while allowing for both very low density residential development.
5. The existing plat is filed with the Ulster County Clerk.
6. The current use of the parcel is vacant woodlands. The parcel is flat to rolling woodlands with minor clearing and disturbance on proposed lot two where there is an existing concrete slab, septic, well, and driveway. Proposed lot one is wooded and wetlands. Proposed lot one has access solely by ROW and must cross a DEC regulated stream at all point for access. The applicant contacted the DEC at the request of the Planning Board to determine if DEC stream crossing would be possible. The DEC conducted a site visit and determined that access to the vacant lot by ATV would be permitted under current conditions, but a DEC stream crossing permit and appropriate DEC approved culvert would be necessary if a driveway was constructed. The proposed ROW accesses an old woods road and minimizes disturbance to the existing woodlands. DEC permitting shall be a condition of approval. Lot one requires well and septic. The applicant procured certified engineering plans for a new well and septic on lot one. Both lots contain significant riparian buffer lands to the existing stream. The proposed location for a single family home on lot one is outside of the Riparian buffer area and the existing concrete slab and proposed house location for lot two are within the riparian buffer but are as far from the stream and wetlands buffer as is possible on the lot and still respect yard setbacks.
7. The application was determined to meet the requirements of an Unlisted SEQRA action.
• A Negative Declaration was determined upon review.
8. A Public Hearing was held. Members of the public stated that the well situation in the area was tenuous and that they have be obligated to dig wells in excess of 475 feet and that their water is affected by dry conditions. This was noted by the Planning Board and should be noted for any further future subdivision, which shall be considered a major subdivision by code.
9. The Board reviewed if the proposed lot has safe and legal access.
• Lot two has adequate >/= 50 foot frontage on the Town Highway
• Lot one has deeded right(s) of way for access. The Attorney for the Town reviewed the deed and determined the right(s) of way to be legal and sufficient.
10. The parcel is in the R-5 zoning district. Upon review, the Board concludes that the 2 proposed parcels meet or exceed the bulk standards requirements for the R-5 zoning district.
11. The Board reviewed if the proposed lots could support water and septic. Lot 1 has a certified waste disposal plan for water and septic. Lot 2 has existing water and septic.
Draft findings were prepared by the Chairman and were read and discussed by the Planning Board in public meeting at the time of adoption.
Adopted January 10th, 2022 by the following vote:
Ayes: 7 Nays: 0 Absent: 0
Motion to adopt findings by Rick Jones
Second by Maren Lindstrom
* * * *
RESOLVED,
The Town of Rochester Planning Board grants Minor Subdivision- Conditional Final Approval permitting the subdivision of lands situated at: 217 Van Tyne Road, Accord, NY.
The subdivision plan dated January 11th, 2022 is approved with the following conditions.
CONDITIONS of APPROVAL:
1. All fees due to the Town of Rochester involving this application shall be paid in full prior to the Chair’s signature on the Final Plat.
2. The applicant shall present a Final Plat for signature. The Final Plat shall show updated plan revision date(s).
3. The following plat notes shall be included on the recorded Final Plat Map:
1. “Any further subdivision shall be treated as a major subdivision under TOR subdivision law §125-12”.
2. “This property contains a New York State regulated stream. For as long as any portion of the property described in this deed is subject to regulation under Article 15 (Protection of Waters) of the Environmental Conservation Law (ECL) of the State of New York, there shall be no regulated activity as defined by Article 15 of the ECL on this property within the bed or banks of this stream at any time without having first secured the necessary permission and permit required pursuant to the above noted Article 15 from the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC). This restriction shall bind the Grantees, their successors and assigns and shall be expressly set forth in all subsequent deeds to this property.“
3. “subdivision shall adhere to TOR subdivision law §125-21 and -22 General Site Requirements and Subdivision Design, specifically §125-21 (D, E & H) and §125-22 A (1), (4), (8), (11), ((12)”.
4. All required Local, County, State or Federal permits shall be secured for the current and future use of these lands, specifically local driveway permits.
This Conditional Final Approval shall expire 180 days from this approval date unless the Final Plat is presented and signed by the Chair. This period may be extended for two additional 90 day periods upon application to and resolution by the T/ Rochester Planning Board.
The Town of Rochester Planning Board further grants Minor Subdivision- Conditional Final Approval permitting the subdivision of lands upon satisfactory completion of the conditions of approval 1 – 3 and grants the authority to the Chair to certify that the conditions have been met and review, sign and date the plat without further resolution at such time.
EFFECT of APPROVAL:
1. The owner shall file in the office of the Ulster County Clerk such approved plat bearing the Chair’s signature and any other related documents 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.
2. The owner shall have the responsibility to return three (3) Ulster County Clerk certified copies of the filed plat and any other related documents to the T/ Rochester Planning Board within 30 days of such filing.
Adopted January 10th, 2022, by the following vote:
Ayes: 7 Nays: 0 Absent: 0
Motion made by Maren Lindstrom
Second by Patrick Williams
*************************************************************************************
PB 2021-16 SBD Continued Application
Francesco Malatesta, Marco Gentilucci, & Alessio Pigazzi (Applicants & Owners)
S/B/L 67.-1-6
Minor Subdivision
Applicant proposes the subdivision of parcel S/B/L 67-1-6 (+/- 59 acres) into three +/- 19 acre lots. Proposed lots one and two will have a shared drive with a right-of-way for lot 2 over lot 1. Parcel currently has a single-family dwelling with well and septic. New lots will require well and septic. Parcel is located at 85 Baker Lane, Kerhonkson, NY. The parcel contains limited prime farmland at the front of the parcel, federal freshwater emergent wetlands with NYS DEC identified Riparian Buffer lands at the front of proposed lots 2 and 3, and an unnamed NYS DEC identified stream at the front of proposed lot one. UC Habitat Core Lands of highest quality are at the rear 1/3 of the parcel and NYS DEC Core Forest Habitat of the top 1% cover 2/3rds of the parcel. The parcel is in a NYS DEC defined significant biodiversity area of the Hudson River Valley; and is a known DEC area for rare terrestrial animals and an Audubon important bird area. Parcel is in the AR-3 (residential agriculture) zoning district.
ADOPTION BY RESOLUTION OF JANUARY 10th 2022 of BOTH FINDINGS AND FINAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR PROJECT #2021-16 SBD OF MALATESTA, PIGAZZI & GENTILUCCI SUBDIVISION
WHEREAS, an application for subdivision approval was submitted to the Planning Board for the project as follows:
• the application number is 2021-16;
• the application was submitted by Medenbach & Eggers Civil Engineering & Land Surveying, PC, agent for Francesco Malatesta, Alessio Pigazzi & Marco Gentilucci (the “Project Sponsors”);
• “Project Sponsor,” wherever used herein shall mean, and is intended to mean, the Applicant as identified in the above referenced Application, its successors in interest or assignees as may be appropriate;
• the property for this proposal is identified as Tax Map Parcel No.: 67.-1-6 consisting of 57.8 ± acres located at 85 Baker Road in the AR-3 (Residential Agricultural) Zoning District in the Town of Rochester;
• the proposal involves a request to subdivide the parcel into 3 lots for single-family home development with resulting Lot 1 being 19.20 ± acres and resulting Lots 2 and 3 each being 19.3 ± acres. The site contains an existing dwelling, garage, well, and septic system with a driveway from Baker Road, these existing buildings and improvements will be located on proposed Lot 2. Proposed Lots 1 and 2 will share the existing driveway via a proposed right-of-way. A new driveway is proposed for Lot 3.
• the applicant paid their application fees and deposited monies into an escrow account to cover the consultant charges for the review of the project in accordance with the current Fee Schedule and in agreement with the provisions of Section 125-19 of the TOR Subdivision Code, and Section 140-63 of the Code of the Town of Rochester.
• the applicant submitted a number of drafts of drawings, prepared by Medenbach & Eggers Civil Engineering & Land Surveying, PC, as more fully listed at the end of this resolution;
• the application was accepted by the Planning Board of the Town of Rochester on March 29, 2021;
• the application was referred by the Planning Board of the Town of Rochester to the Town Consulting Planner and Engineer, the Town Planning Board Attorney, the Town Highway Superintendent, and the Accord Fire Company; and
WHEREAS, the action is an Unlisted action pursuant to 6 NYCRR 617.4 and 617.5 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the SEQRA (State Environmental Quality Review Act) of the Environmental Conservation Law; and the Planning Board concluded its review under SEQRA by adopting a Determination of Non-Significance (Negative Declaration) at its regular meeting on December 13, 2021; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board reviewed the Application, and all supporting documentation and information pursuant to the standards and criteria for subdivision approval set forth in the Code of the Town of Rochester, Chapter 125, Subdivision of Land; and pertinent requirements and standards of Chapter 140, Zoning; and
WHEREAS, the Project Sponsor obtained Ulster County Department of Health Approval for waste disposal systems (septic systems) on proposed Lots 1 and 3 on August 9, 2021; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board held a duly noticed public hearing on the completed Application pursuant to Chapter 125, Code § 125-12. F on December 13, 2021, which was closed on December 13, 2021;
FINDINGS:
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the Planning Board of the Town of Rochester makes the following findings about this project:
1. The Planning Board received zoning determination and classification that the subdivision is located in an AR-3 zoning district and is minor subdivision per correspondence from the Code Enforcement Officer received March 29, 2021;
2. The proposed minor 3-lot subdivision, which would result in two new lots for single-family homes, was discussed at regular and workshop meetings of the Planning Board held on April 12, 2021; September 13, 2021; October 25, 2021; November 8, 2021; December 13, 2021; and January 10, 2022 during which the Planning Board, its consultant and the Applicants representative discussed the site’s land use and natural features including on-site federal wetland areas, an unnamed stream, meadow and wooded areas, Ulster County Habitat Core areas, potential Timber Rattlesnake habitat area, the site’s topography, stormwater runoff concerns, and nearby agricultural district lands; and the possibility of a shared driveway for 3 lots; and
3. In response to material set forward by the applicants as well as the Town’s consultants along with comments from the Planning Board, the Board finds the following impacts and determinations based on the most current plan set, last revised December 5, 2021, including:
a. That the site’s 4 marked wetlands shall be protected with a voluntary one-hundred-foot (100’) buffer, and corresponding plan notation. With a few exceptions, most land disturbance is proposed outside of the buffer areas;
b. “Right to Farm” plan notation alerts future residents to the presence of nearby farms, their right to farm, and the customary practices of farms;
c. That there is good reason to believe Timber Rattlesnakes are present on this property and therefore care must be taken to ensure no disturbance/site work takes place from April 1st and October 31st without the temporary protective barrier as detailed in Section 2.0 of Ecological Study by Ecological Solutions of 10/22/21. Notation is included on the plans, which sets forth precautionary measures to address the potential for Timber Rattlesnake habitat in the upper reaches of the property or in areas of proposed disturbance; and
d. That there will be no increase of runoff from this project over that which already exists as detailed in a letter from Applicants’ Engineers and consultants, Medenbach and Eggers, dated December 6th, 2021; and
e. Project will require a Road Maintenance agreement between Lots 1 and 2 and will be filed with this subdivision map with the Ulster County Clerk’s Office; and
f. The proposed lots will comply with the AR-3 zoning district lot area and bulk requirements and pertinent subdivision design standards and requirements.
These Findings having been prepared by the Board and read and discussed at the meeting of January 13, 2022. The Board hereby Adopts these Findings on January 10th 2022 by the following Vote:
Ayes: 7 Nays: 0 Absent: 0
Motion to adopt findings by: Sam Zurofsky
Seconded by: Patrick Williams
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town of Rochester Planning Board hereby grants Minor Subdivision Conditional Final Approval of the proposed 3-lot subdivision situated at 85 Baker Road, Kerhonkson, NY subject to satisfactory compliance with the following conditions:
1. The Project Sponsor shall reimburse the Town of Rochester for all costs incurred by the Town for the review of this subdivision proposal. The final plat for this subdivision will not be stamped and signed by the Planning Board Chairman unless and until all appropriate costs incurred by the Town for the customary and necessary review have been paid for by the Applicant by either means of the escrow account established at the initial application stage or by check payable to the Town of Rochester.
2. The Applicant shall present a Final Plan for signature, with proof of satisfactory compliance with the comments in the CPL review letter of December 10, 2021, numbered 2., 6. a. and b., 7. a., b., and c., and 8., as set forth below:
#2. “ … it is recommended that the plans show and label the approximate limits of the proposed wooded areas that would remain after full lot development. This would also address the standard to retain woodlands to the extent practicable as per the subdivision regulations sections 125-21. D., and 125-22. A. (4) and (5). “
#6. “Regarding the requirements for minor subdivision applications and plans, revise the plan or add the following information to provide a more complete subdivision plan:
#a. … show and label wooded areas and/or stone walls to be retained on Lot 3.
#b. Regarding the proposed right-of-way, label the metes and bounds. “
#7. “The current submittal was reviewed as per and the Minor Subdivision Checklist, in the Town of Rochester Subdivision Application Packet. Address the following comments:
#a. … submit a draft shared driveway agreement.
#b. … add reference to a survey of the subject parcel.
#c. Regarding lot dimensions, revise the Zoning Requirements table to provide the actual proposed values for minimum lot width, lot depth and frontage. “
3. The Applicant shall present a Final Plan for signature that includes the following plan notes:
a. “Driveway access and construction shall be as shown on the final subdivision plan. Any changes to location or grade from the approved plan shall require Planning Board approval.”
b. “ ‘Right to Farm,’ This property may border a farm as defined in Chapter75 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 which may involve insecticides, herbicides, pesticides, etc.”
c. “ ‘Timber Rattlesnake’ The upper reaches of the property may contain foraging areas for Timber Rattlesnakes. As a precautionary measure, site work conducted between April 1st and October 31st will require the placement of temporary silt fencing (see Sheet 2) must be placed around the entire area of disturbance.”
d. “ ‘No Build Area’. In order to further protect the wetland areas shown herein, there shall be no further development within 100’ of the wetlands beyond what is shown on this site plan.”
e. “No Further subdivision of this parcel is permitted without the prior approval of the Planning Board.”
f. “Lots 1 and 2 are subject to a Road Maintenance Agreement to be filed at the Ulster County Clerk’s Office in conjunction with this subdivision plan.” The spelling in this plan note must be fixed.
g. “ ‘Shared Driveway’: The proposed fifty-foot (50’) wide right-of-way (ROW) shown shall be used in common by the owner(s) of lots 1 and 2. This ROW shall be in effect and binding on owners of said lots, their heirs, successors, and assignees, and all future owners of said lots, their heirs, successors, and assignees upon filing of this subdivision plat in the office of the Ulster County Clerk.”
h. “Per the Code of the Town of Rochester sections 125-29, R., (2) and 140-10, D., (2), the Planning Board approves the use of a shared driveway as shown on this plat (plan) to service no more than two single-family dwellings via access from a shared driveway through the establishment of a right-of-way. The shared driveway shall be utilized by no more than a total of three single-family dwellings or lots including the lot it has access over.”
i. “ ‘Fire Code’: As per New York State Fire Code, a driveway over five hundred feet (500’) in length must be accessible and able to hold a seventy-five thousand (75,000) pound, thirty-foot (30’) long vehicle, as determined by a licensed engineer, with facilities for turning around to be available within one-hundred feet (100’) of any structure. A driveway over five-hundred feet (500’) in length must have a minimum width of twenty feet (20’) and a minimum vertical clearance of fifteen feet (15’). A driveway must be maintained free of all obstructions, such as trees, brush, posts, and gates, etc.”
4. Revise plan sheet 1 of 2 to be entitled “Final Plan showing Subdivision of Gentilucci, Malatesta, & Pigazzi.”
5. The Owners’ Consent Block shall be signed and dated by the Owners following the date of last revision and prior to the Chair signing the plat.
6. The Applicant shall submit a draft shared driveway agreement for review and approval by the Planning Board Attorney, which shall be revised to the satisfaction of the Planning Board Attorney before the plat is signed.
7. The finalized shared driveway agreement shall be filed in the Office of the Ulster County Clerk simultaneously with the filing of the subdivision plat.
8. Proof of satisfactory compliance with and/or resolution of all of the above conditions must be provided before the plat is signed.
9. Before any building permit shall be issued, the following additional conditions shall be met; and pertinent items shall be clearly shown on building plot plan(s) and verified by the code enforcement officer/building inspector:
a. All required Local, County, State or Federal permits shall be secured for the current and future use of these lands.
b. Plot plans, with soil erosion and sediment control plans, for grading shall be submitted for each plot before issuing building permit.
c. Lot Development, including the limits of disturbance for a lot, shall conform to the subdivision plan for each parcel. Any limit of disturbance for a lot shall not be increased from that shown on the subdivision plan without further Planning Board approval and any stormwater mitigation as may be required by the Town or NYSDEC.
This Conditional Final Approval shall expire 180 days from this approval date unless the Final Plat is presented and signed by the Chairman. This period may be extended for two additional 90-day periods upon application to and resolution by the T/ Rochester Planning Board.
EFFECT of APPROVAL:
3. The owner shall file in the office of the Ulster County Clerk such approved plat bearing the Chairman’s signature and any other related documents 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.
4. The owner shall have the responsibility to return three (3) Ulster County Clerk certified copies of the filed plat and any other related documents to the T/ Rochester Planning Board within 30 days of such filing.
Adopted January 10, 2022, by the following vote:
Ayes: 7 Nays: 0 Absent: 0
Motion to adopt approval with condition by: Marc Grasso
Seconded by: Ann Marie Moloney
The following plans and materials were submitted and reviewed for this application:
– Response letter to CPL Review letter, prepared by Heather Gabriel, Project Coordinator, prepared by Medenbach & Eggers Civil Engineering & Land Surveying, PC, dated December 6, 2021;
– Response letter to Planning Board question about lot 1 septic, prepared by Heather Gabriel, Project Coordinator, prepared by Medenbach & Eggers Civil Engineering & Land Surveying, PC, dated November 8, 2021;
– Response letter to Planning Board inquiry about drainage, prepared by Heather Gabriel, Project Coordinator, prepared by Medenbach & Eggers Civil Engineering & Land Surveying, PC, dated December 6, 2021;
– Agricultural Data Statement, signed by Heather Gabriel, Project Coordinator, prepared by Medenbach & Eggers Civil Engineering & Land Surveying, PC, dated November 9, 2021;
– Preliminary Plan showing Subdivision of Lands of Gentilucci, Malatesta & Pigazzi, prepared by Medenbach & Eggers Civil Engineering & Land Surveying, PC, dated August 11, 2021, revised December 5, 2021; and
– Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan With Driveway Profiles for Subdivision of Lands of Gentilucci, Malatesta & Pigazzi, prepared by Medenbach & Eggers Civil Engineering & Land Surveying, PC, dated August 11, 2021, revised December 6, 2021.
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#
– Letter report about Federal Wetland Delineation, prepared by Michael Nowicki, Biologist, Ecological Solutions, LLC, dated October 22, 2021;
– Threatened and Endangered Species Habitat Suitability Assessment Report, prepared by Michael Nowicki, Biologist, Ecological Solutions, LLC, dated October 22, 2021;
– Response letter to CPL Review letter, prepared by Heather Gabriel, Project Coordinator, prepared by Medenbach & Eggers Civil Engineering & Land Surveying, PC, dated October 18, 2021;
– Response letter to Planning Board comment letter, prepared by Heather Gabriel, Project Coordinator, prepared by Medenbach & Eggers Civil Engineering & Land Surveying, PC, Undated, received October 19, 2021;
– Email from Brian Drumm, NYSDEC, dated September 29, 2021 regarding wetlands;
– Custom Soil Resource Report prepared by USDA NRCS, dated September 16, 2021;
– Preliminary Plan showing Subdivision of Lands of Gentilucci, Malatesta & Pigazzi, prepared by Medenbach & Eggers Civil Engineering & Land Surveying, PC, dated August 11, 2021, revised October 18, 2021;
– Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan for Subdivision of Lands of Gentilucci, Malatesta & Pigazzi, prepared by Medenbach & Eggers Civil Engineering & Land Surveying, PC, dated August 11, 2021, revised October 18, 2021; and
– Slope Analyses of Lands of Gentilucci, Malatesta & Pigazzi, prepared by Medenbach & Eggers Civil Engineering & Land Surveying, PC, dated September 16, 2021.
*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
– Application for subdivision, signed February 24, 2021;
– Short Environmental Assessment Form, Part 1, updated August 11, 2021, signed August 25, 2021;
– Ulster County Department of Health approvals for construction of waste disposal systems on lots 1 and 3, signed 8/9/21;
– Preliminary Plan showing Subdivision of Lands of Gentilucci, Malatesta & Pigazzi, prepared by Medenbach & Eggers Civil Engineering & Land Surveying, PC, dated August 11, 2021;
– Scan of Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan for Subdivision of Lands of Gentilucci, Malatesta & Pigazzi, prepared by Medenbach & Eggers Civil Engineering & Land Surveying, PC, dated August 11, 2021;
– A map identified as GMP wetlands, no preparer indicated, undated;
– Letter of Transmittal dated February 26, 2021;
– Letter of Agent signed February 23, 2021;
– Short Environmental Assessment Form, Part 1, signed February 24, 2021;
– Application for Zoning Permit and Classification, signed February 24, 2021, received, and signed by Code Enforcement Officer on March 4, 2021; and
– Memorandum from Town of Rochester Code Enforcement Officer regarding zoning determination dated March 29, 2021.
Adoption of FINDINGS for Malatesta Application:
A MOTION was made by Vice-Chairman Zurofsky to adopt these findings with all the above discussed grammatical amendment. Most importantly was the change of the word ‘must’ to the word ‘shall’ with regards to the 100’ buffer.
Second: Board Member Mr. Williams
7 ayes, 0 nay, 0 abstentions All in Favor. Motion Carried
Adoption of CONDITIONS of APPROVAL for Malatesta Application:
A MOTION was made by Marc Grasso to approve the Conditions of Approval on application 2021-16 SBD
Second: Board Member Ms. Moloney
7 ayes, 0 nay, 0 abstentions All in Favor. Motion Carried
******************************************************************************
PB 2021-21 SBD (Minor) Continued Application
John DeForest
S/B/L 76.1-2-50.100
Minor Subdivision
Applicant proposes the subdivision of the +/- 2.5-acre parcel to make the following: lot #1: +/- 1.3 acres & lot #2: +/- 1.2 acres. Parcel is in the R1 zoning district.
Heather Gabriel present on behalf of application. Total acreage has to be accurate – is it 2.5 or 2.6 acres.
Chairman Jones states there are two septics, one well for two lots; applicant intends to drill an additional well for the new Lot. Therefore, do not need a shared well agreement. Planning Board needs a deed, TOPO, Health Department approval for added well. Need a well drilled or need an agreement for them to right to use water. Need Overlay map.
Board Member -Mr. Williams- no comment except that marking a well doesn’t mean there will be water found.
Board Member -Ms. Lindstrom- no comment except this is in the Town’s AP protection area and that needs to be marked as such on map. Include the note on the map about ‘no more flag lot on this plat’ even though there is no more space to do so under 1 acre zoning.
Board Member -Mr. Grasso- questioned whether when the well would be put in? Attorney Christiana commented that map should show where well is going to be and need Health Dept approval. Well does not need to be in before approval according to attorney. Our attorney stated we need either a shared agreement before well goes in or they can drill the well. So, it was decided by the applicants’ representative that instead of a well agreement there will be a well drilled as a condition to the chair signing the map. Attorney confirmed that the timeframe in terms of getting the map signed is 180 days and then there are two 90 day extensions, for a total of one year. So applicant has this time to drill the well, and then have the chair sign the map without the approval expiring.
Board Member- Ms. Moloney – no comment
Vice Chairman- Mr. Zurofsky- Remove the dotted ghost line box around Lot #2
add to legend spot elevations
Board Member -Mr. Pinsky- sheds are grandfathered? Yes
Elizabeth Axelson- Planning Consultant, CPL- near an Ag District- list right to farm, total acreage, add spot elevation to legend, change label from owner to owner/ sub-divider, approval signature block, certification of plan, ten-foot front yard, AP overlay and deed, flag-lot note.
A MOTION was made by Vice-Chairman Mr. Zurofsky to set the Public Hearing for February 14,2022
Second: Board Member Ms. Lindstrom
7 ayes, 0 nay, 0 abstentions All in Favor. Motion Carried
*************************************************************************************
PB 2021 – 22 SBD (Minor) New Application
Christian Wulf
S/B/L 60.3-1-42.100
Applicant proposes the subdivision of the +/- 10.6-acre parcel to make the following: Lot #1: +/- 3.1 acres & Lot #2: +/- 7.5 acres. Parcel is in the R2 zoning district.
Mr. Wulf was presenting himself. Heather did the map, but Mr Wulf is representing himself and unless he asks Heather to chime in, she will not be part of this application at this point.
Mr. Wulf presented what he wanted to do. Full time resident and wanted to build a larger full-time residence. Proposing shared driveway with only one drive on the road frontage.
Chairman Jones states the Board will need a Deed. This is a new lot under minor subdivision, we ask for TOPO, indication of wooded area, where the core habitat is (there is core habitat present), general location of house, septic, well.
Chair went around the room:
Board Member Mr. Grasso- will there be a shared driveway agreement? Yes
Board Member Ms. Lindstrom- Key Forest land, across the road is DEC wetlands, and Army core of engineer wetlands, a stream. DEC has identified probably wetlands extending onto the property, it’s likely that this is a threatened endangered environmental area and so a study of such may be needed. All these things will help to give some indication of where the house should be. Could use more environment overlay information.
Board Member Mr. Pinsky- Questioned the zoning application determination as a Major subdivision. Attorney Christiana clarified that the code enforcement determination latter originally said major subdivision. Chair brought that to the attention of the Code Enforcement Office and they are correcting that to reflect a Minor subdivision and we would receive that adjustment from the CEO Office. The application is Minor. Ms. Christiana confirmed that in speaking with CEO the latter agreed it was a Minor.
Board Member Ms. Moloney- no comment
Board Member Mr. Williams – wants clarification on the possible Right of Way marked on the map as a ‘woods road’ subject to use by others.
Board Member Mr. Zurofsky- basically has the same questions as the others.
Mr. Wulf states he will provide TOPO if needed. Not sure of where he wants to build. There are no stream or wetlands on his property. The lot is completely wooded except around existing dwelling. The wood road notation is nothing but a trail that is not in use. No knowledge of a right of way according to the applicant.
Chairman Jones summarized- The Board needs the Deed, TOPO, shading on map indicating wooded area, core habitat lands marked. Need confirm from your representative that there is no right of way, want that confirmed. Attorney Christiana reminded Chair that this matter is not our concern. The way it is marked is standard and its fine. Board concerned about no marking of house, septic, or well. Propose to have a note on map that at time the owner goes for building permit the owner must come back to planning board to indicate where the house is being sited along with the septic and well. Need this to ensure that there are no environmental concerns – can put the note on map or have him do that now. Note can also be made that no disturbance can be done in the sensitive areas noted on the map. We can do everything with notes on the map, or you can do it all now. Attorney further indicated that we want to preserve any environmental concerns and doesn’t have to come back to us. It was further mentioned that we could simply constrain the area based on the environmental constraints and can build elsewhere. So show the constraints and the applicant can go from there.
Need the agreement for the shared driveway. Will also need a driveway permit from the highway department. Don’t need the pull offs because it will only serve a single house.
Mr Wulf mentioned he didn’t have to worry about environmental concerns when he built original house. Attorney Christiana commented that when he went for a single house building permit it was not needed, but when you go for a subdivision, you are required by state law to be concerned and the board is required to look into any of those concerns.
Chair mentioned that you may want to have M&E more involved in presenting the material discussed by the board. Chair asked Heather if she had any comments on behalf of Mr. Wulf. You’re going to want topo, core habitat, driveway marked. Wetlands are across the street. Our attorney asked for identification of whether they are ACOE or DEC and if the property is within the 100 ft buffer this needs to be noted on the map. It’s assumed that there are no wetlands in the area to be developed and we just want the buffer line marked.
Zorian asked why in some cases we ask for house etc. Attorney Christiana mentioned that it would be a matter of timing. If it was going to be done ‘now’ they need to be marked. This case in point is very much the exception but it happens when there are no plans for the house now and so the matter can be handled with notes on the map.
Nothing for our Planner to do at this point.
******************************************************************************
PB 2021–23 SBD (Major) New Application
Honeycomb Hills – CRAM LLC
S/B/L 68.3-1-27
Applicant proposes the subdivision of the +/- 24-acre parcel to make the following: Lot #1: +/-5.430 acres, Lot #2: +/- 5.671 acres, Lot #3: +/- 7.253 acres, & Lot #4: +/- 5.566 acres. Parcel is in the R5 zoning district.
Marc Grasso, the applicant, recused himself at 9:42 due to his financial interest in the property. Zack Jarvis also recused himself at same time because of his financial interest.
Mr. Grasso presented. A 24-acre ex farm atea. Proposing a 4-lot subdivision. Town Road, lots will have access to the town road, septic approval, wetlands letter that there are no wetlands on this property. It’s 5 acre zone, natural spring on the property.
Chair had question about the road – extending the road, where the town road begins and ends, looks like you are making the cul-de-sac larger, is the Town acquiring any portion of this private road. Driveways are in, but we are going to need evidence that they match the required code. Mark things that are ‘existing’ to ‘proposed’ Asked about swale – is it a stream? Change labeling to Major Subdivision, instead of Minor.
Ms. Christiana mentioned that the CEO made this a major subdivision because it appeared that a portion of the road was private and not all a Town Road at all. Chair mentioned that he went to Highway Department and talked to Jeff Frey, Highway Superintendent. It still is not clear to me that this is all a Town Road, although Jeff said it was. Ms. Christiana suggested that the surveyor talk to Jeff Frey. Mr. Grasso indicated that he talked to Mr. Frey and the latter says that this is a town road and that is why he issued the driveway permits. Mr. Frey is putting that in a letter today, January 10th. Chair Jones responded that the map still doesn’t show that and would have to. Still needs to be fixed from a survey point of view. The comment ‘end of Town Road’ does not end where Mr. Frey says it does. Ms. Christiana comment still stands that surveyor and Jeff need to resolve. Marylou insisted that it must be corrected on the map – it does not look like this entire thing is a Town Road in the fashion that it is marked by surveyor John Heidecker, so the latter must fix the map.
Mr. Grasso confirmed that driveways are in. Planning Attorney said this is a CEO concern. The driveways should not have been put in and the applicant was informed of this. Chair mentioned that the explanation from applicant of one acre of disturbance is permitted is not true and has been mixed up in the past and now. That one acre has to do with DEC rules regarding when a potential SWPP has to be done over one acre. Under that the property can be improved without kicking in DEC concerns.
Chair Jones reiterated that no disturbance is allowed when an applicant is before the Planning Board. The applicant said that where the driveways were put in was where previous woods roads were put in and so that was done to have minimal disturbance. There was a comment at this point from someone on the ZOOM who was not muted. Attorney mentioned that this is not a public hearing at this point.
Chair Jones asked whether these were built to code. Applicant responded yes. Member Lindstrom mentioned that the only thing that the driveway permit allows is where the drive cut is made.
Mr. Zurofsky confirmed that all the things on the checklist must be done and marked. Ms. Lindstrom stated that is especially necessary for Lot #4 and in particular the buffer zone around these wetlands.
Mr. Pinsky mentioned that the topo map is not adequate – there are no elevations notations on that map. Needs to be fixed. Septic approvals are needed for each lot, they are missing at this point. Applicant indicated he would get these from M&E and put in file.
Chair mentioned that Ms. Axelson was going to have to weigh in on grading and drainage as a result of where the driveways were put. Need to know if there is any water retention needed. Also need topo modified to show a ‘heat map’
Applicant agreed to have Mr. Frey work with the surveyor and the chair asked for a letter from the surveyor explaining why the map doesn’t adequately explain whether this is or isn’t a Town Road.
Ms. Axelson mentioned that the ‘swale’ is a Type A trout stream, there is some sort of a pond or something that is part of this stream? She also mentioned that it apers that the Town has done the maintenance of this road for so long that the assumption that it is a Town Road is due to that fact. It doesn’t look like the surveyor is indicating a Town Road for the entire length being utilized by the applicant. She mentioned she wasn’t aware these were existing driveways. Ms. Axelson was asking for one map as we have done for other projects. So, a single plan showing topo, drainage, sedimentation control, retention if needed, etc.
Further discussion about the road and how and why it became a Town road. It could be a Town Road by virtue of fact that it was maintained and not actually a Town road. If it was a thru road, we might want to have some section of it abandoned as a Town road.
Applicant was asked whether he understood that he would have to do a map that showed everything on one map. He indicated that it was submitted. Both attorney and Planner indicated that the topo map is not sufficient and is not what the PB has accepted in the past. Planner mentioned again that one map with topo, grading, heat map, etc. still needs to be done and the maps submitted are not sufficient at this point. Chair asked if all lots where the houses are indicated are open fields including Lot 4. Applicant said yes to all lots.
Mr. Grasso and Mr. Jarvis both un-recused themselves at 10:21.
Break till 10:25
******************************************************************************
PB 2021-26 SBD (Major) New Application
Thomas McCarthy
S/B/L 76.2-2-5.12
Applicant proposes the subdivision of the +/- 17.1-acre parcel to make the following: Lot #1: +/- 2.077 acres (Driveway off Rte 209), Lot #2: +/- 10.426 acres (Driveway off Queens Hwy.), Lot #3: +/- 2.294 acres (Driveway off Queens Hwy), & Lot #4: +/- 2.315 acres (Driveway off Rte 209). Parcel is in the Business (B) zoning district.
Project is next to new Valero station. Closest cross street is Queens Highway.
Applicant representing himself. Surveyor not present.
Chair went through comments. These included needing deed for property. Asked whether one of the lots was mentioned to be a commercial lot. Important to know whether any of these lots were to be commercial, or all lots residential. Clearly if one is to be commercial the egress would be to Rt 209 and State DOT permit would have to be obtained. If all are to be residential then the applicant should know that the Town Code requires that if there is an alternative road for these residential drives that the alternative road is to be used instead of Rt 209. There is an alternative road, Queens Highway and so this must be used for residential and not Rt 209. Chair indicated that he will insist on the use of Queens Highway. This restriction is provided in Section 140-17 (G) ‘Access to Route 209’
Second major comment has to do with needing more elevation numbers and need to make sure that the wetlands are properly noted along with the 100 ft buffer from the highwater mark of stream. Also need to mark the map as being in the AP overlay zone.
Mr. Zurofsky – deferred to the Chair and agreed with comments. Using Queens Highway is mandatory/preferable.
Mr. Grasso – Asked and applicant confirmed that three drives have been installed – two on Queens and one on Rt 209. Again, misunderstanding as to what could be done when before Planning Board.
Ms. Lindstrom – same comment about no clearing and no driveway should have been done. Admittedly the Planning Board doesn’t do violations. Disturbance should not occur when before PB. Need 100 ft. setback from stream (buffer). Still need things on map? Applicant mentioned that he believed the map was marked properly in terms of wetlands, floodplains, etc. Ms. Lindstrom mentioned that the 100 ft buffer from the stream was not marked.
Mr. Pinsky – no comments, agree with previous comments.
Ms. Moloney – concerned about Lot#1 – dangerous driveway onto Rt 209. Prefer driveway off Queens Highway. Applicant prefers to have a Commercial property for Lot #1.
Chair Jones mentioned that unlikely we would approve drives onto Rt 209 if they were residential. If that lot was commercial, we might approve it. Applicant asked what if Lot 1 was commercial. Chair indicated that would be fine but you would have to reapply for the commercial lot.
Applicant was concerned with an 800-foot driveway from Queens versus the 300 feet from Rt 209. Seems like it is too far. DOT approval is only for the larger 50 ft driveway. Did not get anything from DOT for the separate driveway to the residential lot #1.
Ms. Axelson comments. Liked the map – clear, more to be covered etc. Suggested lots #2 and #3 could share driveway. And then lot #1 and #4 could share a driveway, particularly if #1 is a commercial plat. Shared driveway here would be helpful in terms of safety. The latter is very important. Looks like there is archaeological sensitivity on lot #3. Going to need erosion control, grading, etc. Wooded areas with large trees be preserved. Need the right to farm note, etc. Ms. Axelson will summarize everything in her letter on the project.
Ms. Christiana will speak with Ms. Axelson to discuss alternatives.
This probably won’t be on the agenda for February.
******************************************************************************
PB 2021-24 SBD (Minor) New Application
Robert Frisch
S/B/L 68.2-2-42
Applicant proposes the subdivision of the +/- 17.583-acre parcel to make the following: Lot #1: +/- 6.24 acres, Lot #2: +/- 6.24 acres, & Lot #3: +/- 5.10 acres. Parcel is in the R2 zoning district.
Robert Frisch present on behalf of the application. He stated there are no immediate plans to build.
Mentioned that he had been in to CEO and the latter wants to see location of houses and driveways and open to moving them around. As far as they know there are no protected areas. It is on the Private Road.
Mr. Zurofsky – going to need to see everything we require from our checklist. Topos, wooded property, wetlands, core habitat, etc. Lot to fill in. Chair jumped in and mentioned that there is plenty of access to what you need from our application and checklist. To avoid coming back over and over again have your surveyor do what is in the application and checklist. We will assist with that and you really should not be back here unless you have a very well completed map. Missing a deed, all of this is listed.
Ms. Lindstrom – look at the code – Section 125 the subdivision code. Applicant asked for an explanation of the Private Road restrictions/requirements. Ms. Lindstrom essentially said you need to get everyone on the private road to approve your driveway cuts.
Board again advised to take a look at the application package. Get to the neighbors first before you do anymore work. There is a sample of letters to send to neighbors that was done for Montalvo
Ms. Axelson – mentioned that when you purchased there must have been something in the deed of sale that references access to the private road. There is a steam that goes across deer haven road and onto the site, there is core habitat areas, entire site is wooded. Ms. Axelson will do a letter enumerating some basic things applicant needs to do. She will do a curtailed review because there are so many unanswered questions re the private road.
Applicant stated that there is no RMA currently. Our attorney indicated then you would need one and that it would have to include all the owners along this road. Need this to ensure that emergency vehicles etc can get access. Not going to approve more lots unless there is an agreement.
******************************************************************************
PB 2021-05 SPA (Site Plan Approval) New Application
Lucky Petroleum
S/B/L 76.1-3-28.100
Applicant proposes renovations to the existing parcel, including demolition of existing convenience store, construction of a new convenience store, replacement of gas pumps, and will need a Site Plan Approval. Parcel is +/- 3.4 acres and in the Business (B) zoning district.
Representative is Khattar Elmassalemah, PE
Existing gas station building to be demolished and new building will be pushed back. The separate retail building will remain as will the private house. New building that will be a mini-mart and drive through Dunkin Donuts. Traffic will be improved to ensure a specific in and out.
Chair Jones:
Retail building will remain as is? Yes. Need extra sheets dealing with lighting under our code respecting dark skies, all of the lighting structures, no floodlights – all downward facing. Need a photometric plan for all the proposed new buildings, parking area, pump area, also want lights to be dimed or off depending on the hours of the operation. If it is 24-hour site OK, but if not, lights need to be dimmed. Need existing and proposed. Maren included comment about the maximum allowed lumens for the photometric plan Lighting is 1`40-20
Need a landscape plan showing the numbers of and type of trees being used. All native plants. Must be extensive – take a look at 140-15. There is a 20-foot buffer with plantings, size of trees, number of trees. Will give more detail.
Signage – consult 140-21. They are looking for a shared sign
Rules for Architectural, elevations, siding, etc. – Are in section 140-20
Parking – did you follow the code? Need 17 for new building. Are they 10×20? They are suggesting 9×18. We want 10×20. We will consider a waiver in terms of parking to ensure there is not a lot of macadam. Liz commented that 9×18 is used more and more, although we have a lot of trucks in this community. So, we asked for 10×20. Questioned whether we would consider the pumps as parking? Suggestion that we could be flexible. Request a waiver and a rationale. Discussion around parking didn’t necessarily need to be macadam could be hard packed gravel to allow for water to percolate. How about bricks that allow for percolation?
Mr. Grasso – six pumps with three islands? Yes. Asked about doing something with the retail facility. Would you consider at least skimming the exterior to look more presentable. Marc encourages this. How far is building off Rt 209? Building is 2900 square feet. Gas and diesel will be all together. Applicant, Mr. Cheema said they will be making improvements to the retail building. Would like to see a drawing of what the retail building will look like. They will label it ‘existing building to be renovated”
Ms. Moloney -OK with plan as it is
Mr. Pinsky – show the movement of cars around the pumps. Could we see the color of the siding of the building? They will make a table with what is being used on the building, it will be similar to the new Valero. Are we going to ask for performance bonds? Asked that we hold off on that at this point.
Mr. Zurofsky – ask for EV stations. Could you also include solar panels? They agreed with the EV stations. Planning on 2 or 3 charging stations.
Attorney Christiana – Are you putting in larger tanks? No, they are using same tanks. Tanks are 10 years old. This property is in AP zone which doesn’t allow more tanks/storage. Not a problem if they are using the existing tanks.
Ms. Axelson – Give us a parking regulation table. Talked again about using the pumps spots as part of the parking calculations. Need it clear as to what is being done on the cemetery side. Do we need to fill in any shrubs here? Drainage measures?? Where is the loading for gas delivery as well as for retail, mini-mart, and Dunkin delivery?? Need a clear indication of pedestrian walkways and posed the question of sidewalks in front of the property. Will be doing a full review. Attorney reminded us of it going to County Planning and will more than likely ask for sidewalks. Discussion about this issue, expect that the County will ask for. Asked applicant to consider whether it is workable. Asked them to include bike racks. Agreed.
Applicant asked for an estimate on timing. We agreed that 4 to 6 months is reasonable timeframe to get this done. Needed to inform Dunkin Donuts of this.
OTHER MATTERS
• New Application Tracker/Checklist
ADJOURNMENT:
A MOTION was made by Board Member Ms. Moloney to adjourn at 11:56 pm
Second: Board Member Ms. Lindstrom
Respectfully submitted,
Rick Jones, Planning Board Chair