TOWN OF MARBLETOWN PLANNING BOARD MINUTES

Download These Minutes:  Planning Board Minutes

Date: January 8, 2014

Chairman Richard Lanzarone opened the meeting with the Pledge of Allegiance at 6:35pm in the

Town of Marbletown Town Hall, 3775 Main Street, Stone Ridge, NY 12484

 

 

ROLL CALL & PLEDGE

Richard Lanzarone                          Present

Steve Wood                                       Present

Todd Natale                                      Absent

Kathleen Hawk (6:45)                       Present

Kris Lovelett                                        Present

Sylvia Ricci                                           Present

Larry Ricci                                            Present

Mary Collins (Alternate)                     Present

 

 

Chairman Lanzarone changed the order of the agenda.

 

Action Items:

Approve Minutes from 12/11/13

Chairman Lanzarone requests a motion to approve the minutes

 

Moved By: Sylvia Ricci

Seconded By: Steve Wood

Chairman Richard Lanzarone         Aye

Mary Collins (Alternate)                  Aye

Steve Wood                                        Aye

Sylvia Ricci                                           Aye

Kristopher Lovelett (6.45)    Not Present at this time                       

Kathleen Hawk                                  Aye

Larry Ricci                                            Aye

 

 

 

The vote was thereupon adopted by a vote of six ayes, zero nays and no abstentions.

 

Bonnie’s Contract

Chairman Lanzarone explains that the Town Board has reelected Bonnie Franson as the Town’s Planner and the next step is for the Planning Board to agree and then she will be reinstated for the year.

 

He requests a motion to approve her contract.

 

Moved By: Steve Wood

Seconded By: Sylvia Ricci

Vote: All Aye

Chairman Richard Lanzarone          Aye

Mary Collins (Alternate)                   Aye

Steve Wood                                        Aye

Sylvia Ricci                                           Aye

Kristopher Lovelett                            Aye

Kathleen Hawk                                   Aye

Larry Ricci                                            Aye

 

 

 

The vote was thereupon adopted by a vote of seven ayes, zero nays and no abstentions.

 

2014 Meeting Dates

The Board reviews the meeting dates and agrees to change the official meeting time to 7pm. However, if there is a full agenda, there will be a notice of time change only for specific meetings.

 

 

Correspondence:

Letter from H2M Architects and Engineers regarding their company name change

-change has been noted

 

 

New Business:

 

Applicant Application Location Zoning District SBL Status
Murphy, Brian Sign 155 Main Street, High Falls B-1 70.9-2-27 App Received 12/26/13

 

Brian Murphy sign application:

 

A representative for the Applicant was present to discuss the application.

Chairman Lanzarone clarifies the location and size of the sign.

A photo of the sign is reviewed along with sign regulations and codes. The Board discusses the location and the measurements.  It is a free standing sign and a replacement of an existing sign.

 

Following review of the application, Chairman Lanzarone requests a motion to approve the application.

 

Moved By: Sylvia Ricci

Seconded By: Mary Collins

Vote: All Aye

Richard Lanzarone                            Aye

Steve Wood                                       Aye

Kathleen Hawk (6:45)                       Aye

Kris Lovelett                                        Aye

Sylvia Ricci                                           Aye

Larry Ricci                                            Aye

Mary Collins (Alternate)                    Aye

 

 

The vote was thereupon adopted by a vote of seven ayes, zero nays and no abstentions.

 

 

New Business:

Applicant Application Location Zoning District SBL Status
Caprotti, Anthony Boundary Line Adjustment 2861 St Rte 209, Kingston R-1 62.1-3-31 App. Received 12/23/13

 

 

 

Anthony Caprotti was present to discuss the application.

Applicant explained the location and the Board reviewed the Town Code and the location of the well and septic.

 

 

 

Following review and discussion the Board agrees that the application qualifies as a Lot Line Adjustment.

Moved By: Kathy Hawk

Seconded By: Kris Lovelett

Vote: All Aye

Richard Lanzarone                            Aye

Steve Wood                                       Aye

Kathleen Hawk                                   Aye

Kris Lovelett                                        Aye

Sylvia Ricci                                           Aye

Larry Ricci                                            Aye

Mary Collins (Alternate)                    Aye

The vote was thereupon adopted by a vote of seven ayes, zero nays and no abstentions.

 

 

 

Chairman Lanzarone he would like a motion for approval of the application.

 

Moved By: Sylvia Ricci   

Seconded By: Mary Collins

Vote: All Aye

 

Richard Lanzarone                          Aye

Steve Wood                                       Aye

Kathleen Hawk                                  Aye

Kris Lovelett                                        Aye

Sylvia Ricci                                           Aye

Larry Ricci                                            Aye

Mary Collins (Alternate)                     Aye

 

The vote was thereupon adopted by a vote of seven ayes, zero nays and no abstentions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chairman Lanzarone requests a motion to classify the Caprotti application as an unlisted action under SEQRA. Steve Wood makes the motion. Larry Ricci seconded the motion.

 

Chairman Richard Lanzarone          Aye

Mary Collins (Alternate)                  Aye

Steve Wood                                       Aye

Sylvia Ricci                                          Aye

Kristopher Lovelett                           Aye

Kathleen Hawk                                   Aye

Larry Ricci                                            Aye

 

The vote was thereupon adopted by a vote of seven ayes, zero nays and no abstentions.

 

 

Old Business:

Applicant Application Location Zoning Dist SBL Status
The Woodman LLC Change of Use from Solarium manufacturing to firewood processing/fuel dealer 2453 Lucas Tpke I-1 69.4-1-58.110 Update: Decision to be made on application

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Applicant Response Board Response
(To Rich Lanzarone)

Would like to clarify certain things

“In terms of the meetings, as you know, you and I discussed this several months ago after the September meeting as to what we were going to do. I told you that we were going to explore our options and you said that things were going to be suspended until then so I wasn’t aware that our matter was up for review and that you were expecting me to be here at the meetings or anything like that. “

He explains that he sent a confirming letter on this specific subject stating that his application was going to be suspended

He was not aware that his application was being discussed at the meetings but he is happy to discuss it now but had he known, he would have been present. Based on his understanding, his application was suspended.

(to Steve)

-answers no and explains that he received a phone call from the Chairman on Monday and that is when he learned that the matters had been discussed at that meeting.

(to Rich)-he would like to make it clear to the Board that from his point of view things had been suspended and he did not realize that the Board was meeting about his application

-He expresses his concern to the Board about the noise analysis which Sandstone was proposing to do

(he references the program policy document that the NYSDEC has put together on this issue)

-states that he has raised this issue before but did not hear any comment back about it

-wishes to point out a specific section of the NYSDEC guidelines and it explains what the impact assessment should be for a specific project/different levels of analysis in terms of what type of analysis should be required for a noise study

-he explains that the guidelines do not state that you must go through a CADNA noise study-he states that you must go through several layers of analysis before that is required

-in another section, the guidelines explain situations where no noise analysis is necessary

“this is something that we’ve talked about before at the Board, that the use that is proposed here is as of right”

-he references section A of document

“no noise analysis is needed where the use is as of right”

Applicant states that the document is “the guiding document that the DEC uses for SEQRA”

(Recording unclear)

Applicant explains that the Board told him that the noise analysis is required under SEQRA

-he would like to establish what is required under SEQRA

-questions Board “this is the Town’s own SEQRA process?”

-document does not require a CADNA study

-Questions the Board as to what it is that the Sandstone report will tell you as to whether this is noise or excessive noise

-Applicant states “This is exactly the issue that I have with requiring the noise study for something, to determine something which you can’t tell me now what the guidelines are. I’m supposed to pay for this extensive CADNA analysis without you even telling me what the benchmarks are, just saying whether it’s excessive noise or noise.”

Regarding Best Management practices the Applicant explains that he takes it simply, for example, he has changed from diesel to electric.

Applicant references the document and explains that it is not stating that you must require all of these things

Questions the Board “Basically you’re saying I need to pay for a noise study in order for you to determine that no noise study is required?”

(Response to Kathy) There are a lot of alternatives to that. Gives an example that another town accepted a letter from an engineer explaining the levels of the sound. This is another type of analysis that is usable.

Applicant to Kris

“I don’t think that the noise study that Sandstone has proposed is warranted or proper in this case. I am willing to have our engineer prepare a letter for the town that lists, as they requested, the type of equipment we would have, the noise that’s generated by that equipment, and what the sound would be generated by all that equipment together.”

Applicant would like to hear a formal determination by the Board that there will be a Sandstone/ CADNA type study requested in any case

Applicant understands that the Board is going to demand the CADNA noise study from either its own consultant or from him, some sort of sophisticated CADNA analysis.

Applicant spoke to the manufacturer of the kilns and of the firewood processor. The firewood processor sells their product locally and they are not aware of any case that this type of noise analysis was required. The kiln manufacturer sells around the world and they too have not heard of this type of study on their machines.

Applicant encourages Board to visit a facility.

Assuming that the Applicant does the study and it comes back that an analysis is not necessary, it will still be required?

The scope of work that Sandstone submitted stated that the Marbletown Planning Board is requesting a CADNA based noise study.

It does not state that Sandstone reviewed the situation. It specifically states that the Planning Board is requesting the study.

Applicant believes that if the Board visited a location, they would have a very different view.

Applicant has 2 issues with the noise study

1)the cost based on the need /does not believe it is required

2)the Town Code has not been stated

/does not know what the benchmarks of the code are

To Steve -states that this is in a document that another Board member say’s is not required

-Applicant understood that the Board was going to require a CADNA based noise analysis no matter what he presented to the Board

-Applicant explains that the issue is ‘excessive noise’

-is not required in the Town Code

-Sandstone is proposing is legislation saying that this ‘excessive noise’ standard is qualitative

-Applicant refers to the Sandstone document and indicates to Board that he believes he is no longer allowed to point out what Sandstone is stating

-In response to Rich regarding the fencing –indicates that the Board is confusing  2 things

   1)whether there should be a security fence

   2)any sort of screening-in a letter dated September 6, the Board stated that they were going to look at the location “to plan to ensure continued screening of the rail trail”-

Applicant states that this was discussed as to “whether or not there would still be a natural type buffer there.”

-“the requirement for a security fence is a new requirement that was brought up just in September and there is no code requirement for that-that was something that one of the Board members asked for.”

-in regards to the screening fence-it is his understanding that it is just required on the lot line-he describes that as discussed at prior meetings, the Board was planning to view the location to determine whether the vegetation was sufficient

-to Rich- “if it requires that we put something around that area, and the Board insists on it, then we will do that.”

-in regards to the lighting the Applicant explains that as he stated at a prior meeting, the Board said it would be sufficient that we put a spotlight over the kilns

-Applicant agrees with Rich to having this shown on the review -Applicant believes that he has seen the easement

States that Central Hudson did come out there informally and he will submit this to the Board/there is only a small portion-there would be room

-the next step is to submit a written application (to Central Hudson) which carries a considerable fee-Applicant will do this if necessary but held off

In response to Rich regarding the Escrow agreement-the Applicant does not agree to the Escrow agreement and does not agree to the Sandstone study

-Applicant asks if the Board has to make a decision tonight.

-he was told that the application had been suspended

Chairman Lanzarone begins the discussion explaining  that Mr. Whitehead has failed to provide the following items:

1)      An executed copy of the escrow agreement

2)      A deposit of funds  to the escrow account as required by the escrow agreement

3)      A written waste management plan

4)      Review of fire safety issues

5)      A modified site plan to show

a)      A required fence around the kilns as required by code

6)      Written assurance from Central Hudson regarding  the easement area

 

Chairman Lanzarone states that “the Board does not have the facts it needs to make the necessary determination. The Board has a responsibility under the SEQRA to assess the environmental impact of the proposed operation and to require mitigation of any impacts that are significant and adverse. The Board has a responsibility to assess your proposed operation is in compliance with Town Code #200-40 C2 (reads code)”

He explains that, based on those reasons and the application being incomplete the Board discussed, at the November meeting, a motion to disapprove the application. That is where the Board stands at this time.

He explains to Mr. Whitehead that should the application be disapproved and he subsequently supplies all the information, it was previously discussed that the Board would reopen the application essentially where it is at this point.

(Steve to applicant)

Questions that this letter is the first time he understood that there were outstanding points?

 

(Rich) Explains that the applicant and he had a discussion about how he would essentially suspend but Rich contacted him again and informed him that legally it could not be suspended.

(Rich) Tells applicant that they could review the NYSDEC document

(Bonnie Franson entered the meeting via speaker phone)

(Rich)This document lays out all reasons why the noise study is necessary

The guide says to identify when noise levels may cause significant environmental impact

Rich explains that the guide also describes that “the departments regulatory, which by the way, the Planning Board also has similar regulatory authority for undertaking  noise evaluation …”

He explains to applicant that nothing set forth, in this case the DEC, staff from varying from their guidelines as specific circumstances (recording unclear) It does not create any enforceable right.

(continues to review document/recording unclear)

Discusses the 3 major noise sources as listed in the document (refer to Assessing and Mitigating Noise Impacts-NYSDEC)

(Recording unclear)

Rich explains why the noise study is required and tells Applicant that it is not automatically of right of use.

In response to question-Rich explains that the report could measure the noise for the nearby residents.

Indicates that in order to meet DEC criteria (recording unclear) the Applicant must incorporate Best Management practices.

Reviews what constitutes as Best Management practice, some of which Applicant is incorporating.

In order to meet these practices, Applicant must enclose the facility to prevent any increase in sound (increase above ambient level) This would require a noise analysis and (unclear) by a qualified engineer.

Rich tells Applicant that if he did this then he could state that he meets the requirements for Best Management Practices.

Kathy (response to Applicants noise study question) explains to him that the alternative is for the Board to tell him to go ahead and do it.

Kris questions whether the Applicant is leaning towards trying to submit a simplified noise study as a first pass or are you going down the route that you don’t wish to be subjected to the noise study at all.

Kris explains to Applicant that he can hire his own consultant. If the Board wishes to do the CADNA analysis with the Town’s consultant and share the consultant-Applicant is free to do what he decides

Kris responds stating that “it would be the way we conduct our business.”

Rich explains that the members of the Board are not acoustical experts, and that they would not be able to properly evaluate this and it requires a specialized consultant. The Board needs this analysis to make a determination.

(Recording unclear)

Kris explains that there were 2 other quotes from consultants and upon comparison, they picked a third consultant.

Rich discusses another firewood processing operation in Jeffersonville and points out a neighbor that is actively suing the facility.

Kris recommends reaching out to Sandstone and requesting a tiered Scope of Work and what they feel would be the scope for this situation and ask them to put together a tiered scope of what they believe is required for a simple study followed by the different levels they feel necessary

Rich explains that a large amount of the cost is measuring the ambient noise due to the work that is put in to it.

Steve explains that the code states measurements of the noise levels

Steve explains that SEQRA is a significant aspect and the Board has their stand/ could work together on doing something layered-could work with the Applicant but it is unfair to refuse any type of noise study all together-there needs to be a compromise

Rich explains that the CADNA study is not the majority of the cost/the fact that the company has to physically go to the location for 24 hours

Larry indicates that neither side will see the others point of view

Rich indicates that these issues have already been discussed and it is time to move forward to the other issues-1)fence 2)lighting

He questions applicant what he is going to do about these issues

Rich explains that the kiln area must be enclosed by a fence-the Board wants to hear what his position is on this matter

Rich (in response to screening) “the way the kilns are situated, you would have to add something around the kilns that’s not anywhere near a lot line. Again, I just want to hear what your position is.”

(In response to the lighting) Rich indicates that it would need to be shown on the review

Rich-The last issue is Central Hudson

(Recording unclear)

-Rich states that the Board needs approval  in writing

-Rich- back to the noise issue-the study needs to get done whether you have your own consultant the Board is going to hire Sandstone and he asks the applicant to execute the Escrow agreement and deposit the funds and explains that failing to do so the Board cannot progress.

Rich asks Bonnie if she has prepared a Resolution

She asks Rich if he would like to prepare a verbal Resolution

Rich to Applicant “you indicated that you would agree to extend  (recording unclear)”

-explains that it has been discussed with the Board

-The Board agrees that a decision must be made at this time

Rich (in response to application being suspended) explains that the Applicant indicated that he agreed to extend the Application and upon discussion with the Board regarding an extension-(recording unclear)

Kathy explains that if circumstances change and the Application is completed, it can be reopened

Rich (to Applicant) explains that this is a determination of disapproval of this application based on the fact that the information provided is insufficient for the Board to make the required findings under New York State Environmental Quality Review Act and (recording unclear)

(Bonnie)-Chapter 200/Marbletown Zoning Code

(Rich) As outlined in detail in letter dated Jan 2, 2014

Rich tells applicant that he would like to reiterate that if the information requested is received, his application will be reinstated where it was.

 

 

Official Action:

On the application for Woodman LLC, for a firewood processing facility, submitted June 25, 2012

Exception 69.4 Block 1. The property is situated in the I-1 Zoning District

The Board hereby issues a decision of disapproval of this application.

 

Motioned By: Steve Wood

Seconded By: Kathy Hawk

Vote: All Aye

 

Richard Lanzarone                             Aye

Steve Wood                                        Aye

Kathleen Hawk (6:45)                        Aye

Kris Lovelett                                        Aye

Sylvia Ricci                                           Aye

Larry Ricci                                            Aye

Mary Collins (Alternate)                    Aye

 

The vote was thereupon adopted by a vote of seven ayes, zero nays and no abstentions.

 

 

Chairman Lanzarone requests a motion to adjourn the meeting.

 

Motioned By: Mary Collins

Seconded By: Sylvia Ricci

Vote: All Aye

 

Richard Lanzarone                             Aye

Steve Wood                                        Aye

Kathleen Hawk (6:45)                       Aye

Kris Lovelett                                        Aye

Sylvia Ricci                                           Aye

Larry Ricci                                            Aye

Mary Collins (Alternate)                    Aye

 

The vote was thereupon adopted by a vote of seven ayes, zero nays and no abstentions.

 

The meeting was adjourned at 8:40.

 

Respectfully Submitted,

Holly Behnke, Planning Board Secretary