Planning Board Minutes Sept. 26 2011

MINUTES OF September 26, 2011 WORK SHOP MEETING of the Town of Rochester PLANNING BOARD, held at the Town Hall, Accord, NY.
 
Chairman Baden called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM.

 

Chairman Baden asked the Secretary for roll call attendance.

 

PRESENT:                                                        ABSENT:
Michael Baden, Chairman                                 Leon Smith      
Shane Ricks, Vice Chairman                              Anthony Ullman  
Fred O’Donnell                                  Melvyn I. Tapper
Robert Rominger                                                                                                         

 

Also present:
Secretary, Rebecca Paddock Stange, Town Attorney, Mary Lou Christiana, and Adam S. Paddock, Planning Board Alternate (seated in the audience).

 

ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

Trainings:

 

Chairman Baden noted that there was a UCPB- DEC Wetlands training on Oct. 19 at UCCC at 7PM. Mr. Ricks, Mr. O’Donnell, and Mr. Paddock had already expressed interest in going. If anyone else wanted to go just let the Secretary know.  

 

CONTINUED APPLICATION AND SEQR REVIEW
REAL ESCAPES PROPERTY, LLC, c/o Simone Harari– Body of Truth Spa, Special Use Permit as per 140-42 of the Town of Rochester Code for expansion of a non-conforming use membership club to include expansion of parking area, additions to main house and office, expansion of pond and landscaping, new construction of a gym/fitness barn, outdoor meditation pavilion, and sauna building, additions of septic systems and well, and removal of garage structure, Kyserike Road, Tax Map #69.4-2-2, ‘AR-3’ Zoning District

 

Ms. Harari, Mr. Medenbach, PE, and Mr. Cappello, Esq. were present on behalf of the application.
Chairman Baden noted that the first thing he wanted to go over was the UCDPW question on one of their comment letters on construction entrances.

 

Mr. Medenbach noted that they will use the existing entrance until the main entrance is constructed and then construction traffic will be directed to go through there. They will be able to get back to the pond as well.

 

Chairman Baden wanted to be able to reply to them. The next item on Chairman Baden’s list was in regards to Mr. Feldman and his entrance. He had a note that the applicant was going to use the East driveway? He just wanted to clarify because the parcel that they were looking at right now you could take a left hand and go to the spa, or you could continue and go to Mr. Feldman’s property.
CONTINUED APPLICATION AND SEQR REVIEW
REAL ESCAPES PROPERTY, LLC, c/o Simone Harari– Body of Truth Spa, Special Use Permit as per 140-42 of the Town of Rochester Code for expansion of a non-conforming use membership club to include expansion of parking area, additions to main house and office, expansion of pond and landscaping, new construction of a gym/fitness barn, outdoor meditation pavilion, and sauna building, additions of septic systems and well, and removal of garage structure, Kyserike Road, Tax Map #69.4-2-2, ‘AR-3’ Zoning District

 

Mr. Medenbach noted that they were referring to if you went past Mr. Feldman’s’ entrance and kept going that entrance goes back out to the County Road. It is on other lands of Harari and not a part of this site.

 

Chairman Baden’s own personal feeling was that this was not something that the Board should be getting involved in with this review. It is on another parcel and it’s between the applicant and Mr. Feldman and not a part of this application at all.

 

The next item that Chairman Baden wanted to discuss was UCHD. Mr. Medenbach had mentioned that he needed to re-apply because of the change of the septic?

 

Mr. Medenbach responded that it was a minor change. Most projects he would just make it a construction change but in this case, when the PB re-approved the plans, he would re-submit the plans and ask them to re-approve. He has discussed this with Shelly Mertin who is the chief engineer at the UCHD and she said it was fine.

 

Chairman Baden noted that the next thing on his list was the SWPPP. Mr. Medenbach had noted that he had sent his final submission to the NYSDEC.

 

Mr. Medenbach noted that he has and he had brought to this meeting a copy of all of the submissions and responses between his office and the DEC.

 

The next thing that Chairman Baden wanted to point out was that under the Town Code 140-46Q the applicant is required for stormwater outfalls to put the GPS coordinates on the map and he remembered it was a condition last time and this was more of a reminder that it would need to be put on the final map. The next item Chairman Baden wanted to discuss was the pavilion. He wanted to clarify- was there a revised design to the pavilion? Originally it was open air.

 

Mr. Medenbach noted that it was kind of vague. He mentioned that it was open air and Ms. Harari was thinking of enclosing it partly. She is going to enclose the whole thing. There are no architectural for it.

 

Chairman Baden confirmed that it would be a structure with a roof and 4 sides?

 

Mr. Medenbach noted it would have doors and windows.

 

Chairman Baden noted that the way it was being portrayed at the last meeting was that it would be 3 sided with no roof. That didn’t sound right.

 

Mr. Medenbach noted that wasn’t the case.

 

Chairman Baden’s last item to clarify was the wetlands permit.

 

CONTINUED APPLICATION AND SEQR REVIEW
REAL ESCAPES PROPERTY, LLC, c/o Simone Harari– Body of Truth Spa, Special Use Permit as per 140-42 of the Town of Rochester Code for expansion of a non-conforming use membership club to include expansion of parking area, additions to main house and office, expansion of pond and landscaping, new construction of a gym/fitness barn, outdoor meditation pavilion, and sauna building, additions of septic systems and well, and removal of garage structure, Kyserike Road, Tax Map #69.4-2-2, ‘AR-3’ Zoning District

 

Mr. Medenbach noted that all of the correspondence and the application was in the packet that he submitted to the Board tonight.

 

Those were the only things that the Chairman had questions on. He knew that the applicant was waiting on the Board to make some decisions before they revise the site plan. He asked if they could get the revisions to the Board early next week.

 

Chairman Baden noted that they had an email from Mr. Medenbach going over the items that needed to be revised- a revised minor reduction to the footprint of the main building, which the board already knew about. They were providing a sign that said ‘no public access’ in front of the driveway that led to Mr. Feldman’s residence and that was a condition of the last approval. Location and detail of the fence. Chairman Baden questioned if there was a proposed location of the fence that they could show the Board.

 

Ms. Harari noted that the fence was right on the property line.

 

Mr. Medenbach and Ms. Harari discussed the location of the fence. Mr. Medenbach noted that where Ms. Harari wanted it was in the middle of a big row of pine trees.

 

Ms. Harari’s other question was trying to make Mr. Feldman happy with this fence. They were trying to make him happy by putting it in, but now he wasn’t happy with the height of it.

 

Chairman Baden noted that the applicant could resolve where the fence was going on her own with Mr. Medenbach. He just wanted to make sure that it was going to be shown on the revised plans.

 

Mr. Medenbach asked what the Board would want to see? Would they want to see a fence or no?

 

Chairman Baden asked the Board if they would want to discuss that now? He personally thought that it would mitigate some of the noise.

 

Mr. Ricks noted that the neighbor wasn’t going to be happy with anything.

 

Mr. Smith noted that there were trees there now.

 

Ms. Harari noted that there were very tall 2 story trees there now.

 

Mr. Medenbach questioned what the setback would be for the fence? A foot or 2 off of the property line?

 

Chairman Baden questioned if there was a setback on fences?

 

Mr. Medenbach noted that there was a height requirement, but generally they advise people to put them a foot off of the line.

 

CONTINUED APPLICATION AND SEQR REVIEW
REAL ESCAPES PROPERTY, LLC, c/o Simone Harari– Body of Truth Spa, Special Use Permit as per 140-42 of the Town of Rochester Code for expansion of a non-conforming use membership club to include expansion of parking area, additions to main house and office, expansion of pond and landscaping, new construction of a gym/fitness barn, outdoor meditation pavilion, and sauna building, additions of septic systems and well, and removal of garage structure, Kyserike Road, Tax Map #69.4-2-2, ‘AR-3’ Zoning District

 

Chairman Baden noted that you could go up to 8’ high in the side yard.

 

Mr. Smith questioned what kind of fence it would be?

 

Chairman Baden noted that they could give the details with the revised plans. They would need the revised plans by October 3rd. It’s not going to need to be circulated to anyone at this point. The other thing that Mr. Medenbach had on his list was a gate. The Board had already seen the details on the gate- that didn’t change, right?

 

Mr. Medenbach noted that it had not. He would put it on the map. Two pillars with a chain between them is what he thought he submitted. The detail was on the reverse side of the letter from September 16, 2010 to the UCDPW. It was a wood security gate.

 

Chairman Baden noted that the applicant indicated that they would put a map note about keeping the site distance clear. Did anyone else on the Board have any other issues?

 

Mr. Ricks had a question on Mr. Feldman’s property. Years back he came back for something through the Planning Board. What type of permit did he have on his property?

 

Chairman Baden did not know.

 

The Secretary didn’t work for the Board at that time and she’d have to look it up.

 

Mr. Ricks noted that he came in front of the PB for a workshop or studio or something.

 

Chairman Baden thought that it was a home occupation permit. He could have the Secretary check with the CEO.

 

Mr. Ricks was just curious because he was reading all of the stuff that Mr. Feldman submitted, but he has an operation there also. So, he was trying to weigh the 2 things in his mind.

 

Chairman Baden vaguely remembered one of Mr. Feldman’s comments saying that he had a home occupation he thought for an artist workshop.

 

Mr. Ricks was curious if there were metal sculptures or banging? What was going on at his place?

 

Ms. Harari noted that he had applied for an apartment and an artist studio. It had a 2 story metal press. There was nothing in the application about the metal hammer.
CONTINUED APPLICATION AND SEQR REVIEW
REAL ESCAPES PROPERTY, LLC, c/o Simone Harari– Body of Truth Spa, Special Use Permit as per 140-42 of the Town of Rochester Code for expansion of a non-conforming use membership club to include expansion of parking area, additions to main house and office, expansion of pond and landscaping, new construction of a gym/fitness barn, outdoor meditation pavilion, and sauna building, additions of septic systems and well, and removal of garage structure, Kyserike Road, Tax Map #69.4-2-2, ‘AR-3’ Zoning District

 

Chairman Baden noted that under a home occupation permit under the old code they didn’t need to go through any review process. The CEO could just issue a permit. There were no noise studies or SEQRA done it was just a permit.

 

Mr. Ricks recalled him coming before the board.

 

Chairman Baden noted that they would verify what it was and find out. At this time he asked the applicant and her representatives to go back to the audience because the Board was going to review the SEQRA and discuss the application. What he asked the Secretary to do was to copy a couple of folders worth of documents for the table for the Board to refer to. There is a section in the green folder that says ‘New’- these were all new documents that have come in since the last time that the Board met. There is another comment letter from Mr. Feldman; there is an email from Mr. Rominger and some of his thoughts. He thought he was going to be here tonight, but he was unable to make it- he got stuck in Washington, DC. There was a letter dated September 21, 2011 from the Historic Preservation Commission. Mrs. Cross the Chairperson sent the letter and noted that because OPRHP had no further problems, the Town’s HPC had no further concerns either. He emailed Mrs. Cross back just to make sure that the HPC had seen the letter from the architect after his meeting and they had not. Mrs. Cross replied back and noted that she had checked in with the Secretary a couple of times the most recently being this past Monday. The Secretary did not show her the letter from the architect, but the only thing that pertains to the HPC was the appearance of the front of the house. AT their meeting on September 19th the HPC agreed to go along with the endorsement of the State based on the revised plans. Chairman Baden sent a letter to the Town’s consultant, Clark Patterson Lee (CPL) asking them to review the most recent information that they had received from both the applicant and Mr. Feldman and he asked them to focus on traffic, endangered species, and environmental impacts. The correspondence and reply back was incorporated into the part 3. Essentially they have come back that on traffic that UCDPW has provided their comments on the facility in regards to access off of Kyserike Road and has granted the applicant a highway work permit with conditions in regard to site access and site distance. The applicant has addressed these concerns with the revised site plan with direct access off of Kyserike Road rather than the existing gravel access road. CPL also says in regards to traffic volumes the applicant has provided sufficient analysis in regards to proposed facility, although adding some volume to the roadway it would not result in the generation of traffic in significant levels from a quantitative standpoint. They also had comments on endangered species and environmental impacts and agrees with the applicants review that they are not significant environmental impacts. A couple of months ago he had reached out to the UCDPW and asked if they had any physical traffic counts on Kyserike Road and the day after their last meeting they finally got a reply back. CPL looked at these numbers and incorporated it into their review. It was a traffic study from May 2006 and May 2009. The last thing the Board received was from this date a letter from Mr. Medenbach of the items that they went over at this meeting. Also included was a letter from Ecological Solutions, LLC who did the threatened and endangered species report. That is the new information since the last meeting.

 

Chairman Baden wanted to first discuss the whole application. He made a punch list up of things to cover. The first thing is that he wanted everyone to remember that what they were reviewing was a membership club. That

 

CONTINUED APPLICATION AND SEQR REVIEW
REAL ESCAPES PROPERTY, LLC, c/o Simone Harari– Body of Truth Spa, Special Use Permit as per 140-42 of the Town of Rochester Code for expansion of a non-conforming use membership club to include expansion of parking area, additions to main house and office, expansion of pond and landscaping, new construction of a gym/fitness barn, outdoor meditation pavilion, and sauna building, additions of septic systems and well, and removal of garage structure, Kyserike Road, Tax Map #69.4-2-2, ‘AR-3’ Zoning District

 

is the current approval and that is what they are bound to go by for the expansion. He had asked the Secretary to put in the folders the definition from the previous code that this falls under. “Club Membership: An organization catering exclusively to members and their guests on premises and buildings for recreational or athletic purposes which are not conducted primarily for gain provided that they are not conducted with any

 

vending stands merchandising or commercial activities accept as required generally for the membership and purposes of such clubs.” Whatever that definition means to you is how you need to review this. He understands it is not a very clear definition, but it is the definition that the Board is bound to follow.

 

Mr. O’Donnell questioned if this was the definition that this was referred as?

 

Chairman Baden noted that it was the definition in 2003 and it is what it still is and what the Board has to go by because they are expanding that use. He would like to go down the list as to what exactly is being expanded or added and decide if these items are part of the membership club. First is the parking expansion. His own opinion is that it is a logical expansion and what they need because of the expansion of the buildings, additions to the main building and the office. These are additions that could be happening on their own with a building permit- they wouldn’t even have to be here. The new fitness barn—these are all aspects of the site plan and they all seam reasonable under a membership club. Remember this is a membership club that is a spa, but they are not reviewing a spa. The next item is the outdoor meditation pavilion- again it’s a question whether the Board thinks it is a reasonable addition to a membership club. The new sauna building- he thought that the 3 new structures could probably be lumped together. Pond expansion – again as long as the DEC gave approval it wouldn’t even need to be here, but because it was part of the overall application is why it is here. Septic and well additions and landscaping additions- all are reasonable. Site access by the neighbor- The Board resolved that earlier that it isn’t part of this application and isn’t an issue for or before the Board- it’s between the 2 neighbors.
Overnight guests and special events. Chairman Baden noted that these are 2 items that the Board will need to look back and decide if these were applied for either under the original application or under this application and after reading the minutes and decisions which are in the purple folder is the original  application, decision, all the minutes.

 

Mr. Ricks noted that he reads the definition of a Club Membership and then in the green folder and the CEO wrote a letter in September of 2010 and basically he says that we’re going in as a Club Membership Spa. But at the end – are these last 3 sentences what it is? It says that the description of action on the EAF Form addresses guest rooms- health, consultations, facials…etc… and guest rooms. Was this the actual wording on the decision in 2004?

 

Chairman Baden noted that this was the actual wording from the EAF, however if you go back and look at the minutes after that EAF was presented in 2003 there is a whole discussion about how this is going to be used where they are talking about probably keeping a bedroom or 2 and the brother might come and visit. They say

 

CONTINUED APPLICATION AND SEQR REVIEW
REAL ESCAPES PROPERTY, LLC, c/o Simone Harari– Body of Truth Spa, Special Use Permit as per 140-42 of the Town of Rochester Code for expansion of a non-conforming use membership club to include expansion of parking area, additions to main house and office, expansion of pond and landscaping, new construction of a gym/fitness barn, outdoor meditation pavilion, and sauna building, additions of septic systems and well, and removal of garage structure, Kyserike Road, Tax Map #69.4-2-2, ‘AR-3’ Zoning District

 

they are considering having overnight rooms maybe in the future. Mr. Ricks actually asked in 2003 for a floor plan showing what rooms will be used for which use and there is discussion as to if someone  were to stay overnight. Then in the December 2003 meeting there’s a discussion again about the club membership designation in general.
Mr. Smith questioned if they were looking into what they applied for or what is a Club Membership.

 

Chairman Baden noted that was the question. If you look in the application there’s not mention any where at all. In the EAF from 2003.

 

Mr. Smith knew of Club Memberships with overnight guests.

 

Chairman Baden didn’t disagree. The only thing he was saying was they needed to see if they were approved for it or not.

 

Mr. Smith noted that they were approved for a Club Membership.

 

Chairman Baden noted that it wasn’t a part of the original application or Zoning Permit. The original Zoning Application was proposed use of expansion of home based spa into membership club spa.

 

Mr. Smith noted that it was listed under Club Membership.

 

Chairman Baden stated that in the EAF it is listed as Membership Club Spa Services to include counseling, spa, massage, facials, wet spa, acupuncture, health consultation classes, and guest rooms. ‘Guest rooms’ is kind of vague- it could be treatment rooms. Chairman Baden looked through the 2003 minutes and noted that they reflected that Ms. Harari didn’t want to exclude the possibility of an overnight situation, maybe similar to that of a Bed and Breakfast, but at this point it would just be for day use. It was brought up again in January of 2004. They may have people stay overnight in two guest rooms, but it says it’s indicated on the application and it actually is not indicated on the application anywhere. The application itself just says membership club spa.

 

Mr. Smith understood this, but he was saying general club membership. There were lots of club memberships that have overnight guests.

 

Chairman Baden understood Mr. Smith’s interpretation, but he noted that the 2010 letter received from the CEO he more or less just re-iterated what the EAF said. The CEO was not issuing a ruling on it or a determination on it.
 
Mr. O’Donnell wanted to know which CEO they were talking about here.

 

Chairman Baden indicated it was Jerry Davis, the CEO who wrote the 2010 letter that he was referring to.
CONTINUED APPLICATION AND SEQR REVIEW
REAL ESCAPES PROPERTY, LLC, c/o Simone Harari– Body of Truth Spa, Special Use Permit as per 140-42 of the Town of Rochester Code for expansion of a non-conforming use membership club to include expansion of parking area, additions to main house and office, expansion of pond and landscaping, new construction of a gym/fitness barn, outdoor meditation pavilion, and sauna building, additions of septic systems and well, and removal of garage structure, Kyserike Road, Tax Map #69.4-2-2, ‘AR-3’ Zoning District

 

Mr. O’Donnell noted that the CEO who made the decision in 2003 was Doug Dymond. That was the person they really needed to be talking to not Mr. Davis.

 

Mr. Ricks noted that in 2010 minutes Chairman Baden had asked if people had stayed there.

 

Chairman Baden recalled this and noted that in 2010 it was discussed in length and the Board will remember in the 2010 decision that they made they limited it to no overnight guests.

 

Mr. Ricks recalled their actual answer was that it was more for day use treatment and sometimes bridal parties would stay overnight in a treatment room. This was what Mr. Medenbach had said.

 

Chairman Baden noted that Board Members will need to consider it, and remember that in 2010 they did ask for an interpretation from the Town’s Attorney and she did issue her opinionand that is in the folders in front of the members as well.

 

Mr. Ricks questioned what way the Chairman would want to make the final decision on this overnight guest aspect of the application?

 

Chairman Baden noted that if they were approving it with overnight guests, they would have to determine how many rooms were allowed for overnight guests.

 

Mr. Ricks questioned if a membership club even allowed that? Can that be fit into that definition?

 

Chairman Baden noted that it was up to the Board to decide that or if they couldn’t come up with a decision they could ask the ZBA for an interpretation for it.

 

Mr. Ricks couldn’t imagine the ZBA going through all of these files to determine that.

 

Mr. O’Donnell questioned if the Board was really trying to get the ZBA to interpret what was interpreted back in 2003 by Doug Dymond? The CEO today even says that he doesn’t know, he was in the office at that time.

 

Chairman Baden noted that its not who was working back then. It is what the decision ultimately was and the only way to really do that was to read the minutes of what the PB discussed. It’s pretty clear that its not clear in the application that they are requesting overnight guests. If in the application it said, ‘we are requesting 2 rooms for overnight guests’ it would be a decided issue and they could consider that as part of the approval. But because the application says nothing about overnight guests or guestrooms and the EAF does use the language guest rooms- but its vague as to what that really means and number of rooms.
Mr. O’Donnell noted that its all up to interpretation.

 

CONTINUED APPLICATION AND SEQR REVIEW
REAL ESCAPES PROPERTY, LLC, c/o Simone Harari– Body of Truth Spa, Special Use Permit as per 140-42 of the Town of Rochester Code for expansion of a non-conforming use membership club to include expansion of parking area, additions to main house and office, expansion of pond and landscaping, new construction of a gym/fitness barn, outdoor meditation pavilion, and sauna building, additions of septic systems and well, and removal of garage structure, Kyserike Road, Tax Map #69.4-2-2, ‘AR-3’ Zoning District

 

Mr. Ricks noted that he had a problem with the whole definition to start with especially where it said, ‘which are not conducted primarily for gain’. Its almost like saying it’s a membership club- like a motorcycle club or something and that they are not doing it for gain- its just for the fun of it and your money goes  into a treasury and no one makes any money and this is obviously for profit a business.

 

Chairman Baden stated that this was the definition that was referred from the CEO in 2003. So, because the PB back then could have questioned it to the ZBA within 30 or 60 days. Chairman Baden noted that part of the problem may be that it was tried to fit into a category rather than saying that there was no category for this. He didn’t know that the old code really covered how you applied if you didn’t have a category for a use.

 

The Secretary noted that in the old code there was a section for ‘any use no listed here-in’ and she recalled that category not being allowed in this district in 2003.

 

Chairman Baden noted that that is all behind the Board. They can only look at what it was approved for and go from there. What the Board has to interpret is if guest rooms were approved in that approval and is the Board allowing them to expand or were guest rooms applied for in the new application and are the allowing them to happen as a part of the new application. That is what needs to be resolved.

 

Mr. Smith questioned if that was true or are they just approving an expansion based on how it was written then and the CEO has to decide if it is right or wrong.

 

Mr. O’Donnell noted that if you interpret it that they were approved in 2003, then why would you have to go back to it now? Its all done.

 

Mrs. Christiana noted that they had to look at what was approved.

 

Chairman Baden agreed noting that they had to know a number of how many were approved so they could set a number now. Were they allowing an expansion or not. He wanted to bring it up before they talked about the SEQRA. It is something that they don’t need to come to an answer or conclusion this moment, but they did need to come to a conclusion when they go to make the decision.

 

Mr. O’Donnell noted that just like when he took his building code- because he has his CEO Certificate, that you have to base upon what was decided and enforced upon on that date. Its like he said, even the Building Inspector at this point is saying that he wasn’t employed then that he doesn’t have any idea what the previous CEO was thinking about back then.

 

Chairman Baden noted that they did need to come up with some sort of language and reasoning for it when it comes time to making their decision.

 

Mr. Ricks noted that Club Membership was Mr. Dymond’s decision to use.

 

CONTINUED APPLICATION AND SEQR REVIEW
REAL ESCAPES PROPERTY, LLC, c/o Simone Harari– Body of Truth Spa, Special Use Permit as per 140-42 of the Town of Rochester Code for expansion of a non-conforming use membership club to include expansion of parking area, additions to main house and office, expansion of pond and landscaping, new construction of a gym/fitness barn, outdoor meditation pavilion, and sauna building, additions of septic systems and well, and removal of garage structure, Kyserike Road, Tax Map #69.4-2-2, ‘AR-3’ Zoning District
Chairman Baden noted that may be, but they are bound to that decision to continue their review.

 

Mr. Ricks recalled it being questioned back in 2003. The County PB questioned it, the Town’s PB questioned it.
Chairman Baden agreed with Mr. Ricks. And found in the minutes in 2003 where the applicant noted that they were considering having overnight guests, maybe in the future. That question is brought up in the minutes during the discussion, but the question was it actually applied for. If it wasn’t applied for it can’t be approved because if there was a change in the application the CEO would have to then do a determination of that change because that could change the use.

 

Mr. Ricks noted that as he read back through the 2003 minutes, he recalled a lot of it, but it was even questioned on whether if everyone who came in had to be a member. They replied yes. He asked the question about wedding parties becoming members for one day if they came for facials?

 

Chairman Baden noted that it is a common occurrence at most spas and gyms.

 

Mr. O’Donnell noted if you looked at the definition- member or their guests. So they are their guests.

 

Chairman Baden noted that most of those you have to be a guest of a member usually in that situation you have to be there when the member is there.

 

Mrs. Christiana noted that she’s gone to similar places where they apply $2 of the cost to membership fee. You become a member.

 

Chairman Baden noted that its more common than you actually know.

 

The second item that Chairman Baden wanted to bring up to the Board for their contemplation over the next few weeks was in regards to special events. In the last decision they approved “16 special events as a maximum per calendar year to be held in the outdoor pavilion with a maximum of 200 people per event. Not inclusive of normal spa activities. Even Hours shall be limited between 9am and 11pm. UCHD approval shall be obtained when required.”

 

Chairman Baden wanted to bring up something that Mr. Rominger brought up with him the other day during a telephone conversation- something he hadn’t thought of before this—but the Chairman doesn’t believe they have parking for 200 people. They only have 46 parking spaces.

 

Mr. Smith had recalled them talking about special events before and they were going to use the yard for 1 time parking. He recalled that coming up. They were going to use the lawn as extra parking for special events.

 

Chairman Baden noted that if that were the case it should definitely be shown on the site plan as a reserve parking area.

 

CONTINUED APPLICATION AND SEQR REVIEW
REAL ESCAPES PROPERTY, LLC, c/o Simone Harari– Body of Truth Spa, Special Use Permit as per 140-42 of the Town of Rochester Code for expansion of a non-conforming use membership club to include expansion of parking area, additions to main house and office, expansion of pond and landscaping, new construction of a gym/fitness barn, outdoor meditation pavilion, and sauna building, additions of septic systems and well, and removal of garage structure, Kyserike Road, Tax Map #69.4-2-2, ‘AR-3’ Zoning District

 

Mr. Medenbach noted that there was another factor to this. The trend for weddings is that wedding parties often stay at local hotels and they bus them to the site.

 

Chairman Baden just wanted to bring it up because they wanted people to be aware of this and if that were the case that people were going to be bussed to the site then it should be put in the conditions of approval because right now they are saying that they could have an event for 200 people plus the staff for an event of 200 people and he personally doesn’t think that they have allowed for enough parking for that situation, so he thinks that needs to be looked at. They may be able to take the number of people down or look at a reserve parking area or whatever- but they need to look at the possibility that 200 people could show up in their own vehicles. It was a good comment brought up by Mr. Rominger and the Chairman wanted to make sure that everyone thinks about it.

 

As far as fire safety and driveway width the Chairman noted that the Board had given a waiver for 18’ in width of the interior driveway, he just wanted to make sure that the Accord Fire Chief had signed off on that.

 

Mr. O’Donnell noted that the applicant is no longer 1,000’ in length of driveway from any of her structures, so basically as long as the initial truck gets in. In a fire it doesn’t make a difference who you are, they could shut down the County Road if they wanted no one could say anything. One truck is in and he recalled the gate being 18’.

 

Chairman Baden agreed- the gate was 18’ and the road was 25’.

 

Mr. O’Donnell noted that if there was a structure way back on the property it may be a different story. But everything is right there.

 

Chairman Baden noted that anything in the way back they would be pumping water out of the pond anyway.

 

The next issues Chairman Baden wanted to go over were SEQRA issues that were brought up in public comment. They would address a number of these in Part 2 and Part 3, but he had some quick comments. On the aquifer in the Town’s Zoning Map, this property is not in the Aquifer Protection District. It is close, but it is outside of it. In his opinion it is a non issue. The hazardous waste and traffic, the endangered species, they have received several different studies now all to compare and they will compare in the Part 2 and Part 3. As far as the streams- there are no named streams on that property. He didn’t know what stream was being referenced. The noise issue will be mitigated to some degree with the fence and now that the pavilion is being enclosed that in itself is going to reduce the noise. The maximum potential development—the applicant has +/-20.5 acres and although 5 or 6 acres is wetlands, but there are still at least 12-13 buildable acres, so they could potentially have 4 uses on this property, so they have not exceeded that in any way.
CONTINUED APPLICATION AND SEQR REVIEW
REAL ESCAPES PROPERTY, LLC, c/o Simone Harari– Body of Truth Spa, Special Use Permit as per 140-42 of the Town of Rochester Code for expansion of a non-conforming use membership club to include expansion of parking area, additions to main house and office, expansion of pond and landscaping, new construction of a gym/fitness barn, outdoor meditation pavilion, and sauna building, additions of septic systems and well, and removal of garage structure, Kyserike Road, Tax Map #69.4-2-2, ‘AR-3’ Zoning District

 

Chairman Baden noted that he has prepared a Draft Part 2 and Part 3 for the Board to go over. He didn’t want a huge discussion on mitigating impacts in the Part 2- that would be covered in Part 3. Chairman Baden read the rules of completing the Part 2.

 

The Board reviewed the draft Part 2 of the EAF as prepared by Chairman Baden and determined the following:
1. Will the Proposed Action result in a physical change to the project site? Yes, Small to moderate impact with the examples:
  • Construction on land where the depth to the water table is less than 3 feet.
  • Construction that will continue for more than 1 year or involve more than one phase or stage.
  • Other impacts: Construction of new structures, additions to main building and office, parking expansion, septic system and well addition, and landscaping
3. Will Proposed Action affect any water body designated as protected? (Under Articles 15, 24, 25 of the Environmental Conservation Law, ECL). Yes, Potential Large impacts which can be mitigate with project change with the examples:
  • Construction in a designated freshwater or tidal wetland. *wetland adjacent buffer area.
  • Other impacts: Pond expansion in the M-20 Freshwater Wetland (Class III) Pond dredging
4. Will Proposed Action affect any non-protected existing or new body of water? Yes, Potential Large impacts which can be mitigate with project change with the examples:
  • A 10% increase or decrease in the surface area of any body of water or more than a 10 acre increase or decrease.
6. Will Proposed Action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface water runoff?  Yes, Small to moderate impact with the examples:
  • Other impacts: Stormwater runoff patterns may change due to new structures, expanded structures, clearing for parking, and changes to grading.
12. Will Proposed Action impact any site or structure of historic, prehistoric or paleontological importance? Yes, Potential Large impacts which can be mitigate with project change with the examples:

 

  • Proposed Action occurring wholly or partially within or substantially contiguous to any facility or site listed on the State
or National Register of historic places. *Sahler Stone House
15. Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems? Yes, Small to moderate impact with the examples:
  • Other impacts: Increase in vehicle trips to the site and vehicle use of County Route 6.

17. Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of the Proposed Action? Yes, Small to moderate impact with the examples:
  • Proposed Action will produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels for noise outside of structures.
(outdoor pavilion and parking area)

 

19. Will Proposed Action affect the character of the existing community? Yes, Small to moderate impact with the examples:
  • Proposed Action will conflict with officially adopted plans or goals. *non conforming use not addressed in zoning code.
  • Proposed Action will create or eliminate employment. – project will create employment.
20. Is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential adverse environment impacts? Yes, The project has been the basis for an Article 78 NYS Supreme Court action.
CONTINUED APPLICATION AND SEQR REVIEW
REAL ESCAPES PROPERTY, LLC, c/o Simone Harari– Body of Truth Spa, Special Use Permit as per 140-42 of the Town of Rochester Code for expansion of a non-conforming use membership club to include expansion of parking area, additions to main house and office, expansion of pond and landscaping, new construction of a gym/fitness barn, outdoor meditation pavilion, and sauna building, additions of septic systems and well, and removal of garage structure, Kyserike Road, Tax Map #69.4-2-2, ‘AR-3’ Zoning District

 

Board  Discussion:
Mr. Ricks had a problem with #17. He didn’t see parking as being a part of a noise impact?

 

Mrs. Christiana noted that there was no longer an outdoor pavilion- it was enclosed, so they should delete that. This was speaking about noise outside of structures. Expanded parking area- would that really increase the local ambient noise levels when you take into consideration traffic on the County Road and the busses and cars going to the school across the street?

 

Chairman Baden stated if they wanted to change the answer to no, that was fine.

 

Mr. Smith noted that he was at the school this past Saturday and there were 200 cars there for a soccer game and a football game. He didn’t see where the parking lot expansion would be considered an impact on noise.

 

The Board kept the answer as a small to moderate impact on the noise, but crossed out the examples.

 

Mr. O’Donnell questioned #3- he didn’t think there was a protected stream on the property.

 

Mrs. Christiana noted that this was referring to the protected wetland on the property.
CONTINUED APPLICATION AND SEQR REVIEW
REAL ESCAPES PROPERTY, LLC, c/o Simone Harari– Body of Truth Spa, Special Use Permit as per 140-42 of the Town of Rochester Code for expansion of a non-conforming use membership club to include expansion of parking area, additions to main house and office, expansion of pond and landscaping, new construction of a gym/fitness barn, outdoor meditation pavilion, and sauna building, additions of septic systems and well, and removal of garage structure, Kyserike Road, Tax Map #69.4-2-2, ‘AR-3’ Zoning District
At this time Chairman Baden read over his draft of the Part 3 as follows:
Sept. 26, 2011

 

Part 3 SEQRA- Evaluation of Important Impacts

 

RE:     Real Escapes Property LLC (Body of Truth)
Application for a Special Use Permit as per 140-42 of the Town of Rochester Code seeking expansion of a non-conforming use membership club to include expansion of parking area, additions to main house and office, expansion of pond and landscaping, new construction of a gym/fitness barn, meditation pavilion, and sauna building, additions of septic systems and well, and removal of garage structure, Kyserike Road, Tax Map #69.4-2-2, ‘AR-3’ Zoning District

 

SEQRA History

 

The Town of Rochester Planning Board (Planning Board) had determined itself Lead Agency on July 20, 2010 and determined a Negative Declaration on August 18, 2010; however the State of New York Supreme Court of Ulster County has determined the Negative Declaration and Special Use Permit null and void and remanded back to the Planning Board for further action.

 

The Planning Board determined the following Interested Agencies have regulatory powers over this application and they were notified with the opportunity to be Lead Agency and to further assist in the review:
  • NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation
  • NYS Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation
  • Ulster County Health Dept.
  • Ulster County Dept. of Public Works
  • Ulster County Development Corporation
  • Ulster County Industrial Development Agency
Under SEQRA guidelines the Planning Board has routinely transmitted information to these agencies seeking information and comment.  Comments received have been discussed and acted on by both the Planning Board and the applicant in the form of Site Plan revisions. The Planning Board additionally sought comment from local agencies Historic Preservation Commission and Accord Fire District regarding the areas of the project with which they have expertise.  The Town planning consultant, Clark Patterson Lee has been actively involved in the review of the Site Plan and has offered comment to the Planning Board. The project was referred to the Ulster County Planning Board on two occasions with the final referral reply being “No County Impact”.  To date, the Planning Board has held four public hearing sessions on this matter with one additional hearing scheduled at the time of this writing.   

 

The Planning Board re-declared itself to be Lead Agency on September 13, 2011 and under that authority has reviewed the application noted above following the NY State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) guidelines and makes this SEQRA Part 3 statement of its conclusions.

 

CONTINUED APPLICATION AND SEQR REVIEW
REAL ESCAPES PROPERTY, LLC, c/o Simone Harari– Body of Truth Spa, Special Use Permit as per 140-42 of the Town of Rochester Code for expansion of a non-conforming use membership club to include expansion of parking area, additions to main house and office, expansion of pond and landscaping, new construction of a gym/fitness barn, outdoor meditation pavilion, and sauna building, additions of septic systems and well, and removal of garage structure, Kyserike Road, Tax Map #69.4-2-2, ‘AR-3’ Zoning District

 

Part 3 SEQRA DRAFT-CONT’D:

 

Potentially Large Impacts

 

  • Historical Resource Impacts
Background Information and Review

 

The project involves the action of building additions to a property listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1999.  The original building on the property is known as the Sahler Stone House and it is one of the most important early houses in the Town. As The National Register listing states:
  • “The Sahler Stone House is historically and architecturally significant as an example of the classic stone dwelling house architecture typically found in the Hudson Valley region and in Ulster County.  This house is one of seventy-two stone or brick houses (both former or existing) identified in Rochester which were built before 1944 and one of sixty-four built before 1850. The linear one-and-one half story stone house was the predominant form of stone dwelling architecture in Ulster County…
  • …Built ca. 1750, the Sahler House features many of the characteristics associated with this Hudson Valley property type…
  • …Despite alterations over nearly two- and-one-half centuries, the Sahler Stone House remains substantially intact and recognizable as an important example of mid-Hudson Valley vernacular craft practices of the eighteenth century.”
The Planning Board identified the NYS Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) as the New York State agency responsible for the National Register, named them as an Involved Agency, and circulated plans and other application materials to that office for comment.  Comment was received on July 16, 2010, Aug. 9, 2010, July 12, 2011, and Aug. 26, 2011.  In the first three indicated comment letters received, the OPRHP states:
“Based upon our review of the submitted information, it remains our opinion that the proposed additions to the Sahler House (individually listed in the National Register of Historic Places) will have a substantial negative impact upon this historic resource.  Although it is evident that the designer tried to incorporate the additions into the house in a sympathetic manner, the size of the additions and deck are too large to be located adjacent to the Sahler House without resulting in detrimental effects on the property.  We recommend either smaller additions or new buildings removed from the historic house.  The other proposed new structures appear to be appropriate and in keeping with the existing scale, building materials and site accommodations.”

 

The applicant responded to these comments with project modifications to the size and construction of the additions and upon review OPRHP correspondence of Aug. 26, 2011 states in reply, “…it is the OPRHP’s opinion that the overall project does not have the potential to subsequently impact historic resources”.
        
The Town of Rochester Historical Preservation Commission (HPC), an Interested Agency, was notified for comment which responded with a letter dated July 26, 2011 in which they state:  
“As per the plans on file at the Planning Board Office, the appearance of the glass hyphen to the left of the existing main house structure is starkly inappropriate to the historic integrity of the main structure. We concur with the comments quoted above of our colleagues in Albany, whose expertise is directed at preserving, through the State and National Registers, our precious architectural heritage in the Town of Rochester. We commend Body of Truth’s owner, Ms. Simone Harari, for her efforts in helping to list the Sahler Stone House and other nearby properties on the National Register a dozen years ago. It was clear from her actions then that she is well aware of the deleterious effects of development that is not sympathetic to the architecture and scale of historic structures. We encourage Ms. Harari in her desire to expand her business, and trust she will carry out the expansion in a manner that pays respect to the significant structure in her care.”

 

CONTINUED APPLICATION AND SEQR REVIEW
REAL ESCAPES PROPERTY, LLC, c/o Simone Harari– Body of Truth Spa, Special Use Permit as per 140-42 of the Town of Rochester Code for expansion of a non-conforming use membership club to include expansion of parking area, additions to main house and office, expansion of pond and landscaping, new construction of a gym/fitness barn, outdoor meditation pavilion, and sauna building, additions of septic systems and well, and removal of garage structure, Kyserike Road, Tax Map #69.4-2-2, ‘AR-3’ Zoning District

 

Part 3 SEQRA DRAFT-CONT’D:

 

The HPC was presented with the revised floor plan and a copy of the OPRHP statement of “No Impact” and offered this statement in response:
“…the only thing that pertains to the HPC concern is the appearance of the front of the stone house (as you know).~ We understand that the added elements~have been reduced in size, and siding used to some extent rather than using~all stone~for the front facade additions.~ I hope this is correct information.
At our meeting on Sept. 19th, the HPC~agreed to go along with~the endorsement~by the State of the revised plans.”

 

In addition to these comment letters, The Planning Board has reviewed the following documents:
  • The National Register application and associated photographs.  
Photographs submitted by the applicant.
  • Demolition Permit issued by the Code Enforcement Office for the removal of the West addition.
  • “Exhibit A”, letter from the project architect, contained in information submitted by applicant’s attorney on Sept. 13, 2011.
  • Floor plan revisions of main building.
 
Mitigation Measures

 

The applicant’s architect has submitted a letter to the Planning Board detailing the proposed building addition modifications as a result of a telephone conference with the OPRHP Restoration Coordinator Kenneth Markunas. (On file with the Planning Board and identified as “Exhibit A” of information submitted by applicant’s attorney on Sept.13, 2011).  Highlights of this letter are as follows.

 

  • OPRHP was presented with photos showing the above noted West addition as well as a smaller addition on the East end of the building.  These photos proved visual support for the plan to add additions where they already exist or existed.  The photos also show the front and rear facades which will remain untouched.  
  • The additions proposed are guided by US Dept. of Interior National Park Service Cultural Resource Heritage Preservation Services for new exterior additions to historic buildings.
  • OPRHP requests avoiding constructing an addition on a primary defining elevation to ensure preservation of significant materials and features. OPRHP reiterated the importance of keeping the front and rear of the building intact and not obscured.  In response, the architect has moved the connecting link away from the original stone outside corners of the building on the east addition to show more of the original stone wall.
  • OPRHP requests to minimize loss of historic material comprising external walls and internal partitions and floor plans.  In response, both on the exterior and interior, existing materials and features will remain intact with only minor changes of a need for a water seal between the new and old second floor and a connecting doorway.
OPRHP requests to make the size, scale, massing and proportions of the new addition compatible with the historic building to ensure that the historic form is not expanded or changed to an unacceptable degree. In response, both the East and West additions are composed of forms which are of similar scale and size as the original building.  No new roof line is higher than the original roof line.  Window sizes and dimensions are similar to the original size.  An overall effect has been achieved to not overpower the original stone house with a larger form.  
The architect has reduced the size from the original design plans by 90 square feet in the East addition and 45 square feet in the West.  Added a connecting link to the East addition as well as the originally proposed West addition link.  Connecting links were made narrower so more of the original stone walls show.  
OPRHP requests the architect protect the historic significance.  This will be achieved as new addition materials will differ from the original structure so the new does not appear a part of the old.  Clapboard wood siding, used for additions to stone houses since 1800, will be used. Further emphasis of the distinction between the old and new will be the materials for the connecting links will be modules of glass doors and glass roofs.
  • The architect conveys the applicant has concentrated not only on the layout of the additions, but also in the overall layout of the site plan and layout of buildings and grounds to maintain the historic character of the site.
CONTINUED APPLICATION AND SEQR REVIEW
REAL ESCAPES PROPERTY, LLC, c/o Simone Harari– Body of Truth Spa, Special Use Permit as per 140-42 of the Town of Rochester Code for expansion of a non-conforming use membership club to include expansion of parking area, additions to main house and office, expansion of pond and landscaping, new construction of a gym/fitness barn, outdoor meditation pavilion, and sauna building, additions of septic systems and well, and removal of garage structure, Kyserike Road, Tax Map #69.4-2-2, ‘AR-3’ Zoning District

 

Part 3 SEQRA DRAFT-CONT’D:

 

Planning Board Conclusion

 

The Involved Agency OPRHP is the administrator of the New York State Historical Register and the Planning Board finds no compelling evidence to not concur with their expert analysis.  The Planning Board notes several of the photographs of the Sahler Stone House clearly show a 20’ x 20’ wood addition on the West side of the building added in the 1940’s which was removed in 2009 due to mold damage. This addition was present at the time of National Historic Register listing of the property and is noted in that application as well as the smaller East addition.  The proposed additions will be constructed in a manner so as to not impact the originally historic structure and the additions proposed could be removed at any time with the historical structure remaining essentially intact and able to be restored to its original state.  

 

Therefore, based on OPRHP’s statement “the overall project does not have the potential to substantially impact historic resources” and the Planning Board’s review of the project modifications, the Town of Rochester Planning Board finds the potential large impact to be mitigated by the modifications proposed.  
Strict adherence to the plans will be required during construction and the Planning Board will further require the Building Department to monitor construction and remain in communication with OPRHP for review at various stages of the construction to assure this occurs.   

 

  • Wetland and Adjacent Buffer Impacts
Background Information and Review

 

The project involves the action of excavation and expansion of a pond within the Freshwater Wetland M-20 (Class III) This action will require a Freshwater Wetlands Permit from the NYSDEC pursuant to Article 24 of the New York State Environmental Conservation Law.

 

In April 2010, a NYSDEC biologist performed a field investigation and validated the delineation of the M-20 Freshwater Wetland boundary. The applicant initially proposed this expansion as part of a “Phase 2” of the project to the Planning Board; however it has subsequently been modified to be part of the complete application.  An application was submitted to the NYSDEC for the Wetlands Permit.  The NYSDEC found the application to be Incomplete on Sept. 10, 2010 and returned a list of actions the applicant would need to fulfill to be considered complete.  On Feb. 15, 2011 a letter was issued by Scott Ballard, NYSDEC Environmental Analyst, which indicated “Notice of Intent to Deny/Notice of Incomplete Application”. This document states:
  • “DEC staff believe the currently proposed project will not meet permit issuance standards under NYCRR 663.5(e)”  
“Freshwater Wetlands regulations (6 NYCRR 663) require that disturbances to the wetland and its 100 foot adjacent area first be avoided, then minimized to the maximum practicable extent, followed by mitigation for proposed disturbances within regulated areas which cannot be avoided or minimized, in order to meet permit issuance standards”
“In order for the Department to continue processing your application, you must submit a revised proposal that demonstrates conformance with Freshwater Wetland regulations and the objectives of preservation and protection of wetlands”
CONTINUED APPLICATION AND SEQR REVIEW
REAL ESCAPES PROPERTY, LLC, c/o Simone Harari– Body of Truth Spa, Special Use Permit as per 140-42 of the Town of Rochester Code for expansion of a non-conforming use membership club to include expansion of parking area, additions to main house and office, expansion of pond and landscaping, new construction of a gym/fitness barn, outdoor meditation pavilion, and sauna building, additions of septic systems and well, and removal of garage structure, Kyserike Road, Tax Map #69.4-2-2, ‘AR-3’ Zoning District

 

Part 3 SEQRA DRAFT-CONT’D:

 

Mitigation Measures

 

On Feb. 24, 2011, the applicant and her engineer Mr. Medenbach held a meeting with Scott Ballard and Brian Drumm of Region 3 of the NYSDEC.  Mr. Medenbach has prepared a meeting note account of this session and presented the notes to the Planning Board for review.   This meeting led to substantial change to the construction of the pond and the related wetland area and Site Plan revisions were subsequently prepared to show these modifications as follows:

 

  • Sauna & Stone Patio – The proposed sauna has been realigned and relocated out of the existing wetland 100′ adjacent area. The revised plan shows the stone sauna patio and stairs only are within the existing wetland 100′ adjacent area. The proposed sauna footprint and patio have been reduced. The sauna was 60′ x 30′ and has been changed to 50′ x 30′. The proposed sauna patio has been reduced from the dimensions of 20′ x 100′ to 10′ x 70′.
  • A new 100′ adjacent area limit has been added to the Plan for the proposed pond expansion.
  • The septic disposal area is now out of the existing wetland 100′ adjacent area and the new 100′ adjacent area shown for the proposed pond expansion. This will comply with the UCHD setback requirements.
  • To preserve and mitigate the 100′ adjacent area, a 15′ unmowed strip has been added to the plan. The strip will be maintained between the aquatic bench and the mowed lawn area and will contain native vegetation as labeled on the map. The maintenance section of the SWPPP includes the mowing limit to preserve the 15′ unmowed strip. The 15′ strip is shown on Plan Sheet GP-3 and illustrated in the pond sections on GP-3.
  • To mitigate the 100′ adjacent area, a 10′ aquatic bench has been added to the Plan for the pond expansion area. The aquatic bench will be planted in 1.5′ of water with native wetland plants and vegetation and is shown on Plan Sheet GP-3 and illustrated in the pond sections on GP-3.
  • The SWPPP contains a stormwater maintenance plan for the drainage facilities. Additional maintenance that will be added for the 100′ adjacent area buffer will include the restriction of pesticides and the mowing limits around the pond to maintain the 15′ strip. The pond is not being used as a component of the SWPPP. The SWPPP facilities will all be located upland of the pond and wetlands.
  • The new expanded pond interior will be loose stone randomly placed on the bottom that will include random stone piles to provide fish habitat.
  • Plan sheet GP-3 now included Section D-D which includes Phase 1 – 3 for the pond expansion.
  • Plan sheet SC-l illustrates and describes in the Pond Earthwork Sequence of Construction Activity that the dredged material from the existing pond which will be cleaned of sediment (phase 3) will bestockpiled at the Temporary Topsoil Stockpile as shown on the plan until all pond water is removed. The topsoil will be seeded and the downslope perimeter will be surrounded with silt fence. Once dry, the material will then be spread for final landscaping and grading near the proposed gym as shown on Plan Sheet SC-l. The dredging material will be treated differently than the excavation material.
Planning Board Conclusion

 

The Involved Agency NYSDEC is the regulatory agency tasked with Wetlands Regulation in New York State and the Planning Board finds no compelling evidence to not concur with their expert analysis.  
As written in correspondence received July 12, 2011 from Joseph R. Murray, NYSDEC Environmental Analyst, NYSDEC states:
“…It is opinion of the Department that the applicant has successfully demonstrated within those plans that the project will in fact meet those weighing standards and by extension issuance standards.  The Department will ensure that the project as currently proposed will minimize impacts to the wetland to the greatest extent practicable through conditions within the final permit…”
CONTINUED APPLICATION AND SEQR REVIEW
REAL ESCAPES PROPERTY, LLC, c/o Simone Harari– Body of Truth Spa, Special Use Permit as per 140-42 of the Town of Rochester Code for expansion of a non-conforming use membership club to include expansion of parking area, additions to main house and office, expansion of pond and landscaping, new construction of a gym/fitness barn, outdoor meditation pavilion, and sauna building, additions of septic systems and well, and removal of garage structure, Kyserike Road, Tax Map #69.4-2-2, ‘AR-3’ Zoning District

 

Part 3 SEQRA DRAFT-CONT’D:

 

The Planning Board has further reviewed the Site Plan revisions prepared by the applicant’s engineer with regard to Town of Rochester Town Code Chapter 140 and find no conflicts.  A detailed Pond plan and sections (GP-3) has been provided with the following Wetlands facts established.
  • The Wetland Disturbance will be +/- 0.44 acres.
  • The Adjacent Area Disturbance will be +/- 0.58 acres
  • The proposed pond will be expanded +/- 0.62 acres and there will be a net increase in Wetlands of +/- 0.25 acres from the pond creation.
A pond Earthwork Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (SC-1) has been provided to illustrate the plan.  This plan includes a detailed Sequence of Construction Activity which is appropriate and will be required to be complied with.  A Final Grading Plan has been submitted as well (SC-2) to illustrate post construction measures.   
 
Therefore, based on the NYSDEC statement above and the Planning Board’s review of the project modifications, the Town of Rochester Planning Board finds the potential large impact to be mitigated by the modifications proposed.  

 

Small to Moderate Impacts

 

In review of the application and the SEQRA Part 2, the Planning Board has identified several aspects of the project which can be classified as Small to Moderate Impacts.  Although the regulations of SEQRA do not require Part 3 explanation of these impacts, the Planning Board desires to include a discussion of these impacts.

 

Development
The project, as proposed by the applicant, will entail a physical change to the project site of 2.0 acres of a 20.5 acres site.  Site disturbance of this magnitude require the development of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) which must be approved and will be regulated by the NYSDEC, as it is a regulatory permitting agency on this application with the issuance of a Freshwater Wetlands permit. In addition, the project will require more than 1 year of construction.  The Planning Board is aware of the potential impacts on traffic and neighboring properties during this construction, but believes these impacts do not rise to potentially large levels.  Construction hours will be determined and made a part of approval and the UCDPW will be consulted to determine if any construction vehicle restrictions should be imposed in issuance of approval.  As the conditions of this development project will be highly regulated by the permitting and approval processes of the Involved Agencies UCHD, UCDPW, NYSDEC, and NYSOPRHP the Planning Board does not believe this 2.0 acre development rises above the level of a small to moderate impact.  

 

Stormwater Runoff  

 

The Planning Board notes the potential exists for changes to existing stormwater runoff patterns due to the project site changes.  Stormwater discharges will be addressed in the manner as described in the applicant’s Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) which, as indicated above, will be under the regulatory powers of the NYSDEC.  The Planning Board compliments the applicant on the use of rain gardens as mitigating measures and finds the Stormwater impacts will not rise beyond a small to moderate level of impact.
CONTINUED APPLICATION AND SEQR REVIEW
REAL ESCAPES PROPERTY, LLC, c/o Simone Harari– Body of Truth Spa, Special Use Permit as per 140-42 of the Town of Rochester Code for expansion of a non-conforming use membership club to include expansion of parking area, additions to main house and office, expansion of pond and landscaping, new construction of a gym/fitness barn, outdoor meditation pavilion, and sauna building, additions of septic systems and well, and removal of garage structure, Kyserike Road, Tax Map #69.4-2-2, ‘AR-3’ Zoning District

 

Part 3 SEQRA DRAFT-CONT’D:

 

Transportation

 

The applicant submitted a traffic analysis of the project with regards to Kyserike Road (County Route 6). The Planning Board notes the Ulster County Department of Public Works (DPW) is the controlling agency for this roadway.  As such, this agency was named an Involved Agency and comments have been sought during the review of this application.  The DPW responded with concerns regarding the location of the driveway which the applicant and the Planning Board have incorporated into the proposed Site Plan.  The DPW has subsequently issued highway permit #29A on September 17, 2010 in response to these revisions.  The Accord Fire District was also contacted to review the application and has signed off on the access drive.  

 

The applicant stipulates, in their revised EAF, a maximum anticipated vehicular trip number of 36 per hour.  The Planning Board has also sought out actual traffic count studies from the DPW and received in response reports from May 2006 and May 2009 which indicate daily weekday trip counts ranging from 893 – 974 per day.  
The Planning Board submitted these studies and the applicant’s analysis to the Town planning consultant Clark Patterson Lee (CPL) for review.  The consultant offers this opinion:
“The primary concern brought up by the neighbor is in regards to traffic volumes and impacts in an area zoned AR-3 (Residential Agriculture).  The traffic study mentioned above does not take into account the zoning aspect of the concern, which is a decision to be made by the Planning and/or Zoning Board(s), but does address the potential traffic impact.  In regards to this issue, the applicant has provided sufficient analysis that the proposed facility, although adding some volume to the roadway, would not “result in the generation of traffic significantly above present levels” from a quantative standpoint”.

 

The Board notes this is a County road whose purpose is as a major street to collect traffic from minor streets and deliver it to US Route 209 and County Route 1 (Lucas Turnpike).  The Planning Board notes the absence of any comments from the DPW regarding traffic or congestion issues in their communications and believes the DPW would have raised concerns were they to have them.  The Board further notes the Rondout Valley School campus is located immediately across the street from the project site and a large retail business, Williams Lumber, lies less than 1 mile to the East of the project site.  Both of these entities already generate a specific level of traffic for the roadway.  Additionally, during the review process of this application, the NYS Dept. of Transportation has installed a traffic signal at the intersection of Kyserike Road and US Route 209.  This addition will help to regulate the orderly flow of traffic to and from Kyserike Road.  After reviewing the DPW communications, the applicant’s analysis, the DPW studies provided, and the Planning Board consultant report, the Planning Board finds the question of traffic impacts does not rise above the level of a small to moderate impact.     

 

Noise

 

The Planning Board notes there will be an increase in the usage of the property, if approved, and the potential exists for increased outside operating noise levels due to increased property usage.  The NYSDEC, in its document Assessing and Mitigating Noise Impacts, indicates the factors utilized to determine the level of noise as follows:
“Numerous environmental factors determine the level or perceptibility of sound at a given point of reception. These factors include: distance from the source of sound to receptor; surrounding terrain; ambient sound level; time of day; wind direction; temperature gradient; and relative humidity. The characteristics of a sound are also important determining factors for considering it as noise. The amplitude (loudness), frequency (pitch), impulse patterns and duration of sound all affect the potential for a sound to be a noise. The combination of sound characteristics, environmental factors and the physical and mental sensitivity of a receptor to a sound determine whether or not a sound will be perceived as a noise. This guidance uses these factors in assessing the presence of noise and the significance of its impacts. It relies upon qualitative and quantitative sound evaluation techniques and sound pressure level impact modeling presented in accepted references on the subject.
 Alternative construction or operational methods, equipment maintenance, selection of alternative equipment, physical barriers, siting of activities, setbacks, and established hours of construction or operation, are among the techniques that can successfully avoid or reduce adverse noise effects.”

 

CONTINUED APPLICATION AND SEQR REVIEW
REAL ESCAPES PROPERTY, LLC, c/o Simone Harari– Body of Truth Spa, Special Use Permit as per 140-42 of the Town of Rochester Code for expansion of a non-conforming use membership club to include expansion of parking area, additions to main house and office, expansion of pond and landscaping, new construction of a gym/fitness barn, outdoor meditation pavilion, and sauna building, additions of septic systems and well, and removal of garage structure, Kyserike Road, Tax Map #69.4-2-2, ‘AR-3’ Zoning District

 

Part 3 SEQRA DRAFT-CONT’D:

 

The human ear does not perceive changes in sound level in the same degree that sound energy increases. This means that most people would barely notice a 3 dB change in sound level. A 6 dB change is clearly noticeable, while a 10 dB increase would be perceived as doubling of the loudness.  Recommendations relevant for this site suggest that new noise sources combined with existing background noise conditions should not exceed the “upper limit” of 65 decibels (dB) at the property line. This “upper limit” 65 (dB) allows for speech at approximately three feet. The “protective noise level” recommendation is 55 dB at the property line, which is sufficient to protect public health and welfare and will not create an annoyance. The noise levels generated from music, outdoor classes and vehicles at the site is not expected to exceed the “protective noise level” of 55 dB at the property line. This is substantiated by the NYSDEC guidance document, which predicts the following reduction of noise levels: distances greater than 50 feet from a sound source, every doubling of the distance produces a 6 dB reduction in the sound.
As this project site is located on a County Road and directly across from the Rondout Valley School complex the ambient noise levels are believed by the Planning Board to be somewhat higher than average agricultural/residential areas in the Town of Rochester.  The Board notes there are peak times of day where the noise levels would be increased due to traffic use or school athletic events.  

 

The applicant proposes a modification from the original plan with the enclosing of the pavilion. The applicant proposes to add a minimum 6’ fence between themselves and the adjacent neighbor which will reduce the dB level at the lot line. Any special events to occur on the site will limit any evening amplified reception music to inside the pavilion. The pavilion use will be restricted at the applicant’s own request and the hours of operation of those events will be restricted by condition. Therefore, the Planning Board finds the question of noise impacts does not rise above the level of a small to moderate impact

 

DISCUSSION:
Mr. Ricks had a question on the noise overall. He had a Bed and Breakfast near his house that had weddings there similarly and if you had 200 people there at a wedding for example the pavilion that is going to be enclosed now- the wedding isn’t going to be inside that. He was just wondering if they were going to have events catered there he didn’t know where they could have a place to even sit 200 people. They were probably going to have a tent brought in with the sides and stuff. And then where would the music be played and things like that? He didn’t want to get into a thing here where they were listening to decibel levels at the property line. He was over a quarter of a mile away from his neighbor and when they brought in bands he couldn’t hear his TV playing and that was a quarter mile away.

 

Chairman Baden thought that this was something that they would have to consider separate from the SEQRA in terms of when they discuss the possible approval with the special events. That will have to be addressed somehow in the conditions.

 

Mr. Ricks understood that they wanted to have special events, but he thought that this whole thing with the decibel level was really going to limit it and he didn’t really see with the facilities they had- 200 guests—He didn’t see a place to seat or feed or have a wedding that big.

 

Chairman Baden noted that the only reason that that number was thrown out there was because that was what they approved last time. When they go through the review of the application itself they would cover that.

 

Mr. Ricks questioned why it wasn’t relevant right here?

 

CONTINUED APPLICATION AND SEQR REVIEW
REAL ESCAPES PROPERTY, LLC, c/o Simone Harari– Body of Truth Spa, Special Use Permit as per 140-42 of the Town of Rochester Code for expansion of a non-conforming use membership club to include expansion of parking area, additions to main house and office, expansion of pond and landscaping, new construction of a gym/fitness barn, outdoor meditation pavilion, and sauna building, additions of septic systems and well, and removal of garage structure, Kyserike Road, Tax Map #69.4-2-2, ‘AR-3’ Zoning District

 

Part 3 SEQRA DRAFT-CONT’D:

 

Mrs. Christiana noted that this was looking at the maximum potential impacts.

 

Mr. Ricks was just reading this and trying to recall the back and forth with the applicant and it doesn’t seem like this really follows what they were talking about. He thinks the Chairman did a great job on the whole thing- but he felt that the biggest stickler with the whole thing is the neighbor.

 

Chairman Baden questioned if Mr. Ricks thought that the noise needed to be reclassified as a potential large impact?

 

Mr. Ricks wasn’t sure. He didn’t think that he heard an exact clear description from the applicant whether its in writing or not, exactly how they describe the special events that are going to be there—how large they are going to be, how many people, are the going to feed them there or is there going to be a tent- are they going to have music that is outside or is it going to be inside? He hasn’t heard any of that

 

Chairman Baden noted that this goes along with the question that he threw out there earlier- were special events even applied for? If you look back in the original application there is no mention of outside special events and the use for members and their guests.

 

Mr. Ricks thought that was the whole reason for building the pavilion.

 

Chairman Baden noted that in the EAF it was listed as an outdoor meditation pavilion. That’s what they have to determine- was that part of the application.

 

Mr. Ricks just didn’t want this application to end up like the last one where the Board was thinking in one direction and the applicant wanted something else and then it ends up in a conflict again.

 

Chairman Baden felt that they could complete the SEQRA at this point and they could resolve that in their decision discussions.

 

Mr. Ricks just didn’t feel like they had all of the information on the special events yet if that’s what they are addressing. The easiest question is at these special events are they going to have a band or music, the answer is yes, where are they going to play.

 

Chairman Baden noted that they could also condition the approval to however they want to condition it.

 

Mr. Cappello and Mr. Medenbach noted from the Audience that they had specifics that they had submitted about that.

 

Mr. Ricks stated that he didn’t recall seeing that.

 

CONTINUED APPLICATION AND SEQR REVIEW
REAL ESCAPES PROPERTY, LLC, c/o Simone Harari– Body of Truth Spa, Special Use Permit as per 140-42 of the Town of Rochester Code for expansion of a non-conforming use membership club to include expansion of parking area, additions to main house and office, expansion of pond and landscaping, new construction of a gym/fitness barn, outdoor meditation pavilion, and sauna building, additions of septic systems and well, and removal of garage structure, Kyserike Road, Tax Map #69.4-2-2, ‘AR-3’ Zoning District

 

Part 3 SEQRA DRAFT-CONT’D:

 

Chairman Baden noted that they still needed to resolve the overall issue about special events and whether or not they were even a part of the application or not. While they are doing SEQRA they are going over the  idea that they are. Chairman Baden read from letter dated September 13th 2011 from John Cappello it says the Planning Board in the July 2010 decision that was upheld by the Ulster County Supreme Court as related to the authority which allowed expansion of a pre-existing non conforming use overturned on SEQRA issues related to wetlands disturbance determined that weddings and special events could be held in the pavilion not exclusive of normal spa activities- meditation, work shop, spiritual, ceremonies, training. That was based on the Board’s decision. The letter continues to note that the PB limited these special events to a maximum of 16 events per calendar year with the maximum of 200 people per event. Concerns were raised by neighbor Dan Feldman regarding any potential impacts on his adjoining property use as a multifamily residence, artist studio, and facility for fundraising events, etc… In order to address Mr. Feldman’s concerns, the applicant has revised the plans to include a 6’ fence along the adjoining property line to provide for privacy for Mr. Feldman. The applicant has also as discussed in Mr. Medenbach’s EAF comments limited any amplified noise outdoor reception music associated with the receptions for these events to occur within the enclosed pavilion area which is located over 128’ from the property line to further mitigate any noise impact from these events. Additionally the applicant has voluntarily agreed to further limit any special events to 12 per calendar year instead of the 16 previously granted. The exhibit to the portion of this letter are the EAF comments from Mr. Medenbach’s office.

 

Mr. Ricks noted that the only thing he was thinking of was that 128’- any time you plug in any kind of music, 128’ is nothing.

 

Chairman Baden noted that the language in the exhibit submitted was a lot of what he put into the Part 3 as the mitigating measures because that is what they are stating.

 

Mrs. Christiana suggested adding in there in that case that it will take place in an enclosed building.

 

Mr. Ricks questioned what the size of the enclosed pavilion was?

 

Chairman Baden noted that it was 2,500 sf. And it was probably further from the pavilion to Mr. Feldman’s house than the property line.

 

Mr. Ricks didn’t have a problem with it as long as it was inside.

 

Chairman Baden noted that he would add a note to part 3 that their mitigating condition will be that any special events must take place in the pavilion and no outside use.
CONTINUED APPLICATION AND SEQR REVIEW
REAL ESCAPES PROPERTY, LLC, c/o Simone Harari– Body of Truth Spa, Special Use Permit as per 140-42 of the Town of Rochester Code for expansion of a non-conforming use membership club to include expansion of parking area, additions to main house and office, expansion of pond and landscaping, new construction of a gym/fitness barn, outdoor meditation pavilion, and sauna building, additions of septic systems and well, and removal of garage structure, Kyserike Road, Tax Map #69.4-2-2, ‘AR-3’ Zoning District

 

Part 3 SEQRA DRAFT-CONT’D:

 

Mr. Ricks felt that the weddings could be outside. The only problem he had was with the amplified music. He questioned if weddings would be inside a tent?

 

Ms. Harari noted that it would be inside and limited to 12 per calendar year.
Community Character

 

The Planning Board finds this aspect of the application to be more of a positive rather than a negative impact.  Construction jobs will be created and the expansion will lead to new employment opportunities for the community.  In addition, an enterprise such as this will bring tourists to the region thus spurring other economic development for local businesses.  The application plans to upgrade, enhance and enlarge the membership club to provide health, wellness, spiritual and recreation opportunities for individuals and small groups. The facility will serve as a magnet to bring people from the Hudson Valley and Metro New York area to the Town of Rochester for treatments and educational classes at the facility. The facility will draw people into the area to become familiar with the Town of Rochester and its amenities. It will also provide an attractive tax ratable for the Town. Finally the improvements will be developed in an architectural manner consistent with the existing historic home on the building.

 

Although the application does conflict with the current zoning regulations of the AR-3 district, the Planning Board notes this application is for the expansion of a pre-existing, non-conforming, approved project due to the deletion of the definition of “Membership Club” in the 2009 zoning code update.  The Town of Rochester code considers and allows for the expansion of non-conforming uses under the Special Use Permit process and the project was determined by the Code Enforcement Officer to meet these requirements.  The Planning Board finds the applicant has followed that process and thus finds only a small to moderate impact in this zoning conflict.

 

Impacts Not Determined To Be Significant

 

Endangered or Threatened Species and Habitats

 

During public comment on this application questions have been raised as to the potential impacts on endangered or threatened species and habitats related to the site.  The Planning Board Chairman has reviewed the application and EAF Part 1 prepared by the applicant and confirmed via the NYSDEC website the areas regarding these topics appear to be correctly responded to with a “No” reply by the applicant on the EAF.  The NYSDEC Natural Heritage Program tracks known occurrences of rare, endangered or threatened State and Federal species throughout the State and continually updates this information based on biological studies.  There is no record in the NYSDEC files of any endangered or threatened species onsite. The Planning Board also notes the NYSDEC, as an Involved Agency, has had representatives physically visit the site to review and delineate wetlands boundaries and they made no report of any findings of endangered or threatened species.   Endangered species is an area which the NYSDEC has historically commented on and the Planning Board notes no mention of an issue has been raised by the NYSDEC.  Further, the applicant has voluntarily retained their own consultant, Ecological Solutions LLC, which conducted a site visit and issued a thorough reply to these questions raised.  

 

Although a concern is raised regarding the potential for habitation of additional species beyond those identified by the DEC based on similar habitats (as referenced by the Town of Marbletown Biodiversity Report excerpt), the listing only represents a sample of species of conservation concern that are potentially associated with similar habitats in the region.  The region in this case encompasses the Hudson Valley region which stretches along the Hudson River from Albany County to Rockland County.
CONTINUED APPLICATION AND SEQR REVIEW
REAL ESCAPES PROPERTY, LLC, c/o Simone Harari– Body of Truth Spa, Special Use Permit as per 140-42 of the Town of Rochester Code for expansion of a non-conforming use membership club to include expansion of parking area, additions to main house and office, expansion of pond and landscaping, new construction of a gym/fitness barn, outdoor meditation pavilion, and sauna building, additions of septic systems and well, and removal of garage structure, Kyserike Road, Tax Map #69.4-2-2, ‘AR-3’ Zoning District

 

Part 3 SEQRA DRAFT-CONT’D:

 

The Planning Board notes the public comment study submitted prepared by Hudsonia Ltd is for the neighboring town of Marbletown in its entirety and contains potential endangered or threatened species whereas the applicant’s study is for the specific property.  The Planning Board further requested its consultant Clark Patterson Lee (CPL) to review the above information and issue an opinion.

 

Although the Planning Board realizes different consultants may arrive at different conclusions, the Planning Board finds it must look to the sources of the NYSDEC, the Involved Agency which administrates endangered or threatened species data in New York State, and actual field observations by the applicant’s representative as specific guidance rather than the potential impacts of a regional study and finds no basis for identifying these potential impacts as rising to a level requiring further review.

 

Environmental Impacts

 

The Planning Board has received comments questioning the existence of potential environmental impacts to the site. In response the applicant submitted a response of an Environmental Site Assessment.  The Planning Board referred these comments and studies to CPL for a review and opinion. CPL concludes:
“A Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) in accordance with ASTM E 1527-05 standards was completed in September of 2011 to reasonably identify any recognized environmental conditions, such as the presence or potential presence of hazardous materials or petroleum products, which may impact the environmental quality of the site.  The results of this assessment indicate that there is no observable evidence of past or current activities or actions of environmental contamination, including petroleum products or hazardous wastes in the soil, water or air.  Although a concern was raised in regards to a chicken farm on or near the property, this does not represent a condition that would impact the environmental quality of the site.  As such, agricultural activities are regarded as a de minimus condition, meaning that conditions do not generally present a threat to human health or the environment and would generally not be the subject of an enforcement action if brought to the attention of appropriate governmental agencies (ASTM E 1527-05 1.1.1).”

 

Upon review of these reports and information obtained from the NYSDEC website the Planning Board finds no basis for identifying these potential impacts as rising to a level requiring further review.    

 

Discussion Regarding Public Controversy

 

The Planning Board does note there has been some public controversy on the application, primarily in the form of objections from one neighboring individual.  This person has been heard in the form of public comment and in written comment by the Planning Board and the information presented has been reviewed and discussed.  The applicant has rebutted public comment with the submission of voluntary studies and information.  The Planning Board Chair submitted the comments and studies to the Town planning firm CPL with a request to offer opinion on specific topics.  A reply has been received and the language offered has been incorporated into this Part 3.  The Planning Board also notes the Rondout Valley School District, a significant bounding owner which has been notified of public hearings, has remained silent on any comments and has not raised any concerns regarding the project.

 

The Planning Board does note an Article 78 Supreme Court ruling was brought and found against the Town in its previous determination of SEQRA on this application. However, the Planning Board further notes the Hon. Justice Zwack found in favor of the Town regarding the prior Oct. 2010 Special Use Permit approval and it was the negation of the SEQRA determination which caused the Planning Board approval to be set aside, as without a Negative Declaration under SEQRA a Special Use Permit approval could not be considered and ultimately granted.  The court has referred the matter back to the Planning Board for further action.  The Planning Board notes also the applicant has utilized this time to advance aspects of the application and make positive change and the Planning Board believes the project as presented today is improved over the previously approved project of 2010.
CONTINUED APPLICATION AND SEQR REVIEW
REAL ESCAPES PROPERTY, LLC, c/o Simone Harari– Body of Truth Spa, Special Use Permit as per 140-42 of the Town of Rochester Code for expansion of a non-conforming use membership club to include expansion of parking area, additions to main house and office, expansion of pond and landscaping, new construction of a gym/fitness barn, outdoor meditation pavilion, and sauna building, additions of septic systems and well, and removal of garage structure, Kyserike Road, Tax Map #69.4-2-2, ‘AR-3’ Zoning District

 

Part 3 SEQRA DRAFT-CONT’D:

 

DISCUSSION ON SEQRA PART 3:
Mrs. Christiana wanted make sure that anywhere that they identified a large impact that they check the box saying that it can be mitigated by project change- #s 3, 4, & 12.

 

The Board did this.

 

Mr. Ricks motioned for a Negative Declaration under SEQRA based on Part 2 and Part 3 as read and discussed and to direct the Secretary to circulate the Negative Declaration under the conservation law and to publish the  finding of the Negative Declaration in the Environmental Notice Bulletin. Seconded by Mr. O’Donnell. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden:  Yes                                                     Tapper: Absent
O’Donnell:      Yes                                                     Rominger:       Absent
Ullman: Absent                                          Ricks:          Yes
Smith:          Yes                                                     
                                                                        
Motion carried. 4 ayes, 0 nays, 3 absent

 

Chairman Baden noted that they will circulate the Negative Declaration notice to all of the involved agencies and post it on the ENB. They will get that out and it will be in the Wednesday, October 5, 2011 edition. On October 11, 2011 they will continue the Public Hearing and he questioned if the Board was comfortable with the Cairman writing a draft decision and if anyone has any input on the special events or the overnight guests or anything, please forward any of the comments on to him.

 

Mr. Ricks noted that seeing they were at a workshop—what was their consensus on overnight guests?

 

Chairman Baden’s personal feeling was that they discussed it at length last time and he did not feel that it was applied for and he felt that if they wanted overnight guests that they should apply as a hotel or a Bed and Breakfast. Can a membership club have overnight guests? Certainly. Does this one have approval for it? His own interpretation for it is no it does not. He didn’t think it was applied for or reviewed. It was discussed peripherally, but he doesn’t think it was ever considered as part of the application. Everyone was entitled to their own opinion and whatever the majority is, that is what they will go with. He was willing to listen to anyone else’s arguments. He thought if members went back and looked at the 2010 minutes, especially the minutes leading up to the decision and the meeting of the decision it was discussed there. He thought that maybe special events got caught up in the discussion of overnight guests. He also did think it was reasonable to look at the special events part. It was included in the last decision, but again, he thought maybe everyone got caught up in the overnight guests discussion and it was overlooked.
CONTINUED APPLICATION AND SEQR REVIEW
REAL ESCAPES PROPERTY, LLC, c/o Simone Harari– Body of Truth Spa, Special Use Permit as per 140-42 of the Town of Rochester Code for expansion of a non-conforming use membership club to include expansion of parking area, additions to main house and office, expansion of pond and landscaping, new construction of a gym/fitness barn, outdoor meditation pavilion, and sauna building, additions of septic systems and well, and removal of garage structure, Kyserike Road, Tax Map #69.4-2-2, ‘AR-3’ Zoning District

 

Mr. Ricks noted that in a wedding sometimes if you use a wedding as an example of special events it kind of ties in with overnight guests where the bridal party would stay over the night before and get ready.

 

Chairman Baden noted that he wasn’t denying that it could be done; the question the Board needed to answer was is that what was applied for- and is it what a membership club is.

 

Mr. Ricks noted that the definition of a membership club was just so bad it could easily include it and it could easily not include it.

 

Chairman Baden noted that is the case where the Board needed to make their own determination.
Mr. Cappello noted that they would submit rebuttals and additional comments on parking. This being a special permit, special permitted uses if the Board feels comfortable with busses—

 

Mrs. Christiana asked that Mr. Cappello’s comments be put in writing as this wasn’t really the time to discuss this.

 

Mr. Cappello wanted to know if copies of the tapes could be preserved and he noted that they would talk with Mr. Feldman regarding a 6’ or 8’ fence and his preference.

 

Mr. David Gordon was present on behalf of James Bacon, Mr. Feldman’s Attorney. He wanted to know if the Public Hearing would be continued on October 11th?

 

Chairman Baden announced that the Public Hearing would be continued on October 11, 2011 and it may be continued or closed or potentially come to a decision. He wasn’t sure. Comments would be appreciated to be submitted sooner rather than later so they may be reviewed- no later than October 3, 2011 would be good.  

 

ADJOURNMENT

 

Mr. O’Donnell motioned to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Mr. Smith. All members present in favor.

 

As there was no further business, at 9:30 PM, Chairman Baden adjourned the meeting.
                                                                        
                                                        Respectfully submitted,
                                                        Rebecca Paddock Stange, Secretary       
                                                        As accepted November 9, 2011