ࡱ> k  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijRoot Entry( JrhO1MatOSTL1Y_O1MMMN0ND ( JrMicrosoft Works MSWorksWPDoc9qST((=/8dt.T MINUTES OF MAY 20, 2003 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 Chairperson Nadine Carney. PRESENT: Nadine Carney ABSENT: William DeGraw Robert Gaydos Tony Kawalchuck Shane Ricks Frank Striano, Sr. Melvyn Tapper David O Halloran, Alternate Pledge to the Flag. Because this was Secretary Beverly Schoonmakers last Planning Board Meeting, the Chairperson presented her with flowers and thanked her for her years of dedicated service and knowledge to the Town of Rochester. ZBA ADVISORY REQUEST JAMES GOODMAN - Area Variance At 7:02 the Chairperson called James Goodman forward for a ZBA Advisory Request in Regards to an Area Variance for fence height, 263 Old Kings Highway, Stone Ridge, Tax Map #69.4-2-6.1, R-1 Zoning District. Mr. Goodman presented the Board members with pictures of different vantage points to better display the need for the 6 fence instead of the allowable 4. He explained that the house is 30 from the road and he was planning on putting the fence10 from the edge of the road to be sure there would be ample room for snow plowing and it would look better behind the existing lilac bushes on the property. Mr. Goodman responded, 30. Mr. OHalloran asked if the reasoning behind the requested variance for fence height was due to the wind? Yes, that was one of the major reasons for the fence, Mr. Goodman explained, along with blocking the view of the traffic on the road. Because of the slope of the front yard, the 4 fence wouldnt be an adequate buffer to either wind or traffic. The Chairperson asked what type of fence did Mr. Goodman propose to construct. T/ Rochester PLANNING BOARD Minutes of Regular Meeting -2- May 20, 2003 ZBA ADVISORY REQUEST GOODMAN- contd: Mr. Goodman answered that the proposed fence would be a flat- board fence, a simple fence. There is one like it on Old Kings Highway now. The Chairperson asked the Board if they had any further questions. Mr. Striano inquired as to how Mr. Goodman planned on finishing the exterior of the fence. Mr. Goodman said that he and his wife hadnt come to a definite decision, but they were leaning towards a natural, earth tone finish. Mr. Tapper questioned if Mr. Goodman had mentioned his plans to the neighbor across the street. Upon finding he had not, the Chairperson and other Board members concluded that his neighbors would receive adequate notice when they received their notices for public hearing. Mr. Ricks motioned for favorable advisory, the Chairperson seconded. No discussion. Vote: Carney - Yes Ricks - Yes DeGraw - Absent Striano - Yes Gaydos - Yes Tapper - Yes Kawalchuck - Absent OHalloran - Yes PUBLIC HEARING KNISPEL - Special Use Permit At 7:05 PM the Chairperson called public hearing to order on Application by Frank Knispel for Special Use Permit for utility trailer sales. Property is located at 5167 Route 209, Accord, Tax Map #76.2-2-28, and in a B Zoning District. Before the Chairperson opened the hearing to the public, she wanted to note that she had spoken with Joe Visconti from NYSDOT, and questioned the applicant as to whether or not he had spoken to Mr. Visconti. Mr. Knispel had not. The Chairperson said that she had spoken to him that morning and they talked about the mile marker where Mr. Knispels property was located, and Mr. Visconti had not yet been to the site. She also confirmed with Mr. Knispel that he hadnt sent Mr. Visconti any plans as of yet. She informed Mr. Knispel that he should call Mr. Visconti, to keep his project T/ Rochester PLANNING BOARD Minutes of Regular Meeting -3- May 20, 2003 PUBLIC HEARING KINSPEL-contd: moving forward, because it may hold him up a little bit. She then opened the hearing to the public for questions and comments. Mr. Leon Smith of 5161 Route 209, Accord, Town of Rochester Resident, explained that he owns property that borders Mr. Knispels on the south and east sides. Mr. Smith wanted to state that he was not speaking out against the proposed trailer sales, however he was a little concerned that the lot was only +/- .5 acres and he wanted to be sure there would be no impacts to his property. He went on to explain that in the past, prior to Mr. Knispels ownership of the property, there had been encroachments on to his land. Mr. Smith had visited the Planning Board Office that afternoon and viewed the map. He requested that there be a tree line put in along each boundary of where his and Mr. Knispels properties meet. Mr. Smith further stated that he is aware of the Zoning Laws requiring a 12 setback for the tree row, however, he isnt concerned with the proximity of the trees to the border of the property, just as long as they are on Mr. Knispels land. The Chairperson then acknowledged Mr. Steve Fornel, Town of Rochester resident, to speak. Mr. Fornel was concerned with the 10 proposed parking spaces presented by Mr. Knispel. He wanted to know if that number was based on storage in the upper level of the building, or was that based on retail? He further stated that at one point Mr. Knispel had come before the Board and asked for the upper level to be used as retail and a suggestion was made by a Board Member that Mr. Knispel say that it be utilized for storage purposes. Mr. Fornel wanted to state that he found the Board Members suggestion to be inappropriate and that this Town has a problem with Code Enforcement due to such suggsestions. Chairperson Carney asked if there were any other comments or questions from the public, she then addressed the Board with the same. Mr. Ricks wanted to know what the distance was between the edge of the parking area and the North property line. Mr. Knispel answered that he didnt bring a scale to measure it, but to him it looked to be about 15. The only concern Mr. Ricks had for the Board was that when he went drove by the property and pulled into the driveway, he didnt feel that there was enough room to be selling trailers. He also questioned the parking area, if Mr. Knispel was planning on completing the shale for the remaining 2 parking spaces that were still on grass. To Mr. Knispels recolection, in a previous meeting, the Board told him that it wasnt necessary. The Chairperson confirmed Mr. Knispels statement. T/ Rochester PLANNING BOARD Minutes of Regular Meeting -4- May 20, 2003 PUBLIC HEARING KINSPEL-contd: Mr. Ricks informed the Board and the Applicant, that he is not against the idea of trailer sales, however he wasnt sure if the space was adequate. Mr. Striano asked how many trailers would be on display at one time. Mr. Knispel answered between 5 & 7 trailers. Chairperson Carney noted that Mr. Knispel if he had not received a copy of the response from the Ulster County Planning Board. She then read the response and recommendations from the Ulster County Planning Board. She also reiterrated that the Board has not yet received any comments from the NYSDOT. Mr. Knispel then questioned the significance of the NYSDOTs involvement due to the fact that this is an existing entrance. The Chairperson answered that their involvement was necessary because of the change of use from residential to commercial. Mr. Ricks asked about the interior display area, is there a big garage door where you bring everything in? Yes. Mr. OHalloran questioned the Board as to without the NYSDOT response, were they to close the Public Hearing or go to a Continuation? At 7:15 PM the Chairperson motioned to close Public Hearing and agreed with the Board that a decision be pending the comments from the NYSDOT. Mr. OHalloran seconded. All in favor including Alternate. NEW APPLICATION PRESENTATIONS CHARLES DE LEO - Subdivision The Chairperson called Mr. De Leo forward to give the Board a brief explanation of his Application for Subdivision located at Lower Granite Road, Kerhonkson, Tax Map #76.3-2-5.110, 5.130, 5.2, & 5.12, R-1 Zone. Mr. De Leo explained that 10-12 years ago his father subdivided 60 acres into 4 lots, but he never followed through with it and it is now an illegal subdivision. On the 8.34 acre lot and on the 20.53 acre lots houses were built about 10 years ago. Currently he is getting everything up to date to make it legal because he selling the 15.73 acre lot and the 8.34 acre lot with the house on it. to get everything up to date and properly filed before he can sell. The road through the subdivision is blacktop the whole way down to the end with a T/ Rochester PLANNING BOARD Minutes of Regular Meeting -5- May 20, 2003 NEW APPLICATION PRESENTATIONS DE LEO-contd: The individual lots have separate tax map numbers and separate deeds and they have been filed, but the County tells him it is illegal and he needs large turn around area. He then explained the details of the Road Maintenance Agreement that he had previously submitted. Mrs. Schoonmaker questioned the Chairperson as to whether all of the other owners of the lots needed to be submitted with their names on the Road Maintenance Agreement as well. The Chairperson suggested that Mrs. Schoonmaker contact the Town Attorney, Mary Lou Christiana, to see if the Road Maintenance Agreement, as submitted by Mr. De Leo, is adequate, or if it needs to be corrected to represent all property owners in the subdivision. The Secretary also pointed out that the document which appoints Mr. De Leo as acting agent for the other property owners is incomplete. The Chairperson requested that the Secretary fax the document to Mary Lou Christiana to be sure that it is legally binding. Mr. OHalloran confirmed that the house on the 20.53 acre lot is not shown on the lot. The Chairperson agreed that the house would need to be shown on the map along with designated numbers for each lot. Mr. OHalloran also requested that the large turn around be demonstrated on the map. Mr. Ricks motioned to designate the Town of Rochester Planning Board as lead agency. Mr. OHalloran seconded and all in favor, including Alternate. The Chairperson made the motion to type the action as an unlisted action under SEQR and Mr. Gaydos seconded, all in favor, including Alternate. Mr. Ricks motioned for public hearing, Chairperson Carney seconded all in favor, including Alternate. The Chairperson instructed Mr. De Leo that he would need to get revised maps into the Planning Board Office two weeks prior to the Public Hearing, she also went over the subdivision checklist highlighting the material that needs to be shown on the map. The maps would need to be currently dated and recertified, the road, De Leo Drive, would need to be marked on the map, Section, block, and lot numbers on each lot, and the Zoning Density Schedule showing the minimum requirements, names of bounding owners and current lot owners, current certification by a surveyor or engineer, certification of title. The Chairperson then questioned the Board as to whether the road in the subdivision, being that it already exists, would need a road plan and profile or not. T/ Rochester PLANNING BOARD Minutes of Regular Meeting -6- May 20, 2003 NEW APPLICATION PRESENTATIONS DE LEO-contd: Mr. Ricks didnt believe that the Planning Board should require it in this case, and then made a motion to wave the road plan and profile requirement of the Subdivision Regulations. Seconded by Mr. Gaydos, all in favor, including Alternate. Mr. Ricks then made a motion to wave the requirements for topogrophy in the Subdivision Regulations due to the fact that it is an existing subdivision and the lots are large. Seconded by Mr. Striano, all in favor, including Alternate. The Chairperson then called for the Road Maintenance Agreement to be submitted. Mr. OHalloran questioned the extension of the road and lot +/-15.73 acres. The way its shown, lot +/-15.73 acres only has 25 extensions from one way or the other. He then presented the map to the Chairperson for her opinion. Mr. Ricks further explained that the right of way needed to extend to lot +/-15.73 acres to an additional 50 to be sure that there are adequate options for potential building. Mr. De Leo questioned whether he could make some changes to the map or if his surveyor needed to do the changes. The Chairperson and Mr. Ricks noted that the surveyor needed to make the changes because he would need to change the date and recertify the plan. Chairperson Carney reiterated that the map needed to be revised with the lot numbers, name of the road, section, block and lot numbers, the names of the lot owners, and the Zoning Density Schedule. Mr. OHalloran questioned as to the legal requirements for the number of driveways allowable on a private road. And then requested for the culdesac to be labeled on the map. The Board wasnt sure of the number of driveways allowable on a private road, but all agreed that Mr. De Leo only had 4, and that seemed reasonable. FRANK KORTRIGHT - Special Use Permit for expansion of mine Frank Kortright was present along with engineer,Barry Medenbach, to request a Special Use Permit for expansion of mine located on Rochester Center Road, Tax Map #68.3-2-14 & 15, in an A District of the Zoning Map. The Chairperson started out by questioning the Board and Mr. Medenbach as to the process of designating lead agency in reference to a mine. If the DEC automatically took lead agency or what process was necessary. T/ Rochester PLANNING BOARD Minutes of Regular Meeting -7- May 20, 2003 NEW APPLICATION PRESENTATIONS KORTRIGHT-contd: Mr. Medenbach responded that to his knowledge, a new mining application required DEC to be lead agency, but as to expansion of a pre-existing mine, he didnt think it was automatic to assume DEC to be lead agent. Mr. OHalloran questioned the difference between expansion of mine and the life of the mine. Mr. Medenbach explained that Mr. Kortrights mine is a mine that has been operating for 40 + years and pre-dates the mining laws of the State of New York, but has been a slow moving mine, not a big aggressive operation. The Kortrights have owned and operated it since the 1970s. He demonstrated on the map to the Board that the piece that is off of Queens Highway is predominantly a shale bank and is not as popular of an item as it once was, and is still an active permitted mine, but that section is going to be left alone. The area with frontage on Rochester Center, is the current permitted area and has been ongoing for several years. Mr. Kortright moves a reasonable amount of material each year and in a few years, hes going to run out of that footprint. It is a long term operation and he is just revising this permit application so that in 5-10 years from now he doesnt run out of material and he can continue to keep mining. What we are asking for is to extend the life of the mine from an area that is here out to the bottom here (Mr. Medenbach demonstrated to the Board on the map). +/-31.8 acres would be the area that would be added to the life of the mine. The whole parcel is +/-87 acres, the mine now that is permitted is +/-18 acres. Mr. Medenbach noted that the application does not ask for any change in operation, it is to continue as it is currently operating. The acreage that is mined annually is approximatley an acre a year. Chairperson Carney questioned if the requested area of +/-31.8 acres is new area to be added? Mr. Medenbach stated that that area would be added to the life of the mine but Mr. Kortright is not asking to go into that area at this point. He is currently permitted under the +/-6.9 acre area untill 2007 and doesnt expect to utilize the requested +/-31.8 untill that permit expires. Mr. Kortright explained that there was a screening plant and he does not do any crushing. Mr. Ricks inquired as to what is done with the overburden material? Mr. Kortright and Mr. Medenbach explained that there arent too many big boulders. Mr. OHalloran questioned the type of buffer used to property owners on the other side. T/ Rochester PLANNING BOARD Minutes of Regular Meeting -8- May 20, 2003 NEW APPLICATION PRESENTATIONS KORTRIGHT-contd: Mr. Medenbach explained that it is a 50 buffer with zero disturbance. Jacob Grays land has an active mine which is operated by Mambaccus Excavating, Howard Dunn also has a neighboring property where there was a mine operating at one time. Mr. OHalloran inquired as to how the reclaiming process works, when you move forward do you reclaim the old? Mr. Medenbach responded yes, as he referred to the plan before the Board, this represents the actual conditions now, there is +/-2.8 acres which has just been reclaimed, its in the process of re-vegatating now, its all graded off and seeded, and approved by the DEC. This area will be coming out of the mine.The next hashed area is the area which he will reclaim next. You reclaim peices behind you as you move ahead. Mr. Tapper asked which road was to be accessed. Rochester Center is the access for the existing driveway, noted Mr. Medenbach, and the placement changes around a little depending on the area that is being mined. The Chairperson questioned if an application had been filed with the DEC and if they had,whether or not they received comments. Mr. Medenbach responded that they have filed with the DEC and they have received comments recently saying that the application is incomplete, they want clarification on the acreages. He explained that the DEC applications are very complicated and very often come back incomplete. Mr. Medenbach stated that at this point lead agency should be established. The Chairperson asked the Baord their feelings on lead agency. The Board discussed how to approach lead agency. The Chairperson stated that the Board would have to agree as to who should be lead agency, make a motion, etc . . . Mr. Ricks stated that in the past the Planning Board has given lead agency to the DEC in regards to mines, and they have been criticized for not having enough input. Mr. Tapper stated that the DEC would be more concerned with environmental factors, where the Planning Board would still retain input concerned with hours of operation and the actual operation of the mine itself. Basically the physicallness of the mine is what the Planning Board is referring to the DEC. The Chairperson motioned for the Planning Board to be lead agent. There was no second. The Board requested reasoning for this motion.Chairperson Carney informed the Board that when public hearing is held, the state still needs to be kept informed. The Board discussed this, expressing their desire for the DEC to be lead agency because it is better T/ Rochester PLANNING BOARD Minutes of Regular Meeting -9- May 20, 2003 NEW APPLICATION PRESENTATIONS KORTRIGHT-contd: qualified. The DEC has their own staff of engineers with specific knowledge in mining laws, where the Town would have to hire an engineer to consult. The Chairperson withdrew her motion for the Planning Board to act as lead agency. Mr. OHalloran made a motion for the DEC to be lead agent. Mr. Striano seconded, all in favor, including Alternate. The Chairperson stated that the DEC would need to be notified prior to scheduling public hearing and there would be no typing of this action for SEQR at this evenings meeting. BENJAMIN & KATHERINE VAN DIEST - Site Plan Approval, Bed & Breakfast Mr. and Mrs. Van Diest were present to discuss their proposed Bed and Breakfast located at 5128 Route 209, Accord, Tax Map # 76.2-2-50, in a B District of the Zoning Map. Mrs. Van Diest explained that they proposed to take the existing home in which they currently live and turn it into a Bed and Breakfast. The house is located next to Rosakranse and Saunderskill Farm. There are 5 bedrooms on the second floor and they researched the Bed and Breakfast rules and they fit in with those requirements without making any changes to it. She then explained that they are applying for up to 5 bedrooms and they will continue to live there. There are 4 floors on the house and the Bed and Breakfast is only going to extend to the second floor. Mr. Gaydos confirmed that Mr. and Mrs. Van Diest will be renting 5 rooms for this operation. Leaving how many for your family? Mrs. Van Diest responded an additional 8 rooms, which is adequate. Mr. OHalloran inquired if they were familiar with the zoning and fire for Bed and Breakfasts. Yes, Mrs. Van Diest explained that they sit within a business district of the Hamlet and are also zoned R-1 and are surrounded by commercial businesses on all sides. There is a Bar-B-Q going in accross the street and they are used to having commercial businesses in their area. Mr. OHalloran confirmed that they are familiar with lodging and meals are only for guests. T/ Rochester PLANNING BOARD Minutes of Regular Meeting -10- May 20, 2003 NEW APPLICATION PRESENTATIONS VAN DIEST-contd: Mrs. Van Diest replied yes, with breakfast, joking that she wasnt a great cook so there probably wouldnt be a great demmand for it. Mr. Gaydos questioned the Board as to what other Bed and Breakfasts they had looked at in the past. Isnt there something to do with the Board of Health? Mrs. Van Diest replied that only if you go above 5 bedrooms, and actually they met all of the Board of Health requirements ahead of time, as advised by their lawyer. He said to go ahead and do the bigger septic, the water systems, the UV on the water containers- having seperate water holding tanks for drinking water. Mr. Gaydos questioned about state regulations as far as being a place for lodging people. Mrs. Van Diest answered that currently the national regulations require that you have adequate exits, lighting on the outside, parking, ability to get in and out of a main roadway. All of which they meet the requirements as set forth by the Planning Baord as well as any otther groups that have any jurisdiction over the Bed and Breakfast rules. Mr. OHalloran questioned if Mrs. Van Diests had looked into how the American Disability Act effects the Bed and Breakfast. Mrs. Van Diest replied that they dont have any rules, however she does have the ability if they had a guest that was handicapped that they could put a bedroom on the first floor. There is a bathroom on the first floor, even though its not required by law, they wouldnt turn somebody away if they asked them to do it. They would never have any more than 5 rooms occupied by guests at one time. Mr. Gaydos commented that over 5 rooms would include different requirements such as sprinklers- Mrs. Van Diest contridicted Mr. Gaydos by stating that actually you dont. Only if a third floor is being utilized or if you have a commercial kitchen. She went on to state that if they went by Boarding House laws, they could have up to 9 rooms without sprinklers. She noted that there were many crossovers between Boarding House and Bed and Breakfast laws. The Chairperson questoined if there was a site plan at this point. There was. Mrs. Van Diest also noted that she and her husband owned an additional 70 acres around their property with the proposed Bed and Breakfast on it. T/ Rochester PLANNING BOARD Minutes of Regular Meeting -11- May 20, 2003 NEW APPLICATION PRESENTATIONS VAN DIEST-contd: At this time Mr. Ricks made a statement to the Board. He has bounding property to other lands of the Van Diests, not to the +/-10 acres that they are applying for at this meeting. He proceded to say that he has no objections or problems with their proposed application, but when the Board votes, he will abstain. The Chairperson asked wether the parking that was sketched in on the map was proposed or existing? Mrs. Van Diest replied that they have full commercial parking with about 27 spaces, the previous owners were pretty liberal with black top. The Chairperson questioned if there were any building plans to show the bedroom layouts to the Board. Mrs. Van Diest replied that no, there were no requirements because they were not making any changes to the property or doing any construction. Mr. OHalloran pointed out that the applicant was requesting from the Board to go from 4 rooms to 5 rooms. The Planning Boards guidelines are 4 rooms. Mrs. Van Diest responded that they were told it was up to 5 rooms. Secretary, Mrs. Schoonmaker, stated that it can go up to 8 rooms at the Boards discretion. Mr. OHalloran noted that this was the Town of Rochester Law. Mrs. Van Diest said that she was going by what the New York State Laws were for Bed and Breakfasts, that is why they requested 5 rooms. Mr. Ricks informed the Board that in the Towns Regulations that food and beverage service shall only be provided to registered guests for the Bed and Breakfast. At one time Mrs. Van Diest had mentioned that she was going to do weddings and things like that. That isnt under this code. Mrs. Van Diest replied that if a home owner chooses to have a wedding or special event, they can get a one day permit. Its pretty common with Bed and Breakfasts because they arent looking to be a restaurant or a food location 7 days a week. Mr. Ricks asked as a rough idea for the Board, how many times a year would there be weddings or special events there? T/ Rochester PLANNING BOARD Minutes of Regular Meeting -12- May 20, 2003 NEW APPLICATION PRESENTATIONS VAN DIEST-contd: Up to 8 or 10 times, replied Mrs. Van Diest. What kind of extra bathroom facilites and other parking would there be, questioned Mr. Ricks. Mr. Van Diest wanted to note, that what he and his wife were applying for at this meeting was for a permit to operate as a Bed and Breakfast. Any special events would be applied for permits seperately. Chairperson Carney confirmed with Mr. OHalloran that he would research any American Disability Act requirements as far as Bed and Breakfasts are concerned. She then made sure with the Van Diests that this was indeed a change in use, that it had never been used as a Bed and Breakfast previously. She noted that a lot applies to the State Building Code when there is a change of use and the Board would have to look into it. Mr. OHalloran questioned if the Board was going to contact the Board of Health. Mrs. Van Diest commented that they had interior and exterior exits on all floors which is above and beyond the call for ingress and eggress. They have all the lighting that is required, the distance to turn around is legal. When Doug Dymond and Lou Noest looked at it they felt pretty comfortable with it. The Chairperson asked if Mr. Dymond and Mr. Noest of the Code Enforcement Office had been submitted plans or drawings, or if they had just visited the site. They were told that there was no request from the Bed and Breakfast Association because it is not new construction, replied Mrs. Van Diest. They have standard smoke detectors that are a hard wired system with generator back up. The Chairperson asked the Secretary, Mrs. Schoonmaker, which agencies would need to be contacted. County Planning Board, Board of Health, answered the Secretary. Mrs. Van Diest commented that they were told that because they are not a restaurant that all of the requirements were based on a private residence. Mr. OHalloran stated that this was going to be a great place for a Bed and Breakfast. Mr. Striano made the motion to make the Planning Board lead agency. Seconded by Mr. OHalloran. Mr. Ricks abstained, all in favor, including Alternate. T/ Rochester PLANNING BOARD Minutes of Regular Meeting -13- May 20, 2003 NEW APPLICATION PRESENTATIONS VAN DIEST-contd: Mrs. Van Diest stated once again that she did not contact the Board of Health because she was told that it wasnt required. The Board informed her that because it is a change of use from private to public use, the Board of Health needs to be contacted as a part of procedure. Mr. OHalloran stated that the only thing he wanted to see before they made a decision for the number of accepted rooms, would be a layout. Is that something that the Van Diests have? No, they did not, but Mrs. Van Diest stated that they could get something drawn up if that would help. They just invested in the site plan. Mr. OHalloran understood. Mrs. Van Diest suggested to have the Board Members come over for a site visit. The Chairperson agreed that that was a good idea. It would enable them to be sure of hallway widths etc. if anything would be an issue with the change of use rules. Mrs. Van Diest informed the Chairperson that they probably had an 18 width down their center hall. The Chairperson agreed that everything was probably oversized anyway, due to the size of the house, but if its not a concern, the site visit would probably suffice in leiu of a layout. Mr. OHalloran inquired as to how many bathrooms were in the upstairs of the house. Mrs. Van Diest answered that there were two, only one of the rooms has its own bathroom. Two full bathrooms on the second floor and one full bathroom on the first floor. Two of the bedrooms would share one bathroom and the other three would share one. She explained that they werent set up to be that of a private inn, and they werent interested in it either. Mr. OHalloran made motion for an unlisted action under SEQR and seconded by Mr. Gaydos, all in favor, including Alternate, and Mr. Ricks abstained. The Chairperson suggested that Mrs. Van Diest take notes as she went over the requirements by reading the checklist for Site Plan Approval. While going through the required elements, the Chairperson made a motion to wave the need for a location map, seconded by Mr. OHalloran, all in favor, and Mr. Ricks abstained. T/ Rochester PLANNING BOARD Minutes of Regular Meeting -14- May 20, 2003 NEW APPLICATION PRESENTATIONS VAN DIEST-contd: The Board noted that topography wasnt required for this site due to the fact that it is very flat. The Chairperson requested that the Zoning Density Schedule for the particular zone be displayed on the site plan to better show where all setbacks need to be, etc. Mrs. Van Diest inquired as to whether or not she would need to bring a mylar copy in to the next meeting with the revisions on it. The Chairperson explained that a mylar wasnt necessary at this point in the Site Plan Approval process, because a Public Hearing would still need to be scheduled, but the Board would need 10 copies of a revised map for the next meeting. Chairperson Carney then requested that a schedule be put on the site plan of the number of bedrooms, bathrooms, etc.- what is existing and what is being proposed to be used for the Bed and Breakfast, what is going to remain the private residence. She further explained that every single room did not have to be labeled, bedrooms and bathrooms and a general square footage would be adequate. The Chairperson then confirmed that all parking area is existing and the number of parking areas would be determined by the square footage and need to be displayed on the site plan and what spaces would be retained for private use and what spaces would be set aside for Bed and Breakfast guests. Mrs. Van Diest replied that they were told they would need five, one per room. The Chairperson then requested that the general area of the septic system be shown on the site plan. She then reiterated that with looking into the New York State Building Code requirements for change of use, this would determine whether a site visit or layout would be necessary. Mr. OHalloran agreed that if nothing was required from they NYS Building Code, the schedule on the map would be sufficient. Mrs. Van Diest then asked if it would be easier at this point in the process to request the maximum number of bedrooms for a Bed and Breakfast. The Board had mentioned the possibility of there needing to be handicap accesible rooms, and she believes the first floor would be perfect for this. She explained that her mother was in a wheelchair for 15 years and she would be more than happy to make this Bed and Breakfast accessable for the handicapped. The Chairperson agreed that would be great, however she would check into the American Disability Act to see if it was indeed required for the change of use here. She then T/ Rochester PLANNING BOARD Minutes of Regular Meeting -15- May 20, 2003 NEW APPLICATION PRESENTATIONS VAN DIEST-contd: continued to go over the checklist with the Applicant. She inquired the hours of operation and ask that they too be displayed on the map. Providing that these changes were received by the Planning Board Office by June 3, 2003, Mr. and Mrs. Van Diest would be scheduled for Public Hearing for the June 2003 meeting. NEW APPLICATION CONTINUATION ROBERT & CARLENE MILLER - Special Use Permit, 2-family dwelling, Beehive Road, Accord. Mr. and Mrs. Miller were present and Mr. Miller explained that at the last meeting they attended, they did not own the property and now they do, and have a survey certified to them. Mr. Ricks motioned for the Planning Board to be Lead Agency, seconded by Mr. Gaydos, all in favor, including Alternate. Mr. Ricks then made a motion for an unlisted action under SEQR, seconded by Mr. Gaydos, all in favor, including Alternate. Mr. Ricks questioned the applicants if this was going to be a side by side 2-family dwelling? Mr. Miller responded that the dwelling was going to be a ranch style, one living unit on one side and the other living space on the other. He hadnt begun building because he hasnt been approved or received any permits as of yet. Mrs. Miller explained that she had brought in a proposed layout of the house that she had sketched herself, but the Board had said it wasnt required, but she would submit it for the Public Hearing. The Chairperson went over the checklist and noted which steps would be necessary for the applicant to complete for the next meeting. She questioned the applicants as to the slope of the property. Mr. Miller replied that the area where the Board of Health is concerned is pretty flat. The property itself has a pretty good slope to it and there is a stream in the back. The driveway is existing and has a gradual grade. Mr. OHalloran made a motion to wave any topography requirements, seconded by Mr. Striano, all in favor, including Alternate. T/ Rochester PLANNING BOARD Minutes of Regular Meeting -16- May 20, 2003 NEW APPLICATION CONTINUATION MILLER-contd: The Chairperson then requested that the Zoning Density Schedule be included on the map. Chairperson Carney then made the motion to schedule Public Hearing, seconded by Mr. Striano, all in favor, including Alternate. Mr. Tapper noticed that the Millers shared a driveway with another lot and questioned whether a Road Maintanence Agreement was required. The consensus was for the Secretary to contact the Town Attorney and research this. The Chairperson also requested a copy of the Deed so the Board could review the easement as it was listed. At 8:45 the Board agreed to take a 5 minute break prior to the next applicant on the agenda. SEQR STREAMSIDE ESTATES, INC. - Special Use Permit, Expansion of trailer park Chairperson Carney informed all that this application was not open for public hearing, and basically the Applicant, Michael Baum and his Engineer, Barry Medenbach made a large submission and they were going to go over such. The Board also needed to discuss what thier next step is going to be to proceed with this. She then called Mr. Baum and Mr. Medenbach for their explanation. The Chairperson wanted to note that the Board had expressed their desire for another Engineer to review the Streamside submissions on their behalf. At this time they hadnt contacted anyone, they hoped to get an estimate of cost in the next week or two and share that information with the Applicant. The Applicant had already agreed to help with those fees and the Board will hopefully have two or three different engineers to choose from. Mr. Medenbach assumed that the Board members hadnt had a chance to go over the submission, so tonight he simply wanted to go over this in no great detail. The first submission was the report for the Flood Plain Deleneation for the Mombaccus Creek. Mr. Medenbach pointed out certain maps and charts and briefly explained them in relation to the project. Mr. Ricks questioned how many foot contours were on the map. Mr. Medenbach replied that the contours were 2, the same as on the site plan. This is a 100 year storm and it has a 1% chance of occuring in any year of the Towns Flood Prevention Law, it talks in terms of 1. Basically if you are 1 above that elevation youre protected. So, if you have a dwelling and its finished floor is 1 above what that 100 year T/ Rochester PLANNING BOARD Minutes of Regular Meeting -17- May 20, 2003 SEQR STREAMSIDE-contd: elevation is, that is considered protected. When you are talking about a storm of this magnitude, 1 rise in elevation is quite a bit of water. Mr. Tapper asked if the Mombaccus Creek were to rise 1, how far would that spread out? Would that be 1 out of 100 wide? Mr. Medenbach responded yes, and demonstrated it on the map for the Board. He moved on to the Stormwater Management report that was also submitted. What this report does is break down the different drainage areas. There is a sub area map that calculates the flows that come into each of the drainage pipes. The run-off will be collected and discharged into three water quality basins. This has to do with a nation wide law just coming into effect this year. It says if you have a construction site where the disturbance is more than 1 acre, you must provide a way of treating the stormwater before it drains off site, it must be a permanent facility that stays in affect for the duration of the project. The Chairperson interupted asking if there was a detail of the water quality basins. Mr. Medenbach replied that he has not yet been able to submit them, they are currently in progress. He then stated that all of the run-off from all of the proposed roads and the mobile home sites will all be collected through a system and will go into one of the three water quality basins and be treated before it is discharged. Mr. OHalloran noticed that there were areas with units with no drainage, for example area 4. He didnt see any drainage there. That is the existing park and that water actually comes down and flows, some comes into that road. Mr. Medenbach stated that there will be a swale constructed still to be detailed. He further explained that he did not detail anything in the existing park. The purpose of the water quality basins is to handle every rainfall, and for the bigger storms they need to show that the park has protection for up to a 10 year storm, and after that we make a provision so it can handle overflow. The Chairperson reminded the Board that this meetings purpose wasnt to get into so much detail. Mr. Medenbach moved on to the next submission of the revised Site Plan and explained that they included proposed recreational areas. There would be basketball courts and a play ground. The maps also show 12 parking spots which would be independent from the individual sites. There is also the area of the majority of the septic systems and when that area is all graded off and seeded, they will turn it into a ball field or a soccer field, always keeping it mowed. The area around the pond will have picnic tables. There is also a bit of a trail that runs along the creek and they are going to extend it and clean it up so people can T/ Rochester PLANNING BOARD Minutes of Regular Meeting -18- May 20, 2003 SEQR STREAMSIDE-contd: hike and have access to go fishing. They also created 2 other parking lots so if someone had a party there would be additional parking. Mr. Medenbach then moved on to the Entrance Details submitted. He explained that he met Highway Superintendent, Wayne Kelder out at the site and Mr. Kelder looked at the entrances and he was concerned with the steep grade on the one, so they agreed to change the slope and make a level spot at the top of the entrance. As far as the roads are concerned within the trailer park, Mr. Kelder stated that the applicant should comply with the Subdivision Regulations. The Chairperson acknowledged the Rules and Regulations as submitted by the applicant and questioned whether they were rules he has for his other trailer parks, or if they were intended for Streamside Estates? Mr. Medenbach stated that these rules are currently in affect at Streamside now, and will continue to stay in effect. Next, Mr. Medenbach addressed the Archeological study and map submitted, noting that it is still in progress waiting for the State to approve it. He demonstrated on the map the magnitude of the work that had gone into the study, and explained that the only things found were peices that fell of the Indians tools when sharpening them. The State Office of Parks and Recreation asked the applicant to go back and do additional tests which they did and they didnt find anything more. They are waiting for the State to come back and say that there are no significant archeological findings at the site. The next submissions were addendums to the EAF Forms. Addendum # 1 had to do with public school impacts. Mr. Medenbach went on to explain that if you took the Town standard for school age children per home in the Town of Rochester, it comes out to .41 students per home. That is the current census data. The number used by Medenbach and Eggers to compute their data was 1 student per home. There is actually reserve capacity in the school system where students could be brought into the school with very little impact. The population of the Rondout School District in 1975 was 3,235, today it has a population of 2, 838. Population for school age children in our district has been on a trend for the last couple of years where it has calmed down quite a bit. Addendum # 2 is general comments concerning mobile homes, taxing, affordable housing, adjacent property values, safety of mobile homes. Addendum # 3 is specifically targeted towards Part II of the EAF where the Board went over and identified impacts that they wanted to see elaborated. Also included in this is a Visual Addendum. Mr. Medenbach stated that these were the submissions and he also wanted to comment on a letter from Attorney John Lyons addressed to the Planning T/ Rochester PLANNING BOARD Minutes of Regular Meeting -19- May 20, 2003 SEQR STREAMSIDE-contd: Board, dated March 21, 2003, regarding complaints against the Board not following proper procedures. Mr. Medenbach read from Town Law stating that the applicant and the Board are both following proper procedure by thouroughly assessing the impacts from the proposed project. The Chairperson noted the letter and informed Mr. Medenbach that it is being responded to by Town Attorney Mary Lou Christiana. Mr. Medenbach questioned the Chairperson if the Board had received a letter from the applicants attorney, Mr. John Sisti. He would appreciate it if it too was forwarded to the Town Attorney. Mr. Tapper wanted to note that a developer bought a huge chunk of property in the City of Kingston near the water front and the houses are going to be in the $300,000 to $400,000 range. The City asked him to set aside some affordable housing for the middle class and those houses were assessed in the $200,000 range. That doesnt sound that affordable, but that is what they are doing in Kingston. The Chairperson noted that there was a lot of information to review and the Boad is going to have to retain an engineer to review all of the information also. Mr. OHalloran confirmed that the Board would be submitting the Applicant with estimates, the Applicant would review them and accept an engineer and pay for their cost. The Chairperson informed Mr. Medenbach and the applicant that the Board would keep them informed as to a time frame regarding the engineer and the next meeting. TOWN OF MARBLETOWN REFERRAL HORNBECK/CODDINGTON - Subdivision The Board reviewed the Survey map sent over from the Town of Marbletown. They discussed the map and concluded that they would contact the Town of Marbletown and find out what the outcome was of their previous meeting regarding this matter. DISCUSSION STREAMSIDE ESTATES The Board discussed contacting some local engineers with regard to review of Streamside Estates. Mr. OHalloran spoke to Dennis Doyle and got some recomendation for engineers that take on the Boards role, and he would get those firms names to the Secretary. Mr. Tapper suggested that the Board not hire a local engineer that does a considerable amount of work in the Town. Mr. Tapper explained that a local engineer may tend to be favorable towards this application in the event that they may bring a similar application before the Board, and the president will be set. T/ Rochester PLANNING BOARD Minutes of Regular Meeting -20- May 20, 2003 DISCUSSION STREAMSIDE-contd: The Chairperson noted that we send a cover letter and list the particular submittals received by the Board thus far, and see if they are interested in reviewing and giving an estimate. The bill will come to the Town and the Town will get reimbursed from the Applicant. Chairperson Carney also stated that she would check with the Town Attorney based on the estimate to see if the Applicant needs to put up a bond insuring the Town does get reimbursed. Whether the applicant pays for it or not, the Town needs to hire an engineer. The Board cannot review this information on their own. ACTION ON MINUTES OF MEETING Motion was made by Mr. Gaydos, seconded by Chairperson Carney to accept as submitted the Boards March 25, 2003 and April 15, 2003 Minutes of Meeting. No discussion. All members present and in favor, including Alternate. Before adjourning the meeting, Members of the Board wished Secretary Beverly Schoonmaker good wishes and luck in her retirement. Mr. Gaydos motioned to adjourn, seconded by Chairperson Carney, all in favor, including Alternate. Respectfully submitted, Rebecca Paddock Secretary JL13,<Ngi+-')ooooooooooooooooooooox+ESi}I W Z a {w{w{w{w{wrw{w{wrw{w{r( a $,  . ####''))--{wrw{wrw{w{r{wrw{w{w{w( ---4446 7777AXAaAiAKKKKMNaPbP%Tzvrvzrvzvrvzvrvzvrzrvr( %TETNTVT]]]]ef ffnnnnssywwww{v{r{v{r{v{r{v{r{r{v{r( ΁-0HJӉ|ƞ{w{wr{w{r{w{r{w{r{w{r{( ƞ-0:=OܳKi{wrw{w{r{w{r{wrw{w{( y{+Ed}qqaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaax !:WY7gioooooooooooooooooooooxi  c e K M ` b  D F H Y x oooooooooooooooooooooxx z i k <>TV .Zsu+ooooooooooooooooooooox+7935ooooooooooooooooooooox462413  > !!5#7#T#oooooooooooooxT####$$}&&''S(U(((C)E)))?*A*,,ox,A-C-`----..////00112222a3ooxa3c344444455666 7777T8V8 > >k>ooxk>m>????5@7@@@@@@A7AVAkA]B_BBBtDooxtDvDDDOEQEEE8G:GzG|GIIZKwKKKKsLuLLooxLL?MAMMMMJN/Q1QQQQQYR[RrStSSSSSSS%TDTXTTT}UUVVWWzX|XXXZZZZY\ooxY\[\\\>]@]B]_]]]]z^|^__i_k___b`d``ooox``aaaa5b7bvbxbcc"d$deeeeeeffooxfBfDfffpgrgiiqisijjFkHk-l/llllllmnmmmmancnnnnnaocoooppHqJqfqhqqq`rbrrooxrrssssLuNuuuv)w+wHwywwwxxxx?yoox?yAy5z7z||9};}W~Y~~~MOlЁ[]oox]/_KMƄȄEG[]"$Ӊ\^ߊkm-/ƌ ooxđƑ,.K|(*ik×|oox|~_|ȞRT%'rtϤѤʧ̧WooxWY̩ɪ/1uw VXoox=.0<Qܳ IKiGI˷ͷ13oox3RTZqa -%Tƞrstuvwix +T#,a3k>tDLSY\`fmr?y]|W3xyz{|}~Times New Roman8 =/8=/8dCompObjU