PATTERSON TOWN HALL

SPECIAL MEETING – RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

1142 ROUTE 311

PATTERSON, NY 12563

JULY 20, 2010

MINUTES

PRESENT: TOWN BOARD

MICHAEL GRIFFIN, SUPERVISOR

KEVIN BURNS,COUNCILMAN

JOSEPH CAPASSO, COUNCILMAN

GINNY NACERINO, COUNCILWOMAN

EDMOND O’CONNOR, DEPUTY SUPERVISOR

ANTOINETTE KOPECK, TOWN CLERK

PLANNING BOARD

SHAWN ROGAN

CHARLES COOK

THOMAS MCNULTY

MICHAEL MONTESANO

RON TYALOR

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

HOWARD BUZZUTTO

MARY BODOR

MARYANN BURDICK

GERALD HERBST

LARS OLENIUS

TOWN PLANNER

RICHARD WILLIAMS

Salute to the Flag and Roll Call.

Supervisor Griffin called the Patterson Town Board meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. with 6 in attendance.

Mr. Griffin stated we are here tonight to talk about the zoning proposals from the Town Planner and our consultants, Lester Steinman from Woorster Keily Galif & Jacobs. I will now turn the meeting over to Rich Williams, Town Planner.

Mr. Rich Williams stated we have a proposed law on Clubs. We’ve added a definition for “not-for-profit” membership Clubs. We are amending Section 154.95 which is the Special Use Permit provision for non-for-profit Clubs to change the requirements for what we are going to be permitting for Clubs. We are actually including a minimal lot area; almost all these regulations are new to the Code. The minimal lot area is five acres unless there is some sort of outdoor recreation component, in which case it is going to be a minimal lot area of 10 acres. Section “B” starts off with establishing some fairly liberal set back requirements with building and parking areas. Sub-Section “C” compliments Sub-Section “B”. It provides for a minimum of 250 feet from all property lines for any building or facilities, specifically used for active recreational uses. The old Code allowed Clubs on any street. We are now restricting that down to State and County or through Town Roads that are not used for residential sub-divisions. The minimum size is 2,000 square feet and the maximum size is 15,000 of all the principal buildings. Sub-Section “F” provides that building coverage of all buildings shall be not greater than 2%. Charlie Cook pointed out we need to add in the lot area. No accessory buildings. We have to be larger than 75%. There is no outdoor public access. No public address systems. We are permitting one indoor dwelling unit in the principle building for the caretaker or manager and his family.

Audience member stated do you think you can add in there the caretaker and his immediate family.

Mr. Williams stated Sub-Section “J” talks about the use of the property or the Club House for firearms, bows or arrows. It has to be done within the local legislation. This also compliments other Sections of this Code which prohibit shooting range for rifles or guns and some other uses very specifically restricted.

Mr. Charlie Cook stated on this particular section why would we want to have such uses and isn’t this covered in the definition. It says a non-for-profit membership Club shall not etc. etc. provide for facilities for or engaging in launching fireworks, skeet shooting, rifle or pistol ranges. It seems to me we could add in bow and arrow and other dangerous weapons into the definition.

Am I missing something.

Mr. Williams stated it is possible to have a Hunting Club and have a large area of open space and use that area of open space for hunting, which is one of the purposes for the Club. What is specifically prohibited within the definition are trap and skeet shooting, target rifle and pistol ranges. Not necessarily the discharge of firearms and bow and arrows, which is something that would be permitted if you had a hunting Club.

Mr. Cook spoke without the use of the microphone.

Mr. Shawn Rogan stated I think I know what Charlie is getting at. Under the definition of not-for-profit membership Club. We are excluding trap and skeet shooting. Is that as a commercial operation because we are trying to compare that to something like Putnam Fish and Game which is a membership Club. I can’t go there as a member of the public. I’m not a member of that Club. They have shooting ranges set up, trap and skeet, bow and arrow, rifle ranges and pistol ranges etc. That seems to be something that would fall under my definition of a not-for-profit Club. I would argue that you would want to make sure that there was sufficient acreage for a Club like that. The ability to have separation of one property to the next so that sound isn’t much of an issue. I would argue that you would want to limit the hours of operation of those types of events. I’m wondering is that allowed within this proposed Code or excluded.

Mr. Williams stated excluded. As a recreation use as an accessory recreation use to the operation of Club it would be excluded.

Mr. Rogan stated I would be in favor of including it provided it was a larger acreage. I don’t think 10 acres is enough for that kind of a use. We still do have some large properties in Patterson. I think that is something that should be reviewed by the Boards that are in authority of power at the time. There are certainly things that could be done to deaden sound. I think that is something that should be able to be reviewed by the Boards at that time. Instead of a complete exclusion, I went back to when we were talking about some of these ideas for the adoption of the Code change, I like having the ability as a Board to use some guidelines to access applications before us. Naming each individual activity is great for our guideline, but I don’t think it should be an absolute in all cases. Motorcycle racing for instance, but there might be various forms of that type of event. I think it’s nice if each Board has the ability to weigh the information given in the application. Maybe make a determination with stipulation’s on that approval that are specific to the applications set forth. I know with previous applications we had concerns. Once you give an approval you are opening up the gate. I think what we need to do is try to define how we don’t open the gate. How we can do approvals specific to an application and then confine them to the use that they are asking for. I think there are instances in some of these cases that we can have an operation that might very well fit nicely within a certain property. I have expressed this previously when we discussed the changes.

Mr. Williams stated when Mike, Tim Curtiss and I met with Les Steinman, Les actually argued for less discretionary authority to the Boards and I was arguing for more discretionary authority. Set up those general guidelines and let the Board’s do their job and evaluate. He was actually saying that is not the way you want to write a Code. You want to have it as black and white and straight forward as you can make it.

Mr. Griffin stated basically we didn’t want to wind up back where we are where things are too cloudy and what is and what isn’t. I would probably be willing to go along with rifle and pistol ranges if they were indoors. I have been up at the Dutchess Rifle Club and when you get three people shooting 20 gauges all day long, it really is loud. Patterson is like a big bowl and sound carries tremendously far in this Town. We decided it wouldn’t be good and would be annoying to the neighbors. If you are a half way decent hunter, it’s one or two shots.

Mr. Rogan stated what would prevent someone on their own private property from going out within 500 feet of adjoining residents without permission and made your own private range. I’m thinking there is nothing within our Code that would preclude someone from doing that. I know there is a private range across the hill from where I live on Bear Hill Estates. They don’t shoot very often but when they do it is a whole weekend event. I may not want to listen to that, but there are some rights that should be allowed when someone has property. While they are not a formal Club, there is nothing that I am aware of within the Town’s law that would prevent them from doing that. Correct.

Mr. Griffin stated not that I’m aware of.

Mr. Williams stated there is nothing in our Code that would strictly prohibit someone from having a target area on their property and using it. If they started to invite people in and it turned into a semi-commercial activity that may trigger something.

Mr. Joseph Capasso stated the Hyatt’s property next to mine, he had a gun Club there at one time. Is that correct.

Mr. Williams stated I don’t know about Hyatt. I know O’Hara did.

Mr. Capasso stated I’m sorry, O’Hara, you’re right. In the fall there are a lot of gun shots going off there. They are target practicing. Is that going to be illegal. There are a lot of semi-automatic rifles going off there. That should be addressed. It should be shot gun, rifles and pistols and not automatic rifles. I hear it. It wakes me up at 6:00 a.m.

Mr. Williams stated if he is operating a Club on the site and he doesn’t have a permit….

Mr. Capasso stated when I first bought the property there were people coming up from New York City and he was charging them to target shoot. I think that stopped. Now in the fall for hunting season, there are people shooting.

Mr. Williams stated I’m not familiar with New York State law.

Mr. Capasso stated so I can go in the back of my property and just shoot whatever I want. Cannons, missiles or whatever. I think that should be addressed.

Mr. Williams stated it can be, but not here.

Mr. Griffin stated it would have to be another Section of the Code.

Mr. Capasso stated and on the other side I have the Airplane Club, so I feel like I’m in Vietnam.

Mr. Rogan stated that might be something with the noise ordinance part of the Code.

Mr. Williams stated right now I have one opinion for leaving in the ability to have outdoor rifle ranges, trap shooting and one that is not in favor.

Mr. Rogan stated we could increase the property size. We were up to 10 acres for certain uses. I think something like that should be 25 acre minimum.

Mr. William stated we could do that. How does everyone else feel about just the issue of indoor versus outdoor rifle ranges and pistol ranges.

Mr. O’Connor stated there seems to be a contradiction between the definition and Section “J”.

Mr. Williams stated to recap the definition says you can’t have rifle ranges, trap shooting or pistol ranges. Section “J” has to do with activities like outdoor hunting.

Mr. O’Connor stated the definition says you will not do any trap or skeet shooting, target rifle or pistol ranges and then Section “J” says…….

Mr. William stated if you are going to use the Club House or Club site wherever you have the Special Use Permit for that parcel of land for the discharge of firearms or bow or hunting or other dangerous weapons…..

Mr. Ron Taylor stated but Rich the problem is it says Club House. How would you discharge a firearm in a Club House unless it is a rifle range.

Mr. Williams stated you could have a rifle range or a ……

Mr. Taylor stated but it is prohibited.

Mr. Williams stated no, it is not prohibited and I’m looking at this now we have to clarify that. It was never the intent to prohibit that on the inside of the building. You can have an inside pistol range.

Mr. Rogan spoke without the use of a microphone.

Mr. Taylor stated so it is confusing.

Mr. Williams stated yes, we have to clarify that.

Mr. Griffin stated after the word fireworks I would add the word “outdoor”.

Mr. Williams stated well, that is your opinion. Shawn has a definite opinion.

Mr. Griffin stated well you asked for opinions.

Mrs. Nacerino stated I agree with Mike.

Mr. Williams stated “outdoor pistol ranges”.

Mr. Cook and Mr. Montesano stated I don’t agree. I would leave the definition alone.

Mr. Taylor stated it is confusing.

Mr. Griffin stated the Town is small and there isn’t that much property around where if you had an all day activity with people discharging firearms that it’s not going to be annoying to someone or interfere with the use of the property.

Mr. Rogan stated Mike made a valid point. I think with the site plan review you already have hunting Club, they come before the Board and say we would like to amend our application to include an outdoor range, that is the time that the Board’s can look at the hours of operation specific to that use and area within the property that it can be safely done. I think that there should be the ability for someone to ask for it, not the requirement of the Town to allow it. I think I t should be open to review.

Mrs. Nacerino spoke but unable to transcribe.

Mr. Burns stated Joe’s property is at the other end of the valley where my property is. I hear the model airplanes and the guy who has a semi-automatic pistol that he is using. We wake up to hunting on the conservation property that is off of Cornwall Hill. That is no more infringing upon my quality of life than a limited pistol range would be.

Ms. Mary Bodor stated it might bother you and not another. We have to look at the whole scope.

Mr. Burns stated would it be a primary use or an accessory use.

Mr. Rogan stated it would be an accessory use.

Mr. Williams stated it would be accessory to the Club use, whatever the Club use is.

Mr. O’Connor stated limit firearm discharge to shotguns because a 36 will carry for miles.

Mr. Rogan stated you are talking about projectile versus sound. I disagree with you on the sound. If you set up a range, you would have to set up safety measures. When you are talking about sound quality…….

Mr. O’Connor spoke but unable to transcribe.

Mr. Rogan stated when I said berms I went for sound not stopping a bullet.

Ms. Bodor stated I think given a large enough parcel of land and a properly developed range, indoor, outdoor, skeet or trap it can happen and it can happen safely. My husband is a hunter so I am familiar with these Clubs. He also belongs to a couple of different Clubs where they do have indoor and outdoor. The people who are involved with these know that they are doing this within a certain structure and they are willing to comply with it. They have hours of operation for the outdoor shooting and it is complied with. The rules are there. Those that don’t adhere to it are drummed out by the rest of the members. I think it is a possibility.

Mr. O’Connor stated skeet and trap are not as dangerous as other things.

Ms. Bodor stated they are all dangerous in the wrong hands.

Mr. Williams stated let’s move on. The next is Section “K” which provides that the Zoning Board of Appeals will limit the hours of operation for any outdoor activities such as rifle ranges. Within this provision they could allow seven days a week or they could restrict it. It is a broad scope.

Mr. Burns stated what if the Audubon Society comes in and they want to have a walk for seeing barn owls.

Mr. Griffin stated Section “K” says active recreation. I would consider that passive.

Mr. Williams stated we were very specific about saying active. We do have some language in here about active versus passive.

Mr. Burns stated do we need to limit it to 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. or shall it be limited as necessary.

Mr. Williams stated we wrote this so that the Town Board can say here is the box. You have the ability to make the box smaller if you think it is appropriate.

Mr. Rogan spoke but unable to transcribe.

Mr. Williams stated Zoning Board of Appeals except as otherwise further restricted.

Mr. O’Connor stated if we are not talking about seven day use I think it would be wise to say so.

Mr. Williams stated again, the Town Board is setting the box.

Mr. O’Connor stated whatever we think it should be I think it should say so.

Mr. Williams stated that is what we have done. We said these are the usual hours of operation that are reasonable. Anything outside of that like people sleeping or relax at home at night, you don’t want to see a lot of outdoor activity that might disturb that peace and tranquility. If there is a use that potentially could further impact the residents, the ZBA has the ability to shrink those hours. We left them fairly broad and liberal but gave the ZBA the ability to narrow it up.

Audience members speaking without the use of a microphone.

Mr. O’Connor stated it doesn’t say that. I would read it that it doesn’t. There is nothing mentioned about days.

Audience members speaking without the use of a microphone

Mr. Williams stated we don’t know it depends on the use and the proximity to someone else’s property and the ZBA’s deliberation and the valuation of that.

Mr. O’Connor stated then maybe it should say the hours and days of operation shall be (inaudible).

Mr. Williams stated we can have that.

Mr. O’Connor stated without having the word days in there I think the implication is that it is a seven day a week operation.

Mr. Tom McNulty stated I think 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. establishes the box but also sets the time frame. How do you enforce that when you are setting a Special Use Permit. If you took the hours out and left it to a Zoning Board set hours, each special use would have its hours. Right now someone picks up this rough Code and says we can go 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.. How do you enforce this if you say you can only go from 10 to 2 under a Special Use Permit.

Mr. Williams stated the ZBA sets that criteria.

Mr. McNulty stated I understand that.

Mr. Williams stated then it is enforced by our Codes.

Mr. McNulty stated if you set that 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. it sets a black and white frame that people may misconstrue and then just said it would be limited by the Board of Appeals as to the hours and days of operation and take that hard time out of it.

Mr. Williams stated we could do that as long as the Town Board is in agreement.

Mrs. Nacerino stated as determined by the Zoning Board of Appeals. This lends itself to confusion.

Mr. Williams stated if the ZBA changes and we have new members for whatever reason they decide it is appropriate to have the outdoor recreational activity at 12:00 at night that is the way it is going to be.

Mrs. Nacerino stated we could put no later than 9:00 p.m. If it is a case by case situation and there is something that might be at 6:00 a.m. the Zoning Board is a discretionary Board. Give them the ability to make those decisions in a rational way.

Conversation ensued regarding the time change.

Mr. Rogan stated I think each case has to be reviewed.

Mr. Griffin stated the way I read this is the most you are going to get is 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. I don’t have a problem if you want to take that out and leave it completely up to the discretion of the Zoning Board of Appeals. In the future if the Town Board and the Zoning Board changes and everybody doesn’t like the rules, they can change the rules. I don’t have a problem giving the Zoning Board discretion. I will argue with you about the outdoor/indoor thing all night but this one you can have.

Mrs. Nacerino stated I agree with that.

Ms. Bodor stated what if we changed the wording to “unless otherwise restricted”. Unless the Zoning Board is saying something different it’s 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.

Mr. O’Connor stated seven days a week.

Ms. Bodor stated yes. It can be changed, but if there are no conditions put on it, then it’s from 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.

Mr. O’Connor stated the only changes they can make is to make it more restrictive.

Ms. Bodor stated the wording fits better.

Mr. Griffin stated just make it hours of operation will be at the discretion of the Zoning Board.

Mr. Williams stated a Club that has two tennis Clubs outside may have one set of hours of operations. The Club that has 20 tennis courts outside may have another set of hours of operation because of the more frequent use and number of people. As it is written right now, neither facilities could start those courts before 8:00 a.m. and neither could run those courts after 9:00 p.m.

Ms. Maryann Burdick stated in the noise Code doesn’t it say that certain activities can occur before 8 o’clock anyway so will we have a conflict between the two Codes if we take that out of there.

Mr. Williams stated in some instances but you always default to the more restrictive Code. Our noise code is based on the more restrictive noise codes in the area, which is the Town of Bedford. However, it is very liberal. It’s probably something we should look at in the future.

Mr. Williams stated regarding Public Nuisances, evaluating certain activities based on the potential for disturbing the peace and general welfare of the Town. Sub-Section “M” links this in to all other Codes, which says that whatever you are doing as a Club, you still have to comply with more restrictive requirements of that zoning district.

Mr. Taylor stated why don’t you have noise and environmental in there.

Mr. Williams stated because it was all related to the Zoning Code linking all the sections together and not necessarily the noise code and everything else.

Mr. Rogan stated jumping back to L, somewhere in our Code should we have more elaborate definitions of deleterious to public health, safety and well-fare to not make those so discretionary in our interpretation. What may be objectionable to one person may not be to another. I think some guidelines so when the Zoning Board is charged with weighing these issues they have something to back them up so it is not someone’s opinion.

Mr. Williams stated I’ve never seen a definition. When you get into public nuisances it’s definitely a very subjected term.

Mr. Rogan stated if you can write the Code so specific you don’t need it to go to the Zoning Board. There is no discretionary ability in it. I would argue that these applications are going to be so unique.

Mr. Griffin stated that makes a Prescriptive Code extraordinarily difficult to write. At that point, you need to list everything you don’t want. Usually in a Prescriptive Code if it doesn’t say you can’t then you can.

Mr. Rogan stated which is what we get back to with our case law where they have said that with ambiguities the courts will favor with the property owner. We are trying to set this up, but I don’t want to set up a Code that is so specific that it doesn’t allow our Boards to look at things for the uniqueness of the application. I know they are contrary issues, but I think there should be some kind of balance of the two.

Mr. Williams stated that is what this does. It tries to give you some discretion. I will email Les and see what he has to say. Moving on to N, when I initially drafted something for us to take a look at it very specifically listed out the accessory uses.

Mr. Taylor stated why in this section don’t you cite the noise Code or the Environmental Code as part of what they are basing their judgment upon. There are several pages defining what noise is. They have something concrete to base their judgment upon. The same with water quality. It seems like you should tie back to two parts of the Code that you already have.

Mr. Williams stated when you say Environmental Code, is there something specific.

Mr. Taylor stated I’m not familiar with the terms and the categories. You have a category that covers water quality which ever part of the Code that is. In the Noise Code you have those pages that talk about decibels and meters. You covered it and defined it elsewhere. It doesn’t seem arbitrary.

Mr. Griffin stated you want to change M to read another general standard of the Code of the Town of Patterson.

Mr. Williams stated it all ties back in with the definition of Clubs in that it specifically lays out certain uses that we feel is not appropriate as Clubs either as a principle use or an accessory use. This is where it gets into the passive activities and uses of the land such as hunting, hiking and fishing.

Mr. Burns stated what is “any form of motorized sport or testing or adult entertainment.”

Mr. Williams stated Les wrote this and I can only go on what I think he did. I think he realized we were having problems with potential applications with racing so that is what he was looking at.

Mr. Burns stated so is testing referring to motorized sport.

Mr. Williams stated yes.

Mr. Burns stated I wasn’t sure if testing was its own entity on to itself .

Mr. O’Connor stated I think it needs a comma.

Mr. Williams stated P clarifies if a use that they are proposing is also regulated elsewhere within the Zoning Code that the more restrictive provisions of that section of Code or this section of Code are going to be implied to that Club use. Q talks about the building exteriors and needing to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. R is a carryover from the old Code which allows the Code Enforcement Officer to go in and view any membership list or registry of guests etc.

Mr. Rogan stated did we talk in the beginning of this Section about the areas where Clubs would be permitted. I think in your draft comments with Mr. Steinman you talked about the idea of whether Clubs should be permitted in both residential and commercial districts.

Mr. Williams stated we have not spoken about that. The way this Code lays this out is they are allowed in commercial areas. This section gets put in a section of our Code which provides a Special Use Permit. It could be issued in any Zoning District. It is somewhat limited as to where they can go, to where you have a State, County or Town road that is not a residential sub-division road. I want to talk to Les about that. Big Elm Road is not a sub-division road, but it is a residential through road. Generally what the intent is you can have Clubs in residential areas if they are along State and County roads such as Route 311, 164, Haviland Hollow or East Branch. Those areas you can still have a Club even though they are residential areas.

Mr. Griffin stated one of the things we discussed was the example of Manor Road. If for some reason someone had property in Dutchess and they wanted to do a Hunt Club but they had acquired a vacant lot on the back and managed to find a way to get permission to access it. If you have a lot of people driving through that road to get to something that might be in another Town or County which was the thought process so we wouldn’t have the 20 cars going through a sub-division simply. They had the same issue in Putnam Lake.

Mr. Williams stated Mike brought up a good point and maybe we should talk about this. This Code does address that a little. We had a considerable discussion about that. Les felt that it was something we needed to also include in the overall Zoning Codes as a separate section that someday we are going to have to look at.

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Williams stated we have a new definition for Research and Development. There are some restrictions for some types of Research and Development. Uses that would be permitted; chemical plants. We ended up taking out more testing or use of animals in experimentation and explosives. Item 4 is a catch all.

Mr. Griffin stated can we back up. It talks about “wherein products are not manufactured, fabricated for wholesale or retail sale, wherein commercial servicing or repair of commercial products is not performed; and where there is no display of any materials or products, I think we should add for sale or resale. If I’m doing research and I want to display something I’m researching and I want to put a car in my lobby, I don’t think I should be prohibited from doing that. I think we need to be a little more specific.

Mr. Williams stated ok.

Mr. Taylor stated do you mean keeping for research use. It just says “keeping.”

Mr. Williams stated yes keeping for a research development use.

Mr. Taylor stated that is not what it says.

Mr. Griffin stated that definition has to be clarified. Take out the comma and put in a “for”.

Mr. Burns spoke without the use of a microphone.

Mr. Montesano stated are we restricting them from allowing that.

Mr. Williams stated yes. If you have a horse farm and on that horse farm you are doing experimental treatments on a horse, that would be one thing. In this case, where we would consider research and development is if you have a facility and you have 20 horses there and are very specific in injecting them with drugs to see what the drugs will do, that would be prohibited.

Mr. Montesano stated is that going to be specifically explained in here. For arguments sake, you have a 4-H project going on and the kids are trying to make a hybrid guinea pig, is that going to be a violation if they are doing that.

Mr. Williams stated I don’t think Nick is going to go out and violate a 12 year old kid.

Mr. Montesano stated the object is if you make a law someone will want it enforced. We need to reword this.

Mr. Williams stated you are taking it to an extreme. We opted to take out animals all together because of the controversy that generally surrounds the use of animals for testing. I agree with what you are thinking.

Mr. Burns stated so we are not required to one without the other.

Mr. Williams stated I think we might if that is what you really want to do.

Mrs. Nacerino is speaking without the use of a microphone.

Mr. Griffin stated our concern wasn’t that we were going to upset PETA. Our concern was the health and safety issue of the residents of Patterson. We are open to suggestions if you want to take that out or modify it.

Mr. Cook stated there is some wording that could pull this together if not leave it.

Mr. Williams stated Sub-Section “A” talks about site plan approval that what the Planning Board should be requesting part of each application to further evaluate Research and Development facilities and the activities that go on at the site. B sets a minimum lot area of five acres. C starts establishing minimum set back requirements from neighboring residents greater than our current set back requirements.

Mr. Griffin stated it talks about setbacks for the buildings and the parking areas of 500 feet and in Section “E” it says “for the facilities to be used for outdoor activity shall only be 250 feet. It doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.

Audience member stated G is the same thing.

Mr. Griffin stated it talks about a buffer. How far is Clancy set back off the road.

Mr. Williams stated greater than 500 feet.

Mr. Griffin stated buildings and parking, I don’t have a problem with 250 feet set back and leave the 250 feet for testing.

Mr. Williams stated it depends on what they are testing. If they are putting up solar panels its 250 feet (inaudible) neighborhood.

Mr. Griffin stated 500 feet might not be necessary for a building or a parking area.

Mr. Rogan stated are these setbacks presuming that this is going in a residential zone.

Mr. Williams stated no.

Mr. Rogan stated so if it was a commercial lot where you could put a retail store and they could have parking within 10 feet of property line, right. What would be the separation distance from a side yard on a parking lot.

Mr. Williams stated I don’t think there is a setback.

Mr. Rogan stated so now you are taking someone because they are doing Research and Development they have to be several hundred feet for a parking lot from their buildings. That doesn’t seem consistent.

Mr. Williams stated from residential areas.

Mr. Rogan stated that is why I was asking. This is just separation from residential areas.

Mr. Williams stated it’s not even from the property line it’s from the house.

Mr. Rogan stated would that same logic make sense for the rest of our Code for adjacent to residential for any parking regarding just the parking, I’m not worried about the Research and Development. Seems like the use of that parking has nothing to do with the parking spot itself.

Mr. Williams stated I agree with that scenario that there needs to be better separation between residential areas and commercial areas. That is why I set up Patterson Crossing with a 65 foot buffer and setback requirements from any impervious areas. We don’t want to over regulate our areas.

Mr. Rogan stated it should be consistent.

Mr. Williams stated you think 500 feet is too restrictive, 65 feet for parking.

Mr. Rogan stated yes.

Mr. Williams stated the 65 feet is from the property line.

Mr. Rogan stated now for the actual component of the Research and Development. Someone said solar panels versus some other testing. Are we leaving it within the discretion of the Zoning Board to determine what that setback is.

Mr. Williams stated it’s not a Special Use Permit.

Mr. Rogan stated so we can take into account what the activity is, what the impact associated is and noise levels etc and then make a determination.

Mr. Williams stated going back to C I am going to take out that whole first sentence.

Mr. McNulty stated there is nothing on limitations and height. What if you get a Research and Development that was looking at turbines for power, windmills.

Mr. Williams stated it defaults to the Zoning Code. Whatever the Zoning Code has in that district. Typically 35 feet within the C1 and (inaudible) and 30 feet in the GB zoning district.

Mr. McNulty stated so the maximum for Research and Development would be 35 feet.

Mr. Williams stated yes.

Mr. McNulty stated so if the flicker from the light off the windmills affected a neighbor there is no way to govern that.

Mr. Williams stated there wouldn’t be any windmills.

Mr. McNulty stated what if you had one at 35 feet.

Mr. Williams stated the trees are going to (inaudible) out.

Mr. McNulty stated there are a whole new line of turbines that are coming on the market and they are not going to work the same way.

Mr. Williams stated I understand. I’ve seen some of them where they have the vertical rotors instead of the horizontal rotors. It is very interesting stuff but if you are at 35 feet, generally the trees are going to screen out anything you are going to see.

Mr. McNulty stated ok, it’s just a thought.

Mr. Williams stated a lot of those are designed for residential areas for residential home use and the maximum height is 38 feet. We are a little bit higher. The typical canopy is about 55 feet.

Mr. Williams stated Sub-Section “D” limits the ability of a Research and Development facility for doing any sort of manufacturing processing, assembling, storage and warehouse goods. The intent is to keep Research and Development facilities as Research and Development facilities so on and so forth recognizing their differences between the same uses and keeping them separate. I realize this takes it someplace it wasn’t intended to go and that is we want to keep the uses separate but we still want to allow them on the same property. Possibly in the same building as long as we recognize that this portion of the building is this use and the left side is another use and we created the amenities which need to support those two uses in the same site. I have some notes here to myself on how to rewrite this.

Mr. Williams stated E is a catch all. Any outdoor developmental testing is such that they not do noxious or offensive odors, vapors, dust or vibrations. Any testing is 250 feet. Do you want to change that.

Mr. Griffin stated I don’t know if that should be more discretionary for the Planning Board. If you are testing something really passive like solar panels or something along those lines, 250 feet might be a bit excessive. I just don’t want to discourage business that we want. I wouldn’t use residents; I would use property lines for setbacks. I think it levels the playing field. I think we should just have used property lines and left to the discretion of the Planning Board.

Mr. Williams stated G provides for a vegetated buffer. H further restricts the types of materials or experimental uses that can be conducted.

Mr. Taylor stated why do you limit manufactured or commercial explosives and not just explosives.

Mr. Williams stated I don’t know for sure. That was from the attorney.

Mr. Taylor stated it seems to leave the door open for privately manufactured explosives and radioactive materials.

Mr. O’Connor stated then they would be manufactured. There are a number of regular compounds that could be considered explosives.

Mr. Williams stated how about we change it to no manufactured or commercial or other types of explosives.

Mr. Taylor stated or radioactive materials.

Mr. Williams stated then there are some additional changes that need to be made to Code to recognize the changes to Research and Development.

Mr. Rogan stated the Planning Board had asked Charlie and Mike to take a look earlier on in this process at the Master Plan and how the existing Codes supported the goals of the Master Plan and that is part of what drove this process. I’m wondering if you guys have any thoughts on whether this new Code is a step in the right direction to supporting those goals or whether or not the goals need updating.

Mr. Cook stated if you are talking about just the Clubs, not the R&D, it ties in with what Mike and I worked on so I think we are fine there.

Mr. Burns stated are we going to talk at this meeting or some future meeting what we are going to do with the Master Plan.

Mr. Griffin stated what’s the matter with the Master Plan.

Mr. Burns stated it’s a little old. It needs to be updated.

Mr. Williams stated Kevin did you ever get a chance to look at the Community Survey that I did.

Mr. Burns stated no.

Mr. Williams stated it’s on line. Probably what we want to do is look at that and update it so we get a broader idea of what the community wants.

Mr. Bruce Major stated to the Town Board, wouldn’t it be advisable to set a date for members of the Planning Board and Zoning Board to send any additional comments they may have to you seeing that many members have nothing to say tonight. They may want to further review the document and get back to you. I know Mike you set a schedule as to how this should go forward. I would hope you would get comments from the before you have a public hearing.

Mr. Griffin stated I’m sure based on what has been discussed tonight anyone who has additional comments or thoughts, I’m sure Rich will be contacted. If the Planning Board want to give the Town Board an opinion on Fox Run Phase II anytime that would be good.

Mr. O’Connor stated we could set a date to encourage the date by which comments would be expected.

Mr. Griffin stated making some of the suggested changes tonight and getting that recirculated might be useful.

Mr. Williams stated I was going to revise……

Mrs. Nacerino spoke but unable to transcribe.

Mr. Cook stated when you do that I would suggest that you highlight or underscore changes so we know that those comments came from tonight’s meeting.

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business, Mr. O’Connor made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:35 p.m.

Seconded by Mr. Burns. All In Favor: Aye. Carried.

Respectfully submitted

__________________________________

ANTOINETTE KOPECK, TOWN CLERK