Documents
Resources
Learning Center
Upload
Plans & pricing Sign in
Sign Out
Your Federal Quarterly Tax Payments are due April 15th Get Help Now >>

BOARD_________________________________

VIEWS: 8 PAGES: 13

									   _______________________________________ PLANNING BOARD_________________________________
                                          TOWN OF ROCHESTER
                                                 ULSTER COUNTY
                                                ACCORD, NEW YORK
                                                   (845) 626-2434
                                                torpbzba@hvc.rr.com

MINUTES OF October 19, 2004 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 D. Carney.

PRESENT:       David O'Halloran, Alternate                   ABSENT:        Anthony Kawalchuck
               Nadine Carney, Chairperson                                   Frank Striano, Sr
               Melvyn Tapper-7:05PM
               William De Graw
               Shane Ricks, Vice Chair
               Robert Gaydos


Pledge to the Flag.

Because there was not a full Board at this meeting, Alternate Mr. O‟Halloran would be able to vote and make
motions.

CONTINTUED APPLICATION REVIEW
STREAMSIDE ESATES, INC- Special Use Permit for expansion of existing mobile home park,
                        formerly known as Tessler‟s, Cherrytown Road, Kerhonkson, Tax
                        Map # 67-2-43.14, 43.15, 43.112, & 43.113, R-1 District

Mr. Baum was present along with engineer, Barry Medenbach and Attorney, John Sisti on behalf of his
Application.

Because there were Board Members that were not yet present, the Chairperson decided to move down the
agenda and wait for their arrival.

DISCUSSION
TOWN BOARD ADVISORY REQUEST- Changes to the Mobile Home Park Law

The Planning Board had received a packet with the revised proposed law and was asked by the Town Board for
their advisory opinion.

Mr. Ricks had looked over the proposed changes to the law and noted that there wasn‟t anything different in the
law regarding travel trailers. He felt that in regards to the Mobile Home Park law, the changes basically zoned
the parks out of the Town with its vast limitations including only allowing them on County and State Roads. He
was told by a Councilman that these restrictions would limit the area to have a Mobile Home Park down to 70
parcels in the Town that would be eligible. Then taking in the density of the lot sizes and restrictions, it would
be close to impossible to build another one in the Town. It was a round about way to zone them out so that they
wouldn‟t exist any more.
T/ Rochester Planning Board                           -2-                            October 19, 2004
Minutes of Regular Meeting

DISCUSSION
TOWN BOARD ADVISORY REQUEST: (cont’d) - Changes to the Mobile Home Park Law

***At this time the Chairperson recognized that Mr. Tapper and Mr. De Graw were now present and she
explained that the Board had not discussed Streamside as of yet, they were currently discussing the
potential changes to the Mobile Home Park Law. ***

Mr. O‟Halloran read through the law as well and compared it to the existing Zoning and his only concern was
that the zoning density was different for trailer parks than for any other type of construction. He had no issue
with changing the density in the entire town, but in this particular case the Town Board went through how to
calculate what an R-1 zone would mean—i.e.: the elimination of wetlands, roads, septics, improved areas in
calculating the acreage available to use. His only issue was fairness to the whole town and all businesses, all
development, and all projects. He found it a little uncomfortable when applied only to one area in the Zoning
Ordinance. He agreed that this law would more than likely eliminate mobile home parks in the town. Again, he
wasn‟t sure why the same standards weren‟t applied to individual homes? He didn‟t see it as fair for someone
with one trailer and one acre to be able to place the trailer and then to have another person with 100 acres and
40 trailers to be not okay.

Mr. Gaydos agreed with both Mr. Ricks and Mr. O‟Halloran.

The Chairperson was also in agreement and that these standards should be applicable to all development, not
just mobile home development.

Mr. O‟Halloran wasn‟t sure how the proposed law is going to affect the Planning Boards of the future. He
wasn‟t sure that the Zoning requirements in the Streamside application were used in the decision making of
some of the Board Members decisions. He based his decision strictly on Chapter 140 of the Zoning. If the
decision isn‟t going to be based on that by Planning Board Members, but rather whether or not they liked or
disliked the project, then he thinks that the committee went through a lot of work for nothing and that anyone
that sits on this Board would be legislating.

Mr. De Graw also read through the law and he noted in the area where the site was to be clearly numbered,
there was a typo that said it needed to be Arabic numbers. . ..he felt that would confuse a lot of people. He felt
that the Trailer Park Moratorium Committee did a great job all around and they put a lot of effort and thought
into it. He felt it would be very beneficial to the community.

Mr. Tapper read through the law and found over all that it was a little too restrictive. He understood the concept
of restricting it to County and State Roads, but there are only 4 County Roads in the Town. The over all
planning of the Mobile Home Park law was okay. Another problem he had was that they were giving the
applicant the option of having a sewage system or treatment system. This was a very large bone of contention
with the Streamside Application where people would have preferred a sewage treatment plant as opposed to all
of the septic systems. He also felt that a contact person should be on site. He also read that the type of material
that the skirting was made out of was restricted to Vinyl and it couldn‟t be wood. He didn‟t understand the
reasoning behind this. Additions were not allowed, the pitch of the roof was restricted to a certain number. He
felt some of these things should be enforced by the owner of the individual parks—let them decide on their
preference to some of these things.
T/ Rochester Planning Board                          -3-                           October 19, 2004
Minutes of Regular Meeting

DISCUSSION
TOWN BOARD ADVISORY REQUEST: (cont’d) - Changes to the Mobile Home Park Law

The Chairperson noted that she would work with the Secretary and put a letter of recommendation together to
the Town Board based on the member‟s comments in this discussion.

Mr. Ricks also didn‟t quite agree with the limitation that mobile home parks couldn‟t be within a ½ mile of each
other. This doesn‟t apply to any other type of business in town.

Mr. De Graw interpreted the spirit of the law that trailer parks would be reviewed as more of a commercial
interest rather than residential. This is a shift in the right direction.

If it was being looked at as commercial, Mr. O‟Halloran could agree with that statement, but it would be very
odd in a commercial aspect to limit the proximity of trailer parks to each other. There could be two granite
manufacturers next to each other and there aren‟t any restrictions there . . . it‟s a little confusing.

PLANNER THRESHOLDS-                   for review of Special Use Permits, Site Plan Approval, and Subdivision
                                      Approval.

The Chairperson read aloud the Thresholds as prepared by Mr. O‟Halloran and submitted on this date of
October 19, 2004. She noted that there was discussion at the last meeting about having a flat rate with reference
to Site Plan Approval and Special Use Permit plus a square foot fee, she didn‟t recall about talking about
subdivisions. She knew the current subdivision was $50.00 per lot with a recreation fee after 4 lots. She found
the proposal to the Town Board to be very reasonable and acceptable.

Mr. Tapper questioned if Mr. O‟Halloran explored fees in surrounding towns?

Mr. O‟Halloran asked for fees from Chazen and the two sample fees they supplied were not surrounding towns,
and they were about 100% higher than these rates and that is how he compromised this rate. Those towns were
more towards Dutchess County.

The Chairperson knew that the Town of Ulster had many different fees depending on the individual use being
applied for.

Mr. O‟Halloran was aware that these may grow into something more as the town develops, but he felt that this
was a good base start. The town incurs the cost of planning review, even when there isn‟t an application that is
immediately being forwarded to them; we are working with them on a regular basis. A lot of the application fee
and per square foot fee and lot fee is really just toward the base cost for the town. The escrow account will be
the actual money applied to the applications that will incur individual planning review. $1,500.00 is going to be
an average cost to the town each month just for the planner. The town is also going to use the planning
consultants for zoning issues and advise in zoning laws and such.

Mr. Ricks questioned if the escrow account had any sort of a monetary cap on it especially if it were a large
project that took months and months of review.
T/ Rochester Planning Board                          -4-                           October 19, 2004
Minutes of Regular Meeting

PLANNER THRESHOLDS: (cont’d)-                for review of Special Use Permits, Site Plan Approval, and
                                             Subdivision Approval

Mr. O‟Halloran knew that this would be difficult to the Applicant, but it begins at $1,000.00 so that Chazen can
begin their work. One of the first things would be for Chazen to provide an estimate of escrow for that
particular applicant. If it were a very large complex application—the reason you don‟t want a cap on the escrow
account is because the balance would absorb the difference as the review would need to continue.

Mr. De Graw questioned how Mr. O‟Halloran came up with 10 lots under subdivision to be a threshold for
planner review?

Mr. O‟Halloran noted that he has discussed this with Board members as well as members in the community, by
attending trainings. One of the goals of Zoning Laws should be to try and encourage development in the
direction that community members would like to see. If applicants are given a way through the process with out
the planning review, they may change the lay out or size of their application. If the Board feels the property is
too complex for what they are proposing, they may need the planning review regardless, but this gives them an
avenue to avoid some planning cost and time.

The Chairperson noted that when Stormwater Management needs to get reviewed on the large applications,
engineering review will also be required. It wouldn‟t be the planner reviewing it, but a different dept. of
Chazen. This would be an additional cost.

Mr. De Graw and Mr. Tapper felt that engineering costs should be included in the recommendation to the Town
Board.

Mr. O'Halloran motioned to forward this recommendation to the Town Board for their consideration.
Mr. Gaydos seconded the motion. All members present and in favor. No discussion.

CONTINTUED APPLICATION REVIEW
STREAMSIDE ESATES, INC- Special Use Permit for expansion of existing mobile home park,
                        formerly known as Tessler‟s, Cherrytown Road, Kerhonkson, Tax
                        Map # 67-2-43.14, 43.15, 43.112, & 43.113, R-1 District

The Chairperson called the Applicant, Mr. Baum, his engineer, Mr. Medenbach, and his attorney, Mr. Sisti
forward for discussion. She then read an e-mail dated October 18, 2004 to the Planning Board from Town
Attorney, Mary Lou Christiana, Esq. explaining the outcome of the vote at the September Planning Board
meeting that under NY State law the vote resulted in a non decision as it was a tie. In order to approve or deny
an application for special use permit, there must be a number equal to a majority of the board (4) either
approving or denying the application. This is the number of votes needed to approve or deny, even if less than
the entire board is voting. For example, if 5 members were voting on a special use permit application there
would have to be a 4-1 vote to approve or deny. She also suggested as the Board had 62 days to render a
decision after the public hearing was closed and this time had not yet expired, that the Board may want to vote
again at the October meeting. If the vote were to remain a tie, the applicant would not be able to move forward
with the project as he would not have Planning Board approval. Chairperson Carney added that even if the
Board didn‟t have a majority in favor, it would result in the same outcome that the project would not be able to
T/ Rochester Planning Board                           -5-                            October 19, 2004
Minutes of Regular Meeting

CONTINTUED APPLICATION REVIEW
STREAMSIDE ESATES, INC: (cont’d)- Special Use Permit for expansion of existing mobile home park

move forward. She continued with the Town Attorney‟s letter which stated that the lack of approval is not
deemed a denial—that the application is in “limbo” and the applicant and his attorney would have to take any
steps that they would deem necessary. She again suggested to the Board to vote again in the event that the
applicant decided to appeal the non-decision, she wanted to be able to say that the Board did everything they
could to reach decision within the 62 day decision making time frame. The Chairperson noted that the 62 days
expires on October 25, 2004 and this would be the Planning Board‟s last meeting before that time is up.

At 7:30PM Mr. De Graw recused himself from the Streamside portion of the meeting.

The Chairperson continued and went over the steps the Board has taken during their review process noting that
there were public hearings held, the Board received public comment, there was environmental review, a
Negative Declaration was passed with a decision of 6 ayes and 2 nays and this was based upon information that
was submitted to the Board by the engineer at Brinnier & Larios, PE on behalf of the Board. She agreed with
Mr. O‟Halloran noting that the decision isn‟t based upon what members like or dislike, it is about compliance
with the Town of Rochester Zoning Ordinance, with the NYS DEC, Ulster County Health Dept. regulations,
and the proper completion of environmental review in regards to SEQRA. The Board has had time to review
this and time to think about this since the last decision and they could have some discussion on it and she
wanted to give the applicant a chance to say a few words.

The Applicant‟s Engineer, Mr. Barry Medenbach noted that they went through a long period of reviewing the
environmental issues. He believed this Board had come to a pretty solid conclusion that the Applicant had
overcome all of the potential impacts by providing all of the necessary engineering studies and documentations
that were even reviewed by other professionals on behalf of the Board. The Board scrutinized the plan and its
conformity to the Town‟s Regulations and basically concluded that the applicant complies with all of the
regulations and there are no environmental impacts. It appeared that the votes against the project were more for
personal reasons which isn‟t what this Board is set up to do. This Board is here to uphold the regulations of this
Town. This applicant has bent over backwards to provide all of the information the Board has requested and he
also has an excellent reputation of maintaining mobile home parks, and he is going to build this park to a high
standard. There were comments that nobody came out in support of the application, and that is not true. The
people who spoke up in favor and support were booed at some of the public hearings and they basically backed
down. Mr. Medenbach new that there were a lot of people in this community who would benefit from this type
of housing. It‟s very affordable and suitable for a lot of residents in this community. What you see being built is
all of these high end housing and they are basically pricing our children out of the community by not providing
for this type of housing.

The Chairperson reminded the Board that even though there were members who were absent, the Board still
needed 4 votes either way to make a decision. If there is no decision made, after this meeting, the file is in fact
closed for this application because the 62 days is up and there is no new information to consider. She wasn‟t
sure if it was necessary to re-read the proposed conditions that the Board submitted for the vote on the
preliminary approval at the September meeting. The conditions are still on record. She then asked if the Board
members would like to contribute anything to the discussion.
T/ Rochester Planning Board                           -6-                           October 19, 2004
Minutes of Regular Meeting

CONTINTUED APPLICATION REVIEW
STREAMSIDE ESATES, INC: (cont’d)- Special Use Permit for expansion of existing mobile home park

Mr. O‟Halloran noted that he has reviewed the application and documents involved in the Streamside
application thoroughly. He keeps coming back to this point: Whether his view of the park is favorable or
unfavorable is one way or the other, he can‟t find in the Town Zoning, Section 140-36(H) what the applicant
hasn‟t done. Mr. O'Halloran felt that whether the Board is reviewing Site Plan Approval or subdivisions, there
are guidelines that the Board and the applicant have to follow per the Town‟s Regulations. If there are aspects
of applications that are questionable, the Board has some leeway as to their decisions. In this case, the applicant
followed all of the Regulations. This is why he was concerned with the new Mobile Home Park Law that was
being proposed. Because the committee and Town Board went through and did so much work to come up with
these guidelines, and some future Planning Board may not base their decision on the guidelines. Maybe certain
Members will make their decisions based on public or political pressures or what the member wants. There are
a lot of things that come before the Board that Mr. O‟Halloran may or may not want, but this applicant has
shown good faith and done everything the Board has asked of him. He respected how the three other members
voted, but he wants to know where Mr. Baum didn‟t comply with the Zoning.

No other members requested to speak. The Chairperson questioned if the members needed the conditions read
again from the September meeting. They did not.

Mr. Ricks motioned for a Conditional Preliminary Approval based on the recorded 20 conditions read
into record on September 21, 2004. Seconded by Mr. Gaydos.
Vote:
       Mrs. Carney- Abstain                          Mr. Gaydos-          Yes
       Mr. Ricks- Yes                                Mr. O'Halloran -      Yes
       Mr. Tapper- No

The Chairperson stated that because there were only 3 votes in favor, they did not obtain the votes needed to
make a decision.


CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING
TLB MANAGEMENT CORP. c/o LEONARD & TERRY BERNARDO- Site Plan Approval for 36,000 sf
                                                   roller rink, NYS Rote 209, Tax
                                                   Map #76.2-2-20.200, „B‟ District

Mr. Bernardo was present along with Engineer, Barry Medenbach, and Architect, Robert Dupont. Also present
at the meeting was Planner Nancy Vlahos from the Chazen Companies on behalf of the Town.

At 7:40 Mr. De Graw rejoined the Board and Mr. Ricks recused himself as he was a contiguous property
owner.

The Chairperson noted that next Tuesday, October 26, 2004 there would be a workshop meeting to review Part
2 of the EAF. She suggested that the Board refrain their discussion until the workshop meeting and just hear
from the Public at this meeting.
T/ Rochester Planning Board                            -7-                             October 19, 2004
Minutes of Regular Meeting

CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING
TLB MANAGEMENT CORP. c/o LEONARD & TERRY BERNARDO:(cont’d)- Site Plan Approval for
                                                              36,000 sf roller rink

Mr. Medenbach gave a brief explanation of the project prior to opening the meeting for public comment. He
noted that this is a parcel of land approximately 6 acres located at the corner of Mettacahonts and Route 209.
This is the former site of the Lime Light facility and before that it was a hotel. Behind the property is Hidden
Forrest Estates Mobile Home Park. They have land that wraps around this that is permanent open space. It is a
36,000 sf one story building to house a roller rink and skate board park. It will include parking out front. The
primary access will be off of Mettacahonts with a secondary access off of Route 209 that will only allow right
hand turns in and out. They made the parking stalls larger per the planner and also provided for landscaping
aisles at the far end of the parking lot and increased the space in front of the building to accommodate the trees
and the landscaping plan. They also added a loading zone in the back near the dumpster area. The Stormwater
from the site will be treated through two basins that will be constructed on either side of the Mettacahonts Road
entrance. They will be shallow depressions in the ground so the runoff from the building and parking lot and
adjacent areas will flow into these basins and will infiltrate through and go down to the culvert at the access of
Mettacahonts Road. The culvert is somewhat undersized now, but they have increased the storage volume in the
basins so under post development conditions, the amount of run off will be less than it presently is now. Septic
system will be built in the back of the facility the well will be installed in the front. In regards to the landscaping
of the sight and the massive scale of the building, there are quite a few mature trees that will remain that will
help break up the view of the building. It won‟t be like it was in a big open field—you‟ll have to look through
these trees to be able to see the building. New landscaping will include a row of evergreen trees on the south
side of the building and across the front staggered with the bradford pear trees and then shade trees that will be
planted around the parking lot. The concept is to landscape to make it a softer view in the community.

The applicant‟s Architect, Mr. Dupont noted that the building is a single story pre-fabricated steel building.
They wanted to keep the eve height as low as possible so the building wasn‟t overly tall. It also has a very low
sloped roof on it as well. The color scheme was picked out to blend in with the rural vernacular of the area. The
siding and the roof are both metal. The siding is a barn red and the roof is a dull silver. The inside of the
building will be a combination of roller skating and family entertainment center. The majority is the rink, with
bathrooms, birthday party rooms, and there is a large area for an indoor skateboard facility. The 20‟ eve height
was dictated by the tricks and effects that the skateboard facility would use. The spacing of the evergreen and
deciduous trees will help break up the scale of the building. There will be one primary entrance and a secondary
entrance for a hobby shop. There will also be posters on either side of those entrances that will be rotating with
local community events on them.

Mr. Medenbach received some more information today from involved agencies. There were letters from the
Ulster County Youth Bureau, a letter from the Ulster County Sheriff, and a permit from Highway
Superintendent, Wayne Kelder for access onto Mettacahonts Road, and also a letter from the Accord Fire Dept.

The Chairperson noted that the Board contacted some involved agencies, but the Applicant was also asked to
contact the Ulster County Sheriff Dept and the Accord Fire Dept. based on the SEQR review to see if they
could handle the additional community services. Both Departments noted that they would both respond to any
emergency calls received by the Accord Skating Rink.
T/ Rochester Planning Board                          -8-                           October 19, 2004
Minutes of Regular Meeting

CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING
TLB MANAGEMENT CORP. c/o LEONARD & TERRY BERNARDO: (cont’d)- Site Plan Approval for
                                                              36,000 sf roller rink

The Chairperson noted receipt of letter dated October 15, 2004 from Mary Lou Christiana, Esq., Town
Attorney, noting that additional screening was not required per Section 140-20(I) of the Town Code because the
applicant‟s property borders only properties in the business district.

Planner, Nancy Vlahos noted that she appreciated all of the revisions and additional information that
Medenbach & Eggers provided for the project per her letters of review. She then went over her letter of review
of October 18, 2004.

In response to some of Ms. Vlahos‟s comments, Mr. Medenbach noted that the Plans often cross reference with
the EAF.

The Board discussed again the calculations of the amount of parking spaces needed and noted that Ms. Vlahos
would check further into this debate over the difference between the accessory uses and the primary use and the
actual amount of spaces needed per the code. The Board also agreed that they would fill out Part 2 with the
assistance of the Planner at the upcoming workshop meeting.

Ms. Vlahos noted that there were a few items that weren‟t addressed that she felt was important to the Site Plan
review. The major item was for the applicant to provide drainage calculations and a Stormwater Management
Plan.

Mr. Medenbach had a Stormwater Management Plan that he submitted at this meeting.

The second recommendation that Ms. Vlahos noted that was outstanding was for the applicant to make an
erosion and sediment control plan for the Board to review. This would be required by the NYS DEC, but it is
recommended that the Board look at it first. Ms. Vlahos also noted that she had recommended that there be
screening along the rear property line, but this was before the letter from the Town Attorney stating that it
wasn‟t necessary.

Mr. O‟Halloran noted that the Town Attorney specified that it wasn‟t required, not whether or not it should be
requested by the Board.

Ms. Vlahos agreed stating that she felt that there should be some sort of buffer between the rink and the rear
property line.

Mr. Medenbach noted that there is a lot of buffering behind the property now. The space that wraps around the
property is permanent open space from Hidden Forrest Mobile Home Park. The brush has grown up and there
are pine trees that are also maturing on the property. Also with the way the property slopes, much of the
building will be hidden.

Mr. De Graw noted under Section 140-36(C)(2), it calls for off street parking and lighting to be shielded from
neighboring residences.
T/ Rochester Planning Board                           -9-                             October 19, 2004
Minutes of Regular Meeting

CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING
TLB MANAGEMENT CORP. c/o LEONARD & TERRY BERNARDO: (cont’d)- Site Plan Approval for
                                                                                              36,000 sf roller rink
The Chairperson felt that the building shields the parking lot from neighboring properties on the sides and rear,
so that really shouldn‟t be an issue. Lighting is always required to be glare shielded as to not affect neighbors as
well.

Mr. Medenbach believed that the septic systems in the back would also provide for some natural buffering as
the building will be cut into the hill and the septic systems will be about 6‟ higher than the floor of the building
so there will be a little embankment rising up. And the land rises up—there is a hill back there as well. There is
a lot of natural buffering.

Mr. De Graw noted that across the street there are residences as well.

Mr. Medenbach pointed out that there are also businesses across the street as well. There is a horse farm and a
utility trailer place.

Mr. De Graw noted that in the next section of 140-36(C)(3) it states that no building shall be closer than 100‟
from any lot line. The back corner to the rear property line is 61‟. The applicant could go for a variance.

The Chairperson noted that the Board should keep this in mind and move forward with the public hearing. It
may be continued because if the building location had to change it would affect many other aspects and create a
major change to the site plan.

Renee Cohen of Route 209, Accord, was first to speak and was in favor of the project noting how much work
the Bernardo’s have done to benefit the community. This will bring people to the community to spend money
and this will be a great family activity.

Gloria Finger of Lawrence Hill Road, Accord noted that she has been in the area long enough to remember the
old skating rink and remembers how much fun she had and how much it meant for her to have a safe
environment. It enhanced her social life and believed that this rink will tremendously enhance the businesses
along Route 209. She complimented the Bernardo’s for all of their work in the community.

Andy Aitken of Bakertown Road has lived in the community for 20 years and uses Mettacahonts Road to get to
his home. He looks forward to the project noting that it will be tastefully done. Mr. Aitken was employed as a
probation officer for 20 year and he knows the importance for recreation centers for youth to keep them out of
trouble.

Bob Warner of Kyserike Road was next to speak and read a letter on behalf of him and his wife. They have
known the Bernardo’s for 3 years and they have spoken about opening a rink in the area since they’ve known
each other. This isn’t a whim for them. This will be positive for the area and great for kids and an opportunity
for local employment.

Julie Bowman of Story Hill in Kerhonkson believed that this should be the last public hearing because the kids
in the Town need this recreation.
T/ Rochester Planning Board                            -10-                            October 19, 2004
Minutes of Regular Meeting

CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING
TLB MANAGEMENT CORP. c/o LEONARD & TERRY BERNARDO: (cont’d)- Site Plan Approval for
                                                              36,000 sf roller rink


Jennifer Smith of Whitfield Road agreed that this will be positive for the Children in the area. The Statistics
show troubled kids at a young age.

Susanne Hilary from Kerhonkson noted that she has two children who are looking forward to the rink
immensely. The Bernardo’s are bringing such a gift to the community. She noted that there was an ugly storage
unit across the street while this rink will be so beneficial for the kids and the area. She felt it was frustrating for
herself and the Bernardo’s to have this held up again.

Lifetime resident Chris Kelder noted that this was a great thing, nothing but positive and needed to be passed.
The Planning Board has a responsibility to the tax payers, but also has responsibility to the business man who
is applying and trying to everything he can to spend money in this Town. The Board needed to help him with
this, not sit at the table and tell him no repeatedly. He then questioned if Ms. Vlahos has ever been to the actual
site. Judging by the questions she asked at this meeting he didn’t believe that she did her homework.

40 year resident Mary Lee is a Youth Advocate, a retired school teacher, and very involved in the Youth
Commission. She noted how much this will mean to the youth of the area. There is very little right now. The
Community Center has been a great asset but the Town needs more. She hoped the Board would move forward
with this application.

Life long resident Gordy Bell felt this was very positive, he realized that this was a huge project and there was a
lot of responsibility on the Board to review this, but he didn’t think that there was one Board member that was
against the project.

Resident Shane Ricks noted that he was the owner of the ugly storage buildings that were mentioned earlier. He
also noted that he owned 25% of the bounding property and he had no objections to the skating rink going up.

Resident Wayne Kelder knew that the Board has a responsibility, but they shouldn’t keep the Public Hearing
should be held open. He felt this part of the process was done and the Board should move on. He understood
that these things take time, but the applicant has been held up quite a while. He is very much in support of the
project.

There was no further comment from the public. The Chairperson noted that it was nice to see so many people in
support of an application.

Mr. De Graw looked further into the regulations and the section 140-36(C) and questioned Mr. Bernardo if the
zone for the area was business? Not agricultural? The section that he read about the 100‟ setback he is seeing it
under the Special Use Permit section and this application is for a Site Plan Approval. Mr. De Graw felt that the
Board should get clarification.
T/ Rochester Planning Board                           -11-                           October 19, 2004
Minutes of Regular Meeting

CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING
TLB MANAGEMENT CORP. c/o LEONARD & TERRY BERNARDO: (cont’d)- Site Plan Approval for
                                                              36,000 sf roller rink

Mr. Medenbach noted that the Board shouldn‟t need to get clarification as this application is in the „B‟ District
and is clearly up for Site Plan Approval. Any conditions for a Special Use Permit wouldn‟t apply.

Ms. Vlahos agreed that those requirements were not applicable as this was a Site Plan Approval not Special Use
Permit.

The Chairperson noted that letters received will go on record. They are a September 1, 2004 letter from Alan
Levine commenting on the project, on October 19, 2004 comments from Scott Durkin were received. The
Board also received a letter from October 18, 2004 from the Ulster County Youth Bureau.

Mr. O‟Halloran questioned at what age were children allowed to be dropped off and left at the rink by their
parents?

Mr. Bernardo noted that there is no age—it is really up to the responsibility to the parent and the individual
running the facility. An example of that would be an artistic skating class. They are coming there to learn, so
there may be children as young as 6 years of age that would be dropped off. They would be under supervised
conditions. Just for free skating—kids can be dropped off from age 7 and up. The rink has to have the correct
amount of skate guards per a certain amount of children. There will be a sign in and out sheet for parents who
drop their kids off. There are other ways to approach this also, if parents know that they are dropping off their
kids, there could be color coded t-shirts if they know they are dropping their kids off. Skate guards will be a big
factor in supervising kids.

The Chairperson noted that as there are no substantial changes to the site plan, it is not necessary to leave the
Public Hearing open.

At 8:45 PM Mr. O'Halloran motioned to close the Public Hearing seconded by Mr. Gaydos. All members
present in favor. No discussion.


CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING
LARAINE CALIRI-    subdivision/ lot line adjustment, Kirby Lane Private Road off of Kyserike Road,
                   High Falls, Tax Map #77.2-2-9.111, R-1 District

The Chairperson called Ms. Caliri forward for her Public Hearing at 9:00PM.

Mr. Ricks came also came back to the Board at 9:00PM.

Chairperson Carney noted that because Ms. Caliri has consistently returned month after month with maps that
were still incomplete she had spoken to her surveyor, Bruce La Monda. Mr. Lamonda agreed that the
Chairperson could mark up a map at the meeting with the appropriate markings and layout for what Ms. Caliri
is trying to achieve. She also noted that notices went out to involved agencies and the Secretary had received a
T/ Rochester Planning Board                -12-                                       October 19, 2004
Minutes of Regular Meeting
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING
LARAINE CALIRI:(cont’d)-    subdivision/ lot line adjustment

phone call from Mrs. Cross, the Chair to the Town‟s Historic Commission noting that the property was in close
proximity to an historic property but, was aware that there was only one new lot being proposed and she didn‟t
believe it would cause any impact. The Ulster County Health Dept. also sent a letter noting that they had no
objections to the project.

The Chairperson opened the Hearing up to the Public. There was no public comment.

At this time Chairperson Carney marked up a map for Ms. Caliri to take back to her surveyor to give him a
better idea of what the Board was requiring.

At 9:10PM Mr. Gaydos motioned to close the Public Hearing, seconded by Chairperson Carney. All
members present and in favor.

The Board instructed Ms. Caliri to have the map revised per the Board‟s revisions, to get her Road Maintenance
Agreement done, and to follow through on the Health Dept. Approval. If Ms. Caliri‟s maps were ready for the
next meeting, she should submit them so the Board could review them.

ZBA ADVISORY REQUEST
JOHN GRAY- 2‟ Area Variance for fence height, Queens Hwy, Kerhonkson, Tax Map #68.4-6-11, R-2 Zone

Mr. Gray was present and explained his reasons for his request. He explained that they wanted to get sanctuary
from Queens Highway. Cars travel very fast on this road and there is a lot of dust and litter. There are children
that live at the house and children that visit and they can‟t really enjoy the whole front section of their property.
They had a dog get hit by a car there also. He believes that the Variance would allow for the 6‟ high fence and
this would better protect from all of the factors Mr. Gray listed. The fence would be 6‟ high and extend the
frontage of the property and go two lengths back on the sides. He believed he had 80-100‟ of frontage. It would
be a solid spruce fence. It is definitely placed far enough back from the road so that there is adequate site line
for cars to be able to enter and exit the property safely. It is a horseshoe driveway and snow removal and site
distance was all carefully taken into consideration in placing the fence.

Mr. Ricks motioned for a favorable advisory, seconded by Mr. O’Halloran. Mr. Tapper recused himself
from the Application as he felt that he lived too close to the property in question. All members present, in
favor. No discussion.
T/ Rochester Planning Board        -13-                           October 19, 2004
Minutes of Regular Meeting
CONTINUED APPLICATION REVIEW
TAROH HOLDINGS, c/o DAVID O’HALLORAN- 6 lot subdivision, to be known as Water Falls
                                      Estates, Water Falls Road, Kerhonkson, Tax Map
                                      # 68.3-1-52, „A‟ District

Mr. Tapper rejoined the Board and Mr. O’Halloran recused himself as this was his application.

Mr. O‟Halloran noted that he had received Conditional Preliminary Approval in January of this year and has
met every condition, but the Road Maintenance Agreement. It had been reviewed by the Town Attorney and all
he had to do now was to revise it and it could be signed by the Town Board. He also presented a letter from
Wayne Kelder, Highway Superintendent dated October 19, 2004 stating that the road at the subdivision, Water
Falls Estates, was completed and in compliance with the Town Code.

Mr. Gaydos motioned for Conditional Final Approval and giving the Chairperson the authority to sign
the maps once the Road Maintenance Agreement is signed by the Town Board. Mr. Ricks seconded the
motion. All members present, in favor. No discussion.

ACTION ON MINUTES OF MEETING
Mr. O'Halloran rejoined the meeting.

Mr. Gaydos motioned to accept the minutes of August 24, 2004 and September 21, 2004 as submitted.
Mr. O'Halloran seconded the motion. All members present in favor, no discussion.

Mr. Gaydos motioned to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Mr. O’Halloran. All members present in
favor. No discussion.

As there was no further business to discuss, Chairperson Carney adjourned the meeting at 9:30PM.

                                                          Respectfully submitted,


                                                          Rebecca Paddock Stange
                                                          Secretary

								
To top