Town of Kinderhook

Planning Board Meeting

3211 Church Street

Valatie, NY 12184

August 18, 2016

Approved 9/15/16

Minutes

The Town of Kinderhook Planning Board met on Thursday, August 18, 2016, at 7:00pm at the Kinderhook Town Hall, 3211 Church Street, Valatie, NY. Mr. Graham, Vice-Chairman called the meeting to order and the secretary called the roll.

A. Roll Call

Present: Excused:

Jason Graham, Vice-Chairman Peter Haemmerlein, Chairman

Patrick Prendergast, Engineer

Andy Howard, Town Attorney

Jake Samascott, Ag Member

Dale Berlin

Dan Weiller

Guy Rivenburgh

Chris Simonsen

Jonathan Cavagnaro, Alternate

Patrick Ball, Alternate

Mark Browne, Alternate

Nataly Dee, Secretary Absent:

None

B. Correspondence

1. Review of Minutes:

July 14, 2016 – Workshop

July 21, 2016 – Meeting

Mr. Simonsen made a motion to approve the minutes listed above. Mr. Rivenburgh seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion carried; minutes approved.

C. Public Hearings

1. JCS Prosperity (formerly Diekelmann’s Lumber), 3429 US Rte 9, (Tax Map ID: 22.-1-3.120) – Minor Subdivision. Adjourned from July 21, 2016;

Mr. Simonsen made a motion to adjourn the hearing until September. Mr. Weiller seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion carried; hearing adjourned.

2. 7:05 pm - Mesonet Weather Station at Samascott Orchards (Tax Map ID # 43.-1-15) – Special Use Permit.

The secretary read the announcement of public hearing as it appeared in the paper of record on Saturday, August 6, 2016 (on file).

Mr. Samascott recused himself from the proceedings.

Mr. Rivenburgh made a motion to open the Public Hearing. Mr. Simonsen seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion carried; hearing opened.

Ms. Donohue addressed the board and explained the scope of the project. She explained that she is with Pyramid Network Services, the general contractors for the New York State Mesonet Project. They are applying to install a weather station on the Samascott property. The proposal includes a fenced in compound 33’x33’, housing a 33’ high weather tower. The tower will only house weather instruments. The unit is completely self-contained and powered by a solar cabinet, with battery back-up. All data collected from the compound will be transmitted to SUNY Albany for distribution to the public via the website NYSmesonet.org.

The public was invited to address the board and the applicant. Mr. Eric Jones inquired about the nature of the data collected. Ms. Donohue addressed his questions, noting the intent is for public and environmental good. It is supported by FEMA.

Mr. Simonsen made a motion to close the hearing. Mr. Weiller seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion carried; hearing closed.

Fees in the amount of $250 were submitted.

Mr. Simonsen addressed the height of the tower, noting that it conforms to the description per Section 250-25. Per Section 250-31, this is not a cell tower. The structure transmits information, but is not a repeater, and does not receive information.

The State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR) was reviewed by the Attorney:

Part II: Impact Assessment of the EAF (Short Environmental Assessment Form).

1. Will the proposed action create a material conflict with an adopted land use plan or zoning regulations? Proposed answer is no or small impact.

2. Will the proposed action result in a change in the use or intensity of use of land? Proposed answer is no or small impact.

3. Will the proposed action impair the character or quality of the existing community? Proposed answer is no or small impact.

4. Will the proposed action have an impact on the environmental characteristics that caused the establishment of a Critical Environmental Area (CEA)? Proposed answer is no.

5. Will the proposed action result in an adverse change in the existing level of traffic or affect existing infrastructure for mass transit, biking or walkway? Proposed answer is no or small impact.

6. Will the proposed action cause an increase in the use of energy and it fails to incorporate reasonably available energy conservation or renewable energy opportunities? Proposed answer is no or small impact.

7. Will the proposed action impact existing:

a. public / private water supplies? Proposed answer is no or small impact.

b. public / private wastewater treatment? Proposed answer is no or small impact.

8. Will the proposed action impair the character or quality of important historic, archaeological, architectural or aesthetic resources? Proposed answer is no or small impact.

9. Will the proposed action result in an adverse change to natural resources (e.g., wetlands, water bodies, groundwater, air quality, flora and fauna)? Proposed answer is no or small impact.

10. Will the proposed action result in an increase in the potential for erosion, flooding or drainage problems? Proposed answer is no or small impact.

11. Will the proposed action create a hazard to environmental resources or human health? Proposed answer is no or small impact.

Mr. Simonsen made a motion to issue a negative declaration of the environmental impact of this action. Mr. Weiller seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion carried; declaration issued.

Mr. Simonsen made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Mr. Rivenburgh seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion carried; application approved as submitted.

Mr. Samascott rejoined the proceedings.

D. Old Business

None

E. New Business

1. Eric Jones, 2982 Route 203, Valatie - Home Occupation

Mr. Jones addressed the board. He explained the scope of his proposal, noting this is a preliminary investigation to ascertain if the proposed use is permitted. He is considering purchasing a property on Route 203. He would like to have an approximately 1,500 sq ft garage for the restoration of antique cars. There would be no daily traffic and no painting. The area is zoned AR/AG. There would be no employees. Mr. Jones stated he works on one or two cars at a time and that no cars or parts would be stored outside. Additionally, the structure would be constructed away from the road and would probably not be seen from the road.

Mr. Howard noted Section 250-19 of the code, and read sub-section A(1). Sub-section 1(d) was also noted. The sections focused on the impact to residential character and that it would not have an adverse impact on the present character of the neighborhood. In reviewing a site plan application, the board would also be looking at the location of the structure, nature of the lot, as well as the design criteria. There are no prohibitions to the applicant submitting an application.

Mr. Simonsen referenced use the table. A discussion ensued regarding the approved uses under the code. Mr. Howard detailed the application process for the applicant and made recommendations about how he precedes, items he should consider and what he should submit.

F. ZBA Opinions

None

G. Liaisons

1. Village Planning Boards – Nothing new to report;

2. Town Board – Nothing new to report.

H. Other

1. Public Comment

None.

Mr. Simonsen made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Weiller seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion carried; meeting adjourned at 8:42pm.

Respectfully submitted,

Nataly Dee, Secretary

1