MINUTES OF December 16, 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 Vice Chairman, Shane Ricks.

PRESENT: David O'HalloranABSENT:William De Graw

Anthony KawalchuckNadine Carney

Frank Striano, Sr Melvyn Tapper

Shane Ricks

Robert Gaydos

At 7:00 PM, Vice Chairman Ricks called the Meeting to order.

Pledge to the Flag.

DECISION

FRANK DUNN- 5 lot Subdivision, Boice Mill Road

Mr. Dunn had submitted final maps for approval noting the septic fields and he also submitted individual septic permits that had been obtained from the Ulster County Health Dept. for each of the lots. Upon reviewing the other conditions, it was noted by the Board that Mr. Dunn has met all of the conditions as per Conditional Final Approval.

Mr. Ricks noted that the Board has already did a Final Approval on this Application and now it was just an issue of stamping and signing the maps. Mr. Ricks noted to keep things moving along that he would sign the maps at the end of the meeting and Mr. Dunn could pick them up in the morning at the Planning Board Office.

PRE-APPLICATION PRESENTATION

DICK POLICH- Subdivision, 7 lots, Route 44-55, Kerhonkson, c/o Bridge Creek Engineering, Tax Map # 84.2-1-23, ‘A’ Zone

Representative and Engineer for Applicant, Philip Leger, PE, was present to explain his client’s Application.

Mr. Leger noted that the client is actually his Step-Father. The property in question is bordered on two sides by MinnewaskaState Park and the other by a private owner. This property is adjacent to the lower look-out on Route 44-55. Mr. Leger has walked the property in search for an access and the one presented on the sketch plan is the most practical. The road actually exists up till proposed lot 7. At lots 2 &3, the road will turn into a culdesac and it will turn into a driveway up to lot 1and he is confident that he will be able to access lot 1 with out going over the 15% maximum for the road grade.. The lots are all above 10 acres in size.

Mr. Ricks noted that there will be NYS DEC guidelines as to what the elevation is that can be built at. It’s a sensitive area in the respect to neighboring MinnewaskaState Park and the effect it may have on the views of the area. Mr. Ricks recommended that he consult with the NYS DEC in regards to these matters.

T/ Rochester Planning Board-2 -December 16, 2003

Minutes of Regular Meeting

PRE-APPLICATION PRESENTATION

DICK POLICH- Subdivision, 7 lots

Mr. Gaydos questioned if the existing road in question that comes off of Route 44-55 is more than a 12% grade?

Mr. Leger commented that his concern is more of an angle coming into that road. His Applicant may need to consider blasting of some rock.

Mr. Ricks recommended that he get a road profile together.After Mr. Leger evaluates the property a little more closely he should submit a Preliminary Subdivision Map to the Board. He also noted that the layout of the lots maybe impractical with the way they are set up in respect to the road. He should try and make the lot lines come to the center of the road instead of having easements or right of ways over each lot. He also recommended to check with the Office of Parks and Recreations to see if there would be anything additional required by them because of the proximity to Minnewaska State Park.

CONTINUED APPLICATION REVIEW

TIMOTHY & JEAN NEWTON-, 2 lot subdivision, Schwabie Turnpike, Kerhonkson,

Tax Map # 60.3-1-42.130, ‘A’ District

Mr. Newton was present and explained that he was in front of the Board in September for his 2 lot subdivision.

Mr. Ricks noted that as Mr. Newton’s Subdivision Map currently exists he is landlocking the back parcel. He needs to show 50’ of road frontage onto Schwabie Turnpike. It looks like Mr. Newton’s Surveyor had mistakenly added a line closing the back parcel off from the road. Mr. Newton’s surveyor needs to show a right-of-way by labeling and displaying it correctly on the map. If Mr. Newton doesn’t understand, he can have his surveyor call Becky at the Planning Board Office and she will get in touch with Mr. Ricks.

CONTINUED APPLICATION REVIEW

SUSAN JARVIS, c/o ANTHONY JARVIS, JR. -Special Use Permit, Fuel Storage Facility

4236 Route 209, Accord, Tax Map# 69.3-2-17.11, ‘B’ District

The Applicant’s Engineer, Mr. Roger Gjone, PE, was present and noted that with the exception of the South driveway’s drainage, he revised the plan per the Required Modifications of the Ulster County Planning Board. The reason why he didn’t revise the South driveway is because they are essentially only improving the existing situation. Most of the issues had to do with the NYS DOT. Mr. Jack Stamant a representative who is new to this area went out to the site did some reorganization.

Mr. Ricks commented that the Board had been submitted a Petroleam Bulk Storage Registration Certificate by the Applicant. This means that the tank is registered and is permitted at this location to be set up and used?

T/ Rochester Planning Board-3 -December 16, 2003

Minutes of Regular Meeting

CONTINUED APPLICATION REVIEW

SUSAN JARVIS, c/o ANTHONY JARVIS, JR.-(cont’d):Special Use Permit, Fuel Storage Facility

Mr. Gjone replied yes. They submitted an Application with a site plan to the NYS DEC and told them how they were going to handle secondary containment and the DEC issued the permit.

Currently the NYS DOT is concerned with three issues from the site visit. They were concerned with the visibility North and South. They also advised that the swale along Route 209 needed to be kept clean. The third point of concern was that the driveway be paved to the point where pebbles wouldn’t wash out onto Route 209. From this site visit and response, it seemed that Jack Stamant from NYS DOT didn’t have any problems other than the mentioned concerns. The Applicant has yet to receive formal approval from DOT, but it doesn’t seem to be an issue.

The parking area is specified as the pad that will also serve as a catch basin should there be a spill. This area is also where the trucks will be parked at night. There are also cut sheets for the lights in the revised plan that was submitted. Mr. Gjone also noted that they had placed the required screening requested by the Ulster County Planning Board on the site plan.

At this point Mr. Gjone asked the Board if they would grant the Applicant Conditional Approval pending NYS DOT’s Approval of the driveway cuts.

Mr. Ricks noted that because the Public Hearing is still open, the Board could not render a decision tonight. The Applicant didn’t submit his revisions in a timely manner that allowed for the proper advertisements and notifications.

Mr. Ricksthen noted a Required Modification overlooked by the Applicant. “If the Applicant has plans for additional phases of project, the (Town of Rochester) Planning Board has a responsibility to address all phases as part of SEQRA as well as Site Plan Review. Should this project involve additional phases, we ask that it be submitted the location of the additional phases at least in concept form”. Mr. Ricks then noted that in Mr. Gjone’s cover letter that accompanied the revisions of December 9, 2003, Mr. Gjone stated that this was ‘Phase 1 . . . to expedite the review process. . . and in the future the Applicant may want to expand the operation. . .’

Mr. Gjone stated that the potential to expand is relevant to any business. The reason he made note of possible expansions is because there is added complexity in regards to second containment and Stormwater Management run off, and because of the situation that the Applicant is in (putting the fuel tank in with out any approvals from the Planning Board) and whether the situation is right or wrong, Mr. Gjone didn’t feel like dealing with the added complexity to get the approvals as soon as possible. They are simply saying that at some point Mr. Jarvis is going to come back and seek additional approvals for additional fuel tanks, and the Applicant understands that the review process would be as if he were starting from scratch.

T/ Rochester Planning Board-4 -December 16, 2003

Minutes of Regular Meeting

CONTINUED APPLICATION REVIEW

SUSAN JARVIS, c/o ANTHONY JARVIS, JR.-(cont’d):Special Use Permit, Fuel Storage Facility

Mr. Ricks indicated that Mr. Jarvis’ situation puts the Planning Board in a difficult situation because by State Law they are responsible to look at a total project under SEQRA. The letter of December 9, 2003 submitted by Mr. Gjone clearly states that they will becoming back to the Board for additional phases of this project.

Mr. Gjone stated that he understands the situation in which the Planning Board is in. Basically Mr. Jarvis is looking at adding two (2) additional tanks in the future.

Mr. Ricks repeated that when Mr. Gjone states that there will be additional phases of the project in person at the meeting and in correspondence, that it puts the Planning Board in a difficult situation. The Board is responsible for reviewing the entire project and all phases under SEQRA. Mr. Gjone needs to either tell the Board that they are doing this project in three (3) phases or he needs to tell the Board that this one (1) tank is all that they are applying for and not to mention any additional phases in any correspondence or Applications.

Mr. Gjone asked to consult his client, Mr. Jarvis, only to find that Mr. Jarvis had left the meeting.

At this time Mr. Jarvis’ father, Anthony Jarvis, Sr., instructed Mr. Gjone to sketch the additional tanks in concept form on the site plan. They will be applying for three (3) fuel tanks in all.

Mr. Ricks noted that it seemed that Mr. Gjone had done everything else required by the County with the exception of getting anything formal in writing from the NYS DOT. He also had a question regarding the ‘NYS DEC Petroleum Bulk Storage Permit’ as depicted in his letter of December 9, 2003. The actual document from the NYS DEC reads as ‘Petroleum Bulk Storage Registration Certificate’. Is there a difference between a ‘Permit’ and ‘Registration Certificate’?

Mr. Gjone replied that the ‘Petroleum Bulk Storage Registration Certificate’ is the only thing the NYS DEC issues for anything over 1,100 gallons. They reviewed the Site Plan and they issued the Certificate. Mr. Gjone was still uncertain of the importance of the difference between the additional phases and the single phase.

The Board further explained the distinction between one (1) phase and more than one (1) phase. They suggested that if Mr.Gjone is going to remain with the position of stating that there will be more than one (1) phase, Mr. Gjone would need to show the placement of the proposed phases on the Site Plan. No details would be necessary. That would come into play when the Applicant applied for the additional phases.

Mr. Gjone noted that he would get an amended sheet to the Site Plan to show the additional phases and amend any needed Applications. He will also get something in writing from the NYS DOT stating their standpoint on the project.

T/ Rochester Planning Board-5-December 16, 2003

Minutes of Regular Meeting

PUBLIC HEARING

RNR HOUSING- Sahler Mill Estates18 lot subdivisionSundale and Sahler Mill Roads

Tax Map # 60.4-1-1.2, and in an ‘A’ District

At 7:55 PMVice Chairperson Ricks announced the Public Hearing noting to the public that there was a sign in sheet for any one wishing to speak. He urged people who wanted to speak not to be repetitive to keep the Hearing moving along.

Mr. Ricks opened the Public Hearing by reviewing correspondence that had taken place in the Planning Board Office regarding this Application since the November Meeting. He started off by referring to the November 19, 2003 letter from the Planning Board to Mr. John Belden at the Army Corps of Engineers. He continued, that this letter prompted a telephone call from Mr. Belden to the Planning Board Secretary on December 3, 2003 stating that this type of request would have to be made to another section of the Army Corps of Engineers. The contact person is a Mr. Brian Orzel in the Western Permits Section. Mr. Belden expressed that he would forward any information that was sent to him over to Mr. Orzel.

On December 3, 2003 the Planning Board Office wrote to Mr. Orzel explaining the confusion, and requested Mr. Orzel to contact the Planning Board Office with his response to the question of Federal Wetlands existing on the site. On December 15, 2003 the Planning Board Office received a phone message from Mr. Orzel explaining that the process is to have the Applicant hire a consultant to delineate any wetlands on the site and then Mr. Orzel would be contacted.

There was also a letter received from Jeff Weigert of the NYS DEC dated to Barbara Rinaldi of the NYS DEC December 10, 2003 stating that there are no protected species of plants with in the boundaries of the project. Another letter from the NYS DEC dated December 3, 2003 from Barabara Rinaldi directed to the Planning Board was summarized by Mr. Ricks. There was concern of visual aspects in this letter.

Mr. Ricks continued to review correspondence stating that the Planning Board had received two letters from Brinnier & Larios of review. Letter dated November 26, 2003 and letter dated December 15, 2003 were read aloud for the public.

Representative Barry Medenbach was present on behalf of the Applicant, Mr. Michael Baum. Mr. Medenbach has received both of the letters of review from BrinnierLarios, PE and is in the process of responding to them. Many of the aspects brought up by BrinnierLarios, PE will be answered simply, there is one issue that needs to be changed and that is the 100 year storm needs to be clarified. BrinnierLarios, PE pointed out that in the new regulation, that they have to hold back the 100 year storm to pre-development conditions. Mr. Medenbach’s office will need to increase the size of the basins.

Mr. Ricks noted that these changes will need to be resubmitted to BrinnierLarios, PE, and the Planning Board will have to receive review from BrinnierLarios, PE that the changes made by Mr. Medenbach’s office are adequate.

T/ Rochester Planning Board-6-December 16, 2003

Minutes of Regular Meeting

PUBLIC HEARING

RNR HOUSING(cont’d):- Sahler Mill Estates18 lot subdivision

At this point, Mr. Ricks invited anyone from the Public who has any new concerns that have not already been brought up, to speak.

Town of Olive resident, Nancy April read letter/statement dated December 16, 2003. Mrs. April’s letter touched upon many points including the request to have this project either reclassified as a Type 1 Action under SEQRA, due to its proximity to the CatskillPark, or have the lots reduced from 18 to 12.

Next to speak was Mr. John Berenbaum of 141 lower Sahler Mill Road. Mr. Berenbaum stated that he agreed with most of his neighbors that the size of the development is going to change the character of their neighborhood negatively. He also expressed concern over the “mis-statements” that were displayed on the EAF by Mr. Medenbach, asking that this project not be approved.

Mr. George Kourey of Lower Sahler Mill Road had lived on this road for 19 years. He agreed that the project should be downsized to conform with the surrounding area. Mr. Kourey was very concerned with the impact of the traffic on Lower Sahler Mill Road, noting that there are dangerous curves on the Road. He then asked if the Town of Rochester should contact the Town of Olive to discuss the impact of traffic on these roads that access the project site?

Mr. Rudy Hunter of Sahler Mill Road was concerned with the traffic also. He stated that his house has always been in a quiet setting and the traffic produced from this project will threaten that. He is also concerned with the 20 wells resulting from this project and how they will effect the water table in the area.

Mr. Ricks noted that Mr. Hunter’s concern with the water table is difficult to address because there is no finite answer in this. The Board’s job here is to address the concerns of bounding property owners as well as to protect the Applicant’s rights in regard to this project.

Mr. John McCauley of Brown Road stated that he owns the property in which the run off from the site which will be collected in proposed Lot 11 is proposed to drain off into. He questioned whether it was legal with out his authority to force the water off of the site onto his property? Mr. McCauley doesn’t see the benefit to him to accept the water from the project onto his property for Mr. Baum’s profit.

Mr. Ricks stated that currently the water from this property naturally drains onto Mr. McCauley’s property. Part of the Stormwater Management Plan is to provide that the run off produced from the site is no different than it was at pre-development.

T/ Rochester Planning Board-7-December 16, 2003