TOWN OF JEWETT PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 1, 2018 Agenda Item 1: The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. Roll Call: Chair: Greg Kroyer Present: Donna Bernard, JoAnne DeLong, Paul LaPierre, and Marianne Romito Also present was Town Board Liaison to the Planning Board, Councilman Michael B. McCrary and Councilman JR Quackenbush Agenda Item 2: Approval of the Minutes of October 4, 2018 Mr. LaPierre made the motion to accept the minutes of October 4, 2018 as amended. Ms. Bernard seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Agenda Item 3: Report by Town Board Liaison Michael B. McCrary Councilman McCrary said that he had nothing to report this month. Agenda Item 4: Public Hearing for Martin Schmidt of Kaaterskill Engineering (KE) representing Robert and Joan Ma for a Minor Subdivision for property located at 765 County Route 40 (Maplecrest Road), Tax Parcel ID No. 113.00-4-4, Rural Residential Zoning, on 21.95 +/- acres Mr. Schmidt returned the posting sign. Two months ago the Public hearing was set for this evening, and the Board had completed Part Two of the EAF and given it a preliminary Negative Declaration. Mr. Schmidt spoke to the Code Enforcement Officer, Mr. Carl Giangrande, who visited the site to confirm that the Studio did indeed meet the requirements for a residence, and he was able to issue a temporary Certificate of Occupancy (C of O) for it. Mr. Schmidt was issued a Building Permit as part of this process. Although there was no construction, the Building Permit was required for the conversion of the studio to a single-family residence. A temporary C of O allows the Board to move forward with the application. A final C of O will be issued at the completion of the entire process. Mr. Schmidt said Kaaterskill Engineering (KE) received a letter back from Cynthia Garcia of the DEP, and her concern was whether Lot One was connected into the Lot Two septic system. In 2003, KE did a septic system design for the studio for which Mr. Schmidt brought a 9×11 copy. He showed the existing septic system on their subdivision plat, and DEP wanted them to set aside a one hundred percent (100%) reserved septic for the main house. They have shown the approximate area for the existing septic for the main house, which is a pre-existing, non-conforming septic system; the reserve septic field will allow new installation should the existing septic ever fail. He provided several forms as the owner’s representative – the notice of mailing, notice of sign posting, and the certified receipts, which he handed to Mrs. Romito to review. He said they were sent on the 16th of October. Mrs. Romito counted fifteen that were sent out and four that did not come back. Mr. Schmidt said that he believes he has met all the requirements of the Planning Board. Mr. Kroyer requested a motion to declare Lead Agency status for this unlisted action. Ms. Bernard so moved, and Mr. LaPierre seconded the motion, which was subjected to a Roll Call Vote: Ms. Bernard – aye; Ms. DeLong – aye; Mr. LaPierre – aye; and Mrs. Romito – aye. Mr. Kroyer requested a motion to open the Public Hearing. Mr. LaPierre made the motion, Ms. DeLong seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. At 8:00 p.m. Mr. Kroyer declared the Public Hearing open for this matter. Seeing no public present, Mr. Kroyer requested a motion to close the public hearing. Mr. LaPierre so motioned; the motion was seconded by Mrs. Romito, and carried unanimously at 8:15 p.m. Agenda Item 5: Martin Schmidt of Kaaterskill Engineering (KE) representing Robert and Joan Ma for Minor Subdivision – property located at 765 County Route 40 (Maplecrest Road), Tax Parcel ID No. 113.00-4-4, Rural Residential Zoning, on 21.95 +/- acres Mr. Kroyer said that all requirements had been satisfied, and asked whether any Board members had heard anything to change their minds regarding the preliminary Neg Dec. No one had. He said he would entertain a motion to declare a Negative Declaration. Ms. Bernard so moved; Mr. LaPierre seconded the motion, and it was subjected to a Roll Call Vote: Ms. Bernard – aye; Ms. DeLong – aye; Mr. LaPierre – aye; and Mrs. Romito – aye. Mr. Kroyer asked Mrs. Epstein to send the Neg Dec letter to the DEP. He said that Mr. Giangrande has authorized a temporary C of O for this studio. Basically now it is considered a residence, so that is no longer an issue. He said that if the application for Minor Subdivision is appoved then Mr. Schmidt can apply for the final C of O. Mr. Kroyer entertained a motion to approve the application for a Minor Subdivision for Robert and Joan Ma, parcel ID No. 113.00-4-4. Ms. Bernard made the motion, Mr. LaPierre seconded the motion, and it was subject to a Roll Call Vote: Ms. Bernard – aye; Ms. DeLong – aye; Mr. LaPierre – aye; and Mrs. Romito – aye. Mr. Kroyer asked Mrs. Epstein to fill out and provide a Decision paper to the applicant, and then asked Mr. Schmidt to leave a plat for the file. Mr. Schmidt asked Mr. Kroyer to sign the plats, but Mr. Kroyer said he will sign them when Mr. Schmidt provides a signature box for him to do so. Mr. Schmidt said he could provide that by next Wednesday. Mr. Kroyer said that in the future applicants would provide the Board with two signed copies after the County had stamped the copies; this way the Board can insure that the plats are filed with the County. One plat will be filed with Mrs. Epstein, and the other with Mrs. Bower. Agenda Item 6: Report from Greene County Planning Board representative Cyndi LaPierre Mr. LaPierre proceeded to read the report to the Planning Board Members. In the Town of Catskill, a use and area variance was presented to construct a fifty-unit resort on property owned by the Catskill Golf Course. The GCPB recommended a local decision, but commented that in some cases an alternative method may be found. After a review of Town Zoning requirements and the proposed use, a ZBA may interpret the use to be subordinate to the principal use of the land or building and may allow the proposal as an accessory use, requiring a use variance or zoning amendment for the project to succeed. This four-story building has regional support. Also in the Town of Catskill an area variance was sought for a shed for a landscaping business at the corner of Vosenkill Road and US Route 9W. GCPB approved this with the recommendation to landscape for appearance. A setback issue exists with a ten by ten foot shed being used as an office. The Village of Catskill has placed a moratorium within a portion of the village toward development southwest of Main and Bridge Streets, and west of Green Street for an initial period of six months, which may be extended by resolution of the Village Board. Single-family homes on existing lots and repairs to existing structures are exempted. The reason is that recent studies show a need to look at brownfields and flooding, thus needing to stop and get a comprehensive plan and review of zoning regulations done. In the Town of Greenville, a zoning amendment has been proposed regarding additional regulations for large commercial scale solar facilities to the town’s zoning law. These would limit the area of such facilities to twenty-five acres, and provide guidance for materials, setbacks, signage, lighting, access and fencing. Commercial solar facilities are not allowed in the Hamlet districts. GCBP recommended this as a local decision. In the Town of Catskill, there was an application for a Special Use Permit for a sixty-unit RV park campsite on one hundred and four acres off Cairo Junction Road a mile from Route 23 going west. The owner uniquely provides the RV unit. Visitors rent the RV for one to seven nights, and it is cleaned and maintained by the campground staff for the visitor. It is served by a central water system, and a wastewater treatment system will be located on site. The project will need NYSDOH and DEP approval. GCPB recommended approval. In the Town of Coxsackie, there were minor changes to a previously referred Zoning amendment adding provisions for the regulation of solar facilities. GCPB said this does not materially change what was previously approved. Regarding the Ellen Rettus Planning Achievement Awards, Bonnie Blader and the Lexington Broadband Initiative are being recognized for their successful efforts to obtain broadband coverage through the New York State Broadband Initiative funding within the Town of Lexington. Don and Patricia Gibson have worked for several years with volunteers and local, county and state officials to site, fund, and construct three soccer fields in the Town of Cairo. With over four hundred children signed up in the youth soccer program, the new fields at the corner of Mountain Avenue and Volunteer Drive will see tournaments and competitions for youth from all over New York State. The Cairo Development Foundation will also receive an award for its efforts to revitalize the Town of Cairo. Agenda Item 8: Other Business Mr. Kroyer and Highway Superintendent, Mr. Mallory met with Russ Coloton to view the Hunter Mountain Expansion project. Excellent progress has been made. They took a ride up, and saw the new culvert and the new access road, which is both in Jewett and Hunter. All is fairly completed, and the parking area and pedestrian bridge look fantastic. The lift is under construction. The planned improvements to Deming Road will occur at the very end after most of the construction traffic is over. They plan to have it open sometime in December, and their permit is good until February 1st. They are also going to pave Deming Road from the bridge to Route 23A. Mr. Kroyer feels really good about the project, he said. They are still waiting on the DOT with the speed limit change on the road. It has rained a total of four feet since they started working on the project so it has been quite a challenge. The Town of Jewett Planning Board received a thank you note from Alana and Kevin Kulesa on their project. The note was read to the Board and then was placed in the file. Ms. Bernard commented that the Planning Board had these two very big projects this year that people will be looking at for many years, and said what a great job had been done by all the Planning Board Members. Mr. Kroyer, Mr. Quackenbush, and Mr. McCrary had been working on the Jewett and Lexington extension of the Mountain Cloves Scenic Byway and will be presenting the material at the West Kill Community Center on November 15th at 6:30 p.m. There is a joint committee with Lexington, and it is proposing to extend the Mountain Cloves Scenic Byway on Route 23A and also on Route 23C in connection with the Town of Lexington. Contrary to people’s concerns, the Scenic Byway wouldn’t add anything in terms of taxes, or stop any projects. On the larger, type 1 actions, one would have to include the information on the long-form EAF, but it does not supersede any of our current zoning laws. Mr. LaPierre asked about a business that would not necessarily be a scenic asset. Mr. Kroyer noted the Dollar Store in Hunter was approved along the Scenic Corridor and Mr. Schmidt said that small towns have the power to establish the appearance of such things. Mr. Kroyer said that development can occur along the Scenic Byway. Mr. Schmidt thought it was an additional regulation that engineers and planners have to work with from the other side of the table. Mr. LaPierre wondered who oversaw the Scenic Byways. Mr. Kroyer said that a private not-for-profit maintained the web site, and Mr. McCrary noted that it is the Planning Boards that have the authority to oversee development projects in any town. Ms. Bernard wondered whether any coordinated project along Routes 23A and 23C would now require notifying DOT because of the Scenic Byway. Mr. Schmidt said that if the Board had an application for a driveway, or something that normally requires DOT review, it would notify them in the usual way, so the process would go on as usual, whether there was a Scenic Byway or not. Mr. Quackenbush said the original proposal was to extend the Scenic Byway on 23A and then they proposed 23C as well because that better represents Jewett. Lexington will also propose to add their part of 23C down to Airport Road. These proposals create one continuous loop. Mr. Schmidt thought that not every project should require a coordinated review, as in this particular subdivision, wherein he already has DEP approved septic systems, and the thirty-day wait for DEP’s response to Jewett’s declaration of intent to be Lead Agency held his process up by a month. It was noted that town code requires the Board to proceed on the SEQRA in a certain manner, yet Mr. Kroyer said he would give full future consideration to the point being raised by Mr. Schmidt. Mr. Kroyer said that he had placed a Voucher form in the folder for each member, and that this is the time of year to turn that in. Mrs. Epstein has to turn in the attendance sheet for the year, and next month the Board will review the monthly meeting dates for 2019, which need to be published as a legal ad in the newspaper. Snow dates will be published also. The next monthly meeting of the Planning Board will be held December 6, 2018 at 7:30 p.m. and there will be a Public Hearing for Carlos Clark Thompkins for a Minor Subdivision. Mr. Kroyer called for a motion to adjourn the meeting. Mr. LaPierre motioned to adjourn the meeting. Ms. Bernard seconded the motion to adjourn the meeting, and it carried unanimously at 8:34 p.m. Respectfully, Susan H. Epstein, Clerk ____________________________ Gregory Kroyer, Chair
Added: November 06, 2018
TOWN OF JEWETT PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 4, 2018 Agenda Item 1: The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. Roll Call: Chair: Greg Kroyer Present: Donna Bernard, JoAnne DeLong, Paul LaPierre, and Marianne Romito Also present was Town Board Liaison to the Planning Board, Michael McCrary. Agenda Item 2: Approval of the Minutes of September 6, 2018 Mr. LaPierre made the motion to accept the minutes of September 6, 2018 as amended. Ms. DeLong seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Agenda Item 3: Report by Town Board Liaison Michael B. McCrary Councilman McCrary said that a representative for the Catskill Center Streamside Acquisition Program offered a presentation to the Town Board. He suggested it would be a more appropriate presentation for the Planning Board, because the Planning Board will oversee issues that may arise, unless the acquisition lies within a hamlet, when the Town Board has to opt in. Ms. Bernard inquired about this, and Mr. McCrary said that requirement was part of Jewett Town Law, so she noted they would have to be notified first. Mr. Kroyer asked the Board whether they thought this was a good idea, and the Board agreed that it was. Mr. Kroyer said that he would arrange the presentation. Agenda Item 4: Owen Samuelsen for a Sketch Plan Conference for a Boundary Lot Line Adjustment for Tax Parcel ID Nos. 146.00-3-21 and 146.00-3-9 Mr. Samuelsen appeared for a Sketch Plan Conference in regard to a Boundary Lot Line Adjustment, which he needs to install a swimming pool. The proposed plan is too close to the property line for the fifty-foot (50’) setback. He owns both parcels of land; approximately one-tenth (.1) acre of land, more or less, will be transferred between his properties. He brought a group of photos from the Greene County GIS Website to illustrate via shaded area where the pool will go. A spring feeds his house. He has a proposal from Mr. Vanucchi for doing the survey. Mr. Giangrande, the Code Enforcement Officer, referred Mr. Samuelsen to come before the Planning Board. Mr. Samuelsen has sketched the placement of his pool fifty-feet (50’) out and fifty-feet (50’) in from the setback. When finished, the pool will be fifty-feet (50’) from the setback. He decided that one-tenth (.1) acre would be sufficient, but if needful, it can be adjusted to twelve hundredths (.12) or more. Mr. Samuelsen said that one property is five and one tenth (5.1) acres, and the other five (5.0) acres, and the amount of acreage will just switch. Mr. Kroyer understands that Mr. Samuelsen would like to start work before the freeze. Mr. Samuelsen said that he has an opening with a contractor to do the work. Mr. Kroyer had spoken to Mr. Giangrande, and believes he would give a conditional building permit until the Boundary Lot Line Approval comes from the Planning Board. Ms. Bernard asked about wetlands on the property. Mr. Samuelsen said that the pool location is the highest point on the property, which used to be a cow pasture. Ms. Bernard said the issue comes up on the National Wetlands Registry. Mr. Samuelsen pointed out the wet areas of seasonal runoff, but noted that they are not located in the vicinity of the pool. Ms. Bernard noted the property lies within the Rural Conservation Zoning District. Mr. Kroyer asked for the Board’s opinion, and all thought it a simple minor adjustment between two properties that are both owned by Mr. Samuelsen. Mr. LaPierre wondered if that “little jog” in the property line would create problems for anybody else down the road, but the Board thought not. Mr. Kroyer summarized that informally the Board agreed that the idea is feasible, but that it needs to see the survey next. He invited Mr. Samuelsen to have Mr. Vanucchi call him if there are questions to work out. Mr. Kroyer asked about Mr. Samuelsen’s application, but it was misplaced. Mr. Kroyer suggested that Mr. Samuelsen bring that next month along with his fee and the survey. Mr. Kroyer said that he would remain in touch with Mr. Giangrande during the process, and Mr. Samuelsen will tentatively be placed on the agenda for the November 1st meeting. Agenda Item 5: Public Hearing for Alana and Kevin Kulesa for Adena Orchard & Vine, LLC/Judith Kuperstein for a public hearing for a Special Use– Tax Parcel ID Nos. 110.00-6-6 and Tax Parcel ID No. 111.00-1-54 Mr. Kroyer spoke on the concerns DEP held concerning the existence of a private deed covenant. He had the letter expressing the concerns discussed at the last meeting; the biggest issue was the existence of a private deed covenant and the right-of-way. He spoke with Cynthia Garcia (of the DEP), and told her what Jewett’s town attorney had said upon reviewing it, including the right-of-way and the fact that there are no impervious surfaces. He invited her to call him at any time with any questions. He said that the Planning Board had no concerns last month when it took an informal poll, and he feels that his conversation with Ms. Garcia clarified any future issues. Mr. Kroyer asked Mr. Kulesa for the applications and fees he had brought. He provided the Application for the Special Use Permit and the fee. Mr.Kroyer gave Mrs. Romito the mailing receipts to check, and passed the check for the Special Use Permit to Mrs. Epstein, who said that the last time he appeared before the Board, Mr. Kulesa had paid for Site Plan Approval and Special Use Sketch Plan Review. Ms. Kayla Thompson, a neighbor, came in for the Public Hearing. Mr. Kroyer asked for a motion to declare Lead Agency status for this unlisted action. Ms. Bernard so motioned, Mr. LaPierre seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Ms. Bernard said that for the minutes we had reviewed the SEQRA Parts One and Two informally. Mr. Kroyer asked for a motion to open the Public Hearing. Mr. LaPierre so moved, and Ms. Bernard seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. The Public Hearing opened at 7:55 p.m. Mr. Kroyer said he had a letter from one of the adjoining property owners, a Mr. Paul R. Ronsetti. He is the owner of 718 Merwin Street, and would like to be placed on the record as being in favor of the Special Use Permit submitted by Alana and Kevin Kulesa of Adena Orchard and Vine, LLC. The letter was placed in the file. Mr. Kroyer asked whether anyone was present at the Public Hearing to speak, and Ms. Thompson said that she was just there to learn what was going on. She is a neighbor on Tower Mountain Road. Mr. Kulesa described the plans that his wife and he have for the property. They want to do small wedding and tent weddings, and they had bought the neighbor’s barn to add to their capacity. The barn can hold up to ninety-nine people. Ms. Thompson asked if they have an orchard or a vineyard there. Mr. Kulesa answered that they have the idea that for the couples who marry there a tree will be planted, and that he makes wine. To the Public, Mr. Kroyer explained that the Planning Board would give Mr. Kulesa the Special Use Permit with several conditions that will help them to be good neighbors. He asked whether anyone else had anything to say; no one did. Mr. Kroyer called for a motion to close the Public Hearing. Mr. LaPierre so moved, and Ms. DeLong seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. The Public Hearing closed at 8:10 p.m. Mr. Kroyer asked the membership whether anyone had heard anything to make them change their minds with regard to the Negative Declaration; no one had. He said he would entertain a motion to declare a Negative Declaration. Ms. Bernard so moved, Mrs. Romito seconded the motion, and it was subject to a Role Call Vote: Ms. Bernard – aye; Ms. DeLong – aye; Mr. LaPierre – aye; and Mrs. Romito – aye. The Neg Dec was passed to Mrs. Epstein to sign, and she will send to DEP. Mr. Kroyer said the next step for this application is to formally entertain the motion for a Site Plan Approval for Adena Orchard & Vine, LLC/Judith Kuperstein. Mr. LaPierre so moved, Ms. Bernard seconded the motion, and it was subjected to a Role Call Vote: Ms. Bernard – aye; Ms. DeLong – aye; Mr. LaPierre – aye; and Mrs. Romito – aye. Ms. Epstein filled out the Decision paper for this action, and made copies for the file, Mr. Kulesa, and Mr. Kroyer. Mr. Kroyer called for a motion to formally approve the Application for Special Use Permit for a Commercial Event Venue for Adena Orchard & Vine, LLC/Judith Kuperstein. Ms. Bernard so moved, Mr. LaPierre seconded the motion, and it was subjected to a Role Call Vote: Ms. Bernard – aye; Ms. DeLong – aye; Mr. LaPierre – aye; and Mrs. Romito – aye. The Decision papers were filled out. Mr. Kulesa was given his copies. Mr. Kroyer complimented Mr. Kulesa on the completion of his process, and advised him not to use the barn for Wedding Venues until he receives approval from Mr. Giangrande. Mr. Kroyer gave Mr. Kulesa his two special use permits, stating that the applicant shall comply with all of the provisions set for in the code of the Commercial Events Venue. Agenda Item 6: Rob Allison from the Catskill Regional Surveying Services, P.C. representing Carlos Clark Tompkins for a Minor Subdivision for Tax Parcel ID No. 129.00-5-36 Mr. Kroyer said the Board should give its full focus to Mr. Rob Allison who is representing Carlos Clark Tompkins for a Minor Subdivision for Tax Parcel ID No. 129.00-5-36 up on Rice Street in the Town of Jewett for the purpose of a Streamside Acquisition. Mr. Allison brought with him the letter of representation, the survey contract, the Application for Minor Subdivision, the Subdivision Sketch Plan Application, and the survey maps. Mr. Allison said there is a contract on file in the County Clerk’s Office for this Streamside Acquisition. The maps were spread out for review. Mr. Kroyer noted the back piece that is going to the DEP. The Streamside Acquisition will receive nine and eight-tenths (9.8) acres, and Mr. Tompkins will keep eighteen and thirteen-hundredths acres (18.13), for twenty-seven and ninety-three hundredths (27.93) acres total. Mr. Allison said that the Catskill Regional Surveying Services, P.C. is a small surveying company operating in Fleischman’s for twenty years, and they employ nine people. He said they have worked for the DEP for years and they do a lot of farms, primarily Conservation Easements for the Conservation Ag Council. Mr. Allison pointed out key areas on the map: existing features, the area to be subdivided, the modular house, garage, shed, old barn, and well. Ms. Bernard noted the Zoning District is Rural Residential. He has submitted the applications and the EAF; on the EAF will be the EAF mapper claiming wetlands on the property. They have scaled the topography out to twenty-foot (20’) contours. Mr. Allison pointed out a little strip of property that will be retained by the applicant. The house property will still has separate access down to the stream, about thirty-feet wide. They have also provided all their research notes on the plat, which he said makes it easier once it is filed if people need to reference anything. They keep that information in their file, share it with people, and the owners really appreciate it. Ms. Bernard noted that this is a re-subdivision of an existing subdivision; by Jewett law, this could require a new road, but that won’t be needed. A beautiful road already exists and this is a Streamside Acquisition. Mr. Kroyer said that Mr. Allison is well prepared. He has all the necessary information, and has provided a check for the Sketch Plan Review, but not one for the Subdivision Application. Mr. Allison asked whether they needed to get a driveway permit and soil tests. Mr. Kroyer answered that Jewett will not require a driveway permit because there is no new driveway planned and they do not need soil tests because there is no disturbance planned. They are basically creating a vacant lot. Mr. Allison has already prepared the list of adjoining property owners. Mr. Kroyer already had the materials for sign posting to give Mr. Allison, and he informed him of the procedures required by Jewett, noting that the sign must be posted visibly from the road. Mr. Kroyer said the Board would accept the Application for Sketch Plan Review tonight, but that the Public Hearing for the Minor Subdivision would have to wait until December given the thirty-day waiting period to hear back from the DEP regarding Lead Agency status. Mr. Allison provided a completed Part One of the SEQRA. The only question assigned a “yes” response was No.13a regarding wetlands, but there will be no disturbance. Mr. Kroyer said the Board would review Part Two of the SEQRA preliminarily, too. He gave the material to Mr. LaPierre to read aloud. The SEQRA was given an informal Negative Declaration pending further information to come before the Board at the Public Hearing, planned for December. Mr. Kroyer said he would entertain a motion to set the Public Hearing date for December 6th, 2018 at 8:00 p.m. Ms. Bernard so moved, Mr. LaPierre seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. Mr. Kroyer asked Mrs. Epstein if she would get the letter to DEP regarding Jewett’s intention to declare itself Lead Agency in the mail by next Tuesday; she promised she would. Agenda Item 7: Report from Greene County Planning Board representative Cyndi LaPierre Mr. LaPierre said that there was no meeting of the Greene County Planning Board last month. Agenda Item 8: Other Business Talk turned to the Hunter Mountain construction off of Deming Road. Ms. Bernard wondered whether they would complete Jewett’s part of the project before their Special Use Permit deadline. Mr. Kroyer said that they have until February. The next monthly meeting of the Planning Board will be held November 1, 2018 at 7:30 p.m. and there will be a Public Hearing for the Robert and Joan Ma. Mr. Kroyer called for a motion to adjourn the meeting. Mr. LaPierre motioned to adjourn the meeting. Ms. Bernard seconded the motion to adjourn the meeting, and it carried unanimously at 8:52 p.m. Respectfully, Susan H. Epstein, Clerk ____________________________ Gregory Kroyer, Chair
Added: October 06, 2018
Agenda Item 1: The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m.
Roll Call: Chair: Greg Kroyer
Present: Donna Bernard, JoAnne DeLong, Paul LaPierre, and Marianne Romito
Also present was Town Board Liaison to the Planning Board, Michael McCrary.
Agenda Item 2: Approval of the Minutes of August 2, 2018
Ms. Bernard made the motion to accept the minutes of August 2, 2018 as amended. Mr. LaPierre seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Agenda Item 3: Report by Town Board Liaison Michael B. McCrary
Councilman McCrary noted that the Town Board is still waiting for the Commercial Events Venue law to be posted on the New York State Department of State website. The current application for the Commercial Events Venue will still move forward, because the Town of Jewett has already approved the law.
Agenda Item 4: Martin Schmidt of Kaaterskill Engineering (KE) representing Robert and Joan Ma for Sketch Plan Conference – property located at 765 County Route 40 (Maplecrest Road), Tax Parcel ID No. 113.00-4-4, Rural Residential Zoning, on 21.95 +/- acres
Mr. Schmidt arrived with the Authorization Letter to represent Robert and Joan Ma, new maps, an Application for Subdivision Sketch Plan Review, an Application for Minor Subdivision, two checks, the proof of school district, and a short form EAF.
Mr. Kroyer said that Mr. Schmidt had earlier provided photographs of the “shed” that was discussed last month. The Building Inspector Carl Giangrande and Mr. Kroyer had reviewed the photos. They concluded that the shed was a lumber rack that was ten feet by fourteen feet (10’ x 14’) with a plywood top. There is no foundation, no record of it in the assessor’s office, and the owner will be retaining both parcels in this subdivision.
Mr. Schmidt said that he was able to maintain thirty-one feet from the lumber rack to the property line using the fifty-foot (50’) setback rule. He was also able to meet the two and a half (2.5) acre minimum parcel size. The parcels will contain nineteen and thirty-six hundredths acres for the larger parcel, and two and fifty-four hundredths acres for the smaller parcel. The road frontage for each parcel exceeds 200′.
Mr. Kroyer said that Mr. Schmidt will need to apply for a Certificate of Occupancy (C of O) for a residence for the studio building. Mr. Schmidt said that last month he had understood that he would not be able to get the C of O until the lot had been subdivided. Mr. Kroyer said that the Planning Board would resolve that with the condition that the C of O be obtained once the property was subdivided.
Mr. Giangrande will need to review the property prior to the November meeting. Mr. Kroyer noted that the Studio already has a Certificate of Compliance in addition to it’s own well and septic system.
Mr. Kroyer said that the Planning Board lacks the thirty-day time frame to get a return letter from the DEP regarding its acceptance of the Jewett Planning Board as Lead Agency. He asked Mrs. Epstein if she could get the Lead Agency letter out Monday, and she promised to do that. Ms. Bernard commented that this application is tied up all nice and neat.
Mr. Kroyer asked Mr. Schmidt to review part one of the SEQRA with the Planning Board members.
Mr. Kroyer then asked Mr. LaPierre to read Part Two of the SEQRA for the Board’s preliminary findings, and each question was answered to meet small or no impact. Ms. Bernard suggested Mr. Kroyer not sign it yet, but keep the SEQRA in the file ready to go.
The Planning Board set the date for the Public Hearing for November 1st at 8:00 p.m. Ms. Bernard suggested October 18th as the date for the mailing and sign posting. Mr. Kroyer gave Mr. Schmidt the posting materials that he would need for the Public Hearing. Mr. Schmidt inquired about the location for the sign and Mr. Kroyer answered to post it visibly near the corner.
That was the end of Mr. Schmidt’s time for tonight, and he will return for the November meeting.
Agenda Item 5: Alana and Kevin Kulesa for Adena Orchard & Vine for Sketch Plan Conference – Tax Parcel ID No. 110.00-6-6 and Tax Parcel ID No. 111.00-1-54
Mr. Kroyer provided an emailed copy of the DEP letter in the Planning Board folders. DEP stated that it did not object to the Town of Jewett Planning Board acting as Lead Agency for the Coordinated Review of the proposed action pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). The Board noted that the caterers will use paper plates, and all dirty dishes and other items will be put in bins to be removed from the property and cleaned elsewhere. There will be no dishes done on site. There will be no impervious surface, much less within one hundred feet (100’) of a stream.
The DEP stated that it owns the private road, which serves as the road access for Tax Map ID No. 111.0-1-54 as a Right of Way, and that the other parcel, Tax Map ID No. 110.00-6-6 does not share this privilege. The Board thought Mr. Kulesa needs only access to his barn through the right of way.
The DEP also mentioned the existence of Deed restrictions which the Planning Board concluded are not enforceable by the Municipality.
The Board decided to do a preliminary review of Part Two of the SEQRA subject to further information gathered at the upcoming Public Hearing in October. Mr. LaPierre read the SEQRA aloud, and the Board gave it a preliminary negative declaration.
Ms. Bernard noted the legal ad should be placed in the papers by the 23rd of September for the 4th of October.
Agenda Item 6: Report from Greene County Planning Board representative Cyndi LaPierre
Mrs. LaPierre’s attended the Greene County Planning Board, and Mr. LaPierre read aloud her notes.
The Village of Athens passed a Zoning amendment to provide training for ZBA members. GCPB approved this unanimously.
In the Town of Coxsackie there was a Zoning amendment to add provisions for the regulation of solar facilities to provide for local review of facilities large enough to bypass town review. They separate small versus large per utility scale, need over 23K to go to grid. Rooftop building is permitted, as is ground mounting, but not in high density residential or waterfronts.
The GCPB was restructured. Warren Hart moved up, and Carl Heck became the new Director of Economic Planning and Development. Terry Weiss took over Marketing, and Heather Bagshaw, Tourism.
The Planning Achievement Awards are due by September 7th.
Agenda Item 7: Other Business
Brooks & Brooks returned two of the plats Mr. Kroyer signed on July 24th — Condon for the Altered Lot Line and Condon / Levi for the Boundary Line Adjustment—although only one copy of each was in the envelope.
Discussion of the solar array laws arose. Mr. LaPierre believed Town law regarding large-scale solar arrays could be challenged under Article 10 of New York State Law. Mr. Kroyer thought that the Town of Jewett had its own solar law which could withstand such a challenge. Ms. Bernard suggested the question be put to Mr. Rappleyea.
The next monthly meeting of the Planning Board will be held October 4, 2018 at 7:30 p.m. and there will be a Public Hearing for the Commercial Events Venue application.
Mr. Kroyer called for a motion to adjourn the meeting. Mr. LaPierre motioned to adjourn the meeting. Mrs. Romito seconded the motion to adjourn the meeting, and it carried unanimously at 8:54 p.m.
Respectfully,
Susan H. Epstein, Clerk
____________________________
Gregory Kroyer, Chair
Added: September 07, 2018
Agenda Item 1: The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m.
Roll Call: Chair: Greg Kroyer
Present: Donna Bernard, JoAnne DeLong, Paul LaPierre, and Marianne Romito
Also present was Town Board Liaison to the Planning Board, Michael McCrary.
Agenda Item 2: Approval of the Minutes of July 5, 2018
Ms. Bernard made the motion to accept the minutes of June 7, 2018 as amended. Mr. LaPierre seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Agenda Item 3: Report by Town Board Liaison Michael B. McCrary
Mr. McCrary noted that the Town Board is very pleased with the way the Planning Board is operating.
Agenda Item 4: Alana and Kevin Kulesa for Adena Orchard & Vine for Sketch Plan Conference – Tax Parcel ID No. 110.00-6-6 and Tax Parcel ID No. 111.00-1-54
Mr. Kulesa represented their business tonight. In the package provided by Mr. Kroyer was a Site Plan for the Planning Board to review, and a copy of the Commercial Events Venue.
Mr. Kroyer informed the Board that when the Commercial Events Venue Law had originally been filed, item (D) was inadvertently omitted. Upon discovery of this error a correct version has since been filed. The complete phrasing of (D) reads, “The general event area (the actual location(s) in which the gathering is to occur) shall be located no less than 150 feet from adjacent owners’ property lines or closer if in the discretion of the Planning Board based upon the particular property, including but not limited to topography, location and/or other environmental attributes, same is warranted. All activities associated with the use are to be included within the general event area, the only exception being the parking as allowed by Subsection B above.” Mr. Kroyer stated that the setback distance is a guideline but it may be reduced at the discretion of the Planning Board.
Mr. Kroyer also said that last month Mr. Kulesa had thought that the setback was only about seventy feet or so, but that since then they have taken the actual measurement and it is one hundred and thirty-five feet (135’). So between the Planning Board’s power of discretion and the actual measurement, the interpretation of the law might be in Mr. Kulesa’s favor – pending review of all the facts, however.
Mr. Kulesa has been hard at work providing the applications and the plat. Tonight he turned in the Application for Special Use – Sketch Plan Review; the Application for Site Plan Approval; and the Application for Special Use Permit (SUP). Mr. Kulesa was missing the fee for the SUP application which he will provide the next time he appears before the Board, which will be the October 4th meeting of the Planning Board, whereupon his Public Hearing is scheduled for 8:00 p.m. He has provided an exquisite rendering of the plat in color done in Adobe Illustrator. Mr. Kroyer noted that everything has been signed off on: Mrs. Kulesa is signing off as an officer of the corporation and property owner and Mrs. Kuperstein, her mother, as the other property owner.
Ms. Bernard ascertained whether Mr. Kulesa had brought the fees. Fees were received for the first two applications, but not for the SUP application. Mrs. Epstein received two checks and provided receipts from the new receipt book. Ms. Bernard said that Mr. Kulesa could bring that last fee when he next comes, or he could mail it to the Planning Board.
Mr. Kroyer said they had emailed back and forth a couple of times, and that they were initially missing exterior lighting, septic, and the well. He asked whether the well is inside the house. Mr. Kulesa said it was. Mr. Kroyer said that now he has provided all the things on the checklist that the Board had requested. Mr. Kroyer said that the Board has to follow a procedure – Sketch Plan Conference, the Site Plan Approval, then the Special Use, but the Board is processing these concurrently, because it has not yet sent out the letter to the DEP stating its intent of Lead Agency. The Board perused the applications to be certain that everything is in order.
Mr. LaPierre asked about the parking spaces, and Mr. Kulesa said slots total seventy-seven (77) in the proposed parking area, with additional parking slots by the barn that will likely be used by the caterers. There are further spots located on the plat by the house and a short road/driveway located across Merwin Street from Tower Mountain Road. Mr. Kroyer commented on how great the Site Plan looked. M. Bernard commented that having reviewed the Site Plan checklist; everything is now on there. Mr. Kroyer said that everything that has been reviewed will yet be contingent upon Carl Giangrande, the CEO, signing off on the Event Barn, because of ongoing construction – the staircase and lighting within the barn itself. The loft will have a limited occupancy, and at the time of completion it will probably require a Certificate of Occupancy. If the Board approves this prior to construction completion, the approval will be conditional upon completion of that work.
Mr. Kulesa said that he has some sconces he bought off Craig’s List, but that he would prefer to get the old barn lights. He is still pursuing an electrician, as the one he found is overwhelmed with his current workload. Mr. LaPierre asked about lighting, and Mr. Kulesa said he has planned for downward facing LED lights. Ms. Bernard and Mr. Kroyer explained the Board does not want lighting to destroy the vista, to block the night sky, or to look like a runway. No orange, Mr. LaPierre emphasized. The portable sanitary facilities will be up to the customer, Mr. Kulesa said.
Mrs. Epstein asked whether the Kulesas had been able to get the cabin, but Mr. Kulesa said that the bank has not responded yet, probably because there is paperwork to clear up.
Mr. Kroyer said the Board would accept all three applications contingent on receiving the last fee.
Mr. LaPierre asked if there was a designation for a fire marshal to inspect at the venues, and Mr. Kroyer said that the Building Inspector is well up to the task to handle that. If this is not done before the Board signs off on this, then these will be put as a condition on the final approval.
Speaking with Mr. Kulesa, he would like to accommodate his own schedule by next appearing October 4th. The Board concluded that would also be a good date for the Public Hearing, so Mr. LaPierre made the motion to schedule the Public Hearing for October 4, 2018 at 8:00 p.m. Ms. DeLong seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Mr. Kroyer requested that Mrs. Epstein mail the Lead Agency letter. Ms. Bernard said that if it is mailed by Tuesday, the Board could finalize the SEQRA next month. Mr. Kroyer provided Mr. Kulesa with the Public Hearing form letter and told him that adjoining property owners within two hundred feet (200’) were to be notified of the Public Hearing by mail and the Board provided with receipts of certified mailing. Ms. Bernard suggested that Mr. Kulesa post everything by September 21st, which is slightly ahead of the ten days required, but if he gets the mailing done that week also, it puts him in good stead. Mr. Kroyer offered to go over the information prior to that if Mr. Kulesa called him when he gets into town. The sign will need to be placed at eye level at the property line. When he comes on October 4th, he will bring the mailing receipts, and Mr. Kroyer promised him a more complete copy of the adjacent neighbors within two hundred feet when he comes in mid-September.
Ms. Bernard planned that the Board could complete the SEQRA next month whether Mr. Kulesa is here or not. His part of it is already done.
Ms. Bernard advised Mrs. Epstein to send the DEP copies of all the applications, the first part of the SEQRA, and the plan. Mr. Kroyer said he wanted to get this all knocked out next month. He asked if anyone had any further questions for Mr. Kulesa. No one did, and he took his leave.
Agenda Item 5: Martin Schmidt of Kaaterskill Engineering (KE) representing Robert and Joan Ma for Sketch Plan Conference – property located at 765 County Route 40 (Maplecrest Road), Tax Parcel ID No. 113.00-4-4, Rural Residential Zoning, on 21.95 +/- acres
Mr. Martin Schmidt arrived for a Sketch Plan Conference concerning property owned by Robert and Joan Ma, who are proposing a two-lot subdivision. Mr. Kroyer said that the parcel, Tax ID No. 113.00-4-4, is located on the corner of Maplecrest Road (County Route 40) and Hauser Road. Mr. Schmidt provided a couple of full-scale maps for the Board. He said he is having a bit of trouble meeting all the regulations in the Zoning law, and wanted to run his questions by the Board. Mr. Kroyer said this was his Sketch Plan Conference and asked if Mr. Schmidt had the application filled out and the fee. Mr. Schmidt said that he had filled out the application for Minor Subdivision, and asked Mr. Kroyer for a copy of the Sketch Plan Review Application. Mr. Kroyer reminded Mr. Schmidt that he had informed Mr. Schmidt’s assistant that all forms were on the Town of Jewett website and exactly which ones were needed tonight. Mr. Schmidt apologized, and was given his form.
The large plats were spread out. His client has two houses on one property. There are two existing septic systems, and two proposed reserved systems. KE had done one septic in 2003, which has approval by the DEP, and KE designated a reserve for the existing house. Mr. Kroyer asked about the existing septic for the house and Mr. Schmidt pointed it out, speculating an older style one. In 2003 a reserve septic was designated for the main house.
Mr. Kroyer said that Ms. Bernard and he had found a different version on the Town of Jewett tax rolls. Originally there is one home occupancy commercial business that a prior owner listed as a studio barn for film and editing. The case came before the PB in 2012 prior to Mr. Kroyer’s tenure, and in the minutes from that little interlude, somebody slipped a piece of paper in the mailbox that this parcel was listed for sale as two houses. Mr. Schmidt said it was all before his time, but Lela Godlewsky owned the parcel and sold in 2014 to the Mr. and Mrs. Ma. Ms. Godlewsky decided to build a studio at the back of the parcel for her artwork and different things that she did. Ms. DeLong remembered her as a ceramic artist. KE designed septic based upon a two-bedroom house design. Mr. Schmidt has never been inside, but to his understanding there are two potential bedrooms upstairs and the studio on the first floor. He said it meets all the code requirements to be legally considered a dwelling. But it does not have the dwelling C of O because it is on the same parcel as another existing house.
Mr. Kroyer said this is a situation, not a problem, because this is solvable. However, he said Lot One proposed as two and three tenths (2.3) acres, must be two and a half (2.5) acres. Mr. Schmidt said that is actually two acres and thirty-five one-hundredths (2.35) acres, because of the (0.05) acre across the road. He wants to meet the setbacks as well and roughly sketched them in. He pointed out the existing house, the studio as the proposed dwelling, and the existing septic and proposed reserve, as well as the proposed reserve for the existing house. The entire parcel consists of twenty-one and nine tenths (21.9) acres. There are separate wells for the studio and for the existing building. He said he is having difficulties calculating space for the wells. There are wetlands on the property, but the owners do not propose any construction.
Mr. Schmidt wondered where was the sideline and where was the front of the building. He calculated the setback at seventy-five feet (75’). Mr. Kroyer said that access would be on Hauser, so that would be the front yard, and asked Mr. Schmidt whether each parcel held two hundred feet (200’) of road frontage. Mr. Schmidt answered that both the property accessed on Hauser and the property accessed from County Route 40 hold two hundred feet (200’) of road frontage.
Ms. Bernard said that the Board couldn’t approve this application if they do not get the full two and a half (2.5) acres. The Board is reviewing this under current Zoning law and nothing exists here that was ever grandfathered in. Mr. Schmidt believes he can accomplish the required acreage if what he assumed was a seventy-five foot (75’) setback is really a fifty-foot (50’) setback. Mr. Schmidt said that the other way he could do it would be to apply easements to the parcel,but he did not think that was feasible. Mr. Kroyer asked why the owners wanted this subdivision, and Mr. Schmidt answered they are looking down the road to whether they might give the property to their children. Ms. Bernard said that the Town of Jewett would be in favor of this subdivision for the simple reason that the result will bring the parcel(s) into conformity with the law, which does not permit two homes on one parcel. Mr. LaPierre asked why he had created a point instead of taking the curve, and Mr. Schmidt answered that it was just to make the surveying job easier from a mathematical point of view. But he will eventually incorporate the curve.
Mr. Schmidt’s other question concerned the distance from the property line to the driveway, the shed, and the well. He said five foot is the generic number. Mr. Kroyer said the well has none. Mr. Schmidt asked about a tiny little shed. Mr. Kroyer said if the shed is less than one hundred and forty-four (144) square feet, the rule may not apply. Mr. LaPierre borrowed Ms. Bernard’s ruler and applied it to the scale of the map and the shed. He thought the shed was larger than that, maybe twenty feet by fourteen feet (20’ x 14’), and if so the rule might apply. However, Mr. LaPierre noted, if the shed is not on a fixed foundation, it is regarded as temporary. Mr. Schmidt did not remember the shed, so he will have to ascertain its dimensions. Ms. Bernard pointed out that as an accessory building, it must meet the fifty-foot (50’) setback from the property line, or seventy-five foot (75’) setback from the road. Mr. LaPierre said if it is not on a fixed foundation and can be moved, even if it is bolted, it is regarded as temporary. He had recently helped a group in Sandakan with something similar. Mr. Schmidt promised to take a look at the shed and determine its accurate dimensions.
Mr. Kroyer said he had already spoken with the Building Inspector, whose primary concern was whether the second structure has its own septic system, and since it appears that it does, this should not be difficult. Ms. Bernard said that if the shed is larger, and not temporary, they could always pursue a variance. But Mr. Kroyer noted that the first issue the Zoning Board might have would be that this is a hardship they themselves created.
Mr. Schmidt asked whether this is going to be a coordinated process. Ms. Bernard said with DEP it would be, but that there appears to be no need to involve any further agencies. Mr. Kroyer reminded him to put in the fact that there are wetlands present, but no construction is planned, and this phrasing may help mitigate the DEP’s concerns. Existing buildings and existing septic systems should present a cut and dried case to the DEP, Mr. Kroyer noted. Ms. Bernard advised Mr. Schmidt to visit the GIS map to learn what is on the County record.
Mr. Schmidt asked whether we had to do the subdivision before they could get the Certificate of Occupancy, and Mr. Kroyer said it is a unique situation and that the Board could give its approval conditional upon receiving the C of O. Mr. Kroyer noted that a Home Occupation such as this studio does not even require a Special Use Permit.
Mr. Schmidt filled out both applications, but he did not have a spare check with him for the second application. It was decided that the Board would not accept the Sketch Plan today. Mr. Kroyer said that Mr. Schmidt had not provided the letter of representation, and Mr. Schmidt whipped out his cell phone and showed the Board a digital copy. Mr. Kroyer said a paper copy was necessary. Mr. Schmidt asked to be placed on the agenda for September, and promised to bring the proper fees, proof of school district, and the letter of representation in paper copy. Mr. LaPierre said the actual demarcation of school districts along Route 23C in that area is easy, but Ms. Bernard said the Board cannot make an exception since it requires this of everyone else. Mr. Schmidt thanked the Board and took his leave.
Agenda Item 6: Report from Greene County Planning Board representative Cyndi LaPierre
Mr. LaPierre read aloud Mrs. LaPierre’s notes from the Greene County Planning Board. On June 20th GCPB received an application for a Site Plan in the Town of Catskill from an existing truck repair and construction business wanting to add storage for construction material and trucks. They were advised to consider NYS DOT standards for line of sight for traffic safety and access.
The Town of Catskill brought forward a use and area variance for the construction of a forty-two unit, two to three story resort hotel on property owned by the Catskill Golf Course, to be built on the current ninth hole just past the restaurant to be called “The Greens Hotel.” Earlier plans for a condo are no longer in play. Staff recommended this be a local decision with the comment that the granting of use variances is usually discouraged, except in cases where clear hardship has been shown. In cases where the municipality deems the project useful, the staff recommends that the municipality change the zoning law to be amended to add the use to the district use schedule rather than grant a use variance.
In the Town of New Baltimore, an area variance was received for the placement of a residential garage on County Route 26. The garage would replace a shed that is falling down. Staff recommended local decision.
The Town of Cairo received a Site plan and Special Use Permit application regarding a 2,000 KW solar photovoltaic array system on a portion of a Main Street property. The project will include extensive tree removal, which the GCPB considered might have an environmental impact on the town, and so suggested the mitigation possibility of funding by the applicant for and/or implementation of a tree-planting program elsewhere throughout the town. They anticipate environmental permits. The distributed energy impacts are to be determined and mitigated by Central Hudson, who will be the installer. Altogether the project will cover eighty-seven (87) acres, with ten (10) acres of solar panels, twenty-three (23) acres disturbed, and a twenty-five foot (25’) road access. A seven-foot (7’) fence will surround the project. Staff recommended that this $40,000,000 project be approved as stated.
Agenda Item 7: Other Business
Mr. Kroyer said that on July 24th he had signed Brooks & Brooks’ two plats: Condon for the Altered Lot Line and Condon / Levi for the Boundary Line Adjustment. He said that to avoid the problem of the plat being signed but not filed with the Planning Board “not in the know,” he had kept one at the time he signed them for the file, and sent two down with Brooks & Brooks for Greene County Real Property to stamp, and that these two are to be mailed back to the Planning Board. One will go into the Planning Board file, and the other will land on Mrs. Bower’s desk.
The next monthly meeting of the Planning Board will be held September 6, 2018 at 7:30 p.m.
Mr. Kroyer said that there was one more item before the Board and that was to adjourn. Mr. LaPierre motioned to adjourn the meeting. Mrs. Romito seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously at 8:58 p.m.
Respectfully,
Susan H. Epstein, Clerk
____________________________
Gregory Kroyer, Chair
Added: August 02, 2018
Agenda Item 1: The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m.
Roll Call: Chair: Greg Kroyer
Present: Donna Bernard, JoAnne DeLong, Paul LaPierre, and Marianne Romito
Also present was Town Board Liaison to the Planning Board, Michael McCrary.
Agenda Item 2: Approval of the Minutes of June 7, 2018
Mr. LaPierre made the motion to accept the minutes of June 7, 2018 as amended. Ms. DeLong seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Agenda Item 3: Report by Town Board Liaison Michael B. McCrary
Mr. McCrary noted that very little was said about the Planning Board at the Town Board meeting except for his small comment that everything was working smoothly. They are waiting for information on getting the Code printed. There were no complaints whatsoever.
Agenda Item 4: Alana and Kevin Kulesa for Adena Orchard & Vine for Sketch Plan Conference – Tax Parcel ID No. 110.00-6-6 and Tax Parcel ID No. 111.00-1-54
Mr. Kroyer said the Planning Board had taken a good look at this. He had emailed the Kulesas that the Commercial Events Venue had been passed, and provided them with a copy. The first step will be the Sketch Plan Conference tonight for a Special Use Permit. Tonight’s purpose with the initial Sketch Plan Conference between the applicants and the Planning Board is to provide them the information they need and to provide the Board with a complete Site Plan. The Sketch Plan Review is an application in itself, and the first step of this process.
Mr. Kroyer asked whether the Kulesas were planning to hire a surveyor or not. Mrs. Kulesa said that Mr. Kulesa is capable but that he is not a licensed engineer. Mr. Kroyer had spoken to Carl, the Building Inspector, who agreed with Mr. Kroyer that he would be able to do that part of it as long as it meets the criteria on the site plan checklist.
The applications required are the Sketch Plan Review being discussed tonight, the Site Plan Approval, and the Special Use Permit for Commercial Venues, Town of Jewett. All applications can be done congruently. The SUP requires a Public Hearing. Prior to this, the Planning Board will send out a letter declaring its intention to act as Lead Agency in the process. The Board will fill out a SEQRA, and this is a little out of our hands as the DEP has a thirty-day window to reply to the letter. That is the point at which, pending DEP approval, this Planning Board can officially declare itself Lead Agency, complete the SEQRA, and set a date for the Public Hearing for the following month. Mr. Kulesa asked who contacted the DEP; the Planning Board will do that.
Mr. Kroyer said that the Board would conduct a preliminary SEQRA review this evening. This will be sent to the DEP along with the completed application and the site plan. The DEP may decide to come out and take a look; they might contact the Kulesas if their presence is wanted, or not. DEP might provide suggestions of things to improve prior to approval. This is why the Board needs a completed Site Plan. Ms. Bernard said that if everything falls together the way Mr. Kroyer has planned it, and the Board hears nothing to prevent this application, that September would be the earliest that the Board could provide the Kulesas with their Special Use Permit. Mrs. Kulesa asked whether subsequent months would be okay, depending on their schedule, and Ms. Bernard noted this was fine.
Mrs. Kulesa wondered if both business owners needed to be present at these meetings, and Mr. Kroyer answered that either party could represent the interests of the business at these meetings. Mr. Kroyer said that the introductory packet the Kulesas provided when they first introduced their business contained a Sketch Plan that they could use.
Mr. Kroyer asked whether all Board members had the Commercial Events Venue in their packet. Mr. Kulesa stated that he was unsureof the set back measurements. Mr. Kroyer asked him to take an accurate measurement and get back to him. Mr. Kulesa agreed to measure the distance and inform Mr. Kroyer.
Mr. Kroyer called attention back to the process going on tonight. Mr. LaPierre asked whether the setback measurement was the only issue that Mr. Kulesa had with the Commercial Events Venue. He questioned (H), the provision stating no alcoholic beverages are to be sold, but may be consumed on site. Mr. Kroyer asked whether they were intending to sell alcoholic beverages themselves, and they are not. Otherwise they would need a liquor license. Rather any food or beverage service will be catered out to other businesses. Mr. Kroyer said the other thing they had previously been concerned about was the amplified music, item (E), wanting the band to play until 11:00 p.m. The Town Law reads 9:00 p.m., but Mr. Kroyer stressed this applies to amplified music.
Mr. Kroyer said that next the Board would take a good look at the barn, and suggested a site visit might be in order. Mrs. Kulesa warmly invited everyone out to have a look. Ms. Bernard said she might get a better handle on how to phrase this. Mr. Kroyer said that the setback distance was included mainly for the noise. While they were considering the wording within the code, they researched other towns whose wording contained larger setbacks, because noise carries. Mrs. Kulesa said that where the barn sits, the property slopes down.
Mrs. Kulesa asked whether Mr. Kroyer wanted them to measure the shortest distance from the barn to the property line. Mr. LaPierre noted this was a vague area, because under item (D), all activities associated with the use are to be included within the general event area, with the exception being parking, as defined under item (B). He said if they were to confine everything to the barn itself, then the measurement would be from the barn outward; if they were going to use the area around the barn as well, that would be another interpretation. They would need to define a perimeter beyond which they wouldn’t extend.
Mrs. Kulesa said that could be right up to the property line. The driveway would be used, so that would be considered the dividing line. Guests would be walking there toward the sanitary facilities located along the driveway, where the catering will also be located. Mr. LaPierre asked which direction the side of the barn opened. Mrs. Kulesa said there are two entries to the barn. On the Rosedale side (driveway side) are the bathrooms and catering. The other side is the “party side.” All the guests will be facing their property. Mr. LaPierre said he would not interpret this to include the location of the catering truck to be counted within the event itself, rather the guests would be. Mr. Kroyer said where the gathering is to occur would be the barn. Mr. LaPierre wondered about the instance of outdoor tables setup under a canopy to extend the event area. That would become part of what is defined as activities associated with the use. Mr. Kulesa showed Mr. LaPierre on the plat where the guests would be located. Mr. LaPierre considered they were looking at maybe one hundred and thirty to one hundred and sixty feet (130-160’). Mr. Kulesa said because of the eyesore that the Rosedale property currently is, he wants to screen the area with trees, although it is a bit late in the season. Ms. DeLong thought the barn might be a buffer from any outside activities. Mr. Kulesa said the entire plan revolves around keeping the activities on their side of the building because of noise and the trash around Rosedale’s old home. Mr. Kulesa said there would be three points of egress to get in and out. There will be a private lounge area in the loft for the bridal party.
Mr. Kroyer suggested the Board look at the parking situation. The Commercial Event Venue allows for three hundred (300) guests excluding caterers. Mrs. Romito calculated this would require seventy-five parking spaces assuming four passengers to a car. Mr. Kroyer asked whether he could show on a Site Plan seventy-five parking spaces. Mr. Kulesa said yes, and that according to their business plan, the barn will be limited to under one hundred (100) people, unless it is a tent wedding. Mr. Kroyer advised they get a SUP for the maximum number of parking slots allowed, instead of limiting the number of people they can serve. Ms. Bernard said parking area needs inclusion in the Site Plan. Mr. Kroyer said that parking is defined as fifty feet from the property line, two columns if they think about it, so they can figure out what they need per car. Mr. LaPierre said that parking slots would be twelve feet by twenty feet (12’ x 20’). Ms. Bernard considered they could be very inventive as to how they arrange that space, especially if they utilize valet parking. Mr. Kulesa demonstrated on his plan a spot with good road access.
Mr. Kroyer asked about the surface, and said if it is grass someday they will have a downpour, which could become very problematic. He suggested that adding some gravel surface, like item four, could prevent that. Mr. Kulesa said that there is great drainage there, and does not anticipate problems. Mr. Kroyer said that the Board would like to know what surface there would be to prevent mud. Mr. LaPierre said that in his experience of the event parking off of Deming Road, the parking areas did not get so muddy as the lanes where cars went in and out. The event planners there ended up putting gravel down for the lanes, which seemed to address the problem, and the area remained a grassy surface. They used number two stone creating lanes for the traffic on and off the road. Mr. Kulesa favors the grass surface as the area is very visible and he wants to keep the area as nice as possible. Ms. Bernard thought the lanes were a great idea.
Mr. LaPierre said that the Rail Explorers, another group he worked with, recently added six inches of crusher run on top of Geotex to prevent knotweed at a cost of $20,000, which involved a lot of earth moving, for a sixty by ninety foot (60’ x 90’) parking area for twenty cars. Mr. Kulesa thought that expensive. Mr. LaPierre asked about anticipated frequency of use. Mrs. Kulesa thought twelve weekends through the period of mid-July into early October, as this is a seasonal business. Mr. LaPierre thought that use would be infrequent enough where they might not need such an expensive base. Mr. Kroyer said at Howe Caverns they mow it, then just sprinkle some bluestone down, and mow it again. The grass grows right over that stuff. Ms. Bernard said the DEP would be more concerned with any septic system and episodic use. Mr. Kroyer said the DEP would be concerned with wetlands, and that they own the lands beyond the barn property. He asked if the Kulesas have a right of way; they do. Ms. Romito said the people attending these venues would not stress that parking area with excessive driving. Mr. LaPierre said that for seventy-five cars the parking area would have to be roughly sixty by four hundred feet (60 x 400’) for a single lane, and one hundred and twenty feet by two hundred feet (120’ x 200’) for two lanes. Mr. Kroyer said if the driveway has a loop that could handle twenty-five cars, maybe they would need to plan the parking area for only fifty cars. There is a lot of creativity in what they can do. Mr. Kulesa said at the moment they would push their clients to get bussing. Mr. Kroyer asked why they were limiting the barn to a hundred people, and Mrs. Kulesa answered to accommodate tables, chairs, a dance floor, a DJ, a bar area, and have it nice. Ms. Romito commented that adds to the ambience of the venue. More people can be contained in a tent. Mr. LaPierre noted that there is an application for a similar venue in Windham, and that they are meeting a lot of resistance. Mr. Kulesa said that they have very good relationships with all the neighbors.
Mrs. Kulesa wondered whether this application is something they need to do on a recurring basis or if it is a one-time process. Ms. Bernard noted item (K). Mrs. Kulesa said they get events scheduled at least a year in advance, so that providing their event schedule for the upcoming year should not be a problem. The law requires a contact number be given for the resident or agent of any such event; Mr. Kroyer noted that in this case, Mr. and Mrs. Kulesa would be onsite. The Town Board will set a fee based upon the number of scheduled events. Mr. Kroyer said that in his opinion as they are just starting out, the fee should be minimal, but he does not have the power to set the fee. Mrs. Kulesa wondered at what stage the Board would set a fee schedule. Mr. Kroyer, who had just handed her the three applications, said that the fee for the Sketch Plan Review has a cost of $50, the Site Plan Approval fee is $100, and the SUP is another $100, for a total of $250. These fees are one time fees for submitting the applications. Ms. Bernard said that the SUP renews annually, and that the applicants just need to come in and do that. If the SUP lapses, they would have to revisit the entire process all over again. This is just to assure that the Town remains aware any changes to the process of events.
Mr. Kroyer asked Mr. McCrary if he had any comments on this. Mr. McCrary asked whether they were doing business in their name, or the name of a company. They answered, “Company.” Mr. McCrary said that doing it this way means they could sell the company, and the company could continue to maintain the current SUP despite the change in ownership.
Mr. Kroyer asked whether the Town Board had followed through and set a fee. Mr. McCrary answered not, but that he would suggest $25 to the Town Board just to cover the cost of the paperwork. He thinks at certain points with certain applicants that would mean people going to look at the site again, just to make certain everything is in order. Ms. Bernard noted that they did not create this code for this particular venue, so that establishing precedence in setting the fee could have serious consequences, as in the case of an industrial company hosting a retreat or conference. There are many large homes in Jewett being used as Air BnBs. Mr. McCrary thought in the case of disruptive persons, and the Building Inspector finds damage, the Town would need to treat them accordingly. Mrs. Romito suggested it be based on an individual basis.
Ms. Bernard said the Town has a liability fee, as well. Mr. Kroyer asked Mrs. Kulesa whether they carry an insurance policy for each event. She said they do, and that they were also going to require each wedding party to have event liability insurance for the weekend of their event, and considered including that requirement for the Town of Jewett as well. At the moment they are doing work on their barn, and Mr. Kulesa said they have coverage for $2 million, but would up that to $3 million for the events. A liability limit of no less than $3 million has been set, and if that is a hardship, that an applicant could come to us and discuss it.
Mr. Kroyer asked how the Town could be damaged. Mrs. Romito said it usually happens to the roads, but Ms. Bernard suggested something could happen to a neighbor’s property, which would involve the Town. Mr. Kroyer found a statement in the law, to hold the Town of Jewett harmless. Mrs. Kulesa asked whether the Board would require copies of the insurance agreement. Mr. Kroyer said to let the Town know every April 1st when they bring their Schedule of Events in, and then notify us whether there are any changes to the schedule. There would be a certificate of liability naming the Kulesas and the Town as harmless. Every group that comes in would have to provide a copy to the Town. Mr. McCrary said the Town is held harmless by their insurance, and they would require the further assurance that the clients have a certificate of liability holding them and the Town harmless.
Mr. Kroyer wanted to review the SEQRA preliminarily, and asked Mr. LaPierre to read aloud: answers given to (1) and (2) were No; (3), (4) and (5) – answer given for all is around fourteen and a half (14.5) acres; (6) – land uses are residential, aquatic, forested, rural, and non-agricultural; (7), (8), and (9) – yes; (10) – no; (11) – yes; (12), (13), (14), (15), and (16) – no; (17) portable sanitation facility; (18) – not historical; (19) – no; (20) – yes to wetlands; (21) – no; (22) habitat types are wetlands, forests, and grasslands; (23), (24), (25), (26), (27), and (28) – no. Mr. Kroyer decided the Board would also review Part Two: questions (1) through (13) were selected as having no or small impact.
Mrs. Kulesa signed this preliminary copy of the SEQRA, and Mrs. Epstein promised them a copy for next month’s meeting, as the printer was temporarily out of commission.
Mrs. Kulesa wondered when someone from the Planning Board could come out and walk the property. Ms. Bernard suggested she give Mr. Kroyer or herself notice of a couple of days and either of them would visit.
Mr. Kroyer said he is concerned about meeting the required setbacks. Mr. Kulesa said he would take an accurate measurement. Mr. LaPierre asked the intent behind event item (D), because there is certainly a difference in whether the interpretation is confined to a building or a tent, which can be set up anywhere. The language was created from research into what other towns had done, Ms. Bernard said. Mr. LaPierre reasoned that the barn itself contains the event space, and he wondered whether the law was meant to define an open space or a closed space. He thought the language contained within (E) could help define (D), as in the inference between noises carrying further from an open-sided or soft-sided structure like a tent. Whatever is done with this application becomes a precedent for future events, he questioned whether open or closed, and asked for some legal insight.
Mr. Kulesa will provide an accurate measurement for the barn setback, get the correct total acreage for questions in the SEQRA, complete the Sketch Plan application and Site Plan, and submit these along with the SUP and fees at the August meeting.
Mrs. Kulesa asked what they should do about their barn, the old Rosedale property, and the NYC property sharing the 701 Merwin Street address. Mr. Kroyer suggested that they talk to Carl, the Building Inspector, and the Jewett Fire Company, who would issue new and separate numbers.
Mrs. Kulesa asked about signage, and Mr. Kroyer advised her to put it on their Site Plan. Ms. Bernard said they are allowed one sign onsite, and one sign offsite. Mr. LaPierre noted that the state would put up a sign, and that they should inquire about this. Mr. McCrary said that the county wouldn’t do that, but that if they wish their sign in an offsite right of way owned by the county or the town, they would have to inquire of those people. Mr. LaPierre noted that the size of the sign would be limited to two square feet or a maximum of one foot high and two feet wide.
Agenda Item 5: Report from Greene County Planning Board representative Cyndi LaPierre
Mr. LaPierre provided minutes for two GCPB meetings.
On April 18, the Town of Catskill received a Use Variance for the construction of apartment buildings at The Greens at Catskill, property owned by the golf course. Six phases of building are planned with two structures to be built during each phase. The structures will contain six to eight two or three bedroom apartments. The developer is the same as The Falls in Hudson. The GCPB generally discourages Use Variances unless the applicant can prove unnecessary hardship. The Zoning Board may interpret the use to be subordinate to the principal use of the land or building and therefore be allowed as an accessory use.
In the Town of Greenville, a local law imposing a six-month moratorium on the review and approval of commercial solar farms seated on a quarter acre or more was passed.
In the Town of Hunter a Site plan regarding the seasonal sale of antiques, collectibles, yard sale items, and Christmas trees was approved for property at the corner of Route 23A and Cabbage Patch.
In the Town of Coxsackie a Site plan for a seasonal ice cream business called Licks I Scream was approved on sixteen acres owned by Robert Massey on Route 9W.
The Town of Catskill approved a Site plan regarding renovations and expansion of a Main Street, Leeds structure to be used as an office, laundry, and farmers market. The project had earlier come before the GCPB for an area variance in February, which was granted.
On June 20, the Town of Catskill received an Area variance for a sidelot regarding an addition to a single-family dwelling on LaCorte Road. This was to be a local decision. A second area variance was received regarding the placement of a thirty-two foot (32’) directional sign in Jefferson Heights for the Medical Arts building and senior housing. The zoning limitation is five square feet. The recommendation was for approval pending DOT line of sight requirement. A third area variance in Cementon dealing with the expansion of an existing residential garage by adding ten by twenty-four feet (10’ x 24’) to the front was recommended to be a local decision.
In the Town of Cairo there was a local law revision prohibiting the conversion of Main Street storefronts to residential use and the addition of definitions, vegetation requirements, and solar array acreage limits (not to exceed the needs of the town) to the Solar Energy section of the Town’s zoning law.
In the Town of Hunter, there was a Site plan for the installation of six overhead, downward facing LED parking lights at Peace Village. A Site plan was also received for a 2.162 MW solar array on the site of the former Hunter landfill to connect with existing poles and lines.
In the Town of Jewett, an area variance was brought forward regarding the addition of a two-car garage to a residence with only sixty feet setback; the zoning requires seventy-five feet of setback.
In the Town of Lexington, a Special Use Permit was approved for the renovation and use of an existing barn at the Spruceton Inn as an event space. The Hideout, the bar neighboring the Spruceton Inn, was approved for a Special Use Permit to open as a small bar of twenty-five seats. The water and septic there was approved by the DEP.
Agenda Item 7: Other Business
The next monthly meeting of the Planning Board will be held August 2, 2018 at 7:30 p.m.
Ms. Bernard motioned to adjourn the meeting. Mr. LaPierre seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously at 9:55 p.m.
Respectfully,
Susan H. Epstein, Clerk
____________________________
Gregory Kroyer, Chair
Added: July 09, 2018
Agenda Item 1: The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m.
Roll Call: Chair: Greg Kroyer
Present: Donna Bernard, Paul LaPierre, and Marianne Romito
Absent: JoAnne DeLong
Also present was Deputy Supervisor and Planning Board Liaison Michael McCrary.
Agenda Item 2: Approval of the Minutes of May 3, 2018
Mrs. Romito made the motion to accept the minutes of May 3, 2018 as amended. Ms. Bernard seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Agenda Item 3: Report by Town Board Liaison Michael B. McCrary
Mr. McCrary said that since all the zoning improvements had been passed, and the Town Board had handed the material to Mr. Rappleyea to approve the numbering and to get a quote for the printing, not much else was going on.
Agenda Item 4: Brooks and Brooks for Boundary Lot Line Adjustment for Catherine Condon – Tax Parcel ID No. 130.00-4-17.1 – and Steven Levi for Tax Parcel ID No. 130.00-4-17.2
Mr. Brooks said he had come in with two applications, and wondered which the Planning Board wanted to deal with first. The prior application had been completed August 5, 2017 in order to provide road access to a landlocked parcel. At that time the Board approved and signed the maps, which Mr. Brooks had never filed, since an issue came up with the newly approved road access point being on a corner of Mr. Levi’s septic field. Mr. Brooks said Mr. Levi and the DEP got into negotiations, which held things up. The reason for the two applications is that Mr. Brooks was uncertain how the Board would want to proceed.
One of the applications is a Boundary Lot Line Application for Mr. Steven Levi to resolve a mistake with the septic system. The Board received the application for a change of sixteen hundredths (0.16) of an acre. Catherine Condon’s property, Tax Parcel ID No. 130.00-4-17.1 in the Rural Residential Zoning District and Hunter-Tannersville Central School District would change from thirty-four and one tenth (34.10) acres to thirty-three and ninety-four hundredths (33.94) acres. The property of Steven Levi and Georgia Christgau, Tax Parcel ID No. 130.00-4-17.2 in the Rural Residential Zoning District, and also in the Hunter-Tannersville Central School District, would change from one and one hundredth (1.01) acres to one and seventeen hundredths (1.17) acres.
Along with the application, the Board received the school tax receipts, representation letters from the two parties, the deeds, photos, and although not required, the SEQRA. On the plat note #11 has been added stating that Mrs. Condon is keeping a Right-of-Way that is for administrative purposes, but not public access. Mr. Brooks did not have the fee with him tonight.
Mr. Kroyer asked the Planning Board whether it was comfortable taking this application to the next stage. Mr. LaPierre motioned to accept this Boundary Lot Line Application pending receipt of the fee. Ms. Bernard seconded the motion, and the motion was subject to a Roll Call Vote: Ms. Bernard – aye; Mr. LaPierre – aye; and Mrs. Romito- aye. The motion carried, and Mr. Kroyer said the maps would be signed once the fee was received.
The second application was an Altered Lot Line Application for Mrs. Catherine Condon. This had previously been approved in August 2017, but the maps had never been filed because they discovered the mistake of the road access across Mr. Levi’s septic system. Mr. Brooks said that the only change was to the notes regarding the parcel change for Mr.Levi.
Catherine Condon as the grantor of Tax ID Parcel 130.00-4-17.1 in Rural Residential and Conservation Zoning District in the Hunter-Tannersville Central School District, would see an acreage change from thirty-eight and forty-one hundredths (38.41) acres to twenty-nine and sixty-six hundredths (29.66) acres. Catherine Condon as the receiver for Tax Parcel ID No. 130.00-3-42 in the Rural Residential and Conservation Zoning Districts in the Hunter-Tannersville Central School District, would see an acreage change from twenty-five and thirty-five hundredths (25.35) acres to become thirty-three and ninety-four hundredths (33.94) acres.
Ms. Bernard motioned to accept the Altered Lot Line Application for the purpose to provide public access to a pre-existing parcel, pending receipt of the application fee. Mr. LaPierre seconded the motion, and it was subject to a Roll Call Vote: Ms. Bernard – aye; Mr. LaPierre – aye; and Mrs. Romito – aye.
Agenda Item 5: Huetter Subdivision Reconfiguration
Mr. Kroyer provided a map of Lot One of the Huetter Subdivision with yellow highlighting an area. A line had been mistaken for a boundary where none was supposed to be, and a letter from Brenda and John Huetter requested the Planning Board approve a Subdivision Reconfiguration, citing a miscommunication between Mr. Schaefer, lawyer for the family, and Mr. Santos, the surveyor. Mr. Kroyer spent time in a phone conference with Mrs. Nancy Bower and Mr. Ray Ward of the Real Property Office of Greene County. Mr. Ward had pre-approved the method, and wanted Town of Jewett Planning Board approval. The Huetters requested the addition of a one-acre parcel with a house to Lot One. The couple had noticed when they paid their taxes that they were paying taxes on two parcels whereas there had supposed to be only one parcel.
Mr. LaPierre raised the question of whether the problem ought to be corrected in this manner, since Brenda and John Huetter were not party to the creation of the original Subdivision. Mr. LaPierre’s point is duly noted for the record in case a similar situation arises again. He strongly felt that only the parties to the original creation of the subdivision should have a say in its reconfiguration. Ms. Bernard suggested that as the new owners of that lot, Brenda and John Huetter have a vested interest in this. The file was pulled, and it indeed appeared as if the intent was to create Lot One to include the house. After much careful discussion, the Board decided to follow the wording of the letter as written by John and Brenda Huetter.
Ms. Bernard motioned to approve the reconfiguration of Lot One, Tax Parcel ID No. 146.00-2-33 of the Huetter Subdivision to include Tax Parcel ID No. 146.00-2-5.2. Mr. LaPierre seconded the motion, and it was subjected to a Roll Call Vote: Ms. Bernard – aye; Mr. LaPierre – aye; and Mrs. Romito – aye.
Agenda Item 6: Report from Greene County Planning Board representative Cyndi LaPierre
No report was heard because Mrs. LaPierre had another obligation that night.
Agenda Item 7: Other Business
Mr. Kroyer wanted to update the Planning Board on three inquiries that had come in since the last meeting. The first was an inquiry by Wolfgang and Herte Kranzle concerning their property on Route 296 as well as a neighboring property. Mr. Kroyer spoke with them and informed them of the different possibilities for these properties within the confines of the Town of Jewett Zoning Laws. There should be no further need for Planning Board involvement.
The second inquiry: Lawyer Gregory Lubow looked into the public record regarding the 1996 Kulyk Subdivision located off Silver Spring Road bordering the Schoharie Creek. With Mr. Kroyer’s assistance, he found the file he sought. Mr. Lubow was representing one of the property owners, but did not seem to find what he sought. Four lots were narrower than the current two hundred feet (200’), and nothing the Board would approve today. Mr. Kroyer does not expect anything further to come of this. Vanucchi Associates was the surveyor and Tony Bucca was the lawyer.
The third inquiry regarded a gentleman named Ken Sauer concerning a property on Hemlock Road off of Rice Street. A drainage easement runs through this property, which was created in the 1970’s. A previous owner had built half the house in the drainage easement. The Town of Jewett issued the Building Permit in 1982. Mr. Sauer wanted to clear the problem up in case a mortgage was needed on the house. Mr. Kroyer and Mr. McCrary spent time trying to help him find a solution to his problem, and even involved Mr. Rappleyea, but there was nothing they could do. However, Mr. Sauer has found his own solution. He called the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), who referred him to the Army Corps of Engineers, who agreed to flag the existing drainage area, and Mr. Sauer will hire a new surveyor. The surveyor will map out where the drainage area will be relocated. Once the new survey is done Mr. Sauer will apply to the Planning Board for approval of the survey modifications to approve the modification to Lot Ten of the Jewett Country Estate Subdivision, created by Bill Higgins, and approved in 1972. The easement will have been moved far enough from the house to no longer incur problems. Mr. Sauer may come in the next two to four months with the modified survey map, and a letter from the Army Corps of Engineers. Mr. Brooks commented that someone has to own the easement, which could be owned by the property owner or a group of property owners. The easement is fifty feet (50’) wide, then reduces to twenty feet (20’) coming through a culvert, then disappears, and may have been created by mistake. Mr. Kroyer feels that since the DEP resolution department passed it to the Army Corps of Engineers, with their help, it should be easily resolved.
The next monthly meeting of the Planning Board will be held July 5, 2018 at 7:30 p.m.
Mrs. Romito motioned to adjourn the meeting. Mr. LaPierre seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously at 9:15 p.m.
Respectfully,
Susan H. Epstein, Clerk
____________________________
Gregory Kroyer, Chair
Added: May 07, 2018
Agenda Item 1: The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m.
Roll Call: Chair: Greg Kroyer
Present: Donna Bernard, JoAnne DeLong, Paul LaPierre, and Marianne Romito
Also present was Deputy Supervisor and Planning Board Liaison Michael McCrary.
Agenda Item 2: Approval of the Minutes of March 1, 2018
Mr. LaPierre made the motion to accept the minutes of March 1, 2018 as amended. Ms. DeLong seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Agenda Item 3: Report by Town Board Liaison Michael B. McCrary
Mr. McCrary reported to the Planning Board that the Town Board has set a Public Hearing for the amendments of the Code Review on the date of the Town Board meeting, April 11, 2018 at 7:00 p.m. He said they should go forward with this, pending information they await from Mr. Rappleyea.
He clarified the ID card process: Anybody needing an ID card needs a letter of authorization from Mr. Pellitterri, and would have to go down to Catskill for the process.
Agenda Item 4: Pierre Christ for Altered Lot Line Adjustment for properties located at 722 and 792 Merwin Street, Jewett, NY; Tax Parcel ID Nos. 110.00-6-9.122 of 3 acres, and 110.00-6-9.121 of 10.11 acres
Mr. Kroyer called Mr. Vanucchi on Mr. Christ’s behalf to organize what was necessary. Mr. Christ arrived with new plats showing the new versions of Lot One and Lot Two with the old boundary lines illustrated by a dashed line. Mr. Kroyer scrutinized the plats and pointed out the improvements. He said that Mr. Vanucchi had intended the old plat to be a preliminary only. The Planning Board reviewed the deeds and descriptions, compared them with the new map, and the tax bills referencing the school district lines, which were added to the file. Ms. Bernard reviewed the Altered Lot Line Application, and noted that the resulting lot size had been confused. Mr. Christ corrected the problem, and initialed the corrections on the application. Mr. Christ paid his fee and received a receipt from the new receipt book.
After approval, Tax Parcel ID No. 110.00-6-9.122 will change from three (3) acres to ten and seven hundred and twenty-seven thousandths (10.727) acres, and Tax Parcel ID No. 110.00-6-9.121 will change from ten and eleven hundredths (10.11) acres to three and two hundred and seventy-three thousandths (3.273) acres. Mr. Kroyer asked if the Planning Board was satisfied that all conditions had been met. Mr. LaPierre said that the iron pins cited on the deeds are very indistinct on the plat, and that he found it very frustrating to compare the deed to the plat. The Board said that all conditions had been met, and the application is complete, so Mr. Kroyer said he would entertain a motion to accept Mr. Pierre Christ’s Application for Altered Lot Line Adjustment. Mr. LaPierre so motioned, Ms. Bernard seconded the motion, and it was subjected to a Roll Call Vote: Ms. Bernard – aye; Ms. DeLong – aye; Mr. LaPierre – aye; and Mrs. Romito – aye. The application being duly approved, Mr. Kroyer signed the plats.
Agenda Item 5: Brooks and Brooks for Altered Lot Line Adjustment for Sheepskin Hills, Inc. of Tax ID Parcel No. 130.00-4-65 consisting of 87.86 acres and Bruce Transue of Tax Parcel ID No.130.00-4-20.2 consisting of 1.73 acres. The adjustment would respectively change the parcels to 86.32 acres and 3.27 acres. The above acreage is located in the Rural Conservation and Rural Residential Zoning Districts.
The Planning Board had received the package that Mr. Brooks had mailed. This included an application that had been filled out on the copy for a Boundary Lot Line Adjustment. Mr. Kroyer suggested that this application could be used with the title “Boundary Lot Line” crossed out, and changed to “Altered Lot Line.” This Mrs. Epstein did, initialed the correction, and made a copy of for Mr. Brooks. The package also included letters of representation from both applicants, copies of the current deed of record, the SEQRA, five copies of the subdivision map, and the fee. Mrs. Epstein had prepared a receipt, which she handed to Mr. Brooks. Mr. Kroyer explained to Mr. Brooks that for Jewett’s Altered Lot Line Adjustment Application no SEQRA is necessary. Mr. Brooks said that SEQRA preparation is part of their standard operating procedure.
In the 1980’s, the Slutskys gave Bruce Transue a building lot. He had been a snowmaker for them. Over the years he has encroached, so the Slutskys are now giving him an acre and a half. The red line is the new property line and the blue line is the existing property line. You can see the kennels and all on the lawn. Mr. Kroyer asked for something to show school district boundary. Mrs. Romito said it was Hunter-Tannersville. Ms. Bernard said that proof of school district was still necessary. Mr. Kroyer noted that is part of the requirements listed on the actual Altered Lot Line Adjustment Application, but Mr. Brooks said is not available online yet. Ms. Bernard commented this is less applicable on Route 296 than to parts of Route 23C. Mrs. Romito said that a person could go right to the school’s web site and download a copy of the school tax bill.
Mrs. Condon’s name was noticed, and Mr. Brooks said her property adjoins this property. Mr. Kroyer asked Mr. LaPierre to look over the deed information. Mr. Brooks said that Real Property does not change the boundaries until the new deed is filed. He said that even if a Planning Board approves and signs the map, Real Property wouldn’t change the boundaries until they have a filed deed. This is different with an actual subdivision because the subdivision is creating those new lots, and a deed is not necessary until they are sold.
Mr. Kroyer said the Board still needs the school tax receipts and this will be listed as a condition on the Decision Form. The Board has the maps, a completed application, copy of the deed for the file, and otherwise everything necessary. Mr. Kroyer asked whether everybody was comfortable proceeding. The Board said yes. Mr. Kroyer said he would entertain a motion to approve this Altered Lot Line Adjustment Application. Ms. Bernard so motioned and Mr. LaPierre seconded the motion, which was subject to a Roll Call Vote: Ms. Bernard – aye; Ms. DeLong – aye; Mr. LaPierre – aye; Mrs. Romito – aye. Mrs. Epstein filled out the Decision Form, and made copies for Mr. Brooks and Mr. Kroyer. Mr. Brooks took the plats with him to get signatures from the parties involved before he files them, and will bring them back along with the proof of school district lines, to have Mr. Kroyer sign them.
Mr. Brooks asked for and received a copy of the Altered Lot Line Adjustment Application from Mr. Kroyer.
Mr. Brooks provided a brief update on Catherine Condon, who ran into a snag between parties. The last thing Mr. Levi wanted to see was the proposed deeds in deed form; so the neighbors needed to draw that up between themselves so it is done. Mr. Brooks had these with him, so Mrs. Epstein tucked them into the Condon file. They are hoping to be on the agenda for next month, but will need to clarify that.
Agenda Item 6: Report from Greene County Planning Board representative Cyndi LaPierre
There was a Site Plan from the Town of Windham for a wedding venue over on County Route 10.
The Town of Catskill received a Site Plan for a property to be used as a branch of the Catskill Public Library, which appears to be an afterthought as the library is completed and in use.
The Town of Jewett submitted its proposed Zoning amendments and other code amendments to update definitions, add provisions for guest dwellings and ECHO units, as well as other changes regarding boundary line changes, timber harvesting, non-conforming buildings, road construction standards, and commercial even venues. These were approved, Mr. LaPierre said, and there was a lot of interest in the ECHO units.
In the Town of Cairo, an application for Site Plan and Special Use Permit was received for the construction and operation of a new, two-megawatt ground-mount photovoltaic (PV) community solar array. The property consists of almost ninety-three (93) acres on a forested, sloping surface. The project area will occupy approximately fifteen (15) acres of tree clearing, with the solar array area and dirt driveway taking up eight and seven tenths (8.7) acres. The anticipated eight and nine tenths (8.9) acres to be disturbed will require a Stormwater Pollution Plan (SWPPP). Temporary erosion and sedimentation controls are included in the project design.
Agenda Item 7: Other Business
Mr. Kroyer said there is no new business.
The next monthly meeting of the Planning Board will be held May 3, 2018 at 7:30 p.m.
Mr. LaPierre motioned to adjourn the meeting. Ms. DeLong seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously at 8:40 p.m.
Respectfully,
Susan H. Epstein, Clerk
____________________________
Gregory Kroyer, Chair
Added: April 07, 2018
Agenda Item 1: The meeting was called to order at 7:27 p.m.
Roll Call: Chair: Greg Kroyer
Present: Donna Bernard, JoAnne DeLong, Paul LaPierre, and Marianne Romito
Also present was Deputy Supervisor and Planning Board Liaison Michael McCrary.
Agenda Item 2: Approval of the Minutes of February 1, 2018
Mr. LaPierre made the motion to accept the minutes of February 1, 2018 as corrected. Ms. DeLong seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Agenda Item 3: Report by Town Board Liaison Michael McCrary
Mr. McCrary said the Town Board is still going around and back and forth with Mr. Rappleyea regarding the Code Review. He has been providing information to Mr. Pelliterri. The Town Board is onboard with the changes, and anxious to get the process done and finished. Ms. Bernard said this was eighteen months of work and a lot goes on behind the scenes. All is coming to a point now, and all the legal language has to be in place prior to the Public Hearing. Mr. McCrary pointed to the green book of Town Law, and said that basically that has to be rewritten periodically to keep up with the times. A lot of special things were included: solar panels, windmills, and other things that all had to be reviewed for future accommodations. One of these days we will have to talk about driverless cars, especially with Wi-Fi in the cars now. He said the Supervisor and he are very thankful for the work the Planning Board does for the benefit of Jewett. Ms. Bernard said the residents and the Planning Board benefit from all the work. Mr.Kroyer said that Mr. McCrary has done a great deal of work. He said they have opened the Sheriff’s sub-office. It will serve pistol permits, and also serves as a substation for reporting of everything else. Mr. Kroyer asked about Planning Board ID cards, but it is a separate licensing agreement.
Agenda Item 4: Application and Public Hearing for Katherine Thompson Bosley,Trustee for Estate of Thompson for Application for Subdivision for Tax Parcel ID No. 110.00-1-32.1 in the Hamlet Zoning District, and WAJ School District
Martin Schmidt took the floor to represent the Thompson estate tonight. He brought his letter of representation, and Mr. Kroyer compared it to the electronic copy. Mr. Schmidt said that the electronic signature was used because his client lives out of state.
Mr. Kroyer asked whether the septic system had been delineated on the plat. Mr. Schmidt provided a colored copy of the plat, with a bubble area representing the best information the client had regarding the location of the septic, without digging holes. They followed the old pipes out of the house.
Mr. Kroyer asked for the certificate of sign posting and the mail receipts from notifying the neighbors. Mrs. Romito checked the names against the list, and the only neighbor listed who had not returned a receipt was the Jewett Heights Cemetery, which is owned by the town. Mr. Kroyer had talked to Bob Mallory about the cemetery. He said that the subdivision surrounds the cemetery, and he talked to Bob Mallory, Highway Superintendent, who had no issues with the setback, but did note a pull-off to the right used by the maintenance men. Mr. Schmidt said that they had not located the pull-off when they did the boundary survey, nor had they found deeds granting an easement for the pull-off, sized approximately fifteen by thirty feet (15’ x 30’) and outside the right of way. He pointed out to the Planning Board the grassy area used for the pull-off. His client would be in favor of an easement, he said.
Mr. Mallory liked the pull-off for the maintenance men, and so Mr. Kroyer asked the Board to consider the requirement of an easement. The area has never been granted an easement, but has common use. Mr. Kroyer noted that the former access to the cemetery was through a central stone stairway, and he thought people had been parking there about a hundred years or longer, prior to cars. Ms. Bernard suggested there would be a strong case for its continued use because of the historical precedent. Mr. Kroyer asked about the road frontage. Mr. Schmidt said one was two hundred and seven feet (207’) and the other was one hundred and eighty feet (180’), for a total of three hundred and eight seven feet. Mr. Kroyer said that was almost four hundred feet. Mr. Schmidt noted that a stream cuts off one corner, but there is two hundred and twenty feet (220’) give or take from the stream to the corner, so they could do an easement without interfering with putting in a driveway. Mr. Kroyer asked the Board what they thought. The Board thought an easement would prevent potential problems in the future. Mr. Schmidt said it could be done as an easement granted from Lot Two to the Jewett Heights Cemetery written it into the suggested legal descriptions, noted in the deeds, and placed on the plat. Mr. Kroyer said he felt comfortable with something twenty feet wide.
Mr. LaPierre thought the exact limits ought to be defined – the width of twenty feet. Mr. Schmidt suggested the standard two-car lot parking areas of about twenty by twenty five feet. He said that access easements are transferred with the deed. Mr. LaPierre wondered how a new owner would understand the parameters of the easement without people encroaching on their property. Mr. Kroyer asked how would it read. Mr. Schmidt said that they could put bearings and distances on the easement so that any new owner could understand exactly where it was, and would not be misconstrued as being anything other than the twenty by twenty-five foot width. Mr. LaPierre theorized what if one time one car was there, and another time two cars were there, and another time a bunch of cars were there, how would the owner know how he could build something on his property? Mr. Kroyer said that creating an easement for parking for foot access to the cemetery would bring peace to everybody’s mind. Mr. Schmidt said it could be worded distinctly by the lawyers defining bearings and distances and placed in the deed for the owners of the Lot Two and the cemetery, granting the town the right to maintain and use, and not hold the other parties accountable. The town lawyer will also need to weigh in on the language. An easement would prevent a driveway through the area. Mr. Kroyer thought the space ought to be twenty by thirty feet (20’ x 30’), and said that since the Planning Board definitely thinks this a good idea, it will become a condition for approval.
Mr. Kroyer provided the Board with copies of the DEP letters in response to the Board’s declaration of intent to be Lead Agency dated February 8th and February 14th. He asked Mr. Schmidt to address these concerns. Mr. Schmidt said one of DEP’s biggest concerns is being able to place septic systems that meet current regulations on to Lots One, Two, and Three. In KE’s opinion they are currently proposing vacant lots. In section 10 and 11 they revised the current description stating there is currently an on-site well for Lot Four, and that this is not applicable for Lots One, Two, and Three. He provided revised copies of the EAF for the Board. The proposed action is to create Lots One, Two, and Three, without proposing further action at this point, which covers Nos. 1 and 2 of original DEP letter.
Under question No. 3, the DEP are looking for Kaaterskill Engineering’s (KE) to designate a reserve on Lot 4. Without due diligence, he cannot just draw a proposed area on the map. The existing system currently operating is grandfathered in, and should that system ever fail (to the best of his knowledge it hasn’t), they will be covered. Any septic system within the watershed does not have to meet the law when it comes to 75A. They are required to meet as many of the regulations as they possibly can, but should they need to put it closer than one hundred feet to the well, they can do that because it is a replacement system. Mr. Kroyer asked how large Lot Four is. Mr. Schmidt replied that it is two and three quarters (2.75) acres. Mr. Kroyer noted that exceeds the one and a half (1.5) acres required in the hamlet. Mr. Schmidt said that KE has done over one hundred such replacement septic systems, so should the system fail there are many options to choose for a replacement system whether they designate a reserve system at this time or not.
Moving right along to question No. 4, noting the watercourse in the vicinity of the southern portion of the property line, Mr. Schmidt said he was going to handle that along with question No. 1 of the second comment letter as one answer. What they have basically asked for is KE to go out and delineate wetlands and watercourses. That is a huge expense for him to bring in a wetlands expert and would also delay the process for his client until the spring, as it cannot be done this time of year. What they have done is scaled in and traced the watercourses and wetlands they did not locate manually while onsite using the DEC Web Mapper and the GIS website. He colored wetlands in on the presentation map in green and the watercourses in blue. He did delineate one stream they noticed while on the property, as he wanted to have plenty of space for a driveway. Mr. Kroyer asked how close to accurate it was in terms of feet; Mr. Schmidt replied ten or twenty, give or take. He thinks the way it is shown on the DEC Web Mapper probably takes it from the edge of the bank, which would make the actual waterway more narrow and that type of thing. The concern is to maintain the one hundred foot distance from any watercourse with septic systems. The scale of the map is one hundred feet, so the Board can see there is a lot of area on each parcel despite location of the watercourses.
Mr. Kroyer asked Mr. Schmidt to move on to No. 5 of the February 8th DEP letter. Mr. Schmidt said this is a tricky question, because although DEP has spent a lot of time and money creating soil surveys, he has not found them to be all that accurate. The DEP are closer with the type of soil that is out there, but he finds a lot of variations onsite – in the depths of soil to bedrock, depths to water, these vary so much site by site. If there are twelve inches of useable topsoil, which is the minimum for new construction septic system, one can create a three-foot raised septic system. To do this with less than that is a bit harder, but the water table in an area can be lowered. For example with only ten inches to water, a curtain drain could be installed and closely monitor the soil and water levels for one year. If because of that curtain drain and monitoring they can prove they have lowered the water table, they can now install a regular septic system, but it’s expensive. The Board agreed that these are all recommendations.
Mr. Kroyer moved on to the addendum, of which question No. 1 had already been addressed. Mr. Schmidt said that question No. 2 is about Stormwater. If more than two acres is disturbed, as by creating an impervious area, putting in driveways, and things of that nature, a Stormwater plan approved by the DEP is required. The common plan of development considers all the lots within the subdivision as part of these two acres. The general rule of thumb used by the DEP is that a half-acre of disturbance is created when a lot is built. Mr. Kroyer noted this only involves the total of an acre and a half, so this is covered. Ms. Bernard noted that no disturbance is planned at this time, and asked that any future disturbance totaling two acres be noted on the plat, as this is life in the watershed. Mr. Kroyer asked Ms. Bernard to note the two conditions the Board will ask for. She asked if everyone was aware that the SEQRA that everyone reviewed has been changed. Mr. Kroyer asked if everyone knew that it was questions No. 10 and 11 that had been changed to read N/A for sites 1,2, and 3. Everyone knew, and Mr. Schmidt had provided copies of the changed SEQRA.
Ms. Bernard wanted to clarify the changes for the minutes. She noted that No. 3b reads 0 acreage to be totally disturbed. Mr. Schmidt said that is because there are not going to be any disturbances proposed at this time.
Mr. Kroyer said he would entertain a motion to declare Lead Agency status for this unlisted action. Mr. LaPierre made the motion, which was seconded by Ms. DeLong, and subjected to a Roll Call Vote: Ms. Bernard – aye; Ms. DeLong – aye; Mr. LaPierre – aye; and Mrs. Romito – aye.
Mr. Kroyer called for a motion to open the Public Hearing at 8:05 p.m. Ms. Bernard so motioned, Mr. LaPierre seconded the motion, and it passed unanimously.
Seeing no one in attendance for the Public Hearing, Mr. Kroyer called for a motion to close the Public Hearing at 8:10 p.m. Mr. LaPierre so motioned. The motion was seconded by Ms. Bernard, and carried unanimously.
Mr. Kroyer asked the Planning Board members if they had heard anything to change the preliminary declaration of a negative declaration on the SEQRA. No one had. He said he would entertain a motion to accept the SEQRA and the Neg Dec. Mr. LaPierre made the motion, Ms. Bernard seconded the motion, and it was subjected to a Roll Call Vote: Ms. Bernard – aye; Ms. DeLong – aye; Mr. LaPierre – aye; and Mrs. Romito – aye.
Mr. Kroyer asked Mrs. Epstein to send the new SEQRA and the Neg Dec copy to the DEP.
Mr. Kroyer said there are two conditions now – the easement for cemetery access and the notation on the plat noting the lack of disturbance so the Stormwater plan is not needed. Ms. Bernard said the plan would not be signed until the Board receives the Mylar with the two conditions. Mr. Kroyer said he would entertain a motion to approve the application for a minor subdivision with the two conditions mentioned above. Mr. LaPierre so motioned, and Ms. DeLong seconded the motion, and it was subject to a Roll Call Vote: Ms. Bernard – aye; Ms. DeLong – aye; Mr. LaPierre – aye; and Mrs. Romito – aye.
Ms. Bernard filled out the conditions on the Decision form as follows: create easement for the cemetery for parking (town highway maintenance), and note total lot disturbance greater than two acres need SWAAP approval from DEP on map. Mrs. Epstein completed the Decision from. Copies were made for Mr. Schmidt and Mr. Kroyer, who will see that they get to the Town Supervisor, the Town Clerk, the Code Enforcement Officer, the Tax Assessor, and the Highway Superintendent. The plats will not be signed until the Mylar and conditions are completed. Mr. Schmidt anticipates that it will take him about a week to complete this work and double check everything, and he will get in touch with Mr. Rappleyea about the wording on the cemetery deed for the easement if necessary.
Agenda Item 5: Pierre Christ for Altered Lot Line Adjustment for properties located at 722 and 792 Merwin Street, Jewett, NY; Tax Parcel ID Nos. 110.00-6-9.122 of 3 acres, and 110.00-6-9.121 of 11 acres
Mr. Christ had dropped off a map of the changes he wants to make with his properties prior to the meeting night. He told the Planning Board he could not locate any copies of the deeds, even though he made a visit to his surveyor. He commented that he had paid taxes on the properties for twenty-two years. Mr. Kroyer said things might have been done differently years ago. Mr. Christ thought that all he has to do is get the property changed and then he can get the deeds once he files the maps in Catskill. Mr. Kroyer told Mr. Christ the Planning Board requires the deeds and surveys of both properties to be affected before the Board can move forward on his application. What Mr. Christ has provided instead is an existing plat with whiteout and handwritten changes that only the surveyor should make. Mr. Christ said that his surveyor had modified the map, but did not provide the surveys of both properties as he expected. Mr. Kroyer explained that even if the Board approved his altered lot line with this map, that when Mr. Christ brings this map to Greene County Real Property looking to file two different tax parcels than he currently has, he will be unsuccessful, because Greene County Real Property will not accept it. They need new surveys to account for the new tax parcels, as Mr. Kroyer learned when he phoned them.
Mr. Christ’s maps on file are dated August 7, 2015, and Ms. Bernard held one from 1995. The County will not get involved with the deeds, which Mr. Christ should have, Mr. Kroyer explained, but they need the maps. Ms. Bernard said that at the bottom of the application is the information listing what is needed. It is relatively simple. The Board needs proof of the school tax lines, a copy of the deed as it exists now, and descriptions of the changes to be made.
Surveys of both properties drawn to scale are needed. Mrs. Romito said that the map looked like the last one, until the date was changed. Mr. Kroyer offered to call Mr. Christ’s surveyor to tell him what is needed if it will help Mr. Christ out. Mr. Christ had filled out the application, but decided to hold on to everything until he can gather the required information. No fee was paid and the application would not have been accepted tonight anyway.
Agenda Item 6: Alana and Kevin Kulesa for discussion of parcel ID No. 111.00-1-54, located at 651 Merwin Street.
Mr. and Mrs. Kulesa had driven up from Pennsylvania to look into a Special Use Permit for a Wedding Venue for property they own over on Merwin Street. They passed out literature about their proposed business, and enthusiastic about their project, hoping to be able to relocate to Jewett full-time once it grows. The business is called Adena Orchard & Vine. They currently live between Jewett and Pittsburgh, PA. They have been married for seventeen years. She grew up between Jewett and New Jersey. They want to move up to Jewett permanently with their children year round. Location is at 651 Merwin Street, originally the site of the Tower Mountain House, then bought by the Kirkman family of Kirkman Flakes as a wedding gift for their daughter. Afterwards it was owned by the Maben family and used as a dairy farm, and is still remembered by the locals as the Maben farm. The Mabens sold it to Mrs. Kulesa’s parents in 1978. The name “Adena” means adorned and noble. The property holds many beautiful old apple trees. The name “Vine” in the business is because Mr. Kulesa cultivates wines. The Kulesas were married in 2000, and that was the first wedding on the property. What they really want is to have an event venue, mostly weddings, but small intimate events of other types. They are buying 701 Merwin Street, which is directly adjacent to 651, formerly owned by Paul Rosedale, who had since passed. The log cabin property was subdivided from the log cabin property prior to that. The Dolans own the barn property of four and a half acres with a barn, which they are in the process of purchasing right now to protect the view and wanting to use the barn for weddings. Ms. Bernard asked whether they were considering merging the two properties. They said not at this time, but it is a question. Ms. Bernard asked whether the barn was on its own parcel with no residence. They said it was. Ms. Bernard stated that this was pre-existing and non-conforming, but that under Jewett law, properties with adjacent buildings are not accepted unless there is a primary residence on the property. She suggested that the Kulesas might want to merge that property with their primary residence for that very reason. Mr. Kroyer asked if anyone was on the Planning board when Paul Rosedale separated the log cabin property from the lot with the barn on it. Mrs. Kulesa said that their understanding was there were three properties originally – the log cabin acreage, the barn acreage, and a very small one that was later merged back into the barn property. Mr. Kulesa said that there was another property to the right of the barn. That owner was having some health difficulty and so split the parcels off. Mr. Kroyer and Ms. Bernard said that there was some other way to do that. The Kulesas asked whether the Board recommended that they merge the two properties as suggested. Mr. Kroyer said the Board would rather wait and think about that.
Mrs. Kulesa said that the barn was originally in Ashland, and Mr. Rosedale had it imported to Jewett in 2001. It was built, she said, in the 1830’s or 1840’s, and they were able to find records from when he had it disassembled and reassembled. It has a new foundation and a new roof. Such barn venues have become extremely successful in Greene County. There is a business in Roxbury booking two years in advance, and Hayfield in Maple Crest. They have a certificate of compliance in renovation from when the barn was moved, and they have hired a structural engineer to come look at it, who said it is in very good condition. Mr. Shippee saw it and they have an appointment for Mr. Giangrande to view it. They have their eye on the log cabin property, which they have heard is under foreclosure, but it is a complex procedure.
They have formed an LLC in 2016 for the business, are developing a business plan, have a website, and taking the steps to create a legal entity. They hope this business to be very successful because of the beauty and the views that are there, and make the move to the area full time. They want to support the local economy, the area’s restaurants, shops and vendors, caterers, florists, photographers, local clergy, et cetera. Their primary goal is to provide an event venue on the weekends, as that is when most weddings take place. Mr. Kulesa got up to speak, as he has the designer’s background. He said the background for photos would be the pond and Rosedale barn. He provided a map of the properties and the venue highlights. He said the current property and the new property both provide sufficient off street parking. He provided a map showing the distance of the neighbors from their site, and said that most of the owners are not local, and that several properties are for sale. Most of the neighbors are weekenders. Mrs. Kulesa said they had done a lot of digging through the Code, and wanted to address concerns that the Board might have such as noise, parking, and traffic. They plan to have no amplified music after 11:00 p.m. Mr. Kroyer said that Jewett does have the Noise Ordinance within its Code, but he believes their time is incorrect. The event venue does fall under Jewett’s Mass Gathering permit about more than two hundred people at a public assembly regulation. They do not anticipate that many. Mrs. Kulesa said they would change their business plan to comply with Jewett’s noise ordinance. Parking would all be on property and they would arrange for shuttles for the weddings, the circular driveway would make this easy. They would also provide cleared pathways and mowed areas for pedestrians.
Mr. Kroyer said they have done their homework and it is very impressive. He said Jewett is exploring the commercial venues as part of its Code Review currently. They can have an event there now, up to two hundred guests, more than that would require the SUP for Mass Gathering. His professional advice to them is to be patient regarding the Wedding Venue, but to keep in contact with the Board to see where it is at with our process. In the meantime they can be up and running under the current law. Ms. Bernard may be in touch with her via the email provided on the business card.
The process should the Town Board decide upon this in the new code book, would be they would file for the Special Use Permit (SUP) and go through the steps of attending the meeting, pay their fees, and go through a Site Plan Review, and it would be a real thing then, showing the locations ad the setbacks. He said the Planning Board is exciting for the Board and for the Town. The fact that they had gotten married here was both touching and an excellent sales pitch. Their attorney is helping them with the legal contracts and advice. Mr. Kulesa asked about Solar Panels, which Mr. McCrary said the town already has. He likes the idea since the barn is so far from anything else.
Mr. Kroyer said the biggest issues that come up for him are the neighbors, the noise ordinance, and that the time would probably be earlier than 11:00 p.m., but said that after the earlier hours they could unplug the acoustics. Mr. Kulesa said with the nearest neighbors a thousand feet away, they have a really great location. The Kulesas promised to stay in touch with the Planning Board. They were asked whether they would hire local people, but said that at this moment they are just going to be the wedding venue. Everyone agreed the process is very exciting.
Agenda Item 7: Lisa Kirk for Altered Lot Line Adjustment for parcel ID Nos. 150.00-2-16.1, 150.00-2-16.2, and 150.00-2-17
Ms. Kirk was not in attendance tonight.
Agenda Item 8: Code Review: Three Laws
Mr. Kroyer presented changes in the Code Review for the Planning Board. The first one is § 165-34. Alterations; extension otherwise known as the “150% Rule.”
The language was revised from “§ 165-34. Alterations; extension: A nonconforming building may be reconstructed or structurally altered during its life, but such reconstruction or structural alteration may not exceed 150% of the equalized assessed value or the building without approval of the Planning Board unless the building is changed to a conforming use. In every case where application is made to the Town for the reconstruction of alteration of a nonconforming building, the Zoning Enforcement Officer shall obtain a statement of the building’s current equalized assessed value from the Sole Assessor. In no case shall the reconstruction or alteration increase the building’s nonconformity. In case of fire or other natural disaster, the nonconforming use may be rebuilt to 100% of its previous condition” to the following:
“§ 165-34. Alterations; extension: A nonconforming building may be reconstructed or structurally altered during its life, but such reconstruction or structural alteration may not exceed 150% of the size of the building, without approval of the Planning Board unless the building is changed to a conforming use. In every case where application is made to the Town for the reconstruction or alteration of a nonconforming building, the Zoning Enforcement Officer shall obtain a statement of the building’s current location and size from the Sole Assessor. In no case shall the reconstruction or alteration increase the building’s nonconformity.”
Mr. Kroyer said that the language reading, “may not exceed 150% of the equalized assessed value or the building without approval of the Planning Board unless the building is changed to a conforming use” has proven to be very confusing. Ms. DeLong commented that this version is so much easier to understand. Ms. Bernard recalled the difficulty when Mr. Artismae came before the Board with the property formerly belonging to Eva Hampsch. She said the language Mr. Pellitterri is proposing is the way Mr. Rappleyea explained it to her, recalling the example provided of a hat factory being a Use, and not a home. Mr. Kroyer said that this has been discussed at length, and that the most recent difficulty was with Mr. Emel’s barn. Fortunately he got approval on that one today.
Mr. Kroyer presented the following as changes to the Road Design and construction, because moto-paving is not available any more. Mr. Mallory had re-written this himself based upon what is currently available.
§ 140-26. Road design and construction.
A. Construction specifications. [Amended 5-10-2006 by L.L. No. 4-2006]
(1) Minimum road standards
(a) Roads shall be constructed according to the minimum road standards specified in the diagram and described below.
(b) The base of the roadway shall be brought to grade, thoroughly compacted, and stabilized with a subsurface of 12 inches of gravel. Each road paved will meet or exceed the following specifications. They will be constructed using black top. The first course (base) will be 2.5” thick using a course binder when compacted. The second course (top) will be 1” thick using a fine top mix, (type 6 or finer), when compacted. Back slopes shall be graded and reseeded and brush removed to the right-of-way boundary. All necessary culverts of suitable size shall be installed, and adequate drainage provided for on both sides of the roadway. The depth of the drainage ditches and the location and the size of the culverts shall be determined by the Town Highway Superintendent.
(2) Exception.
(a) The minimum road standards set forth above in Subsection A(I), with respect to the final paving of the road surface only, shall not apply to new private roads constructed subsequent to the date of the enactment of this subsection, within the Town having four or less parcels situated thereon. However, such private roads must comply with all other minimum standards set forth above. All owners of parcels of land situated on such private road(s) must enter into a road maintenance agreement in a form acceptable to the Town Planning Board, and the Town Attorney prior to the approval of a subdivision of land in the Town of Jewett. Such agreement shall be executed with the same formality as a deed and shall be recorded in the Greene County Clerk’s Office contemporaneously with the filing of the approved…
The new proposal of Commercial Event Venue was read aloud by Mr. LaPierre. Mr. Kroyer said Mr. Rappleyea has already reviewed this proposed SUP. It will not take place in the Hamlet Zoning District because there is not sufficient space for this type of event. The Planning Board will oversee this SUP, which would mean a Public Hearing. Ms. DeLong wondered about the Mass Gatherings law that Mrs. Kulesa was talking about. Mr. Kroyer said that no law prevents any resident from having a wedding or event on their property, but any gathering involving over two hundred people requires the Mass Gathering Permit and the Noise Ordinance. This new Special Use Permit covers all anticipated difficulties wherever people may gather. Ms. DeLong said the new businesses promoting event venues are doing very well.
It was suggested that the wording in D. regarding the location being “located 150 feet from adjacent owner’s property lines” be worded more flexibly so that the event is not restricted to that distance should more distance be available. Note was made of spelling corrections to be made. Mr. Kroyer asked for a motion that the Planning Board recommend that the Town Board review and implement these three laws with the minor edits. Ms. Bernard made the motion. Ms. Romito seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Agenda Item 9: Report from Greene County Planning Board representative Cyndi LaPierre.
For the Town of Catskill, an Area Variance and Site Plan Review (to be done later and returned to the local planning board) for expansion of the structure on a Main Street property in Leeds was reviewed and met certain countywide considerations.
Also in Catskill, an application for a Special Use Permit regarding the conversion of a library and two apartment buildings into an apartment structure with six units was approved, interior to be planned by an engineer.
Again in Catskill, a Special Use Permit application for converting an existing structure on Game Farm Road into a bed and breakfast inn utilizing also the adjoining property for camping and events was approved. The old “giraffe house” – the Long Neck Inn – will have five rooms, and events are restricted to one hundred or fewer people, an event tent, and four tents.
From the Town of Hunter, there was a re-submittal of a referral previously reviewed on October 18, 2017 for a Site Plan for Northeast Recyclers, Inc. (aka Haines Falls Auto) in Haines Falls. The referral changed from the previously submitted one – the construction and demolition debris processing was omitted. The current referral includes an expanded parking area, drainage improvements, and directional signage and curbing along the southeast corner of the parcel to the north side of Route 23A and along the northeast corner of the property to the south side of Route 23A. No decision was arrived at.
In the Town of Catskill, a Use Variance for a basement intended for a barbershop was approved based upon proof of “unnecessary hardship.”
Also in the Town of Catskill, a Use Variance regarding a commercial trucking business was disapproved. More detail was needed for the site proposal, and there were flood plain concerns.
Mr. Kroyer noted that the new Code Enforcement Officer, Carl Giangrande, is also a member of the Greene County Planning Board and a member of the Hunter Village Planning Board. He is also the Tannersville Village CEO and the Lexington CEO. He recommended people sign up for their training at the Watershed Summit in April.
The next monthly meeting of the Planning Board will be held April 5, 2018 at 7:30 p.m.
The meeting adjourned at 9:40 p.m.
Respectfully,
Susan H. Epstein, Clerk
____________________________
Gregory Kroyer, Chair
Added: March 10, 2018
Agenda Item 1: The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m.
Roll Call: Chair: Greg Kroyer
Present: Donna Bernard, JoAnne DeLong, Paul LaPierre, and Marianne Romito
Also present was Deputy Supervisor and Planning Board Liaison Michael McCrary.
Agenda Item 2: Approval of the Minutes of January 11 and January 17, 2018
Mr. LaPierre made the motion to accept the minutes of January 11, 2018 as amended. Ms. Bernard seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Mrs. Romito motioned to accept the minutes of January 17, 2018 as amended. Mrs. Epstein seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Agenda Item 3: Report by Town Board Liaison Michael McCrary
Mr. McCrary said the Town Board is still awaiting the final proposal from Mr. Rappleyea for the Zoning Code Review, including the provision mentioned by J.R. Quackenbush for wedding venues. Mr. Kroyer asked Mr. McCrary whether the Code Review committee would have to be reconvened for any part of the process, and Mr. McCrary answered that he hoped it would be contained in a preview to send to the Planning Board. Ms. Bernard said that an additional report would be needed from the Planning Board to the Town Board. She said the Code had already been finished with the exception of the Wedding Venue. Mr. Kroyer hoped it could be finalized by email. Ms. Bernard said that a special meeting could be convened. Mr. McCrary said it would still need to be subjected to a Public Hearing. Ms. Bernard said as soon as the Planning Board gets the recommendation for the Wedding Venue, she could draft it in the same format, the Board could meet to approve it, and the Town Board could have it the very next day.
Agenda Item 4: Special Use Permit for Hunter Mountain Ski Bowl, Inc./Hunter North Expansion Project for Tax Parcel ID Tax No. 163.00-2-18.11 in the Rural Conservation Zoning District consisting of 40.3 acres. Property located off Deming Road (no address is given in tax information)
Mr. Kroyer said that all Planning Board members should have received information emailed via drop box from two and a half to three weeks ago. Changes were made to the Site Plan within the Town of Jewett, based upon Mr. Van Deusen’s comments from Lamont Engineering. Mr. Coloton said that the site of the stop signs was changed to be more apparent, and the culvert was re-designed based upon a comment from DEC habitat. That was the major change on the Jewett side of the line. The culvert changed from two five-footers (5’) to putting in a large one, Mr. Kroyer noted. Highway Supervisor Mr. Mallory liked that large culvert better.
A couple SEQRA changes were added at the Public Hearing. Mr. Coloton said they changed to Central Hudson as a supplier from NYSEG. The Hunter Planning Board had made the following suggestion, to amend Part One, page seven: yes was checked from a box where nothing was checked. Mr. Coloton said the electrical usage increased. At the time they did not know what the electrical usage of the new whip line was going to be, and they decided upon 250 KW at the Public Hearing. Ms. Bernard said the SEQRA changes were minor, and would never affect a Negative Declaration.
Hunter Planning Board Chair Sarah Kilhoury said after the Public Hearing that she felt all the conditions had been mitigated, and requested a motion for Negative Declaration for SEQRA. A Roll Call Vote was taken, and their Board voted unanimously to accept the Neg Dec. Mr. Kroyer felt they took everything into consideration and addressed everything they were supposed to. Mr. Rappleyea had said, based upon the fact that the Town of Hunter Planning Board is Lead Agency, the Town of Jewett Planning Board is subject to their findings with our input, and is bound by their determination.
Mr. Kroyer asked the Planning Board if everyone is comfortable moving forward with this. The Board said it was. Since the Town of Hunter Planning Board is the Lead Agency with regards to SEQRA in this matter and as such the Town of Jewett Planning Board is bound by their SEQRA Determination, and as the Town of Hunter Planning Board has addressed all of the SEQRA concerns brought forward by the Town of Jewett Planning Board, Mr. Kroyer said he would like to entertain a motion to accept the Town of Hunter Planning Board SEQRA determination of the Negative Declaration. Mr. LaPierre so moved, and Ms. DeLong seconded the motion, which was subject to a Roll Call Vote: Ms. Bernard – aye; Ms. DeLong – aye; Mr. LaPierre – aye; and Mrs. Romito – aye.
Mr. Kroyer next said that whereas the initially submitted Site Plan has been amended by the Applicant’s Engineer to address any and all of the concerns brought forward thus far by the Town of Jewett Planning Board he would entertain a motion to approve the Application for Site Plan approval. Ms. Bernard so moved, Mr. LaPierre seconded the motion, and it was subjected to a Roll Call Vote: Ms. Bernard – aye; Ms. DeLong – aye; Mr. LaPierre – aye; and Mrs. Romito – aye.
Mr. Kroyer said that considering the Application for Site Plan Approval for this project has been approved, he would entertain a motion to approve the Application for Special Use Permit for a Ski Area with attached conditions: (1) Applicant shall obtain all State, County, Town of Hunter and Town of Jewett approvals and/or permits prior to commencement of construction; (2) Applicant shall notify the Planning Board prior to commencement of construction and comply with all required inspections; (3) Deming Road improvements as shown on the Site Plan shall be performed by the Applicant at their expense; (4) Compliance with Town of Jewett Noise Ordinance is required; and (5) Adequate sanitary facilities shall be provided and maintained by the Applicant. Mr. LaPierre so motioned, seconded by Ms. Bernard, and subjected to a Roll Call Vote: Ms. Bernard – aye; Ms. DeLong – aye; Mr. LaPierre – aye; and Mrs. Romito – aye.
Mr. Kroyer noted the applicant has one year to complete construction, by February 1, 2019, with a six-month extension if necessary. He said to Mr. Coloton he would get his permit and Decision, and asked whether anyone else had approved this yet. Mr. Coloton said the way the month fell, next week is Hunter’s meeting. Mrs. Epstein prepared the Decision papers, one for the Site Plan and one for the Special Use Permit for Ski Area with attached conditions. One was given to Mr. Coloton and one for the secretary to send to Town of Hunter Planning Board Chair Sarah Kilhoury. Mr. Kroyer said that Jewett Highway Superintendent Bob Mallory would inspect the Deming Road portion of the project. Mr. Coloton did not expect the road to be paved until the end of the project. The new CEO and Building Inspector, Mr. Carl Giangrande, will inspect the remainder of the project. Ms. Bernard said she was making a note for December 2018 to follow through with this. Mr. Coloton asked whether the permit must be visibly posted at the location, and said they can put it in their swift box. Meanwhile, Mrs. Epstein finished filling out the Decision papers, and made copies for Mr. Kroyer who will hand them to the important people. She will mail a copy at Mr. Kroyer’s request to Mrs. Kilhoury.
Mr. Coloton thanked the Planning Board, which had made a real difference for his group. Ms. Bernard complimented Mr. Kroyer on the great job he had done for his first project as Chair-in-Chief.
Agenda Item 5: Kaaterskill Engineering’s Martin Schmidt for Katherine Thompson Bosley,Trustee for Estate of Thompson for Application for Subdivision for Tax Parcel ID No. 110.00-1-32.1 in the Hamlet Zoning District, and WAJ School District
Martin Schmidt represented the Thompson estate tonight, but forgot his letter of representation, which he promised to email and bring the original next month. The check promised last month had come, and Mrs. Epstein gave Mr. Schmidt the receipt from the new receipt book provided by Mr. Kroyer.
The response letter from the GCPB had come stating “No jurisdiction.”
Mr. Kroyer asked whether the septic system had been delineated on the plat. Mr. Schmidt has no information as to where the actual septic system is. He believes it is just an actual laid up dry well behind the house. He did not want to put something inaccurate on the plat. Mr. Kroyer understands it could be a stone laid well from the 1800’s, but said he needs to know it is on that parcel. He suggested Mr. Schmidt could follow the pipe that usually comes out of the house. Mr. Schmidt promised to do some more digging on that location. Mr. Kroyer said he did not expect Mr. Schmidt to do any more digging, but just to put its location on the map. Mr. Schmidt said that he would have it by next month.
Mr. Schmidt said his boss, Mr. Elsom, had spoken to Mr. Damrath of the NYCDEP. There is a stream and some wetlands on the seven-acre parcel, but Mr. Damrath felt confident there was plenty of space available to the parcels to include a septic system. The smallest lot of two and three quarters (2.75) acres has an existing septic, and he said there is more flexibility for replacement septic systems than for new ones. He said if you have to be within one hundred feet of a well, you could be. Mr. Kroyer said that they are not planning to build anything, and the Board is not asking for designed septic plans. Mr. Schmidt replied that he wanted to give the Board reassurance. Mr. Kroyer said the Board would like it to be able to sustain its own septic system.
Mr. Schmidt wanted to draw attention to Note No.7, which reads, “No soil testing was performed in the preparation of this subdivision, and future soils tests will be needed to confirm the suitability of the soil. Additional fieldwork, including topographical mapping, will also need to be performed to confirm adequate slope and separation distances. A DEP approved subsurface sewage treatment system design will need to be completed prior to the commencement of construction on the proposed vacant lots.”
Mr. Kroyer said that Mr. Schmidt still needs to bring a Letter of Representation, and something showing where the septic system is on the existing house to alleviate the Board’s concern that the septic remain on its own parcel. Mr. Schmidt wondered if a note from the owner would suffice. Mr. LaPierre thought that it would.
Mr. Kroyer explained that the Planning Board has not yet received the response letter from the NYCDEP to its declaration of intent to be Lead Agency, so it cannot motion to declare itself Lead Agency. Mr. LaPierre read the SEQRA Part One provided. Ms. Bernard suggested the Board preliminarily review Part Two as well. Mr. Schmidt had not provided one, and he made a note that this Planning Board likes the applicants to provide one. She happened to have a copy the Board could use. Mr. LaPierre read this aloud also. The Board answered “No” to each question, and will make its final determination next month after the thirty-day wait is over for NYCDEP to reply to its letter.
Mr. Kroyer asked Mr. Schmidt if he wanted to move forward with the Public Hearing on March 1st. Mr. Schmidt said that he did. Mr. Kroyer asked for Mr. Schmidt’s promise that he would have the Letter of Representation and the septic information by that date, or this Board would not move forward with the Public Hearing. Mr. Schmidt emphatically said that he would assure the Board that he would have that material completed by that time. He will send an updated copy of the map and the letter via email by the middle of next week.
Mr. Kroyer said that he would entertain the motion to set the Public Hearing for the Thompson Estate for March 1, 2018 at 8:00 p.m. Ms. DeLong so motioned, Mr. LaPierre seconded the motion, and it was subject to a Roll Call Vote: Ms. Bernard – aye; Ms. DeLong – aye; Mr. LaPierre – aye; and Mrs. Romito – aye.
Mr. Kroyer supplied Mr. Schmidt with the letter to notify adjoining property owners within five hundred feet, the signs to be posted, and said the Board would need the list of certified mail receipts and the letter of formality stating they had posted the sign. Mr. Schmidt wondered if posting them on a utility pole would be okay. Mr. Kroyer said the signs should be visible, between four and six feet high from the baseline, and less than ten feet back from the property line or roadway. A telephone pole is a big post, so he should be fine. Mr. Kroyer noted that a sign of eight and a half by eleven inches (8.5 x 11”) is legal for a posting of a subdivision, but that a size of fourteen by twenty-two inches (14 x 22”)is the legal size for a Special Use Permit. He stated that because the larger sized signs are more visible, he would prefer to provide the larger signs for all Public Hearings in the future. Since there are two openings on the property, two signs were provided. Mr. Kroyer said he would like the signs posted and the letters sent out prior to February 18th. He asked Mrs. Epstein to run the ads in the paper prior to February 22nd. Ms. Bernard suggested that a snow date for the following week be placed in the same legal ad as the Public Hearing, so that the only thing the Board would have to do is put a sign on the door in case the meeting has to be cancelled.
Mr. Kroyer asked if Mr. Schmidt had any questions. He said not. Ms. Bernard asked about DEP. Mr. Elsom had spoken to Mr. Damrath, who noted some wetlands on the proposed lot, and he anticipated no difficulty with proceeding as planned. Mr. Kroyer promised to let Mr. Schmidt know when the NYCDEP letter has come in, so Mr. Schmidt would be “good to go” for the 18th. Preliminarily the Board has done the SEQRA and the Neg Dec, which will be finalized at the next meeting.
Mr. Schmidt asked about the signing box on the plat, and said Kaaterskill Engineering has a formal one which reads “resolution of the Planning Board,” and Ms. Bernard said technically it should read “motion of the Planning Board” as more correct for a Subdivision. He thanked the Board and departed.
Agenda Item 6: Brooks and Brooks for discussion item: Lot Line Adjustment for Catherine Condon. For property located at 113 Natty Bumpo’s Path, Hunter, NY; Tax Map Parcel ID Nos. 130.00-4-17.1, containing 38.41 acres, and adjacent parcel 130.00-3-42, which contains 25.35 acres. New resulting lot sizes will be 29.66 and 34.10 acres respectively.
The applicant was not ready to come forward tonight, so they have been placed on the Agenda for March 1, 2018.
Agenda Item 7: Report from Greene County Planning Board representative Cyndi LaPierre.
Mr. LaPierre said no meeting was held because there was no quorum.
Agenda Item 8: Other business:
The next monthly meeting of the Planning Board will be held March 1, 2018 at 7:30 p.m., followed by the Public Hearing for Thompson at 8:00 p.m.
Mr. Kroyer wanted to entertain a motion to close the meeting. Mr. LaPierre motioned to adjourn the Planning Board meeting at 8:16 p.m. The motion was seconded by Ms. Bernard, and carried unanimously.
Respectfully,
Susan H. Epstein, Clerk
____________________________
Gregory Kroyer, Chair
Added: February 03, 2018
Agenda Item 1: The joint Public Hearing with the Town of Hunter Planning Board as held on January 17, 2018 at 7:00 p.m. at the Town of Hunter Town Hall located at 5748 Route 23A in Tannersville, NY. Ms. Sarah Killourhy explained that this meeting of two Planning Boards is solely for the Public Hearing, not a question and answer session, and what the Public could expect. She said comments should be directed to the Board, not the engineers or other commentators.
The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m.
The Town of Hunter called their Roll. Ms. Killourhy noted for purposes of record the notice of the meeting was in the Kingston Freeman newspaper on January 10th and posted on the town’s website.
Attending for the Town of Jewett Planning Board were:
Roll Call: Chair: Greg Kroyer
Present: Marianne Romito, Susan Hintz-Epstein, and Town Board Liaisson Michael McCrary
For purposes of record, Jewett’s notice of the meeting was in the Daily Mail for January 13th, and the Mountain Eagle edition of the week preceding the meeting. The applicant handed Mr. Kroyer the plat package and Mrs. Epstein the letter titled “Certificate of Posting of Public Hearing Notice Sign” and the certified mailing receipts for all the adjoining property owners located within five hundred feet (500’) of the subject parcel. Mrs. Epstein and Mrs. Romito checked the receipts against the list of abutters provided, and found all had been notified.
Mr. Kroyer introduced Jewett’s Board members and stated that the Town of Jewett’s interest in the Public Hearing included Applications for Site Plan Approval and Application for Special Use Permit for a Ski Area for Tax Parcel ID No. 163.00-2-18.11 put forth by Hunter Mountain Ski Trail Expansion.
He invited anyone with further questions to attend the February 1st meeting of the Jewett Planning Board. He said that Jewett had been receiving comments of interest from the Public and had already heard Mr. Roy Silver speak at the Planning Board meeting of December 7, 2017.
Agenda Item 2: Public Hearing
Mary Beth Bianconi of Delaware Engineering presented a brief overview of the project for the public. Five new trails are proposed for Hunter Mountain on the west side of the mountain. The entire area is about one thousand acres, and the total area to be disturbed is approximately sixty-four (64) acres. The site is accessed from Deming Road off of State Route 23A. The road will be improved with a new road to be built into the area of development. There will be a parking area of two hundred and sixty spaces; an area for ticket booth, food trucks, garbage cans, toilet facilities; and the storm water management improvements. Ms. Bianconi presented a topographical map, very steeply sloped, showing trails and new lift. People will be able to ski from other side of the mountain. Another feature, Rusk Hollow Road will terminate as a town road, but will continue as an access road with a turnaround. An action will happen between the Town and the Ski Slope to clarify ownership issues and other matters. The road is designed to be a crushed stone road, and somewhat temporary. She also presented a blowup of larger area showing space for temporary facilities, and adequate location for traffic and a pedestrian bridge to get over to where the ski lift is.
Ms. Killourhy said that she would be opening the Public Hearing, and asked those present to raise their hands if they would like to speak. After the Public Hearing closes, she said the Town of Hunter Planning Board as SEQRA Lead Agency would review the documents they have received thus far and work on their determination. She called for speakers.
Mr. Joseph Grillo owns the property on Maple Avenue Extension going all the way up to Rusk Hollow Road. Mr. Colton said that Mr. Grillo lives west of the power line. Mr. Grillo wondered about the bridge crossing the stream. Ms. Bianconi showed him the detailed map of the pedestrian bridge that the skiers would cross to get to the lift area. Mr. Coloton explained that the same bridge company who did the Village Bridge would be doing this bridge, so it would have a similar appearance. The skiers can park and cross the bridge to get to the lift.
Mr. Grillo is concerned about an easement he obtained from the Slutzkys forty years ago going up a dirt trail, where it seems the ski slope would be utilizing that area. Mr. Coloton said that easement would be moved., and another road would be built to access Rusk Hollow. Mr. Grillo asked to be part of that process.
Ms. Killourhy asked if that was his main concern. Mr. Grillo said it was, and wanted to know how far Rusk Hollow will be getting cut back. Ms. Bianconi said that Rusk Hollow Road would be ending where there was a mobile home at one time, and that a cul-de-sac would be put in, right after last home on about a quarter to half an acre. Ms. Killourhy promised to send him documentation via email if he would put his contact information next to his name on the sign-in sheet.
Mr. Roy Silver was the next to speak. He provided the Boards with a copy of his letter for the file, which he read aloud. Mr. Silver expressed his concerns with the proposed west side ski expansion of Hunter Mountain. He believes that climate change will affect skiing in the Catskills in upcoming years, and hopes that Hunter Mountain Expansion would utilize another area than the “verdant and scenic northwest terrain.” He has gathered some scientific data to support his ideas, and spoke also his concerns about losing recreational business in accord with this decline. He fears sacrificing scenic values for short-term gain.
Mr. Harold Goldberg of the Village of Hunter Planning Board replied to Mr. Silver’s statement. He has something from Governor Cuomo’s office supporting New York State’s surging tourist industry, and read only from the most pertinent part. Our world-class attractions, mountains, and Olympic activity offer vast economic potential. Modernize facilities to compete with other world-class ski destinations. The state contributed $28,000 Whiteface, Gore, and expansion of a new gondola at Bellaire, a first for the Catskills in New York State. To continue the economic drive and growth, Governor Cuomo plans to invest in the infrastructure and improvement of additional year-round attractions at Whiteface, Bellaire, and other similar facilities to bring significant growth to New York State.
Mr. Goldberg thinks it would be a big advantage to see this project started as soon as possible.
Warren Hart, Greene County’s Director of Economic Planning, was next to speak. The County has a long working relationship with Hunter Mountain on economic projects, tourism, advertising, and all the activities that this four-season resort provides: events, festivals, and the zip line. Mr. Hart met with Mr. Coloton and Peak Resorts, and has looked at the investment, the projection of skier visits, and the economic advantage for Greene County. He is fully supportive of this project, and wants to keep that business viable for Greene County, which is more dependent on tourism jobs than any other county in the Catskills. He said skier visits are up, vacation numbers are up, and most are due to this largest private sector employer, especially as they expand into a four-season destination. Mr. Hart said that Greene County Economic Planning and Development do a lot of trade and travel shows, and it is always Hunter Mountain that people are familiar with when he tries to describe where Greene County is located.
Paul Slutzky said he resides in the Village of Hunter, in the original Deming Farm house. The original Deming Farm now abuts this project on the west side. As one of the former owners of Hunter Mountain, they had looked at this particular project as a master plan for trail work done with one of the premier engineering firms in the ski industry. The consensus was that this was the best potential area for the development of intermediate terrain. Hunter Mountain has great beginner and expert skier terrain, but lacks adequate intermediate terrain. They looked very hard to find additional pods where they could offer intermediate ski terrain and this is by far the best terrain to do that. As a former owner of Hunter Mountain, Mr. Slutsky is fully in support of this project. He serves with Mr. Goldberg on the Village of Hunter Planning Board. He believes the benefits will drive additional traffic through the Village, which also fully supports this project.
Daryl Legg, Supervisor of the Village of Tannersville, said that he has lived in this town a little over half a century and skied Hunter Mountain for a little over forty years. He worked for the Slutsky family and now works for Peak Resorts. He recalled Orville Slutsky’s viewpoint that whatever expansion could help the community grow, would also help Hunter Mountain to grow. Mr. Legg believes that philosophy continues with Peak Resorts. He saw on television recently that New York State has more ski resorts than anybody. This project is a continuing growth engine for our community. He has stock in our community and wants to see it grow.
Mike Tancredi of the Village of Hunter Village Board said that as an elected official in the Village he expressed his sentiments that he looks forward to the traffic in the Village of Hunter. They are first and foremost skiers, and he understands that Hunter has been lacking in intermediate terrain. He said he cannot speak for his Board, but he speaks for himself when he says he is in support of this project.
Alan Higgins, mayor of the Village of Hunter, expressed his support for the project and thinks the traffic will be a great thing for the Village. He said there were a lot of restaurants and other small businesses that never formerly got a lot of exposure to the skiers. He believes a large part of the Village of Hunter is in support of the project; they will discuss this at their next Village Board meeting, and will probably send a letter of support.
Ms. Killourhy thanked all the speakers for their input, asked if there were any more people wanting to speak. There were none, so the Public Hearing was closed at 7:49 p.m. She invited anyone who was interested to stay.
Town of Jewett Chair Mr. Kroyer elected to stay, and this was what he had to say: The Hunter Planning Board proceeded to review the SEQR form for this application. The Board made the following suggestions: Amend Part One, page 7, question k: “yes” should be checked; question i: answer should be 250 KW; question ii: answer should be Central Hudson; question iii: check the “no” box. The applicant’s representative agreed to make the changes.
The Hunter Planning Board Chair stated that she felt that all the SEQRA issues had been mitigated. The Chair made the motion for a Negative Declaration for SEQRA. A roll call vote was taken and the Board voted to unanimously approve the Negative Declaration.
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 8:30PM.
Added: February 03, 2018
Agenda Item 1: The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m.
Roll Call: Chair: Greg Kroyer
Present: Donna Bernard, JoAnne DeLong, Paul LaPierre, and Marianne Romito
Also present was Deputy Supervisor and Planning Board Liaison Michael McCrary.
Agenda Item 2: Approval of the Minutes of December 7, 2017
Ms. DeLong noted a correction in the grammar on page two, which was duly made. Mr. LaPierre made the motion to accept the minutes as corrected, Ms. Bernard seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.
Agenda Item 3: Report by Town Board Liaison Michael McCrary
Speaking for the Town Board, Mr. McCrary said the Town Board held it’s meeting last night. He gave a description of the “to-ing and fro-ing” with Delaware Engineering on the Hunter North Project. The Town of Jewett expressed its concerns with the safety of the entrance and egress on to and off of the new area on to Route 23A from Deming Road. Word came back that DOT would welcome receiving a suggestion as long as it was from both Town Boards. The Town Board wrote a letter already signed by Jim Pellitteri, and sent to Daryl Legg prior to being sent to DOT. Because the Town Board meeting was prior to the Planning Board meeting, it was decided to move ahead with the letter without additional consultation with to the Planning Board.
Mr. McCrary asked the Planning Board if there was any reaction to this letter. Mr. LaPierre wondered whether the second item extending the present “No Passing” zone to the same area was east bound, west bound, or both. Both, Mr. McCrary said. There will be “No Passing” either way in the area they are considering expanding. This would be from where it shifts from 35 mph to 45 mph within the Town of Hunter to the now closed west end of Wright Road in the Town of Jewett.
Ms. Bernard wondered when the letter was to go out. Mr. McCrary said the letter, dated January 12, 2018, had been sent, but he was not certain of the exact date. He said Maya Carl, Town Clerk, wanted it in the mail this week.
Mr. Kroyer asked whether anyone else had questions for Mr. McCrary. No one did, so he moved on to the next agenda item.
Agenda Item 4: Report to the Planning Board from Lamont Engineering Consultant Doug Van Deusen.
Mr. Van Deusen said that due to the snow date, he had a previous commitment, and will not be attending tonight. In the packet provided by Mr. Kroyer to the Board is a copy of Mr. Van Deusen’s report, and the response from Delaware Engineering to his report. There is also a letter from the DEC and a response from Delaware Engineering.
Mr. Kroyer asked all Planning Board members to review this information prior to the joint Public Hearing with the Town of Hunter and the Town of Jewett planned for January 17th.
Agenda Item 5: Special Use Permit for Hunter Mountain Ski Bowl, Inc./Hunter North Expansion Project for Tax Parcel ID Tax No. 163.00-2-18.11 in the Rural Conservation Zoning District consisting of 40.3 acres. Property located off Deming Road (no address is given in tax information)
Mr. Kroyer said we have been in contact with Town of Hunter Planning Board about having a joint public hearing on this application since they are Lead Agency. Therefore, we need to formally entertain a motion to have that joint Public Hearing on January 17, 2018 at 7:00 p.m. at the Town of Hunter Town Hall located at 5748 Route 23A in Tannersville, NY, in regard to Application for Site Plan Approval and Application for Special Use Permit for a Ski Area for Tax Parcel ID No. 163.00-2-18.11.
Ms. Bernard so motioned, Ms. DeLong seconded the motion, which was subject to a Roll Call Vote: Ms. Bernard – aye; Ms. DeLong – aye; Mr. LaPierre – aye; and Mrs. Romito – aye.
Mr. LaPierre noted he would be unable to attend that date.
Mr. Kroyer said that the SEQRA findings had been finalized, and he had received page two of that today. He will email a copy to the Planning Board for its review. Basically the Hunter Planning Board has responded to Jewett’s requests, and it is Mr. Kroyer’s opinion that they have complied with all of them. They hope to make their final determination on the January 17th Public Hearing, so that is on hold for us.
The next item with Hunter Mountain is the Special Use Permit with conditions that will be attached to it. There are five: (1) Applicant shall obtain all State, County, Town of Hunter and Town of Jewett approvals/permits prior to commencement of construction; (2) Applicant shall notify the Planning Board prior to commencement of construction and comply with all required inspections; (3) Deming Road improvements as shown on the Site Plan shall be performed by the applicant at their expense; (4) Compliance with Town of Jewett Noise Ordinance is required; and (5) Adequate Sanitary Facilities shall be provided and maintained by the applicant.
Mr. Coloton wondered how Jewett wanted to be notified in response to item No. 2 prior to commencement of activities. Mr. Kroyer said that the Highway Supervisor would be the one to notify in response to any part of the project on Deming Road. The rest of the project would be notified in writing to the Planning Board at the onset, and when it is completed, the CEO in consultation with the Planning Board will make certain that everything required by the Site Plan has been met. Mr. McCrary said that he would like copies of that letter of notification to be sent to the Town Board and the CEO. Mr. Coloton wondered who the CEO was. Mr. McCrary said, “Code Enforcement Officer,” and everyone laughed, because Mr. Coloton thought it meant, “Chief Executive Officer.” Mr. Kroyer summarized that at the onset of the project the Planning Board should be notified in writing, and at the completion of the project, the Planning Board and Chair shall be notified and he in turn shall notify the Highway Superintendent and the CEO for any inspections needed.
Mrs. Epstein made copies of the draft SUP and handed them out to Board members and Hunter North Project people. Mr. Coloton said that the Notice of Public Hearing sign had been posted, and Mr. LaPierre witnessed it was indeed posted.
Mr. Kroyer said the Board had received a letter from Town of Hunter resident Roy Silver who is very concerned with climate change and has a different idea of where the trails could be placed. Mr. Coloton said that if the Board has questions as they are reviewing the response letter from Lamont Engineering to give them a call.
Mr. LaPierre wondered if the County had expressed any interest in the bridge ROW. Mr. McCrary said that they responded to the load limit, that whatever the highway can take, the bridge can take.
Mr. Kroyer told Mr. Coloton that there is a date given on the SUP when the project begins and when it is done, so assuming this is completed on February 1st, it will be a year out when it expires. They have an opportunity to get the six-month extension, but it is on them to get that extension. If it expires they need to go through the entire process all over again.
Agenda Item 6: Bruce Maben and Kaaterskill Engineering’s Martin Schmidt for Katherine Thompson Bosley,Trustee for Estate of Thompson for Application for Subdivision for Tax Parcel ID No. 110.00-1-32.1 in the Hamlet Zoning District, and WAJ School District
Appearing tonight before the Planning Board for Ms. Bosley were Bruce Maben and Martin Schmidt of Kaaterskill Engineering. No letter of representation has been provided yet, although Mr. Schmidt brought copies of the Sketch Plan, applications for Sketch Plan Review and Minor Subdivision, list of abuttors within five hundred feet (500’), and the short form EAF.
Mr. Maben said this was the original Thompson homestead. Thompson left it to his three daughters, and they have been trying to sell it for a while. He recommended they split this fifty-two and two tenths acres property into four lots to get it sold more quickly. The acreage lies in the area designated as Hamlet. The property is bound by County Route 23C to the south and County Route 17 to the west. The acreage is to be divided up as Lot 1 consisting of thirty-seven and three tenths (37.3) acres, Lot 2 consisting of seven and a half (7.5) acres, Lot 3 consisting of four and six tenths (4.6) acres, and Lot 4 consisting of two and eight tenths (2.8) acres. Lot 4 contains an existing house and sheds. The Jewett Heights Cemetery lies opposite the corner of Routes 17 and 23C. The property goes around that. The place lies alongside the hill heading towards Kerns’ Nursery.
Mr. Kroyer asked whether this Subdivision involved a road of any kind. Mr. Schmidt replied not. Mr. Kroyer said this was a Minor Subdivision. Mr. Maben said there will be a minimum two hundred feet (200’) of road frontage on each lot. The requirement for the hamlet is one hundred feet (100’) and for Rural Residential two hundred feet (200’), so this is adequate. Ms. Bernard thought in the extended hamlet they did not change any of the zoning. The surrounding zoning is Rural Residential. Mrs. Epstein checked for the zoning area; it does fall within the Hamlet Residential Zoning District. Mr. Maben said that DEP could not buy any land in the Hamlet, so Jewett extended the Hamlet.
Mr. Kroyer read aloud the requirements for the Sketch Plan. There is a stream located in Lot 2, and Mr. Schmidt said there are wetlands that come up on the online SEQRA, which he could maybe locate. Mr. Kroyer wondered if there is a notation on the plat regarding DEP being notified prior to construction of houses and septic design. Ms. Bernard noted that the DEP would have to be notified as part of the subdivision process. Mr. LaPierre asked about the well. It is shown. There is no new septic system labeled on the parcel. Mr. Maben said that it lies out in the back of the house. Mr. Schmidt said that he would ask the family for its approximate location of the existing septic and locate it on the final plat. It is probably pre-existing, and as far as he knows there were no upgrades to it, and no record of it. Ms. Bernard said that the Board needs to be sure no leach field sits on any of the parcels to be divided out of the original. Mr. Kroyer asked if the area was hilly, because no topography lines are indicated on the plan. Mr. Maben said one area was hilly, and the rest kind of flat.
Mr. Kroyer read the requirements for the Subdivision plat to show: the entire tract accurately dimensioned at no less than two hundred feet (200’) per inch; the location to be subdivided – copy of tax map; distance to nearest road; all existing structures, wooded areas, streams, and wetlands with distances indicated; topographic conditions; significant physical features within two hundred feet (200’) of entire tract; current utilities and easements; proposed easements and roads; names of neighboring property owners and other information about neighboring properties as may be necessary. Also required are SEQRA, copies of covenants and/or deed restrictions.
Ms. Bernard suggested the Board accept the Sketch Plan tonight pending that it has all the pieces. The Public Hearing for the Subdivision Application could be scheduled for March. Mrs. Epstein will need to get the Lead Agency letters sent out to the DEP and the 239 Form to the County because the property borders two county roads.
Mr. Kroyer entertained a motion to accept the Sketch Plan Review pending receipt of the check for $100. Mr. LaPierre made the motion, and Mrs. Romito seconded the motion and it was subject to a Roll Call Vote: Ms. Bernard – aye; Ms. DeLong – aye; Mr. LaPierre – aye; and Mrs. Romito – aye.
Mr. Kroyer entertained a motion to accept the Application for Minor Subdivision pending the description of the septic systems and receipt of the check for $800. The motion was made by Mr. LaPierre, seconded by Ms. Bernard, and subjected to a Roll Call Vote: Ms. Bernard – aye; Ms. DeLong – aye; Mr. LaPierre – aye; and Mrs. Romito – aye.
Mr. Schmidt asked whether the Planning Board sends out the SEQRA Lead Agency letter and Kaaterskill Engineering sends out the letters notifying the neighbors of the Public Hearing. The Board said yes. And he wondered if their standard approval box on the plat was okay. Ms. Bernard had never seen it worded “Approval by Resolution” before. She likes the one that Mr. Maben has used.
At the March 1st meeting the Board can do the preliminary SEQRA review prior to the Public Hearing.
Agenda Item 7: Brooks and Brooks for discussion item: Lot Line Adjustment for Catherine Condon. For property located at 113 Natty Bumpo’s Path, Hunter, NY; Tax Map Parcel ID Nos. 130.00-4-17.1, containing 38.41 acres, and adjacent parcel 130.00-3-42, which contains 25.35 acres. New resulting lot sizes will be 29.66 and 34.10 acres respectively.
The applicant was not ready to come forward tonight, so they have been placed on the Agenda for February.
Agenda Item 8: Pierre Christ for Altered Lot Line Adjustment
Mr. Christ had been before the Planning Board previously in consideration of a Minor Subdivision on November 2013, December 2013, and September 2014. He had wanted to create three lots accessed by the same driveway. The difficulties at that time were that Mr. Christ could not legally share his driveway under current Jewett Zoning Law. Nor could a driveway be created around the middle parcel of his intended subdivision or it would illegally create a flag lot behind a flag lot. Also, since this would have been a re-subdivision of a previously existing subdivision, a private road would be required. In doing a re-subdivision with four parcels or less, the law requires it to be upgraded to a private road. Mr. Christ commented at that time it would be a very expensive proposition.
Tonight Mr. Christ came in with a different question. He brought with him a tax parcel map, which he copied for the Board. He said he wanted to do a Line Adjustment. Mr. Kroyer asked about the subdivision. Mr. Christ said it would have been too pricey. Mrs. Epstein handed Mr. Kroyer a copy of the Boundary Lot Line Adjustment and one of the new Altered Lot Line Adjustment. Mr. Kroyer said he remembered this case, and that there were two houses on the acreage Mr. Christ owns, his own and a rental mobile home.
Mr. Christ owns one parcel of three acres and one parcel of eleven acres. As it exists now, the existing eleven (11) acre lot surrounds most of the three (3) acre parcel. Mr. Christ wants to adjust the boundary line so that the three (3) acre parcel moves up by the road, and the eleven (11) acres consumes the entire rear of the property. He has already extended his driveway past the rental home sitting on the current three (3) acres, so the new parcel will not be land locked. The new three (3) acre parcel will have sufficient road frontage.
Roughly the eleven acres becomes three, and the three becomes eleven for a transfer of eight acres, Mr. Kroyer noted. Mr. Christ said the septic of the house would be within the new eleven acres. Mr. Kroyer asked whether the septic for each house would be on the appropriate property for that house. Mr. Christ agreed. Ms. Bernard said that will improve what is there so this is in accord with Planning Board goals.
Mr. Kroyer said that there are two choices: the Boundary Lot Line, which is meant to be one acre, and the Altered Lot Line Adjustment, with which we can cover the transfer of the eight acres. He read aloud the requirements for this law, noting where any property created a new case for a sub dividable parcel, in which case the applicant must turn in an application for a subdivision. He wanted to ascertain that no subdivision could occur there if the Board uses the Altered Lot Line Adjustment. Ms. Bernard noted that there is no new parcel being created: Mr. Christ is simply moving the lines of his existing parcels. The eleven (11) acres could not be subdivided unless or until the Town of Jewett approves shared driveways. She explained that each lot holds its own tax number. The driveway went by so that the area is not landlocked. His original intention was to have three parcels, which we could not approve because Jewett does not allow shared driveways. Area is zoned Rural Residential, so the minimum requirement is two and a half (2.5) acres. If he does this, he has eleven acres, each with it’s own home. Theoretically it is sub dividable, but because the access is killed off, it could not be subdivided unless the town changes its law about shared driveways.
Mr. Kroyer asked Mr. Christ what his intention was in switching the property lines. Mr. Christ said that he wanted to sell it and somebody could put a nice house up there. Mr. Kroyer said there is already a house there, and Mr. Christ said it is a trailer, easily removed. Upon hearing this news, Mr. Kroyer was in favor of the intention, and asked the other members of the Board were they also in favor. Mrs. Romito, Ms. DeLong, and Mr. LaPierre said that they were. Mr. Christ has cleared the way to make this happen. Ms. Bernard noted for the record that one cannot have two houses on one lot, but the doublewide is easily removed.
Mr. Kroyer handed Mr. Christ the application for Altered Lot Line with a $50 fee. Mr. Christ wondered what to tell Mr. Vanucchi to do. The information of what is required is listed on the application, Ms. Bernard said. She delineated for Mr. Christ what he needs to tell his surveyor. The parcel as it exists now remains unchanged; all that will be changed is the lot line. The existing line and proposed line could be illustrated on one map. Mr. LaPierre asked why Ms. Bernard was using the term to “swing” the line down. Ms. Bernard said the alteration of a line is not dissolving a tax line, but altering it, so the line “swings” down, changing the bearings of the line. Mr. Kroyer said that Mr. Christ could expect two separate deeds to come out of this deal, and Mr. Christ said he only has the deed from his fourteen acres, and had never gotten the second deed at the time he had originally subdivided his fourteen acres. Bill Higgins had done that work. Ms. Bernard said that he should be able to get a copy from the Real Property Office in Catskill. We know he has the second property because he pays taxes on it. His surveyor should be able to get that information for him.
Mr. Kroyer said that once this is approved he would have thirty (30) days to file the changes.
Mr. LaPierre noted the need of a correction in the Altered Lot Line Application, which Ms. Bernard said came about because her computer autocorrected something incorrectly.
Agenda Item 9: Report from Greene County Planning Board representative Cyndi LaPierre.
Mr. LaPierre said no meeting was held because there was no quorum.
Agenda Item 8: Other business:
The next monthly meeting of the Planning Board will be held February 1, 2018 at 7:30 p.m.
Mr. Kroyer wanted to entertain a motion to close the meeting. Mr. LaPierre motioned to adjourn the Planning Board meeting at 9:09 p.m. The motion was seconded by Ms. DeLong, and carried unanimously.
Respectfully,
Susan H. Epstein, Clerk
____________________________
Gregory Kroyer, Chair
Added: January 16, 2018
Agenda Item 1: The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m.
Roll Call: Chair: Donna Bernard
Present: Greg Kroyer, Paul LaPierre, and Marianne Romito
Absent: JoAnne DeLong
Also present was Deputy Supervisor and Planning Board Liaison Michael McCrary.
Agenda Item 2: Approval of the Minutes of November 2, 2017
Mrs. Romito made the motion to accept the minutes of November 2, 2017 as corrected. These included the size of the water pond at Hunter Mountain and the passing lane going east, not west, on Route 23A by the Deming Road egress. Mr. LaPierre seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Agenda Item 3: Report by Town Board Liaison Michael McCrary
Ms. Bernard asked Mr. McCrary as the new Planning Board Liaison, whether he had any news for the Planning Board. He said they are still working on safety concerns, but nothing more than that.
Ms. Bernard asked Mr. McCrary, as a parting plea from her position as Chair, whether he could not get the Town Board moving on accepting the improvements the Code Review committee had made to the Code Review, as the language had been very carefully considered and pertinent to the parcels coming before the Planning Board now. The parcels coming before the Board are more and more either non-conforming, or land locked, or people want to plan their estates, or have parcels they want to sell that are not buildable. She is concerned that an application with a shared driveway, for example, would come before the Board before the Town Board has done its part of the work, and the Board would be unable to help that applicant. Ms. Bernard emphasized that she is not seeking approval of the major code items reviewed like the Timber Harvesting, Solar Panels and Senior PODs, but the work put into strengthening language where the Code Review committee advised Jewett to improve on these things.
Mr. McCrary answered that the Town Board is still awaiting input from Mr. Rappleyea. Mr. Kroyer made a point of asking that wedding venues be added to the Code Review under the Public Assembly law. This was an important concern the Code Review committee had not addressed at the time. Ms. Bernard offered to meet with the Town Board, and said the Code Review Committee could meet again if necessary. Mr. McCrary said that he had asked Mr. Rappleyea if a neighboring town had a similar wedding venue law, which Jewett could easily adopt, and he had said one did.
Agenda Item 4: Special Use Permit for Hunter Mountain Ski Bowl, Inc. for Tax Parcel ID Tax No. 163.00-2-18.11 in the Rural Conservation Zoning District consisting of 40.3 acres. Property located off Deming Road (no address is given in tax information)
Ms. Bernard thanked Mrs. Lindsay Allen and Mr. Russ Coloton for their patience last month in allowing this Planning Board to hash out what needed attention from Jewett in the SEQRA process for this application.
Mr. Silver, a member of the public who had missed the Town of Hunter Planning Board meeting, asked Mr. Kroyer whether Hunter had voted on anything at their meeting. Mr. Kroyer said they had not. Ms. Bernard said that she offered Mr. Silver five minutes later to express his concerns at our meeting.
Mrs. Allen said that the one thing on the agenda was for the Board to accept the Special Use Permit (SUP). Ms. Bernard thanked her for bringing an updated and upgraded plat, and asked her and Mr. Kroyer to review the map for the minutes. Mr. Kroyer had taken the time earlier today to review and mark with little careful sticky notes those things that were important from Jewett’s perspective: the site as it exists now, the proposed site plan, and basically the items that concerns the Town of Jewett. The plat now addresses the concern with Deming Road, showing the changes made from last month. There is a detail and cross section of the paving to be done. Jewett was concerned about the single lane; the detail on page D-5 portion shows how it is going to be paved.
The plat shows signage also, so the Planning Board doesn’t need to approve sign permits as they are already shown. The location of the stop sign is illustrated, and it is shown in the deed. Mr. LaPierre noted they are going to pave fifty linear feet into the access road. The plat shows adequate detail of what they want to do. Mr. Kroyer noted that he ran this by Highway Superintendent Mallory, and said that Jewett’s engineer will look at it as well. Mr. Coloton noted it as DOT standard.
Mr. Kroyer asked whether the three-foot width on the shoulder was because of the way the bridge was designed. Mr. Coloton said that was why; the bridge is that width. Mr. Kroyer said to his eyes the plat looks pretty good, with twelve layers of sub-base. A picture of the sign at the access road reads “Hunter North.” Deming Road residents will be able to drive unimpeded. There are two gates: one in Jewett that is thirty-two feet wide. Access road is wider than the town road. Mr. McCrary said this is subject to our engineers. Mr. Kroyer wanted to catch everything relevant to the Town of Jewett. The temporary facilities are located on the plat –the portable ticket booth, the restroom facilities, the food truck location – accessible for people who ski to walk over and get something to eat. Ms. Bernard said the Board asked for these locations because of ski area code. Trash collection point is a dumpster in the corner with trash receptacles set around the area. Parking area will include 250 -260 parking slots on about an acre. The parking lot for the Board’s information is one hundred and forty feet (140’) higher than the Deming Road intersection. The access road is three quarters of a mile long and increases in elevation by one hundred and forty feet (140’) from start to finish, shown as two feet at a time.
A culvert is located in the Town of Jewett. The erosion control is listed for the whole site, and from the parking lot is graded to drain into a retention pond. Mr. Coloton said drainage is illustrated from pretreatment to storage. The graded areas flow down into a culvert and into what Mr. Kroyer called a wing gutter. Mrs. Allen said that most of the water will sit in the pond and evaporate, but if it overflows it will go under the access road via pipes, of which a cross section is shown. Mr. Coloton pointed out three locations to the road water drainage and the overflow to the bigger basin. NYSDEP has complete oversight on this; Delaware Engineering has DEP permit and has been working with them steadily.
Mr. Kroyer looked at the culvert detail, and said two sixty-inch (60”) culverts run one hundred and twenty feet (120’) along under the road, shown on page D-4. Mr. LaPierre agreed that Mr. Kroyer was right. Mr. Kroyer further noted the loads are all illustrated, and everything looks in order. Ms. Bernard asked for further questions or comments from the Jewett Planning Board on the updated site plan and ancillary supporting information. In addition to complying with Jewett’s request to add the additional information, which they have done, she said the second letter written by this Planning Board identified the SEQRA and NYSDOT issues, which information everyone has. She cross walked it with the SEQRA, everything Jewett asked for they fixed, and the Board received another letter today detailing the times of operation.
Mr. Kroyer said that regarding snow fencing, Hunter Mountain replied they know what they are doing with regard to snow removal and maintaining access. Everything that was addressed and agreed upon included enhancing the two hundred and ninety feet (290’) of Deming Road and was also included in their creation of the access road.
The other issue for Jewett was the turnoff from Route 23A onto Deming Road. Delaware Engineering called NYSDOT and spoke to the regional director and presented a possible venue for the Hunter and Jewett Town Boards to jointly respond with a statement in writing. For the minutes, Mr. McCrary said the suggestion from NYSDOT was to extend the 45 mph speed limit beyond Deming Road and the no passing zone to just west of the Wright Road exit because of traffic on Wright Road turning left and traffic from Route 23A turning onto Wright Road just past Deming Road going west. He said Escrow was asked for and obtained. Lamont Engineering has been appointed as our consultant. Ms. Bernard noted there has been a lot of teamwork in Jewett, with Delaware Engineering being very supportive in their guidance. Mr. Kroyer suggested the extension of the 45 mph speed limit and no passing zone to a Hunter Planning Board member, who suggested it to a Hunter Town Board member, and he agreed. Mr. McCrary pointed out that NYSDOT said it was the job of the Town Boards to write that letter instead of the Planning Boards. Because this involves a state road, he thought the Town Boards should write directly to NYS instead of going through Greene County. Ms. Bernard suggested it would not hurt to copy the County. Mr. McCrary said that the usual procedure for a town road change would be to notify the County who notifies the State. Mr. Kroyer noted that the speed limit change involves both the Hunter and Jewett Town Boards. Mr. McCrary said he would introduce a motion to the Jewett Town Board at its meeting next week. Mr. Kroyer suggested waiting until Lamont Engineering weighs in on the situation.
The Jewett Planning Board’s engineer Doug Van Duesen from Lamont Engineering will review this site plan and give a report. Mr. Kroyer read the estimate statement from Lamont Engineering delineating their responsibilities in this review. Mr. LaPierre said that Greene County built the bridge and owns the right of way of both sides, and suggested that they might need to be notified in what might be a disturbance of their property. Mr. Kroyer said they have been considered as an interested party on the SEQRA. Ms. Bernard suggested they receive another 239 report in connection with this. Mr. LaPierre suggested a letter informing them this project might disturb the approach to their bridge. Mr. McCrary said Lamont Engineering would offer their consideration whether the south approach to the bridge was adequate for the needs of this project. Ms. Bernard said Delaware would resend the 239 Form with the new site plan with the road improvements that were not on there before. Mr. Kroyer asked if there was anything else we needed to include. Mr. Coloton suggested that they take the contact information of the engineer in charge so they could communicate directly. Mrs. Allen provided her card along with the name of the engineer in charge. Ms. Bernard asked if there were any further questions for Mr. Kroyer regarding the town engineer.
Since the last meeting, the Planning Board had received the NYSDEP response letter. For the minutes, Michelle Yost thought there had been a planting contract with one of the previous owners that does not affect the agreement here. The planting, for a stream-side stabilization, is not even close to the area being worked, Mr. Coloton said. The row of trees planted ten years ago hasn’t grown much.
Ms. Bernard said that everything has either been addressed or is in the process of being addressed, so she would like to open the floor to entertain a motion to accept the Special Use Permit Ski Area for the forty acres. Mr. Kroyer said things should fall together in time for the Public Hearing, which is scheduled for January 17, 2018, a Wednesday, to possibly be held at Hunter Elementary School. Ms. Bernard advised Mr. Silver to call the Town of Hunter Planning Board to determine the time and place. Mr. Kroyer said the Board should be able to accept this application tonight, but there still may be some conditions appended to it; they do not have the wording completely worked out yet. Ms. Bernard said this short list would be worked out by the January 4, 2018 meeting. Mr. Kroyer promised he would keep the conditions to a minimum, and explained that Jewett wants clarity before it grants a permit. Mr. Bob Mallory might have concerns the Board might not be aware of.
Ms. Bernard asked to entertain a motion to accept the Special Use Permit with the understanding that conditions are to be attached pending what is learned by the scheduled Public Hearing. Mr. LaPierre made the motion, which was seconded by Mrs. Romito, and subjected to a Roll Call Vote: Ms. Bernard – aye; Mr. Kroyer – aye; Mr. LaPierre – aye; and Mrs. Romito – aye. Ms. Bernard summarized that to date, the Board has accepted the Sketch Plan, the Site Plan, and the Special Use Permit. The sixty-two day limit from tonight is Feb 7th.
Mr. Coloton requested a copy of the signed escrow agreement, and Mr. Kroyer promised to talk to Ms. Mallory, Supervisor’s Assistant, and obtain a copy for him.
Mr. Coloton asked who notifies the abuttors, because in the Town of Jewett the applicant does that, and in the Town of Hunter, the Planning Board does that. Mr. Kroyer and Ms. Bernard said they would work that out with the Hunter Planning Board Chair. Mrs. Allen said that she would be seeing Sarah tomorrow, and so she could take care of this.
Mr. Silver was given five minutes to talk, and he expressed his concerns regarding climate change, believing that there would not be much skiing within the next few years, and therefore would like to avoid having the aesthetic west side of Hunter Mountain defaced for the purpose of skiing.
Agenda Item 5: Brooks and Brooks for discussion item: Lot Line Adjustment for Catherine Condon. For property located at 113 Natty Bumpo’s Path, Hunter, NY; Tax Map Parcel ID Nos. 130.00-4-17.1, containing 38.41 acres, and adjacent parcel 130.00-3-42, which contains 25.35 acres. New resulting lot sizes will be 29.66 and 34.10 acres respectively.
Mr. Ricky Brooks of Brooks & Brooks brought a different map and said that what they had learned was drastic enough they thought they had better come back before the Planning Board for advice. He delineated with his finger the new adjustment line, the location of Lawrence Road and Natty Bumpo’s Lake. There is a fifty-foot (50’) strip of land out to Lawrence Road, which this property would now be serviced by. Mr. Kroyer asked whether this was the property that was originally going to get sold to the DEP, and Mr. Brooks affirmed that. This fifty-foot strip right of way serves as a shared driveway to four other properties, which could make it subject to Planning Board review, but what lies under it is also problematic. The fifty-foot (50’) strip is illustrated between the solid blue line and the dashed line. The Levi property has part of their septic system into the fifty-foot (50’) wide strip of land. This is a problem because it is an encroachment, which could be satisfied by an easement if the owner wanted it to be. Or in this case, the owner is proposing to convey to Levi a twenty-foot (20’) wide strip of land for free so that he owns the encroachment, with his septic wholly on his property. This way when it comes time for the septic system to be maintained, Mr. Levi can stay on his own property and maintain it. The amount to be conveyed is a bit over a tenth of an acre. They would maintain an ownership interest in the land by keeping a right of way over it, but the fee title to the land would be given to Mr. Levi.
Mr. Kroyer wondered whether Jewett could allow a right of way less than fifty-feet wide. Mr. Brooks answered that the code does not stipulate each lot needing a fifty-foot (50’) wide right of way. He pointed out the problem area adjacent to the Levi property and the beginning of the fifty-foot (50’) wide. Problem area is a little corner along the driveway into Levi property. The fee strip of land that would go along with the Condon property would be thirty-feet (30’) wide. Mr. Kroyer noted that this is really a flag lot, which may be accessed by a narrow corridor with a minimum fifty-feet (50’) of road frontage. He wondered whether Brooks & Brooks could maintain the fifty-feet (50’) of road frontage, addressing the problem toward Levi’s property. So Condon would own thirty-feet outright, and have access to another twenty-feet. Since the wording is not specific to the ownership of the land, and the fifty-foot (50’) roadway would be maintained, the Planning Board did not anticipate difficulty with this solution. However, this would need to be worded into the deed and placed on the legend on the map.
Ms. Bernard is in total agreement that the owner of the septic should have the septic notched out under his responsibility. This solves yet another awkward land use problem. The amount of land to be conveyed is less than sixteen hundredths (0.16) of an acre, and will be solved by a Boundary Lot Line Adjustment. Ms. Bernard said that Mr. Brooks knows this application and will come before the Board again with the Application, the before and after deeds, the legend on the map, and proof of the school district lines. Mr. LaPierre said by doing this, the fifty-foot (50’) road frontage could never be contested. Mr. Brooks mentioned that there are four easements in total on this land, including the homeowners sharing the right of way and that Mr. Levi himself has other easements on property he owns behind this one. He said Michael Ryan has a sixteen-foot right of way going up along his property. Steve Levi has a fifteen-foot right of way up to his other property. Some overlap, Mr. Brooks said. DEP’s policy is when they have a shared driveway situation such as this, they do not publish it for public access, and they will put it in writing to Mr. Levi. The Board agreed this was a good thing.
Mr. Brooks said that Mr. Levi and Mrs. Condon had not yet come to an agreement, so he does not know if this can be accomplished in time for next month. Mr. Brooks said that at the culmination of this, DEP would pick up all the expenses.
He said he never filed the other lot line alteration, because the week after we signed this, he found out about the other problem. The time limit on this has expired for filing, so he will need to come before us to have it signed again.
With a round of holiday wishes, Mr. Brooks took his leave.
Agenda Item 6: Report from Greene County Planning Board representative Cyndi LaPierre.
Mr. LaPierre provided the secretary with the GCPB notes for the past two months to add to the minutes.
From the October 18, 2017 meeting, the Town of Athens adopted the revision of its Site Plan Review Law. The Town of Hunter is looking at a Site Plan for an upgrade to the Twilight Park sanitary sewer system. A gravity sewer will direct water to a pump-station, which will convey the sewage to a new on-site wastewater treatment plant. A renovation is planned for the Villa Maria in the Town of Hunter that will include building renovations, a wastewater treatment system installation, renovation of the pool area, and a new parking area and walking paths. The Town of Hunter is also reviewing a Site Plan for a Hunter Mountain ski trail expansion located west of the existing ski trails. The Village of Coxsackie is updating the Village Code related to mobile homes with an expanded definition which distinguishes it from a modular home, and amends its Schedule “A” Use Regulations of Residential Districts to eliminate the “manufactured home park” category and replace it with a “mobile home park” category. In the Town of Coxsackie, Jake’s Lock-up is seeking an Area Variance for the expansion of existing storage units that would violate their setbacks. Also in the Town of Coxsackie, someone is seeking a Use Variance to install a temporary propane tank above ground behind an existing building used as a warehouse. In the Town of Hunter, Haines Falls Auto has brought a Site Plan proposing site modifications including the addition of a new structure for receiving and processing construction and demolition debris. The GCPB disapproved of this Site Plan citing the nearby location of the Mountain Top Historical Society Visitor Center and North Lake Road, and the fact that the site’s setting is also located close to what the 2000 Town of Hunter Comprehensive Plan called the “gateway corridor” and the town’s “main roadway.” The Town of Coxsackie received a Use Variance to install two above ground propane tanks.
At the November 15, 2017 GCPB meeting, the Town of Greenville is considering the construction of a +/- 3000 KW solar array farm on State Route 32 in Freehold in Rural Residential Zoning. The community had considered SEQRA and arrived at a Neg Dec. Buffer zones will be established on the east and the west. Greenville requires a bond for decommissioning. Also in the Town of Greenville, the local Stewart’s seeks an upgrade, addition, and canopy replacement. In the Town of Coxsackie, a moratorium has been placed on utility scale solar energy systems. In the Town of Greenville the construction of a Tractor Supply store is planned on the west side of State Route 32 north of Tops Plaza. In the Town of Coxsackie the construction of a 723.6 KW solar array will be built on Stacy Road just south of the CH facility, power to be purchased by the Village.
Agenda Item 8: Other business:
The Planning Board members handed their vouchers for training for 2017 in to Mrs. Epstein to give to Cindy Mallory for payment, except for Mr. LaPierre, who could not locate his. Later when typing these minutes, Mrs. Epstein found it among the papers he had handed her.
Ms. Bernard gave Mrs. Epstein a calendar for 2018, and the Board settled the dates for next year’s meetings including snow dates for January and February. These will be as follows: January 4, with snow date of January 11; February 1, with snow date of February 6; March 1; April 5; May 3; June 7; July 5; August 2; September 6; October 4; November 1; and December 6 of 2018. These dates will be published as a Legal Ad in The Daily Mail and/or Mountain Eagle.
Mr. Kroyer had a quick little report on the DEP who was studying whether there was going to be any developable land left in Jewett. People did not like results of the study, which was faulty, as they were using the assumption of one and three tenths (1.3) acres of developable land per housing unit. This fit in the hamlet, but unless you are building in the hamlet you cannot build the house on one and three tenths (1.3) acres. The Catskill Watershed Corporation (CWC) had Chassen Engineering do a second study, and while they are not under control of DEP, their study came out virtually identical to the first one for the Town of Jewett. Mr. McCrary said Chassen Engineering did not take Zoning into account either, so this is subject to a third study. This was a plan to attack DEP’s justification for buying up more ground. CWC is paying for this, but will get reimbursed on this study because DEP screwed up. There is a new fad – filtration avoidance discrimination – that is part of the Clean Water Act, under which NYC was ordered to buy up land. The Coalition of Watershed Towns is fighting this. Mr. McCrary is one of four representatives of Greene County, he said.
The Town Board has been notified of all procedures, and has offered its comments, but Mr. McCrary felt it has not often done much good. Mr. Kroyer commented that for the Town Board to object to potential land sales was not going to be popular with the residents of Jewett, who will want to sell their land, a real catch twenty-two. Ms. Bernard wondered what Michelle Yost was trying to do. Mr. Kroyer said that this information is available on the GIS maps. Mr. Kroyer had spoken to Mrs. Bower who is an excellent resource, and is well informed on this situation. They agree that the Board does not have much power over anything except in the hamlets. Mr. McCrary noted that the DEP is mandated; it must purchase a certain dollar amount of land, and go out of their way to buy more expensive land to use up the money faster. They will purchase buildable land and they have. A future solution might be to swap. Ms. Bernard requested copies of the Chassen Engineering study for the Planning Board.
The next monthly meeting of the Planning Board will be held January 4, 2018 at 7:30 p.m. with new Chair Gregory Kroyer officiating over the meeting.
Mr. LaPierre motioned to adjourn the Planning Board meeting at 9:23 p.m. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Romito, and carried unanimously.
Respectfully,
Susan H. Epstein, Clerk
____________________________
Donna Bernard, Chair
