MINUTES OF September 23, 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:Robert Gaydos
Anthony Kawalchuck ABSENT: Nadine Carney
David O’ Halloran, Alternate William De Graw
Shane Ricks
Frank Striano, Sr.
Melvyn Tapper
Because Chairperson Carney was absent from this evening’s meeting, Vice Chairman, Shane Ricks, called the Meeting to order.
Pledge to the Flag.
ZBA ADVISORY REQUEST
ROBIN NIGRO- Area Variance, side yard setback for storage shed
Vice Chairman Ricks called Robin Nigro forward for a ZBA Advisory regarding a side yard setback area variance request for a storage shed at Sages Loop Road, Kerhonkson, Tax Map # 76.4-1-12, in an R-1 District of the Zoning Map.
Ms. Nigro briefly explained that the property in question is rather long, but where her house is set and the driveway goes in—right behind the house is the septic, so that is not an option for an area to place the shed. To the left of the house there is an open spot and along the boundary is a wooded area separating the neighboring property from Ms. Nigro’s. The front lawn would be an eyesore in the Town and it wouldn’t meet the 60’ for front yard setback. There is a garage under her house right now where her driveway goes into. The turnaround area between where the driveway ends and the septic area has a steep slope due to the septic. The proposed storage shed is a 12’ x 12’ Dutch barn shed with attractive siding that matches the house. No electric or anything, only to be used for storage.
Mr. Ricks advised Ms. Nigro to take a picture showing the slope because it isn’t indicated on the site map anywhere.
Mr. O’Halloran questioned if this was the most ideal location concerning Ms. Nigro’s house and the property and any neighboring properties. Any objections from the neighbors?
T/ Rochester Planning Board-2-September 23, 2003
Minutes of Regular Meeting
ZBA ADVISORY REQUEST
ROBIN NIGRO- (cont’d):- Area Variance
Ms. Nigro informed the Board that the neighboring property is vacant and for sale.
Mr. O’Halloran made motion for a favorable advisory, seconded by Mr. Striano. All in favor, no discussion.
CONTINUED APPLICATION REVIEW
SUSAN AND ANTHONY JARVIS, JR. – Special Use Permit, fuel storage facility
It was noted at this time that the next item on the Agenda, Continued Application Review for Susan and Anthony Jarvis, Jr., would not be discussed at this meeting. The Applicant’s called and cancelled their review that afternoon and would meet with the Planning Board on October 21, 2003 at its next regularly scheduled meeting.
Mr. Ricks noted that the Code Enforcement Office issued Mr. Jarvis a Stop Work Order because he was making improvements to the proposed site, which seem to be a retaining wall.
A photograph from the Code Enforcement Office was passed around to the members showing the site in question.
NEW APPLICATION PRESENTATION
CECIL KROM, JR.- 2 Lotsubdivision and Site Plan Approval for truck repair shop
Mr. Krom was called forward to explain his Application to the Board. Property in question is located at Samsonville Road and Old Mine Road extension, Kerhonkson, Tax Map # 76.010-1-50, in a ‘B’ District of the Zoning Map.
Mr. Krom explained that his truck repair shop had already been approved, and he was just applying for a 2 lot subdivision.
Mr. Ricks informed Mr. Krom that because he was adjusting the property lines in which his existing truck repair shop sits, he would need to receive Site Plan Approval to update the existing file and approval.
Mr. Krom demonstrated on the map his current property lines and the proposed changes. He noted that he wanted to break one (1) acre off so that his daughter could build a house. He further explained that adjoining property owner, Mr. Fumoso wishes to buy a +/- .573 acre strip of land from him to extend his property lines.
Mr. Ricks questioned as to where the legal right-of-way was on this map.
Mr. Krom along with the Board questioned this and it wasn’t clear as to if Old Mine Road extension was an actual legal right-of-way. Because Mr. O’Halloran has property neighboring Mr. Krom’s, he has in the past asked Mr. Kelder, Highway Superintendent if this was a legal right-of-way, and he didn’t believe it was.
T/ Rochester Planning Board-3-September 23, 2003
Minutes of Regular Meeting
NEW APPLICATION PRESENTATION
CECIL KROM, JR.- (cont’d): 2 Lotsubdivision and Site Plan Approval for truck repair shop
Mr. Krom noted that there was a right-of-way on his property that went across the proposed 1 acre lot to be broken off for his daughter. This right-of-way accesses a neighboring property.
Mr. Ricks indicated to Mr. Krom that the right-of-ways on the property should be labeled with the Liber and Page.
Mr. Tapper questioned Mr. Krom as to how he accesses the entrance to his truck repair shop.
Mr. Krom answered that they come in off of Old Mine Road.
Mr. Ricks motioned to schedule Mr. Krom for Public Hearing, pending the revisions to the right-of-ways are made to show the Liber and Page and label the widths. Seconded by Mr. Gaydos, all in favor, including alternate.
NEW APPLICATION PRESENTATION
TIMOTHY & JEAN NEWTON-: 2 Lotsubdivision
Mr. Newton was present and explained his request for a 2 lot subdivision located at Schwabie Turnpike, Kerhonkson, Tax Map # 60.3-1-42.130, and in an ‘A’ District of the Zoning Map.
Mr. Newton explained that the property in question is in an existing subdivision named Mt. Laurel Grove and was subdivided in the 1980’s. He owns one (1) +/- 15.089 acre parcel that he wishes to split into two, eventually selling the existing house and parcel it is on, and retaining the proposed split off parcel for himself where he intends to build a house for himself in the future. Mr. Newton explained that due to utility poles, his road frontage is less than he needs. He has 80’ for both parcels and is proposing a right-of-way from the proposed lot over onto the existing piece with the house on it. Mr. Newton’s surveyor is S. Santo Associates.
Mr. Ricks noted that the Board is hesitant on scheduling a Public Hearing with out a revised map. When Mr. Newton receives the revised map from his land surveyor, bring it into the office so that one of the Board members can review it and they will schedule the Public Hearing accordingly. He also explained to Mr. Newton that in order to provide the needed 50’ of road frontage, one (1) on the proposed lots will need a legal right-of-way to access Schwabie Turnpike. For the portion of the right-of-way that is being shared, a road maintenance agreement will be in order to insure the right-of-way remains maintained.
T/ Rochester Planning Board-4-September 23, 2003
Minutes of Regular Meeting
NEW APPLICATION PRESENTATION
LARAINE CALIRI-4 lot subdivision
Ms. Caliri was present to explain her application for 4 lot subdivision located on private road, Kirby Lane, off of Kyserike Road, HighFalls, Tax Map # 77.2-2-9.111, and in an R-1 district of the Zoning Map. Ms. Caliri stated that she owns +/- 13.224 acres and wishes to split three (3) +/- 1 acre lots off from it, keeping the remaining +/- 10 acres with the existing home on it, for herself.
Mr. Ricks questioned if this was simply conceptual at this point noting that an actual survey to show the lots being split off hasn’t been done.
Ms. Caliri answered that yes at this point the plan is just conceptual and she would like the Board to let her know what steps would need to be done to complete this.
Mr. Ricks commented that because of the size of the lots being one (1) acre, they would need to meet Health Dept. approval. Ms. Caliri’s surveyor should lay out the subdivision she wishes to do. A Road Maintenance Agreement would also need to be recorded to ensure that the road will be maintained and is determined by the Hwy. Superintendent if it is suitable. The Road Maintenance Agreement will also need to be reviewed by the Town Attorney. Mr. Ricks also noted that normally the property lines for each proposed lot run to the center of the road and then have a right-of-way going down the road. This way every property owner shares in paying the taxes for the road instead of having Ms. Caliri paying all of the taxes for a road that everyone is using. Neighboring property of Mark Ferrari who accesses Kirby Lane will also need to sign onto the Road Maintenance Agreement. Mr. Ferrari’s property would need a lot line adjustment to bring his boundary to the center of the road.
Mr. O’Halloran suggested that Ms. Caliri contact her surveyor and have him determine whether these proposed lots are indeed one (1) acre before they go any further, and if they are, to take it from there. Mr. O’Halloran suggested that Ms. Caliri purchase a copy of the subdivision regulations for her surveyor.
Mr. Ricks reiterated that Ms. Caliri will need to get the surveyor the Town Subdivision Regulations, the lot sizes have to be calculated and worked out, the right-of-way needs to be put on, and make sure the lots meet all Board of Health approvals, and Town specifications on our regulations. Once the surveyor produces a new map, Ms. Caliri is to submit it to the Planning Board office to get on the next available agenda.
NEW APPLICATION PRESENTATION
M.P.V. LAZY ACRES, INC., MATTHEW VRASIDAS- 4 lot subdivision
Applicant’s representative, surveyor, William Eggers was present to explain the proposed 4 lot subdivision off of Upper Cherrytown Road, Kerhonkson, Tax Map # 59.15-1-22.1, and in an ‘A’ district of the Zoning Map. Mr. Eggers stated that this land was originally divided back in 1989 and nothing was ever done with it. There will be a right-of-way access over lot 1 to lot 4.
T/ Rochester Planning Board-5-September 23, 2003
Minutes of Regular Meeting
NEW APPLICATION PRESENTATION
M.P.V. LAZY ACRES, INC., MATTHEW VRASIDAS(cont’d):- 4 lot subdivision
Mr. Ricks expressed his concern for creating big, long, skinny lots. This is bad planning. It makes it impractical making a lot that is 350’ wide and 3,000’ long. Mr. Ricks suggested changing the layout to make wider flag lots.
Mr. Eggers questioned the Board regarding the Subdivision Regulations. There are 4 proposed lots all over 5 acres, according to the law, and all have deeded road frontage. When this property was first divided, the intention was that since the lots all had road frontage on a Town road, that they did not require Planning Board Approval.
There was a discrepancy about the minimum amount of required road frontage. Mr. Ricks believed it was 150’. Mr. O’Halloran and Mr. Striano recalled a letter from the Town Attorney regarding this matter and her answer was 50’ of road frontage. The Board instructed the Secretary to obtain a letter from Mary Lou Christiana, Esq., Town Attorney, confirming this.
Mr. O’Halloran questioned why Mr. Eggers was in front of the Board if by Town Law he didn’t have to be.
Mr. Eggers responded that at this point there is a possibility of dropping it to three (3) lots, merging lots four (4) and 3 (three) into 1 (one) lot.
Again Mr. Ricks expressed his concern over lot 1 being 350’ wide and 3,000’ long. He suggested that Mr. Eggers talk to his client to see if he’d be interested in altering the layout to make that lot more practical.
Mr. Eggers responded that he could present this to his client.
Mr. Striano asked if this is a previous subdivision.
Mr. Eggers responded that it was split apart back in1989. For some reason somebody (either the Town Attorney or Douglas Dymond, CEO) decided that at this point it needed Planning Board Approval. Mr. Eggers isn’t entirely sure why that is, but it may have had something to do with the fact that the current deed for this property states that it is all of this land and then accepts out all of those little cottage lots and dimensions and sold off all those lots. Somewhere along the way they sold off all of the lots, but didn’t do anything with the roads, they are private roads and are little strips of land on the other side of road. Title wise, those roads still belong to this owner because he has a deed that covers the whole property. The roads were never sold out or conveyed to any one. Somebody determined that because of the roads, they would technically be the fifth lot and need Planning Board approval.
Mr. Eggers continued that it wouldn’t be an issue or necessary to be in front of the Board if they cut it down to three (3) lots.
Mr. O’Halloran questioned the elevations to the road. He noticed that there was a drastic curve, is that for steepness?
T/ Rochester Planning Board-6-September 23, 2003
Minutes of Regular Meeting
NEW APPLICATION PRESENTATION
M.P.V. LAZY ACRES, INC., MATTHEW VRASIDAS(cont’d):- 4 lot subdivision
Mr. Eggers responded that he wasn’t sure.
Mr. Gaydos questioned if the roads could be conveyed to the property owners that own the parcels? He then noted that there is one road that accesses bungalows and homes, then farther down there are little bungalows.
Mr. Eggers noted that another reason he was here was that if it was a simple matter to obtain Planning Board approval, is he has had problems in the past with subdivisions in the Town of Rochester with minor subdivisions when approval is not required. Someone would go to the bank to get a mortgage on a lot and the bank gives them a hard time because the map isn’t filed or approved. People outside the Town of Rochester don’t understand the concept of not needing Planning Board approval for a minor subdivision. Mr. Eggers thought that maybe in this case they’d be better off just to get the approvals, get the map filed, and then there’s no question when someone goes to get a mortgage for one of these lots.
Mr. O’Halloran questioned Mr. Eggers as to if he were presenting the Board with this subdivision? If this is the case, Mr. Eggers would need to show elevations, so the Board could better understand the property.
Mr. Ricks questioned if this was the final map? If you are making any changes, it can’t be presented for Public Hearing.
Mr. Eggers replied that there will be lot line revision between lots three(3) and four (4) because his building site is too close to the existing line now.
There was discussion again regarding the unpractical dimensions of lot one(1). Mr. O’Halloran commented that in the Subdivision Regulations, the Board can encourage subdividers to stay away from unreasonable depth lots.
Mr. Eggers responded that his client actually has a buyer for lot one(1) as it is shown. Mr. Eggers noted that he told his client that he could get a deed for lot one (1) and sell it outright.
Mr. Ricks noted that he realized that, but looking down the road its bad planning to create a lot that is 10 times longer than it is wide.
Mr. Gaydos noted that lot one (1) borders New YorkState land, and this is probably why there is a buyer for this property the way it sits on this map. Nothing will ever happen to the adjacent property because its State land.
Mr. Ricks questioned what Mr. Egger’s next step would be.
Mr. Eggers responded that he would need to speak with his client and then questioned the Board that if he decided to go through with this as a subdivision, would they need a road profile as mentioned earlier by Mr. O’Halloran?
T/ Rochester Planning Board-7-September 23, 2003
Minutes of Regular Meeting
NEW APPLICATION PRESENTATION
M.P.V. LAZY ACRES, INC., MATTHEW VRASIDAS(cont’d):- 4 lot subdivision
Mr. Ricks noted that the road would have to be built to driveway standards due to the fact that it services one (1) or two (2) lots. He then suggested coming back with the lot line changes and a road profile.
Mr. O’Halloran made the motion to schedule Public Hearing pending the revisions with the lot lines and the road profile, seconded by Mr. Gaydos, all in favor. No discussion.
OTHER MATTERS
Vice Chairman Ricks noted that there would be a Town Board Advisory Request for Open Development coming in front of the Board in a month or two. In order for them to get a building permit, the Applicant needs to apply for Open Development Status. Normally the criteria is if it is a less than 50’ right-of-way, instead of a substandard right-of-way, the Applicant would need to file for Open Development, then Wayne Kelder, Hwy. Superintendant would go to the site, check the road over and make sure it meets his criteria for private road, he can recommend that the road meets his standards and limit the number of lots on the road that can be developed.
KROM– 2 lot subdivision, SPA for truck repair shop
At this time Mr. Ricks instructed the Secretary to contact Mr. Krom to inform him that he will need Health Dept. approval on the +/-1 acre piece he is proposing to subdivide due to the fact that it is only +/-1 acre.