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

MINUTES OF December 14, 2015 Meeting of the Town of Rochester PLANNING BOARD, held at the Town of Rochester Community Center, Accord, NY.

Chairman Baden asked that everyone stand to say the Pledge to the Flag.

The Secretary did roll call attendance.

PRESENT: ABSENT: Michael Baden, Chairman Fred O’Donnell, Vice Chair Maren Lindstrom
John Dawson
Melvyn Tapper
Adam Paddock
Shane Ricks

Also present:
Patrick Williams, Alternate.

Chairman Baden noted that as there were absent members at this meeting, Mr. Williams would be seated as a regular member for this meeting.

TRAININGS
Chairman Baden urged members to do online trainings if they have not yet completed their 4 hours for the year yet. It was imperative for members to get their 4 hours as it may make it difficult for the Town Board to reappoint members when their term is up.

Mr. Ricks noted that he did 1.5 hours last week at a Hudson Valley Watershed training.

ACTION ON MINUTES
Chairman Baden noted that we had 4 different minutes to approve. They could do them as one block, but the November 9th Minutes had a couple of corrections. Mr. Tapper was listed as absent and he was present. Also on the votes, Mr. Tapper is listed as yes, but it’s listed as 3 absent, that needed to be changed. He has read through the others and thanked the Secretary as they were very lengthy minutes and especially for the November minutes which there was a malfunction with the tape recorder and it was blank. She was able to go off of the notes though.

Ms. Lindstrom motioned to approve the August 10, 2015, August 31, 2015, the October 19, 2015 and the November 9th Minutes (which will be amended to reflect Mr. Tapper’s attendance. Seconded by Mr. Paddock. Chairman Baden noted that the thing to know about Minutes is that if a Board Member ever notices a mistake in the future, they can always be amended.
Vote:
Baden: Yes Tapper: Yes
O’Donnell: Absent Lindstrom: Yes
Ricks: Yes Dawson: Yes
Paddock: Yes Williams: Yes

Motion carried. 7 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, 0 abstentions, (including alternate)

PB 2015-03 SBD Public Hearing, Continued Application
Minor Subdivision
Gordon Brown (owner)/Chris and Heather Brown (applicant)
Proposes subdivision of a parcel resulting in 2 lots with a shared driveway of +/- 5.03 acres and remaining lands of +/- 351 acres, 136 Sundale Rd., S/B/L #60.4-1-2.112, ‘R-5’ and ‘FD Overlay’ zoning districts
Located within Ulster County Ag District #3, Located within the 100 year flood plain.

Mr. Brown was present on behalf of his application.

Chairman Baden noted that the Public Hearing (PH) needed to be continued, they did do a Negative Declaration at the last meeting, but they couldn’t close the PH because they were waiting for the UCPB response. The Board has since received it and it has been determined to have a “No County Impact”, so there are no issues on county level. The Road Maintenance Agreement (RMA) is in the process of being dealt with. The Town Attorney has specific language that she wants added onto the plan and she will speak with Mr. Medenbach’s office and get that to them so they can coordinate that language. Other than that, she had no issues.

Chairman Baden opened the Hearing at 7:06PM.

As there was no public comment, Mr. Dawson motioned to close the PH, seconded by Ms. Lindstrom. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden: Yes Tapper: Yes
O’Donnell: Absent Lindstrom: Yes
Ricks: Yes Dawson: Yes
Paddock: Yes Williams: Yes

Motion carried. 7 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, 0 abstentions, (including alternate)

At this time the Board reviewed the draft findings as follows:
Findings of the Planning Board
1. The Planning Board received zoning referral for a Minor Subdivision from the Code Enforcement Officer.
2. The application proposes subdivision of a 356 acre parcel of land into 2 lots.
3. Required documentation, as detailed in this decision, was provided for review and the application was considered complete.
4. The parcel to be subdivided is known as S/B/L 60.4-1-2.112.
5. The parcel is located in the ‘R-5’ and ‘FD Overlay’ zoning districts.
6. The parcel is contiguous to the Town of Olive and the Town of Marbletown. Notice of public hearing was sent to the respective Town Clerks.
7. The parcel is located in Ulster County Agricultural District #3. An Ag Data statement is required. The Board finds there is no impact to the Ag District with this application.
8. The parcel is located in the FEMA flood hazard zone 36111C0575E, effective 9/25/2009. Construction of any structures is not proposed within the flood hazard zone.
9. The parcel contains ACOE federal wetlands and NYS wetlands. The proposed subdivision has been determined to not impact these due to location.
10. The existing parcel exceeds the required minimum road frontage on Sundale Rd., a T/ Rochester controlled public roadway.
11. The current use of the parcel is residential with improvements of a single-family dwelling, barn, several sheds, trailer, driveway, and individual well and septic.
12. Lot 1, as proposed, meets or exceeds the bulk standards requirements for the ‘R-5’ zoning district with the exception of the required 50’ of frontage on a public or private road. Lot 2, as proposed, meets or exceeds the bulk standards requirements for the ‘R-5’ zoning district.
13. A single family dwelling, driveway, well, and septic are proposed for Lot 1. The trailer located on Lot 1 is proposed to be removed upon construction of the new dwelling. A building permit and well and septic approvals are required. There are no proposed changes to Lot 2.
14. The existing driveway will service both parcels and will become a shared driveway upon subdivision. It was reviewed by the T/ Rochester Highway Supt. and indicated it meets town standards for shared driveways. A Road Maintenance Agreement is required.
15. The existing driveway crosses the Rochester Creek. The shared driveway is noted as located within the FEMA flood hazard zone and compliance with surface construction above the elevation of the flood hazard zone will be required.
16. There also is a right-of-way over the driveway for contiguous parcel S/B/L 60.4-1-2.20, not a part of this subdivision application.
17. The application was referred to the Accord Fire District, which returned no comment.
18. The application was referred to the Ulster County Planning Board which returned a “No County Impact” comment.

Draft findings were prepared by the Chairman and were read and discussed by the Planning Board.

Motion to adopt findings by Mr. Dawson
Second by Ms. Lindstrom
Vote:
Baden: Yes Tapper: Yes
O’Donnell: Absent Lindstrom: Yes
Ricks: Yes Dawson: Yes
Paddock: Yes Williams: Yes

Motion carried. 7 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, 0 abstentions, (including alternate)

At this time the Board reviewed the Draft Resolution as follows:

RESOLVED,
The Town of Rochester Planning Board grants Minor Subdivision-Conditional Final Approval to Gordon Brown permitting the subdivision of lands situate at 136 Sundale Rd, known as
S/B/L 60.1-3-2.112 and located in the ‘R-5’ and ‘FD Overlay’ zoning districts, into 2 lots is approved with the following conditions. The subdivision sketch plan, as dated September 14, 2015, is approved subject to amendment as described below.

The Town of Rochester Planning Board further grants Minor Subdivision-Final Approval permitting the subdivision of lands upon the satisfactory completion of conditions of approval 1, 2, 3, and 4. The Planning Board grants the authority to the Chairman to certify the conditions have been completed without further resolution and to sign and date the plat at such time.

CONDITIONS of APPROVAL:
1. A Road Maintenance Agreement shall be presented and approved by the Attorney for the Town.
2. Applicant shall present a Final Plat for signature with these amendments.
a. The title block shall state Final Plan
b. The contiguous parcel shown as ‘Edwards’ shall have the S/B/L corrected to state
60.4-1-2.20
c. The plat shared driveway shall be labelled in a manner to reflect how the expenses of maintenance, repair and/or restoration of the roadways among the lot owners affected are apportioned and such shall be referenced in the Road Maintenance Agreement. Such labeling shall be approved by the Attorney for the Town.
d. The proposed right-of-way for Lot 1 shall be indicated on the plat in the specific location by coordinates.
e. The trailer, as shown on Lot 1, shall be notated as “To be removed upon completion of construction of the proposed house.”
f. Include a plan notation stating “This property contains land within the flood hazard zone as depicted by FEMA on plate 36111C0575E effective as of 9/25/2009. Any construction or disturbance within the FEMA designated flood hazard zone shall adhere to the Code of the Town of Rochester Chapter 81, Flood Damage Prevention, or its successors.”
3. The section of the shared driveway surface located within the FEMA flood hazard zone shall be certified as being located above the flood hazard zone elevation. Should such requirement not be the existing case, construction to raise any portions not in compliance shall occur prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the proposed structure indicated to be located on Lot 1 and such certification made to the building inspector.
4. Any and all fees due to the Town of Rochester involving this application shall be paid in full prior to the Chairman’s signature on the Final Plat. This shall include the fees for the review of the Road Maintenance agreement and Final Plat by the Attorney for the Town.
5. The shared driveway
a. shall be constructed and maintained in compliance with Town of Rochester subdivision regulations and be of sufficient width, grade and location to accommodate access by all emergency vehicles and services to the lands which are the subject of the subdivision application.
b. shall comply with all of the provisions on §277 of NYS Town Law as presently existing or as amended in the future and shall be maintained in a good and passable condition under all weather conditions to provide access to all emergency vehicles.

6. All required Local, County, State, or Federal permits shall be secured for the current or future use of these lands.
a. Specifically, a Town of Rochester building permit shall be secured prior to construction of the proposed structure on Lot 1.
b. Specifically, Ulster County Dept. of Health permit(s) shall be secured prior to construction of the well and septic areas on Lot 1.
7. The trailer, as shown on the plat on Lot 1, shall be allowed to remain during the construction of the proposed dwelling, however shall be removed post-construction and prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the new dwelling.

EFFECT of APPROVAL:
1. This Conditional Final Approval shall expire 180 days from this approval date unless conditions 1, 2, 3, and 4 are satisfied by the applicant and the Final Plat is presented and signed by the Chairman. This period may be extended for additional 90 day periods upon application to and resolution by the T/ Rochester Planning Board.
2. The owner shall file in the office of the Ulster County Clerk such approved plat bearing the Chairman’s signature and the approved Road Maintenance Agreement within 62 days from the date of signature or such approval shall be deemed to expire without further notice in accordance with NYS Town Law §276.
3. The owner shall have the responsibility to return three (3) Ulster County Clerk certified copies of the filed plat, the road maintenance agreement, and any other related filings to the T/ Rochester Planning Board within 30 days of such filing.

Draft resolution was prepared by the Chairman and was read, discussed, (and amended?) by the Planning Board in public meeting.

Discussion:
Ms. Lindstrom questioned if the access road met this?

Chairman Baden noted that they weren’t sure, that’s why they were making sure in case it’s not. The Board didn’t want to approve it and then have something that gets flooded out. They can’t back track, but they could make sure that they didn’t expand on the problem. Because they’ve had so much discussion on fire access they needed to make sure it was alright.

Motion to approve made by: Mr. Dawson
Second by: Ms. Lindstrom
Vote:
Baden: Yes Tapper: Yes
O’Donnell: Absent Lindstrom: Yes
Ricks: Yes Dawson: Yes
Paddock: Yes Williams: Yes

Motion carried. 7 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, 0 abstentions, (including alternate)

Chairman Baden noted that a copy of this approval would be sent to Mr. Medenbach. The Attorney for the Town is on vacation right now, but when she gets back she would speak with Mr. Medenbach and get them the language that they needed to put on the map and get the language on the RMA straightened out.

PB 2015-02 SUP Continued Application
Special Use
Frank Macagnone and Keith Eddleman aka Crested Hen Farms
Proposes new use of an existing barn on a +/- 32 acre residential parcel for the use ‘Commercial Events Facility” with parking and related supporting amenities
607 County Route 6, S/B/L #77.002-2-12.1, ‘AR-3’, ‘AP Overlay’ and ‘FD Overlay’ zoning districts, Located within Ulster County Ag District #3, Located within Alligerville Historic District listed on the National Register, Located within the 100 year flood plain

Mr. Moriello and Mr. Medenbach were present on behalf of the application.

Chairman Baden noted that the 11/4/15 UCPB referral response was received. There is a 3 page referral and a separate sheet. What that separate sheet is, is an amendment. It’s the document list that the County received from the Town and when we received it, we noticed some mistakes and they actually said that they reviewed the subdivision map of Mr. Brown, so that is a correction to the other sheet. They had Required Modifications as follows:

Chairman Baden noted that there was one thing on the site plan that he wanted to go over that was touched on way back in the beginning and now should probably be revisited. When they were talking about the entrance and the exit for people, the two doors on the side of the barn would be closed if there was amplified music. Where people would be entering and exiting would be where the line is where it says, “enclosed barn space 2,100sf”. The doorway would be right there?

Mr. Medenbach noted that he had a floor plan.

Chairman Baden noted that the long doors on either side on the north and south side would be closed, so there was a doorway where he was referring to.

The event planner for the application agreed noting that would be the door that would be used.

Chairman Baden noted that his question was that since the public would be entering and exiting at the other end of the barn, do they want to ask the applicant to relocate the catering tent? Right now you would have to walk through the catering tent to get to the toilets.

Mr. Medenbach noted that the applicants asked about that—if they didn’t put the catering tents right there and he felt that there was some flexibility there.

Chairman Baden agreed that there was, but he wanted to bring it to everyone’s attention that the board should probably consider asking the catering tent to be moved.

Mr. Medenbach questioned if they should show it at the far end of the barn?

Chairman Baden noted that would probably make a lot more sense—right where the word “Space” is where it says “proposed event space”.

The event planner for the application noted that the toilets would actually be right next door to the catering tent, so they would actually be reversed- the electric is actually switched around, so that was an error.

Chairman Baden was wondering if it made sense to move the catering tent further over right next to the event tent then the caterers won’t need to walk all around the barn too.

The event planner agreed with that.

Mr. Ricks asked if most of the meals would be in the event tent.

Mr. Medenbach noted that smaller events might be in the barn.

Mr. Ricks noted that they wanted to have the catering tents set up so they could access either one.

Mr. Medenbach agreed with that and noted that was why they were suggesting moving it at the end of the barn.

Mr. Ricks clarified, where the word “Space” is.

Mr. Medenbach answered yes.

Chairman Baden noted that if it was moved to that area and then they would move the portable toilets further to the other end of the barn. Approximately where the plan says, “2,100 sf”. To him it was a better traffic flow and it was now shielding the catering tent a little more to a degree. He just wanted to put that out there for consideration to get people’s feedback. He asked if anyone else on the Board had any more questions.

Mr. Ricks was sure that it was addressed in the draft decision, but the new road coming in—was that going to be all vehicles- heavy trucks? Everything coming in on that road?

Chairman Baden noted that any traffic involving the business has to use it. The County has said that the other driveway can remain, but only for residential use- or farmland. The new driveway has to be built to emergency capability. Obviously if the fire department chooses to come up the other driveway, we can’t stop them, but we want to make sure that the new driveway is in compliance with fire code because that is what we are looking at as the emergency access.

Ms. Lindstrom had a question on the concept of whatever caveats that they could do as a conditional approval. Did those stay with this property? Or could the Board make it so that it stays with the current owners?

Chairman Baden noted that the Board was not able to do that under NYS Law, because what the Board was reviewing was not the owners, it was the use on the land. Under the code, the way it is written, the two year review, it cannot be denied just because it’s not a re-review. It’s a review to see if they met the conditions. If they’ve met the conditions, it must be approved, but if they haven’t, then it cannot be renewed.

Mr. Ricks noted that if they broke the noise condition or whatever would be a reason?

Chairman Baden noted that they would re-review it, the process the way the code is laid out in the book—

Mr. Ricks noted that it wasn’t like if they didn’t come in in two years that they would lose their right?

Chairman Baden noted that it wasn’t a re-review of the entire project; it was a review of the conditions to see if they had been adhered to. They would hold a new PH on that subject.

Mr. Ricks questioned if a new PH would have to be held, or only if there were complaints?

Chairman Baden noted that according to the way the code was written as of right now, a new PH would need to be scheduled.

Mr. Paddock questioned if this was the first project or property that has this?

Chairman Baden answered no; the Board has done this on every commercial event facility since they became a use in the code. They did not do it on the Elm Rock because that was prior to this law. Since this definition for “commercial event facility” has been formed, which this is the Board’s 3rd one (Woodstock Animal Sanctuary, Accord Train Station, and now Crested Hen). The first two the Board has done this making it a renewable permit that was good for two years. Chairman Baden read section 140-53 as follows:
“§ 140-53 Renewal of Permits. The Planning Board may require, at the time it is initially granted, that any Special Use approval be renewed periodically. Such renewal shall be granted upon written application by the holder of the permit and following public notice and hearing. Such renewal may only be withheld upon a determination that the conditions attached to any previous approval have not been met. A period of 62 days shall be granted the applicant in such cases to make remedies and bring the use into full compliance with the terms of the Special Use approval. Should the applicant fail to make such remedies, the Special Use approval shall be revoked by the Planning Board and the use immediately discontinued.”

Mr. Moriello questioned if the Planning Board would give notice to the applicant that the applicants? They don’t have to remember to show up on 2 years?

Chairman Baden noted that this would be a learning curve for everyone, but the Board does try really hard to send a letter and remind people that their time is coming up and they need to ask for an extension. Because this was a new thing it will need to be figured out—but ultimately it is the applicant’s responsibility. The Board will attempt to send a notice, if for some reason that there is a new secretary or Chairman and someone doesn’t send that notice… The Board hasn’t figured out a way to put that into practice yet, but ultimately it is the applicant’s responsibility to bring that back for the renewal.

A member from the public questioned if he could make a comment.

Chairman Baden noted that the Public Hearing has been closed and this was just the Board’s time for discussion.

The person from the public interrupted again and asked for clarification on something.

Chairman Baden re-iterated that this wasn’t a public comment session.

The member from the public interrupted again and noted that he wasn’t making a comment, he was asking a question.

Chairman Baden noted that this was not a question and answer session. This was the Board’s time.

Another member of the public announced that it had been decided on already.
The other member of the public continued to ask his question about the noise limits and if it was in the approval.

Chairman Baden noted that the Board would be going through the decision and everyone would be hearing everything that would be going in the decision. It will be read just as the previous applicant’s decision was read. Everything would be done in a public meeting.

The member of the public continued to speak and asked if they felt it was flawed, would they be allowed to speak then?

Chairman Baden stated once again that the Public Hearing session had been closed as of October. There were 5 months of Public Hearing process. There is no more question and answer back and forth, it was now the Board’s time to decide.

Mr. William’s noted that the original documentation that was submitted when this process was started, there were certain things that they were proposing to install in the building to limit sound.

Mr. Medenbach noted that there was a report submitted that was prepared by someone hired by the applicant.

Mr. Williams questioned if those mitigations would be implemented?

Chairman Baden noted that when they read the draft decision if the Board is ready to go forward, all of those items from that letter are included in that.

Mr. Ricks suggested going through the draft and everyone take some notes.

The Chairman agreed and noted that the first 3 pages were the listing of all of the information and all the documents that the Board reviewed, so they would be starting on page 4.

At this time the Board reviewed the draft findings as follows as prepared by the Chairman:

Review and Findings of the Board
Whereas,
The Planning Board has completed review of the proposal pursuant to Town of Rochester code §140 Zoning, and other federal, state, county, and local codes. The Planning Board summarizes the history of the review and issues this statement of findings.

1. Zoning permit application was made to the Code Enforcement Officer on 1/28/2015.The Planning Board received zoning referral for a Special Use for the use Commercial Events Facility, as defined in the T/ Rochester zoning code. “The business use of a parcel for conferences, banquets, festivals, weddings, or other similar celebratory or educational activities conducted ancillary to another approved allowed use, subject to the standards of §140-35.”
2. Applicant initially requested a pre-application meeting with the Planning Board, scheduled for the February 2015 regular meeting. This meeting was cancelled due to inclement weather. Subsequently, an application, SEAF, Site Plan, and related documentation were presented and the proposal was placed on the March 2015 regular meeting agenda.
3. The applicant proposes in the narrative accompanying the application:
a. During the spring, summer and fall the applicants would like to use an existing 2,600 SF barn on the property to host special events such as weddings, rehearsal dinners, corporate events, fundraisers and parties. Events will take place within the barn with the exception of wedding ceremonies, which may be performed outdoors.
b. Events will be limited to 150 guests. The number of guests seated within the barn will be limited to 100 people. Events larger than 100 guests may be located in a tent placed near the barn.
c. No amplified music will be permitted outside of the barn.
d. Outdoor lighting will be minimal, primarily in the form of bollard lights along the walkways and fully-shielded entrance lights on the barn.
e. There are no rest room facilities or potable water located in the barn. Executive portable bathroom with water for hand washing will be rented per event.
f. All food & beverages, including drinking water, will be brought in by a catering company hired by the client. Depending on the size of the event, a catering tent to aid with food & beverage service may be brought in and placed near the barn.
g. Parking will be valet-style only with a drop-off area located near the barn and a temporary parking area situated in the hayfield located north-westerly of the house.
h. The owner, the property manager and an event coordinator will handle the day-to-day operations and additional staff will be hired as needed for the day of the event.
4. Planning Board review determined the parcel
a. Is located at 607 County Route 6, High Falls, NY, identified as S/B/L 77.002-2-12.1
b. Is located in the ‘AR-3’ zoning district. The site plan proposed has been determined by the Planning Board to meet or exceed the Schedule of District regulations pursuant to the Town of Rochester zoning code.
c. Is partially located in the FEMA mapped flood zone 36111C0595E, effective 9/25/2009 and therefore within the ‘FD Overlay’ zoning district. A small amount of construction or disturbance is proposed within the flood zone with the construction of an access driveway.
d. Is located within the ‘AP Overlay’ zoning district, however the use complies with the standards of such district and no further review is required.
e. Has road frontage on Kyserike Rd. (CR-6), an Ulster County maintained highway, and Berme Rd., a T/ Rochester maintained highway.
f. Is located within Ulster County Ag District #3. An Agricultural Data Statement was prepared and presented to the Board.
g. Is known as the Thomas S. Schoonmaker Farmstead, located within the Alligerville Historic District, eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places at the time of application and accepted during the Board’s review. Referral to the NYS Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation (SHPO) and T/ Rochester Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) is required.
h. Is bisected by the Rondout Creek, a NYS Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) controlled tributary to the Hudson River.
i. Is located in the Accord Fire District, serviced by the Alligerville Firehouse.
j. Is adjacent to many ‘R-1’ zoned properties, separated by County Route 6 and the Rondout Creek.
k. The existing use of the parcel is residential and agricultural. Existing improvements include an enclosed barn, multiple sheds, a three bedroom single-family residence, landscaping, private water and septic, and a gravel driveway. The barn will be used as the main event facility. The existing house and other structures on the property are not proposed to be a part of the commercial events operation.
l. The Rondout Esopus Land Conservancy holds a conservation easement over a portion of the parcel. The Board determined the proposed use does not encroach on the land contained within the easement but takes no position on any agreements or conditions within the easement as it has no authority over a private easement.
5. A T/ Rochester building permit was applied for and approved by the Building Dept. to repair and restore the barn separate of the use application. The Board is in receipt of a copy.
6. The Planning Board identified potential permits required for the proposal
a. T/ Rochester flood development permit is required. The Board requires the applicant to secure such permit from the T/ Rochester.
b. Ulster County Dept. of Public Works (UCDPW) permit is required for the public road access construction. That agency has indicated by written letter it has found the proposal to be “a safe and accommodating design and location…”
c. Ulster County Health Dept. permit may be required for water and septic and food preparation. The Board requires the securing of any and all health department permits mandated for the event facility use as a whole or for any individual event.
d. NYS Liquor License permit may be required in conjunction with the use. The Board requires the securing of any and all permits mandated for the event facility use or for any individual event.
7. Planning Board discussion, review, and determinations of the proposal and site plan
a. The Board determined the proposed use is administered under town zoning code with chapters §140-35 Commercial Events Facility and §140-20 General Commercial and Industrial Standards specifically applying to the proposal. This is in addition to other chapters which apply to all Special Use reviews. §140-35 Commercial Events Facility states the purpose is “to ensure facilities which may not have been designed to service such special events meet the standards of health, safety, and welfare while allowing for such use upon satisfaction of specific standards.” It is noted the parcel use will remain primarily residential and agricultural and is a secondary business use limited to 12 events per year by code (this equates to approximately 3% of the year). Event hours are limited to between 9:00 am and 11:00 pm and setup and dismantling hours limited to between 8:00 am and 12:00 midnight by code.
b. Access
i. The application was initially proposed to utilize the existing residential driveway for access. The Board sought advisement from the UCDPW, as the permitting authority for access onto a County roadway. The initial reply expressed concerns with increase in traffic, existing driveway width, speed limit on the county road, and site distance visibility at the access. The project engineer met onsite with UCDPW representatives and developed an improvement plan to increase the sight distances and to widen the access for a portion of the existing driveway. Plans were submitted reflecting the changes. The UCDPW reply stated “The increase in width of the existing access and the removal of sight obstructions will satisfy the County’s concerns for safety of the traveling public and patrons of these events.”
ii. The Board received public comment expressing concerns for traffic safety, sight distance, speed limit, emergency access, proximity to the Rondout Creek bridge and Alligerville Firehouse, location with respect to residences, headlight intrusion on residences, and increased traffic. The Board agreed issues remained with utilizing the existing access despite the improvements, requested the applicant to explore an alternate location on the parcel for public road access, and offered a location suggestion.
iii. The project engineer met onsite with UCDPW representatives and identified an access location further away from the bridge and not in the proximity of residences. Revised plans propose a new separate access and driveway be constructed for the event facility use. UCDPW reply states “we have reviewed the relocated private roadway access proposal and concur that it is a safe and accommodating design and location. The County will not require any change to the existing residential driveway, but any permit issued will prohibit the use of this driveway for ingress and/or egress for any of the events. Please be advised it shall be the responsibility of the Town of Rochester to approve the project and determine if any traffic/speed study is warranted. It should be noted that tree and brush clearing, and any further north adjustment to the access would enhance the safety of the traveling public and patrons of the events.” The Board notes UCDPW has the sole authority to grant such permit considering the safety and location of the access and to attach conditions of construction to such permit.
iv. The Planning Board finds the relocated access to be a significant improvement over the existing access. The access is safer and the potential intrusion onto neighboring properties and residences is significantly reduced. The new location has better site distance and is placed away from all existing homes.
v. Signage will enhance wayfinding and will be required to assist in directing the public to the event center access.
c. Public Road Usage.
i. During the review, the Chairman observed placement of traffic count devices on County Route 6 near Kirby Lane in May 2015. Upon inquiry, the source was discovered to be Ulster County. Request was made for a copy of the traffic count study results and report was received from the Ulster County Planning Director.
ii. The report expresses tabulation for a 73 hour weekday period, Tuesday through Friday, and indicated an average adjusted daily total (AADT) of 864 trips Northbound and 882 trips Southbound. The Board reviewed and discussed the proposal, the study information and the UCDPW response. It was noted the study period was weekdays with the commercial events likely taking place on weekends, however the Board determined the use would not significantly increase traffic usage of the roadway.
iii. Issues raised by the public as to speeding, driving while intoxicated, or other traffic violations were determined to be speculative in nature and not specific to the use.
iv. The applicant states patron vehicle access will be for cars, limousines, and smaller “executive” style busses. There will be no use of larger coach style busses.
d. Driveway
i. Significant Board discussion was had regarding the surface material of the proposed driveway. Concerns were expressed as to the suitability of the driveway to provide emergency access and to remain passable under adverse weather conditions.
ii. §503.2.3 of the NYS Fire Code states “Surface. Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed per Section DI02.1 of Appendix D, maintained to support the imposed loads of fire apparatus and shall be surfaced so as to provide all-weather driving capabilities.” The term is undefined in the NYS code. The term All-weather surface is defined in town subdivision code, however not in town zoning code. Discussion was held as to the meaning of the term and the relationship to the town code.
iii. A vote was taken and passed requiring compliance with the subdivision definition. A subsequent motion was made to remove the requirement of compliance with the subdivision definition and to require compliance with the Building and Fire Code.
iv. In reply, the applicant’s engineer stated on the site plan the proposed driveway will be constructed to current NYS Fire Code fire access standards.
v. The majority of the Board finds this acceptable as a binding requirement as the engineer will be required to certify post-construction NYS Fire Code compliance to the Building Department prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and/or Compliance. It is noted some members dissent from this opinion.
e. Parking
i. Parking will be by valet with the drop-off area as indicated on the Site Plan.
ii. The area identified for parking will not be resurfaced and will remain in grass pasture; however it will be “proof-rolled” and compacted. Gravel will be added where deemed necessary.
iii. There will be no added lighting required by the Board in the parking area as the public will not be accessing the area directly.
f. Sound/Noise
i. The Planning Board identified sound or “noise” as a potential concern primarily due to amplified sound usually associated with this type of use. The town has no noise ordinance, however §140-20 General Commercial and Industrial Standards (F) of the Town of Rochester zoning code addresses sound standards for any newly proposed use of a parcel.
ii. The applicant retained a consultant who submitted findings and acoustical solutions to address the sound potential suggesting a number of mitigation measures which the Board agrees will be required with the use. [see Acoustical report prepared by CHBO Inc., dated 5/01/2015]
iii. The Board desired a greater study and consulted with town planning consultant Clark Patterson Lee (CPL). An onsite testing simulation was determined the best way to measure the sound potential. CPL identified the firm AVL Designs, Inc. as having the expertise to conduct the onsite testing. An escrow account was established by the applicant to fund the testing. AVL Designs conducted the onsite testing simulation and offered report to the Board determining the levels to be acceptable relative to background noise with no cars in the area specifically at a point across County Route 6 located at the driveway of the nearest residence. A number of mitigation measures were suggested to be required of the use. [see Sound test report prepared by AVL Designs, Inc. and Clark Patterson Lee, dated 7/09/2015] The applicant has expressed agreement with the mitigation measures.
iv. In response, the resident group Save Alligerville retained acoustical expert The Noise Consultancy LLC to conduct an independent assessment of the report and expected noise impacts. Their conclusion was the AVL Designs report was flawed and did not adequately test, analyze, and record sound levels [see letter, Phillip H. Gitlen, Esq., counsel to Save Alligerville, dated 8/07/2015] The Board requested response from AVL Designs which concluded “We see no additional testing method that will yield results that are more appropriate…” [see letter, AVL Designs, Inc. to Planning Board, dated 8/25/2015]
v. Some members of the Board expressed concerns over the methods of testing and the likelihood the mitigation measures would be implemented, particularly the closing of the doors. A motion was put forth to require a second sound test be commissioned with the barn doors open, however the motion was defeated.
vi. The majority of the Board finds with the implementation of the identified mitigation measures the sound associated with the proposal will meet the standards of §140-20 General Commercial and Industrial Standards (F). It is noted some members dissent from this opinion.
f. Historic District and National Register
i. As noted prior, the parcel is known as the Thomas S. Schoonmaker Farm, which was eligible for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places for inclusion in the Alligerville Historic District at the time of application. The Board received notice from SHPO the district was listed on June 30, 2015.
ii. Board members were provided a copy of the town HPC commissioned historic farmstead inventory, obtained from town records by the Chairman [see Historic Farmstead Inventory Form, Thomas S. Schoonmaker Farm, dated 10/2010]
iii. The Board referred the project to SHPO for comment and review as is required by NYS law. SHPO states “After reviewing the submitted materials we find that the proposed action will not substantively alter the historic characteristics of the historic farm or the historic district.” The Planning Board concurs with this statement.
iv. The Board also sought HPC comment as is required by town code. HPC initially stated “Of concern to the Historic Preservation Commission is the proposed design of new windows in the East and West gable ends of the barn (as per architect’s drawings).” A meeting was held between members of the HPC and the property owner. “As a result, significant modifications were made to the original plans for changes to the exterior appearance of the barn, to insure that the historical integrity would not be impacted.” Recognizing such measures are voluntary on the part of the property owner, the Planning Board concurs with the HPC and strongly urges the owner to consult with the HPC should they desire to make further exterior renovations to the historic barn.
g. Environmental
i. The NYS DEC states “It appears that the proposed project site is located within or near records of the Northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis)…a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The listing becomes effective on May 4, 2015…if any tree clearing for the development of the parcel is necessary, tree clearing should take place between October 31st and March 31st (of any given year) to avoid impacts to Northern long-eared bats…” The Planning Board concurs with this mitigation measure.
ii. Further DEC comment “Depending on the nature of the project and the conditions at the project site, further information from on-site surveys or other sources may be required to fully assess impacts on biological resource.” The applicant provided on-site survey report determining impacts are unlikely to occur. [see Northern Long-Eared Bat Habitat Suitability Assessment Report, prepared by Ecological Solutions, LLC, dated 4/28/2015] The Planning Board accepts this report.
iii. Further DEC comment “Please also be aware that we have reviewed the statewide inventory of archaeological resources…These records indicate that the project is located within an area considered to be sensitive with regard to archaeological resources.” The Planning Board concluded there will be little ground disturbance with the project and also notes a vast majority of the township falls under this sensitive zone.
h. New York State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code.
i. Public concerns were expressed regarding the barn interior and occupancy of the barn. Agricultural barns used strictly for agricultural use are exempt from building and fire code requirements. Because the use of the building will become a public use the New York State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code is applicable to the barn and event facility use.
ii. The Code Enforcement Officer/Building Department has the sole authority under New York State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code to review the construction and certify the structure and use meets the standards prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy/Compliance.
iii. The Board is not empowered with the authority to determine if the proposal is compliant with the code, however will conditionally require compliance with the code be ascertained post construction by the Building Department prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and commencement of the operation of the use.
i. Property Values
Concerns were expressed during public hearing by neighbors that the use will lower the value of their properties. The information relayed was that one neighbor who has their property listed for sale was told by a realtor the people were no longer interested due to the possibility of the approval of this application. In reply, the Board requested more specific information be submitted in writing by anyone who desired to raise the concern of property devaluation. No further information was provided, except a copy of the realtor’s email. Absent written evidence expressing the use will cause a lessening of property values, the Board must consider this concern to be speculative and cannot assume the commercial event use will have such an effect on neighboring properties.
8. Pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review Act) of the Environmental Conservation Law, the Board determined the application to be a Type I action The Board identified involved and interested agencies to the proposal and sent notice to those agencies seeking lead agency status. Hearing no desire from these agencies to assume lead agency, the Board assumed lead agency. The Board reviewed Part 1 of the LEAF and upon project amendments to the design due to review requested an amended Part 1 LEAF be completed by the applicant. The Board reviewed Part 1 and discussed and completed Part 2 of the LEAF in special workshop meeting and identified those areas which would require further Part 3 “hard look” SEQRA discussion. A Part 3 was completed and the Board determined the proposed action will not have a significant adverse environmental impact. A Negative Declaration was adopted with written notice circulated and filed.

Whereas,
Draft findings were prepared by the Chairman and were read, discussed, (and amended?) by the Planning Board in public meeting.

Whereas,
The Planning Board determined the proposed action will not have a significant adverse environmental impact with adoption of a SEQRA Negative Declaration dated October 19, 2015. The findings adopted and expressed with adoption of a Negative Declaration are reiterated and accepted as findings adopted with this local board decision.

Therefore,
The Planning Board adopts these statements as written findings of the Special Use proposal

DISCUSSION:
Mr. Ricks noticed that later on in the decision that signage is addressed. He noted that it wasn’t addressed at all in the beginning and there was nothing on the map that indicated signage. He was wondering if that was anything that the Board felt that they would have to require.
Chairman Baden noted that he did addressed signage in the ‘Access’ section in the findings on page 6, #5.
“Signage will enhance wayfinding and will be required to assist in directing the public to the event center access.”
This is something that the Chairman agrees that the Board did not talk about and he kept it simple in the decision and it can certainly be modified as needed. He’s made it be required that it meets Code Enforcement Officer approval for the sign permit. If he determines that they need to come back to the PB for that sign review, then they could come back to the PB, but he left it in the CEO’s hands and left it simple as a directional sign. The purpose of the signage was really to stop people from driving up the residential driveway and to identify where the access was.

Mr. Ricks just wanted to make sure that the people who were coming to the facility were easily going to come by and see it.

Chairman Baden noted that it could be addressed further once they got to the decision part if the Board wants. They can also ask for the site plan to show the signage.

Mr. Ricks thought it might make sense if they were already revising the location of the toilets and the catering tent.

Mr. Dawson had a question regarding the access and the “graveling as necessary”. Who was going to sign off on that as far as the Town?

Chairman Baden noted that the Code Enforcement Officer can’t sign off until proper access is met.

Mr. Dawson always thought it was the Highway Superintendent that did that.

Chairman Baden noted that to make sure that it complies with fire code; it’s either the fire chief or the CEO. They are the only ones under NYS Law who have the power to enforce the fire code. The Highway Superintendent, the Board asked for his opinion as to the condition of roads often, but being that it’s a private driveway, they ask for the Highway Superintendent’s opinion usually as the Town’s highway expert. He only has jurisdiction over public roads and the easement into the access of the driveway, so essentially it goes to the CEO. They can’t issue the Certificate of Occupancy in compliance until they know it meets fire code. That’s why he said it would be certified. As Mr. Medenbach pointed out at the last meeting, he couldn’t certify something that isn’t constructed. He would certify it when it was constructed and the CEO will look at it and say ‘yes it meets it or ‘no’ it doesn’t’.

Ms. Lindstrom questioned the UCDPW noting that there would need to be brush clearing. Is that addressed?

Chairman Baden noted that the PB didn’t require anything above what the County required. The PB certainly could. The County was satisfied with how it was and that if additional brush was cleared it would improve it. They were saying that it was safe as is with the construction with the entrance as proposed. They will have to issue a permit and their permit will have a set of conditions attached to it. The PB always states in their decisions that any other permit conditions become a part of the PB’s decision. So whatever condition the county imposes for the construction of that entrance, if they say further brush has to be cleared, for example. If the PB wants to go above and beyond and add that in, they certainly can. Ultimately they will have to meet whatever the county says is required for safety.

Mr. Tapper questioned what the next step was for voting?

Chairman Baden noted that the Board at this point was addressing and would be voting on the findings, which were just read. These are the findings based on the minutes and comment letters, based on discussions.

Mr. Tapper noted that they could actually accept the findings event though they might not agree with some of them.

Chairman Baden noted that was correct. It was a matter that these were the facts established, whether you agreed or not with them, you could deal with that in your vote on the decision. This is what the Board has established in their review of the project in their discussions.

Mr. Paddock made a motion to adopt the findings. Seconded by Mr. Ricks. No further discussion.
Vote:
Baden: Yes Tapper: Yes
O’Donnell: Absent Lindstrom: Yes
Ricks: Yes Dawson: Yes
Paddock: Yes Williams: Yes

Motion carried. 7 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, 0 abstentions, (including alternate)

At this time the Board addressed the Ulster County PB Required Modifications as follows:

Ulster County Planning Board (UCPB) NYS General Municipal Law §239 Referral

Whereas,
The T/ Rochester Planning Board submitted the application for review to the UCPB pursuant to NYS GML §239.

Whereas,
The UCPB reviewed the proposal 4/01/2015 and returned written comment stating Required Modifications.
1. Access
Comment: The applicant will need to obtain a permit for access from Ulster County DPW and will need to address issues with respect to sight distances and the width of the driveway to allow for two-way traffic in and out of the site.
2. Stormwater
Comment: The applicant, working with the Town, should devise a means of maintaining water quality control with respect to the parking area, separating out oils and other potential chemicals from the parked vehicles from the stormwater, especially in light of the close proximity of the site to the 100-year floodplain and Rondout Creek.
3. Building Code Review
Comment: The existing barn, if any improvements are planned, will need to be reviewed by the local building inspector to make sure it complies with the NYS Building Code.
4. Lighting
Comment: The local board and applicant should consider whether additional lighting for the parking area and for the site entrance will be necessary for improving site safety.
5. Wastewater
Comment: Any permanent improvements to the site’s wastewater facilities will require the approval of the Ulster County Health Department. The applicant will also need to coordinate with the Health Department for any potential approvals regarding food services and portable toilets.

Whereas,
The T/ Rochester Planning Board continued review of the application. Following review of studies, agency comments, and public comment by the Board, the Site Plan underwent redesign. The application was re-submitted to the UCPB with request to re-review upon determination of complete application following the adoption of a SEQRA Negative Declaration.

Whereas,
The UCPB re-reviewed the proposal 11/04/2015 and expresses with its 2nd written comment letter the Required Modifications stated 4/01/2015 have been satisfied with modification of the application. The UCPB states a new Required Modification requiring the Special Use be made a renewable permit.
Comment: The Town of Rochester has established a policy of limiting uses allowed under the “commercial events facility” to a two-year special permit, subject to renewal. This gives the Town the ability to monitor the compliance of the facility and determine whether or not the site is a good long-term fit for the area and create an opportunity to request additional mitigations, if necessary.

Mr. Williams motioned to accept the UCPB Required Modifications. Seconded by Ms. Lindstrom.
DISCUSSION:
Ms. Lindstrom had a question regarding the ‘re-review’. Let’s say they were to follow everything that the PB put in as a clause and now they noted that it wasn’t working enough. It says in their second comment letter: “Comment: The Town of Rochester has established a policy of limiting uses allowed under the “commercial events facility” to a two-year special permit, subject to renewal. This gives the Town the ability to monitor the compliance of the facility and determine whether or not the site is a good long-term fit for the area and create an opportunity to request additional mitigations, if necessary.”
When the Chairman presented the renewable permit option before, it was more if they have complied with what the PB has already said.

Chairman Baden noted that the Board could only re-review it based on the Town’s Code. The PB would have to confer with the Attorney for the Town if they could impose any additional mitigation. He honestly didn’t know. The Code states that if they aren’t meeting the current mitigations it must be improved. They would have to concur with the Attorney to see how that works.
Vote:
Baden: Yes Tapper: Yes
O’Donnell: Absent Lindstrom: Yes
Ricks: Yes Dawson: Yes
Paddock: Yes Williams: Yes

Motion carried. 7 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, 0 abstentions, (including alternate)

At this time the Board reviewed the draft resolution as follows:
Resolved,
Pursuant to the standards of Town of Rochester code §140, Zoning, the Town of Rochester Planning Board has reviewed the application presented and grants Special Use – Conditional Approval to Frank Macagnone and Keith Eddleman, aka Crested Hen Farms, permitting the use of the land situate at 607 County Route 6, known as S/B/L 77.002-2-12.1, and located in the ‘AR-3’, ‘FD Overlay’, and ‘AP Overlay’ zoning districts for the new use ‘Commercial Event Facility’, subject to the conditions expressed below.

The Commercial Event Facility use of the parcel is further conditionally approved as a renewable Special Use for a period of two years* commencing on the date of issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and/or Compliance by the Code Enforcement Office.
*Pursuant to Town of Rochester code §140-53, Renewal of Permits, written application shall be made by the holder of the permit prior to expiration. Such renewal shall be granted following public notice and hearing. Renewal may only be withheld upon a determination by the Planning Board upon close of public hearing that the conditions attached to any previous approval have not been met.

The Site Plan revision dated October 20, 2015 is approved, subject to revisions as required with Condition of Approval 2.

The Town of Rochester Planning Board further grants the authority to the Chairman to certify Conditions of Approval 1 and 2 have been completed without further resolution and to sign and date the plan at such time.

Conditions of the Approval:
1. Any and all fees due to the Town of Rochester involving this application shall be paid in full prior to the Chairman’s signature on the Site Plan.
2. The Site Plan revision dated October 20, 2015 shall be amended prior to signature by the Chairman to include a plan notation stating “This property contains land within the 100-year flood hazard zone as depicted by FEMA on plate 36111C0595E effective as of 9/25/2009. Any construction or disturbance within the FEMA designated flood hazard zone shall adhere to the Code of the Town of Rochester Chapter 81, Flood Damage Prevention, or its successors.”

Conditions of Approval to be Completed Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and/or Compliance for the Commercial Event Facility Special Use.
Proof of completion for conditions 3 – 9 shall be submitted to the Building Department/Code Enforcement Officer by the owner or owner’s representative
3. The following specific permits shall be secured. All conditions imposed in the granting of these permits shall be made a part of this Special Use approval. Should any conditions imposed by these other agency permits cause conditions to be in conflict, the more restrictive condition shall prevail. Should any permit approvals necessitate a change to the approved Site Plan, the matter shall be referred to the Planning Board for consideration.
a. An Ulster County Dept. of Public Works access permit shall be secured. One copy of the approved permit shall be filed with the T/ Rochester Planning Board.
b. Ulster County Health Dept. permit(s) shall be secured, as may be required.
c. A Floodplain Development permit shall be obtained from the Town of Rochester, if determined required.
4. The event facility driveway shall be completed and the engineer shall certify post-construction compliance with the Site Plan and NYS Fire Code to the Building Inspector.
5. Lighting shall be installed as per the specifications indicated on the Site Plan.
6. Signage
a. Shall be installed at the existing residential driveway access indicating “Private Road. No Entrance” and “Crested Hen Farms Parking” with a directional arrow directing patrons to the event facility driveway.
b. Shall be installed at the event facility driveway access indicating “Crested Hen Farms Parking”
c. Such signage shall adhere to any and all sign regulations of the Town of Rochester zoning code §140 and any permits or further Planning Board review shall be secured if determined required by the Code Enforcement Officer.
d. Location of such signage shall be reviewed and approved by the UCDPW so as to not impede any site distances.
7. Any and all applicable provisions of New York State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code associated with the use and/or structure shall be met. The facility shall be inspected and certified for compliance.
8. The Building Department shall determine the maximum occupancy for the barn according to the NYS Uniform Building and Fire Code and such occupancy shall be visibly posted.
9. As required by the NYS DEC, any tree clearing for the development of the parcel should take place between October 31st and March 31st (of any given year). This condition shall also apply for the duration of the Special Use.

Conditions of Approval which Shall Remain for the Duration of Commercial Event Facility Special Use
10. A Certificate of Occupancy and/or Compliance shall be secured. A copy shall be remitted to the Planning Board.
11. Any and all descriptions and notations included on the Site Plan shall be enforceable and mandated for compliance. Any deviation from or amending of the approved and signed Site Plan shall require resubmission to the Planning Board, except as may be permitted as determined by the Code Enforcement Officer.
12. All current or future Local, County, State, and Federal Laws or Codes shall be complied with for the use of these lands.
13. Any and all other agencies’ permits or approvals which are currently required, or any which may be determined in the future to be required, in conjunction with the construction and/or operation of this use shall be secured or renewed as applicable. Should any conditions imposed by other agency permits cause conditions to be in conflict, the more restrictive condition shall prevail. Should any permit approvals necessitate a change to the approved Site Plan, the matter shall be referred to the Planning Board for consideration.
14. The use shall comply with the provisions of Town of Rochester code § 140-35, Commercial Events Facility, or its successors.
15. The number of events shall be limited to a maximum of 12 events per calendar year, each day of activities open to patrons counting as a separate event. Should multiple events with different clients occur on the same day, each shall count as an individual event. The facility operator shall be required to notify the Code Enforcement Office of any event scheduled a minimum of 3 business days prior to the event by either e-mail or written letter. Establishment of this Special Use Permit shall not preclude the parcel owners from hosting a private personal party or celebration for which no compensation is received.
16. Event occupancy shall be limited to a maximum 150 people plus related vendors and/or staff.
17. Barn occupancy shall be limited to the lesser number of
a. a maximum 100 people plus related vendors and/or staff
OR
b. The Building and Fire code occupancy limit, as established by the Building Department.
18. Event hours shall be limited to between 9:00 am and 11:00 pm. Setup and dismantling hours shall be limited to between 8:00 am and 12:00 midnight.
19. All temporary structures and equipment must be removed within four days after each event and shall remain in place a maximum of seven days altogether, except by Code Enforcement Officer approval when the next event is scheduled within seven days of the preceding event.
20. The facility owner shall specifically secure and/or require vendors to secure Ulster County Health Dept. permit(s) and/or NYS Liquor License permit(s), as may be required per each event.
21. Driveway and Parking
a. The event facility driveway shall be maintained to NYS Fire Code regulation and standards.
b. Event facility access shall only be by the event facility driveway for any and all vehicles. This shall include patrons, staff, vendors, delivery vehicles, and any other vehicular traffic associated with the event facility use. Patron access shall be by personal vehicle, limousine, or smaller busses only. Large coach style busses shall be banned from use.
c. The existing residential driveway shall be allowed to remain, however the use shall be restricted to residential and agricultural personal use only.
d. On facility event days, the driveway and parking shall be staffed in sufficient manner to direct traffic from the driveway access with CR-6 to the parking location so as not to cause traffic to stack on CR-6. The perimeter boundaries of the event facility driveway shall be clearly designated by traffic cones, posts, or other items which shall be visibly apparent to patrons.
e. Parking shall only be allowed in the spaces designated on the approved and signed Site Plan. Parking shall not be allowed within the public road right-of-way, within the event facility or residential driveways, or within designated Site Plan traffic aisles at any time.
f. The parking area shall be maintained in a mowed and cleared safe condition when being utilized for event facility parking.
22. Sound
a. Sound; including but not limited to; live music, recorded music, public address systems, portable generators, or any other sound or noise producing elements shall comply with Town of Rochester zoning code §140-20 (F) at all times.
b. Amplified sound shall be limited to the area within the closed barn structure. Acoustic music is permissible both inside and outside the barn, provided compliance with Town of Rochester zoning code §140-20 (F) occurs.
c. Sound levels shall be 90 dB or less within the barn, as measured using an accurate sound level measurement system set on unweighted response and fast response. Such measurement may be measured by the code enforcement officer or his designee, and/or self measured by the property owner or his employee or the DJ/operator. Such measurement is required by a professional dB meter or by operation of a professional quality app. Studio Six Digital is recommended as a software solution which operates as an app within an I-phone or Android platform.
d. Voids in the barn walls shall be filled and maintained as such.
e. For events which utilize amplified sound
i. Subwoofers 60 Hz or below shall be banned from use to maintain appropriate sound levels.
ii. Fire retardant theatrical curtains shall be hung 10’-12’ high around the interior walls of the live musician/DJ area. The curtains may be able to be drawn open or closed, but must be closed during the duration of amplified sound. Additionally 2″ acoustical panels shall be placed behind the curtain sandwiched between the curtain and barn wall. The panels may be removable, if no amplified sound is to be used for an event.
iii. Fabric clouds shall be hung over the live musician/DJ area to help absorb and contain sound.
iv. A large area rug shall be placed under the live musician/DJ area.
v. Speakers shall be no higher than 7’ in height.
23. Ingress/Egress
a. The large barn doors and any windows within the barn shall remain closed for the duration of any and all amplified sound occurrences. The large door located on the NNE side of the barn shall remain closed during all events for the entirety. The large door located on the SSE side of the barn may be opened to allow access of patrons into the barn only during the periods where there is no amplified sound. The smaller door located on the NNW end of the barn shall be utilized as the sole access into the barn by patrons and staff as is necessary for ingress/egress for the duration of any and all amplified sound.
b. Should any ingress/egress locations be determined by the Building Department as required fire exits, they shall be identified and labelled as such. In the event of an emergency the opening of the doors would not violate this condition of approval.
24. All refuse shall be deposited and maintained in appropriate containers and removed from the facility upon the completion of each event.
25. All wastewater, graywater, and cooking grease shall be contained in holding containers and removed from the facility upon the completion of each event. There shall be no dumping allowed on the parcel.

Effect of Approval:
1. This Special Use approval and associated conditions shall be binding upon the applicant and all successive owners of the land so long as such use shall occur.
2. This approval shall remain effective for a maximum of one year from this date of approval as an authorization to secure the required permits and establish the commercial event facility use unless the applicant shall have submitted written request and the Planning Board shall have adopted such resolution granting an extension and provided the applicant has submitted proof of having diligently pursued the implementation of the plans.

Draft resolution was prepared by the Chairman and was read, discussed, (and amended?) by the Planning Board in public meeting.
Whereas,
Requiring a renewable Special Use permit has been the policy and practice of the Planning Board for the two approved proposals for Commercial Event Facilities since the adoption of the local law amending the zoning code December 2014. The amendment added the use to the code with definition and related subsection.
Therefore,
The Planning Board accepts and agrees to adopt the Required Modifications imposed by the Ulster County Planning Board.
After the following condition:
2. The Site Plan revision dated October 20, 2015 shall be amended prior to signature by the Chairman to include a plan notation stating “This property contains land within the 100-year flood hazard zone as depicted by FEMA on plate 36111C0595E effective as of 9/25/2009. Any construction or disturbance within the FEMA designated flood hazard zone shall adhere to the Code of the Town of Rochester Chapter 81, Flood Damage Prevention, or its successors.”
DISCUSSIONS:
Chairman Baden noted that he would add the condition about the portable toilet…

Mr. Paddock questioned if that was also where they could add the map note about the signs?

Chairman Baden answered that they could do that as well. Did the Board want to see just the location of the signage, or did they want to see content as well?

Mr. Ricks thought just location and as long as it met Town Code…

Chairman Baden agreed noting that they would let the CEO determine if it needed further PB review, and if it falls under the category he can always send them back to the Board to review the signs, if not there are a number of sign approvals that he is just allowed to issue.

Mr. Medenbach wanted to know if the Board was talking about the sign identifying the facility.

Chairman Baden noted that the Board was talking about a sign at the residential driveway basically stating, “Private Drive” and it’s addressed further in the decision. And one at the new driveway identifying it as the entrance.

Mr. Medenbach wanted to make sure they weren’t talking about an advertising sign.

Chairman Baden noted that they were talking about two directional signs.

Mr. Paddock questioned if they also were talking about one on the Creek Road side directing traffic?

Chairman Baden answered yes, it was addressed in the same one as the do not enter sign.

Mr. Paddock felt that map notes would give it a little more teeth.

Mr. Moriello wanted to clarify that they did want a map note?

Chairman Baden answered yes, and if they could indicate for UCPDW the location of where that sign will be and what the wording will say. In the decision the Board will suggest language and it’s kept fairly straight forward.

Mr. Moriello noted it may be a variant of that.

Chairman Baden noted that the PB wants a map note that will say, “This sign will say this” and “this sign will say this” and a location of where they will be located. That way the UCDPW can also look at the signage and make sure it isn’t blocking sight distance. He would make these a letter a), b), and c) under condition #2.
Mr. Moriello noted that his clients could not comply with item ‘d’ of condition #22.
“Voids in the barn walls shall be filled and maintained as such.”

Chairman Baden stated that this condition came from the applicant’s consultant.

Mr. Moriello noted that he thinks that they meant that voids should be filled to the extent practicable and he recalls talking about it with the Board. It was a barn… they couldn’t fill in each hole.

Regarding condition #23:
“Ingress/Egress
c. The large barn doors and any windows within the barn shall remain closed for the duration of any and all amplified sound occurrences. The large door located on the NNE side of the barn shall remain closed during all events for the entirety. The large door located on the SSE side of the barn may be opened to allow access of patrons into the barn only during the periods where there is no amplified sound. The smaller door located on the NNW end of the barn shall be utilized as the sole access into the barn by patrons and staff as is necessary for ingress/egress for the duration of any and all amplified sound.”
Chairman Baden noted that this condition would need to be modified because it was stated tonight that there is a second smaller doorway that is also located. They will indicate that the two smaller doorways shall be used.

Mr. Ricks had a question where they talk about the County HD NYS Liquor Permits. At these events if people bring their own alcohol they don’t need those permits. That’s nothing that the Board addresses, is it?

Chairman Baden noted that the Board doesn’t address that, but if they are serving it, then they need to follow through with the appropriate review. He wasn’t sure so that is why he covered it this way. He wanted it to be addressed.

Mr. Ricks thinks that if the wedding party provided their own it wouldn’t require a permit.

Chairman Baden agreed noting that was probably the case, but again, he wasn’t sure and wasn’t something that was really discussed, he just wanted to touch on it in the decision.

Mr. Ricks noted that it does say, “May be required” so he thinks that covers it.

Ms. Lindstrom questioned #21 ‘d’ where is says:
“On facility event days, the driveway and parking shall be staffed in sufficient manner to direct traffic from the driveway access with CR-6 to the parking location so as not to cause traffic to stack on CR-6. The perimeter boundaries of the event facility driveway shall be clearly designated by traffic cones, posts, or other items which shall be visibly apparent to patrons.”
When they leave it vague when they say “…shall be staffed in sufficient manner…” .

Chairman Baden noted that the Board can’t say how many people they are going to need. Every event may be different. They might have events that are only 20-50 people and they won’t need as many people. The goal is so that traffic doesn’t stack up on County Route 6.

Mr. Ricks noted that most of the people may arrive during the day and in the evening they have valet parking.

Chairman Baden noted that there is an area on the site plan that says “proposed valet drop off area”. The valet would go and get the car and bring it back. It’s a fairly large driveway so there would have to be a lot of cars to stack all the way back up.

Ms. Lindstrom questioned when they were leaving how would it affect it?

Chairman Baden noted that people would just be standing and waiting for their cars.

Mr. Ricks noted that it doesn’t always end all at once. It’s a gradual thing.

Chairman Baden noted that the valet isn’t going to drive the car all the way out to the road, so it wasn’t going to cause any issues when they leave in his opinion. The only other things that he sees that needs to be changed other than adding the changes that need to be made to the map is the ingress and egress to be worded that the two smaller doors need to be used. He could word it that the “two smaller doors at the event tent end of the barn.”

Mr. Ricks noted that the other thing that the applicant’s attorney brought up regarding #22, ‘d’ about the voids:
“Voids in the barn walls shall be filled and maintained as such.”
Does that mean spots where light shines through? Those barns aren’t insulated.

Chairman Baden noted that he asked the secretary to pull the applicant’s consultant’s sound mitigation report and this is where this condition was pulled from. It says, “Voids in the barn perimeter should be filled, always keeping within the rustic aesthetic.”

Mr. Medenbach noted that when he thinks of a ‘void’, he thinks of a space that is enclosed, like between two wall panels. He thinks the consultant meant any openings.

Chairman Baden agreed and noted that he took their report and copied it pretty much word for word.

Mr. Ricks suggested changing the word, ‘void’ to ‘opening’.

Mr. Moriello asked what ‘openings’ meant.

Mr. Ricks stated it was where you could see light through.

Mr. Medenbach stated openings in the exterior walls.

Mr. Ricks stated that lots of old barns the boards have shrunk and you can see light right through them. That should all be closed off.

Mr. Moriello noted that the point is that there will be measurements of the sound anyway and he believed that this issue was talked a while ago. It doesn’t seem practicable to close every place where light may shine through.

Mr. Ricks stated that a lot of the older barns were actually built that way for light to come through for hay drying. In your regular parts of the barn there usually isn’t daylight coming through unless something was specifically built to have it that way.

Chairman Baden questioned if it should be worded, “Any voids in which daylight passes through.”? He would word it however the Board wanted him too.

Mr. Dawson thought it was worded fine.

Mr. Ricks noted that a void is like an inside airspace where it should be insulated. He thinks what they meant in the report is an opening where the light comes through. If there is a board on the outside and one on the inside and a void in the middle, they can’t try and fill all of those, but if it was an opening where light comes through…

Mr. Medenbach noted that actually helps to dissipate sound.

Mr. Moriello was still trying to find what the Board actually meant. Where the light shines through the barn?

Mr. Medenbach believed that adding the words, “where practical” would be appropriate.

Mr. Moriello agreed.

Chairman Baden questioned if Board Members wanted to include a size?

Mr. Ricks suggested openings larger than a 1/2” or something?

Mr. Dawson noted that they could still use voids, but add ‘wall boards’ to outside?

Mr. Ricks thought that the word ‘opening’ is better than ‘void’.

Mr. Medenbach noted that you could take a wall and insulate it with foam and there would be voids in the foam. Void is not the right word to use.

Ms. Lindstrom noted that on a structural engineering basis you would use void as spaces. She noted that it should just read, “Openings in barn walls shall be filled.”

Mr. Moriello questioned how wide of openings were they talking?

Mr. Williams noted that barns probably have gaps from one end to the other.

The Chairman agreed.

Mr. Ricks suggested saying “Larger than a ½” “ again. If they are going to have the music inside, they were going to have these curtains hanging anyway.

Mr. Medenbach suggested instead of having the CEO go around and measure cracks, to just put, “where practical” .

Ms. Lindstrom agreed.

Mr. Paddock noted that the Chairman has been on site. He questioned his opinion on the condition of the barn. Was it all full of holes like Swiss cheese?

Chairman Baden noted it wasn’t like Swiss cheese, but there are places where the boards have shrunk or cracked. When they did the sound test and closed the two large doors, it was pretty dark in there and it was noon time, or 1pm.

Mr. Moriello again suggested they use the word, ‘openings’ and add on ‘where practical’.

Mr. Medenbach agreed and said to leave it up to the judgement of the CEO.

Chairman Baden noted that the CEO will be the one to enforce the conditions.

Mr. Ricks would just change it to ‘openings’. The Board was comfortable with this change.

Mr. Moriello wanted more clarification—to say ‘openings where light shines through’ or something that was clearer.

Chairman Baden noted they could say ‘openings in the barn’…

Mr. Ricks stated if you just changed the word ‘void’ to ‘openings’, it covered everything- knot holes and everything.

Chairman Baden agreed. The CEO is the one to enforce it and interpret it.

Ms. Lindstrom agreed. This would cover everything right down to a window falling out.

Mr. Moriello questioned the ‘fabric cloud’ mentioned.

Chairman Baden noted that, again, came right from the applicant’s consultant’s letter of mitigation measures received dated 5/11/15. It read, “Fabric clouds will be hung over this area to help absorb and contain sound.” He thinks from his experience from having worked event spaces, is that it’s those stretchy, spandex type of material that you can pull from the 4 corners and it sort of covers the area. There are some brand names, they are very common and are essentially a sound baffle to stop the sound from continuing on and bouncing further off of the rafters. If you ever looked at a band shell- again, it was taken directly from the applicant’s consultant’s letter. He thinks if they spoke to a sound consultant, they could tell the applicant exactly what they were talking about, but it’s essentially like a spandex material that can be secured.

Mr. Dawson agreed and said it was pretty common.

Chairman Baden noted that there were different ways to install it. It could be floor supported or tied off on the corners. Sometimes they will have a frame to attach it to. There are all kinds of different versions to it. It’s just something above to stop sound from traveling into the higher parts of the barn which would increase the sound.

Ms. Lindstrom had a question on condition 22. Sound, ‘c’: “ Sound levels shall be 90 dB or less within the barn, as measured using an accurate sound level measurement system set on unweighted response and fast response. Such measurement may be measured by the code enforcement officer or his designee, and/or self measured by the property owner or his employee or the DJ/operator. Such measurement is required by a professional dB meter or by operation of a professional quality app. Studio Six Digital is recommended as a software solution which operates as an app within an I-phone or Android platform.” The Board is basically putting this caveat on as we have stated before the Board is trusting that they will do things correctly.

Chairman Baden agreed and noted that the 90db is the level established by the Town’s consultant as the level it needs to be. The CEO hires an expert for the race track twice a year to be there and take a measurement. It’s part of the race track’s requirement to be able to operate. CEO can go do it himself or he can hire someone who specializes in it to go and do it.

Ms. Lindstrom questioned if that was up to the CEO at this stage?

Chairman Baden noted that it is up to the CEO at this stage to enforce it however he sees fit, but the Board is also including a self measurement knowing that the CEO isn’t always going to be able to be there. They have agreed to self police and the PB has made the suggestion of the app as the consultant suggested as a professional app that would suffice, or they can purchase a professional db meter and have that. The Board could go a little further and ask them to record it. The PB could say they should record it for certain duration- once during the event, or hourly. If the Board wanted to consider it.

Ms. Lindstrom noted that she was thinking that it should be done at every event.

Chairman Baden suggested saying that ‘sound levels shall be 90db or less in the barn at every event.’ Just adding the words, ‘at every event’ to clarify. Does the Board want it to be recorder in any way?

Mr. Medenbach noted that it says that each measurement shall be taken by the CEO.

Chairman Baden noted that if the CEO goes there, he can measure it—he didn’t have to do it at every event. The PB was saying, ‘and/or self measurement’. So, it needs to stay at 90db or below and they are putting the requirement on the client or the DJ to self-control at 90. The CEO could go there and measure it at any time. The PB was basically saying that the CEO or his designee can record it, or the owner, or the DJ themselves.

Ms. Lindstrom just wanted to add that it didn’t just happen at one of the 12 events, but all of them.

Chairman Baden questioned if they should change it to say “at all times of amplified music”?

Ms. Lindstrom thought this was better.

Chairman Baden noted that they would say, “at all events with amplified sound”.

Mr. Ricks clarified that the maps would be changed to show the signs?

Chairman Baden answered that the applicant would mark the signs on the map and move the catering tent and the portable toilet and they needed the statement about the flood hazard on the map. When that was presented and when the additional fees were paid, the Board was authorizing the Chairman to review it and make sure it was done correctly. If the Board wants to bring it back to a meeting for everyone to review, they could do that too. The normal procedure is for the Chairman to review the final changes as per the decision. He never signs until it’s 100 % changed the way it needs to be changed.

If there were no more comments he would ask for a motion to adopt the resolution.

Ms. Lindstrom made a motion to adopt the resolution. Seconded by Mr. Paddock.
DISCUSSION ON VOTE:
Mr. Tapper read the following statement into the record:
“I had about 5 or 6 pages of stuff I was going to read tonight but I narrowed down because by now we all know what this application is about and what the problems are. This wasn’t a case where one or two neighbors came out and said no, not in my back yard. This is a case where virtually all of the neighbors and other citizens of the Town came out in force with legitimate, serious concerns, which included but were certainly not limited to safety and quality of life issues.

When looking at an application the PB has to look at the worst case scenario, that’s why they base parking on square footage or capacity event though they know a certain project will never get to capacity. But we have to base our decision that way because of the possibility that it might. He doesn’t know whether the Crested Hen is going to have 150 guests at all 12 events during the year. They could have 50 or 100. But their application is for 150 and even though that would be the best case scenario for them, that’s the worst case scenario for the PB and that is what they have to consider. That’s 150 guests plus the caterers, plus wait staff, plus valets, plus DJ. So they were really talking about 160 to 165 people.

The applicant says that they’re going to limit it to 50 cars. An average case scenario is two people per car. That’s 100 people. The remaining 50 are going to be bussed in from somewhere. The applicant says they’re going to use vans and not a large bus. If they are 12 passenger vans, that’s at least 4 vans plus the 50 cars plus the workers.

There has been a recent traffic study done in the area showing a minimal amount of traffic. When you add a possible 54 more vehicles to the total plus more for their workers is doesn’t sound like much of an increase. But the traffic study was done over a multi-hour period. These additional 54 vehicles will be arriving and leaving over a very small and limited period of time.

It has been mentioned that people don’t arrive or leave all at the same time. That hasn’t been my experience. I would say 90 percent arrive within 10- 15 minutes. Again, we have to take the worst case scenario into consideration that they arrive at approximately the same time. People coming from Lucas Avenue and making a left turn into the driveway may have to wait for on-coming traffic and there could conceivably be a backup of cars waiting to turn in.

People coming around that turn from Lucas could see an unexpected line of cars on the road in front of them and not be able to stop before rear ending the car in front of them.

Likewise when the guests leave there could conceivably be a line of cars entering onto the road late at night in front of on-coming traffic. Plus the Allergiville Fire House is in close proximity which causes its own inherent problems.

I’m assuming the caterers will control the alcohol consumption and there won’t be anyone driving while completely intoxicated. But they will have had some alcohol to drink. There will be 50 drivers driving on unfamiliar country roads at 11, 12 o’clock at night after partying for 4 hours with some amount of alcohol in their systems.

Even our own town attorney has said we are not here to question the applicant’s business plan, we are here to look at safety. This certainly presents a safety issue.

Then we have the noise level. We have an event where people are eating and drinking in a tent outside the barn and then going into the barn for music, dancing and partying. The applicant says they will keep the doors facing the road closed and I assume that will be one of the conditions. We are not to pre-suppose that the applicant will violate those conditions but there will be people entering and leaving the barn at will; the barn is not air-conditioned and something will have to be open to allow an adequate air flow. When the doors are opened the music and noise will exit the barn. And we still don’t know what that noise level will be.

The applicant has asked for 12 events. When you add one day for set up and one for breakdown, we are now up to 36 days of increased noise and traffic.

This project is not only in a residential area but also in a recently designated historic hamlet. The planning board is charged with, among other things, with protecting historic resources. I don’t see how approving this project will protect the historic nature of that area.

The planning board is also charged with reducing traffic congestion and improving the safety of the roads in the town. I don’t see how approving this application does that.

We are charged with protecting the community against unsightly, obtrusive and noisy land uses and operations. I don’t see how approving this application does that.

And we are charged with preventing intrusion of incompatible uses in residential areas so as to ensure privacy for residents and their freedom from nuisances. I certainly don’t see how approving this application does that. I know the application has taken steps to try to mitigate the problems, however I don’t think it’s enough.

So, for all of those reasons and others I will be voting against the application.”

Mr. Dawson also wanted to note that he didn’t believe this was the right location for this and he has been vocal about this since the beginning. He truly believes in land use rights, but he truly believes that the masses run this over. It’s not right for the community. If he lived there, he would be upset. He doesn’t live there and he’s upset because he could live there or it could be across the street for him. He has 500 acres for sale that was bought across from him and will end up being something and who knows what it will be and things like this just run amuck where ever it may it can happen all over the town. He was on the Comprehensive Plan Committee and despite what other people say this is not what they were looking for in the Comprehensive Plan. They wanted diverse uses, but it is not bringing jobs to the community, it is not creating a community, it’s dividing a community and therefore he would be voting no. .

Chairman Baden requested a roll call vote.

Chairman Baden- Yes
Mr. Dawson- No
Ms. Lindstrom- (Ms. Lindstrom requested if she could abstain.
Chairman Baden noted that she could, but she should state for the record her reason for abstention because if this review is reviewed in the future it may be looked at. She wasn’t required to, but she should state why. The Chairman wasn’t trying to push her.
Ms. Lindstrom understood this and noted that she would vote in favor)- Yes
Mr. Paddock- Yes
Mr. Ricks- Yes
Mr. Tapper- No
Mr. Williams- Yes

Motion carried. 5 ayes, 2 nays, 1 absent, 0 abstentions, (including alternate)

Chairman Baden wanted to take a moment and address the applicant and the public. This has been a very long review process and in his mind it was the longest review that they’ve had in quite some time with the exception of the Dollar General. That review was so long because the applicant kept taking time off. As far as period of time, this was probably the longest of continued review. He knows that there were people who thought that this was a decided thing from the beginning and in his mind it was never a decided thing. Until that driveway was changed, he would have been a ‘no’ vote. He could not support the original driveway and didn’t believe it could meet fire code and didn’t believe it could be safe and he agreed with what he heard from people and that was part of the reason why he pushed to get the other application looked at. He thinks that it does mitigate almost all of the issues that were brought up. He would say to the applicant- the Board has put a lot of conditions on the decision, please be very vigilant and follow them. They are very important to the Town, to the Community. He wants to see them be successful and hopes that they are, but these conditions must be adhered to. Please don’t ignore them or discount them. There will be a lot of eyes on this project from a lot of directions.

Chairman Baden requested that Mr. Medenbach get the changes to the Board and that they would be hearing from the Secretary with a notice of the final fees. There was a little more that needed to be submitted for the escrow account as it didn’t cover the whole amount of fees for the Town’s consultant.

PB 2015-04 SBD New Application
Minor Subdivision
Marie Christine Hellin
Proposes subdivision of a parcel resulting in 3 lots of +/-3.607 acres, +/-3.892 acres, and +/-3.093 acres
90 Upper Whitfield Rd., S/B/L #68.4-3-13, ‘AR-3’ zoning district, Property listed on the National Register

Mr. Bert Winne was present on behalf of the application.

Mr. Winne noted that there were about 15 acres with an existing old stone house on it. What they want to do is to leave a 3.607 acre piece around the stone house and create two buildable house lots. One to the south of the stone house and one to the east of it.

Chairman Baden noted that he reviewed this parcel and printed out the County Parcel Viewer Map for everyone. He asked everyone to bear in mind that the property boundary lines are not always in the correct locations because of the two different data sets they are sometimes a little bit off. There are no wetlands physically on the property, however going just below there are some wetlands. The buffer area of those does not go across the property lines according to NYS DEC, so there are no wetlands physically on the property, however there are some that are in near proximity. It’s not in a flood plain; it is not within 500’ of an Ag District. When he pulled the historical records, the house was built in 1770 and the house itself is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Because of that Mr. Winne completed a Full EAF as the National Register will trigger this to by a Type 1 Action. There is also a letter from the owner of the property giving authorization for Mr. Winne to represent them.

Ms. Lindstrom noted that even though it triggers a Type 1 Action, there is nothing about having an historical house saying that you can’t subdivide?

Chairman Baden answered no. There is nothing. It just triggers a little extra review and it is one of the things that the State is trying to resolve so that in the future this type of application does not become a mandatory Type 1 Action, but they still haven’t figured out how to resolve that. Chairman Baden took part in a couple of years ago in a discussion where they all tried to come up with ways and they are still working on it, but until that time, this is a mandatory Type 1 Action under SEQRA. It’s on Old Whitfield Road.

Mr. Ricks was very familiar with the property.

Chairman Baden noted that this was right before where Old Whitfield Road intersects with Baker Town Road.

Mr. Winne noted that on the other side of the road there was a pond and horses.

Mr. Ricks motioned to schedule the public hearing for the January Meeting. Seconded by Mr. Ricks. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden: Yes Tapper: Yes
O’Donnell: Absent Lindstrom: Yes
Ricks: Yes Dawson: Yes
Paddock: Yes Williams: Yes

Motion carried. 7 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, 0 abstentions, (including alternate)

Chairman Baden noted that driveway permits would need to be obtained from the Town for the two additional driveways. The Board will send a letter to the Highway Superintendent, but suggested that Mr. Winne may want to meet with him independently at the site to get him to sign off on where the driveways are proposed, that way the final map that will be signed was looked at already by the Highway Superintendent. The Board also requires either UCHD Approval, or certification that the lot will have water and septic, or they can have an engineer certify the same with a stamp on letterhead. The Board needs some sort of proof that the lots being created will have water and septic. The distances of road frontage should also be included on all lots. The Board would look through the map in the next month and see if there are any other additions that need to be made.

Mr. Dawson noted that the Right to Farm note needed to be added.

The Secretary would e-mail Mr. Winne that statement.

Mr. Ricks questioned where Old Mill Road was?

Mr. Winne noted that was what it ran into. That’s the name that was on a reference map.

Chairman Baden noted that this application didn’t need to be sent to the UCPB as it met the requirements for exemption. There were no other agencies that would be issuing permits, so the Board could classify this as a Type 1 Action for SEQRA. The only other agency that would have to issue a permit is UCHD and that’s a ministerial permit.

Mr. Dawson motioned to classify the application as a Type 1 for SEQRA. Seconded by Ms. Lindstrom. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden: Yes Tapper: Yes
O’Donnell: Absent Lindstrom: Yes
Ricks: Yes Dawson: Yes
Paddock: Yes Williams: Yes

Motion carried. 7 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, 0 abstentions, (including alternate)

Ms. Lindstrom motioned to refer the application to NYS OPRHP, TOR HPC, and TOR HWY. Seconded by Mr. Dawson. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden: Yes Tapper: Yes
O’Donnell: Absent Lindstrom: Yes
Ricks: Yes Dawson: Yes
Paddock: Yes Williams: Yes

Motion carried. 7 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, 0 abstentions, (including alternate)

OTHER MATTERS

• Scott MacScott, SUP Approval to expire in January
Chairman Baden noted that the approval is about to expire and he wants to extend his approval. He noted that this will be the 3rd extension given. He noted that the Building Permit was set to expire on April 14, 2016; he suggested giving this final extension to match that date.

Mr. Ricks motioned to extend the SUP Approval to April 14, 2016 to match the expiration of the building permit. Seconded by Mr. Dawson. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden: Yes Tapper: Yes
O’Donnell: Absent Lindstrom: Yes
Ricks: Yes Dawson: Yes
Paddock: Yes Williams: Yes

Motion carried. 7 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, 0 abstentions, (including alternate)

• 2016 MEETING DATES
Chairman Baden noted that he wanted to specify the dates for the 2016 meetings this year.

Chairman Baden motioned to hold all of the meetings on the second Monday of the Month at the Town of Rochester Community Center at 7pm, except for the October Meeting which will be held on Thursday, October 13, 2016 due to a holiday on the regular meeting date. Seconded by Ms. Lindstrom. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden: Yes Tapper: Yes
O’Donnell: Absent Lindstrom: Yes
Ricks: Yes Dawson: Yes
Paddock: Yes Williams: Yes

Motion carried. 7 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, 0 abstentions, (including alternate)

Mr. Dawson motioned to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Ms. Lindstrom. No discussion. All members present in favor.

As there was no further business, Chairman Baden adjourned the meeting at 9:22PM.

Respectfully Submitted,

Rebecca Paddock Stange, Secretary