PLANNING BOARD
TOWN OF ROCHESTER
ULSTER COUNTY
ACCORD, NEW YORK
(845) 626-2434
torpbzba@hvc.rr.com
MINUTES OF April 11, 2016 Meeting of the Town of Rochester PLANNING BOARD, held at the Town of Rochester Community Center, Accord, NY.
Vice-Chairman Paddock asked that everyone stand to say the Pledge to the Flag.
The Secretary did roll call attendance.
PRESENT: ABSENT Adam Paddock, Vice Chair Michael Baden, Chairman Maren Lindstrom Patrick Williams
Shane Ricks
Lawrence DeWitt
John Dawson
Also present:
Mary Lou Christiana, Attorney for the Town. Rebecca Paddock Stange, Secretary. Rick Jones, Alternate
ANNOUNCEMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
Town Board Referral for proposed amendment to Chapter 140 regarding Solar Energy, will be discussed under Other Matters.
TRAININGS:
Chairman Baden would be emailing the training list to the members.
ACTION ON MINUTES
Mr. Dawson motioned to accept the March 14, 2016 Minutes. Seconded by Ms. Lindstrom. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden: Absent Dewitt: Yes
Lindstrom: Yes Ricks: Yes
Paddock: Yes Williams: Absent
Dawson: Yes
Motion carried. 5 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, 0 abstentions
2016-01 SPA Continued Application, Public Hearing
Site Plan
Arrowood Farms LLC (applicant) and Let Lee (owner)
Proposes expansion of an existing use of a +/-10.4 acre parcel Agricultural Tourism Enterprises with brewery and tasting room and seasonal harvest celebrations.
236 Lower Whitfield Rd., S/B/L #68.4-4-23.110, ‘AR-3’ and ‘AP Overlay’ zoning districts
Located in Ulster County Ag District #3
Blake Arrowood was present on behalf of the application along with business associate, Jake Meglio.
Vice Chairman Paddock noted that the application was the expansion of the +/-10.4 acre parcel Agricultural Tourism Enterprises with brewery and tasting room and seasonal harvest celebrations.
The Board reviewed the revised site plan which showed the added over flow parking and lighting. They also showed the measurement of the road width and showed the location of the porta potties.
Mr. Arrowood clarified that the hours would be:
Thursday- 11am-6pm
Friday-11am-6pm
Saturdays- 12pm-8 or 9pm
Sundays-11am-6pm.
The hours would be no later than 9pm. As they were just opening, they were going to see what worked and what didn’t.
Mr. Ricks noted that if they wanted to stay open until 9pm to put 9 down, don’t put 7 or 8pm.
Ms. Lindstrom agreed and noted that they didn’t want to limit them.
Mrs. Christiana noted that Chairman Baden had prepared draft findings and he put the hours that were in the application that was presented in the findings. She noted that the Town couldn’t actually regulate the hours.
Vice Chairman Paddock requested additional details about the harvest celebrations. He questioned if they had come up with a number for events or a number of people that would be attending the events?
Mr. Arrowood noted that they sort of did that based on their over flow parking. He thinks they added about 80 extra spaces to the parking which puts them at about 250 to 300 people. That wasn’t all at one time… that was based on the idea that the celebration was over the course of a day. He saw people coming and going. It could be 20 people at a time, maybe 50 people every hour or 2. At an Agricultural Tourism place there’s more than that and it fluctuates.
Vice Chairman Paddock questioned if there would be any overnight stays or camping?
Mr. Arrowood answered no.
Mr. Ricks questioned if he was going to host any weddings or anything like that?
Mr. Arrowood noted that there were no plans to. His understanding was that they would need a special permit if they were going to do weddings.
Mr. Ricks questioned if they would host any personal special events?
Mr. Arrowood answered no, everything would be public.
Vice Chairman Paddock questioned if there would be any amplified music?
Mr. Arrowood noted that they have speakers outside on the exterior and they could turn those off when the interior was on.
Mr. Dawson noted that if they had a live band with amplified music, then the noise would leave their property line. That’s the issue. It brings in the additional questions of how loud it was and so on. Generally a lot of people just stay with acoustic, not amplified.
Mr. Ricks questioned if they would be okay with saying no amplified music.
Mr. Arrowood answered yes.
Mr. Dawson noted that they could always do something later.
Mr. Arrowood questioned what the specific regulation was concerning amplified music.
Vice Chairman Paddock noted that if they decided that they wanted DJs or live bands and things like that, the Board would require a noise study at the applicant’s expense. The idea is to keep it at certain decibel levels at the property lines.
Mr. Ricks noted that usually for small crowds, acoustic music is fine. Everyone can hear it and it’s not intrusive to the neighbors.
Mr. Arrowood thought that would be fine. They have no plans to bring in a big band or anything.
Mr. Ricks noted that when he was scanning through this and the farm brewer’s license and all that they were also allowed to go off site sometimes and serve?
Mr. Arrowood noted that yes, but they would need a NYS permit at least 30 days before that event. It would have to be at a licensed facility. Rosendale Street Fest, Farmer’s Market, Tap NY… events like that.
Ms. Lindstrom felt that the applicant’s seemed to address everything that was asked of them from last month. This was really for more for them to do what they can do. It wasn’t a special permit to have a different type of business there.
Mr. Ricks was all for the application, but last month it started evolving really quick and he was thinking that you could have a full blown bar or regular hang out here.
Mr. Arrowood believed that some of that confusion came in with the semantics where it went from celebrations to festivals. That certainly conveys a different idea of what they want to do.
Mrs. Christiana felt that they did need to get more specific though.
The Secretary agreed and noted that they were supposed to submit a written narrative detailing what they were going to do. They did not.
Vice Chairman Paddock noted that the Board is asking for the specifics. How many people, how many times a year.
Mrs. Christiana noted that they had the discussion of where this was going and the applicants indicated that this was an evolving process and they were still figuring that out. The Board asked for something in writing that would show when the festivals are, and how many people and they haven’t done that.
Mr. Arrowood noted that his understanding was that the over flow parking sort of dictates how many people they could have which was included in a site plan.
Mrs. Christiana noted that they actually have to make sure that the parking matches the number of people they were going to have.
Mr. Dewitt felt that the applicants were anxious to get their new budding operation off of the ground. Was there some way they could do this tonight?
Mrs. Christiana noted that it was still an open public hearing, so the Board still needed to hear what would come from that. The Board could, if they were not satisfied on the festival part of it and they were satisfied on the tasting room part of it— if they wanted to— and if nothing crazy came up, the Board could grant them the tasting room and deny them the festivals.
Mr. Arrowood clarified that they weren’t asking for any festivals.
Mrs. Christiana corrected herself and said celebrations.
Mr. Arrowood noted that ‘festival’ got thrown in there, and that was never part of the plan or application.
Mrs. Christiana noted that they should work on the tasting room then.
Mr. Arrowood noted that the application hasn’t changed and it stands and is exactly what they are looking for.
Mrs. Christiana noted that after the public hearing, the Board can decide solely on the tasting room. When the applicants know what they want to do, they can go back to the Building Dept if they want to expand further to have the harvest festivities or gatherings then they could go through the process for that. At this point all the Board was looking at was the tasting room.
Mr. Arrowood agreed.
The Board agreed.
Mr. Ricks questioned the hours of operation. Saturdays would be 9pm and the other days would be 6pm? And those needed to be submitted in writing?
Vice Chairman Paddock noted that right now they didn’t have until 9pm—they listed 11am-6pm every day, but they can change that in the findings.
Mr. Dawson noted that they should just change them all to 9pm.
Mr. Ricks realized that he was limited in the size of his building and deck, but how many people was the max that they could have there on a Saturday night?
Mr. Arrowood noted that 24 people was their occupancy.
Mrs. Christiana noted that they would be limited by the Fire Code in regards to occupancy.
Mr. Dawson noted that as per the Health Dept., the capacity is 24. It doesn’t matter if they were inside or outside—it was 24 total. The approval is for a certain amount. They could go later and ask for more, but it didn’t matter if they were inside or outside, the approval is for 24 total.
Mr. Ricks asked that because they were going to have some light food. What is approved now is what is approved for a long time. He realized that the business was going to grow and expand, but the Board wanted to know where it was going. The main reason to know all of these things is for the neighbors.
Mrs. Christiana noted that they said that they were looking at having limited finger foods to go with serving alcohol—cheese, pickles, breads, crackers… but, if in the future they were going to expand that and become a restaurant, they would need to come back.
Mr. Arrowood totally understood that as well as for any weddings or anything like that. Right now it’s the tasting room only.
At 7:20pm, Vice Chairman Paddock opened the public hearing. He asked the applicant to explain the application. He also instructed the public to state their names and address the Board. Also to remember that the Board was here to look at the safety and wellness of the area as it applies to the Planning and Zoning laws of the area.
Mr. Arrowood noted that Arrowood Farm started in 2013 as a small farm. They started growing their hops which was spurred by NYS Farm Brewery legislation giving incentives to farmers to grow barley and hops and stimulate local economy as a small brewery. They started their farm with growing the hops. They also added in ducks. Ducks have the highest levels of nitrogen in their waste which they thought would be a compliment for the hops which are nitrogen loving plants. So, they were trying to tie the farm and brewery together. They would also have pigs in the future where all of their grain will be fed to. So, they spent the first two years developing the farm with the ducks and the hops and the sheep integrated into the hop yard. The last year they spent building a small tasting room and brewery where they were bringing those ingredients together creating their beer and opening to sell to the public and hopefully stimulate their local economy. In the process they have used tons of makers and crafters and folks from our area to help them build their business and they hope to continue to do that.
Ann Marie Maloney was recognized to speak. She wished the applicants luck on their business. She heard that they were talking about harvest celebrations—how many would that be? They could harvest things from April all the way to mid-November. Was that every single Saturday and Sunday? Would there be 200 cars parking in there every weekend? If 200 cars do come in and the over flow is all taken up, he understood that Mr. Lee owns all of that property—what would stop people from parking on that land and thereby creating a large parking lot that she will have to look at every day? What’s to stop that?
Mr. Ricks noted that just before they opened the public hearing the Board was just discussing this. As of right now, the Board is just reviewing the tasting room. As far as festivals and things—if they were going to do anything like that, they would need to get more specific and apply for that separately.
Mrs. Christiana noted that she did just go back to the application—the festivals are on the applications.
Mr. Arrowood noted that he never put festivals on the application.
Mrs. Christiana read off of the application, it says, “Farm Brewery and tasting room using the agricultural ingredients grown on the site. Hops and Grain. Will brew our own beer, open the tasting room to the public, hold agricultural events, and hop harvest party, lamb roast and seasonal harvest celebrations.
Mr. Arrowood argued that a festival is much different than a celebration. There was concern because the notice to the public said that festivals were in there. When a neighbor reads ‘festivals’ they might get a different idea of what someone is trying to do.
Mrs. Christiana noted that we also don’t know what a celebration is either.
Vice Chairman Paddock noted that as far as the Board is concerned—the applicant hasn’t determined how big of a party or celebration it is. Right now it’s 24 people. If it was any more than 24 people, then a special use permit will have to be applied for. It can either be a tasting room by itself or the applicant can tell the Board exactly how big the parties are going to be and when they are going to be. He can come back in the future and apply for the celebrations or festivals or whatever they wanted to call them, but they needed to have a number of people for the Board and how often they would be.
Mr. Ricks agreed that there was a fine line between a celebration and a festival when they weren’t defining the size. This is obviously the public’s concern also.
Mr. Dawson noted that there wouldn’t be any offsite parking—the parking permitted would be on this site—not on the partner’s other lands or anything like that.
Mr. Arrowood agreed.
Mrs. Maloney understood that and she was aware of that, but what she was saying was that their road is adjacent to Mr. Lee’s property, which was adjacent to her property. There was nothing to stop people from parking on that property. Who would be on Lower Whitfield Road regulating parking? That’s what she was afraid of.
Mr. Arrowood noted that the land that they were talking about was 10 acres between their site and their neighbor’s site and that is all being used to grow grain on. They weren’t going to drive cars on a crop that they were growing on. It wasn’t going to happen.
Mr. Dawson noted that everything that they are doing is on that site.
Mrs. Maloney questioned how it was stopped if they break that?
Mr. Dawson noted that someone reports it if they see it. That’s how everything happens.
Vice Chairman Paddock noted that another thing that everyone needed to understand was that what the Board couldn’t do was assume that they were going to intentionally or unintentionally break the law.
Mrs. Maloney understood this. She wanted them to do well in their business. Down the road they have an apple orchard and when they did something like this last year—the parking was coming all the way down Lower Whitfield Road. How do you stop that? How many people are allowed to do that?
Mr. Dawson noted that there is no public parking on Town roads, you would call the troopers.
Mrs. Maloney understood that, but asked who was going to govern that?
Mr. Dawson noted that you call the troopers and every one of them will get a ticket.
Mrs. Maloney didn’t want to go that far—she just wanted to make sure that there was something in place so they didn’t need to do that.
Mr. Dawson noted that the Board doesn’t go out and do it, so the troopers are your recourse in that instant.
Mrs. Christiana noted that they had to assume they were going to comply until they don’t.
Vice Chairman Paddock stated that the answer was exactly what Mr. Dawson was saying- there is no parking on public roads. They aren’t allowed to. The Board as to assume that they are going to follow the laws of the Board and of the Town. What they do have is space on the property that has been laid out on the plan and you can see it clearly, for overflow parking for future events should they be approved. Today they are talking about a tasting room that is going to hold a maximum of 24 people and be open to a maximum of 9pm.
Brian Scanlon lived on Mettacahonts Road for 41 years now. The traffic was starting to pick up a lot. A lot of them come out of the trailer park and when the come down to the corner of 209 and Mettacahonts there is no way of getting out there. Extra traffic is going to cause more traffic to try and get out on Route 209. Route 209 is a heavy highway and there are a lot of accidents in that area. A lot of fatalities. So a traffic light or anything to protect the public should be looked at. There are a lot of kids on bikes on that road as well.
Vice Chairman Paddock questioned if this had to be referred to NYS DOT?
The Secretary answered no because it wasn’t accessing a State Road.
Mrs. Christiana noted that it was an agricultural use, so they didn’t even do SEQRA.
Mr. Ricks agreed that it was an Ag use… they have had a few up there. The apple orchards, farm stands…
Vice Chairman Paddock understood the concern, but a place that holds a maximum of 24 people didn’t warrant such mitigations.
Mary Duffy also lived on Mettacahonts Road questioned if the new owners owned the property or if they were renting the land?
Mr. Arrowood noted that they rent the land from Mr. Lee.
Mrs. Christiana noted that Mr. Lee has given them permission to bring this application to the Board.
Mr. Dawson made a motion to close the public hearing. Seconded by Ms. Lindstrom. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden: Absent Dewitt: Yes
Lindstrom: Yes Ricks: Yes
Paddock: Yes Williams: Absent
Dawson: Yes
Motion carried. 5 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, 0 abstentions
Vice Chairman Paddock noted that in Chairman Baden’s draft decision, he wrote it to allow the tasting room, but does not allow for celebrations. However, when they have a more definite plan, they could certainly come back. He understood where the applicants were coming from and that they had this space and a couple times a year they wanted to throw a party. It is a public place, they have to stick to the rules, they could always come back and they could expand the use. What they were looking at today was only the tasting room.
Ms. Lindstrom wanted confirmation that nothing would be stopping them from having a private party of just their friends to pick hops or whatever.
Mrs. Christiana agreed noting a private party of their own—not for someone else—is acceptable. They can pick their hops.
Mr. Arrowood asked if they were looking into the fall and they go feedback that there would be 200-300 people. Would that take another 3 meetings?
Mr. Dawson stated that there was no telling.
Vice Chairman Paddock noted that it could take more depending on public comment. It could take less.
Mrs. Christiana noted that Woodstock Animal Sanctuary took a few months were Crested Hen took almost a whole year.
Mr. Ricks agreed, but noted that they may want to consider putting up tent locations, look more at their parking, porta potty locations, music if it was amplified or not…
Mr. Dawson noted that they may need to look into widening their road more depending on how many people they were proposing.
At this time the Board reviewed the Draft Findings as prepared by Chairman Baden:
Findings of the Planning Board
1. The Planning Board has received zoning referral for Site Plan Approval for expansion of an “Agricultural Tourism Enterprises” use from the Code Enforcement Officer and an application, EAF, Site Plan, and related documentation from the applicant.
2. The application proposes retail sales, brewery tasting facility, and seasonal harvest celebrations using their agricultural space to grow their own hops, grain, ducks, sheep- all of that working together and will be going into a new brewery and tasting room.
3. The parcel is located in the ‘AR-3’ zoning district pursuant to the Town of Rochester zoning code.
4. The parcel is additionally located in the ‘AP Overlay’ zoning district. There is no increase of water usage proposed with the use.
5. The parcel to be developed is known as S/B/L 68.4-4-23.110.
6. The parcel is located within to the Ulster County Ag District #3. An Agricultural Data Statement was prepared and presented.
7. The parcel has road frontage on Lower Whitfield Rd., a Town of Rochester maintained highway.
8. The parcel existing use is for agricultural use.
9. Existing improvements on the parcel include brewery, gravel path, bluestone patio, deck, barn, water and septic, and gravel driveway with 18 space parking area.
10. The application was determined to be a Type 2 SEQRA use as it is an agricultural use in a county agricultural district.
11. The applicant states
a. They planted hops last spring. They planted an acre of hops. They have 400lbs of yield of hops which is a good start. This coming year will be a full crop. It takes about 4 years to fully mature. The plant can last up to 50 years. They put deer fence up around the hops. The hops grow on poles.
b. There was a new building that they put up last year. The Brewery has Health Dept. approval. They built a parking lot and what they want to do now is to sell the beer, eggs, and farm products. The footprint of the parking lot is out there now in gravel. They have a nice stone patio and they are still making some improvements.
c. That in 2012 NYS Farm Brewing Legislation was amended to allow tasting rooms to sell beer by the pint. It is still defined as a tasting room
d. The operation would use between 300 and 500 gallons of water a day.
e. The tasting room would be open on Thursday from 6pm-9pm, Friday from 4pm-9pm, Saturday from 12pm-9pm and Sunday from 12pm -6pm. This is different from the applicant’s written statement which stated open times to be from 11am-6pm on the weekends.
f. When they were open patrons could buy pints and growlers.
g. They were going through the Dept. of Health to get approved to serve finger foods such as cheese, bread, and pickles,
h. There would be tables where people could sit
i. There are some big times seasonally in their farming operation, mainly the hop harvest which happens at the end of August, beginning of September. That is something that is extremely labor intensive. This year they had about 15 friends and neighbors who came and helped them. They just want to do that again, and as the harvest grows, be able to have more neighbors be able to share that with them. As well as with the pigs and the sheep, when they harvest them throughout the year, to have a BBQ and have folks come out for that as well.
j. There would be no music at the events.
k. They “have no idea” as to how many people they anticipate at the celebrations.
l. All events that are planned now are tied to agriculture, hops harvest—where people could come and help with harvesting the hops and have a beer. It wouldn’t be like Woodstock. The hop harvest and grain harvest’s happen once a year each. Hop harvest happens in late July early August and the grain would be in late spring, early summer. They would be putting in other crops too probably. They also raise lamb and pigs.
m. There would be no camping associated with the celebrations
12. The application was required to be referred to the Ulster County Planning Board which returned a comment of “Required Modifications” regarding Health Dept., Lighting, and Access. Also Advisory Comments were made as to the celebrations.
13. The Planning Board requested the Code Enforcement Officer review the existing driveway to ascertain compliance with commercial use access. He replied the existing driveway is “adequate for said use and complies with the Fire Code”. The Board accepts this verification.
14. The Planning Board requested, on 3/14/16, a written description of celebrations and numbers of attendees and site plan details of possible tent locations, overflow parking and portable toilet locations.
15. The septic system has approval from the Health Department and was designed for 24 people with no food service, as per Mr. Medenbach.
16. The site plan proposal shows overflow parking areas, portable toilet areas, and proposed exterior lighting details. No new construction or other alterations to the existing site are proposed.
17. The applicant proposes no additional signage or landscaping with the application.
18. The applicant has been granted a federal license and NYS Liquor Authority license to operate as a farm brewery. Such license expires 12/31/2016.
19. The NYS Alcoholic Beverage Control law permits
A farm brewery license shall authorize the holder thereof to manufacture, bottle and sell food condiments and products such as mustards, sauces, hop seasonings, beer nuts, and other hops and beer related foods in addition to beer and hop soaps, hop pillows, hop wreaths and other such food and crafts on and from the licensed premises. Such license shall authorize the holder thereof to store and sell gift items in a tax-paid room upon the licensed premises incidental to the sale of beer. These gift items shall be limited to the following categories:
(a) non-alcoholic beverages for consumption on or off premises, including but not limited to bottled water, juice and soda beverages;
(b) food items for the purpose of complementing beer and cider tastings, which shall mean a diversified selection of food that is ordinarily consumed without the use of tableware and can be conveniently consumed while standing or walking. Such food items shall include but not be limited to: cheeses, fruits, vegetables, chocolates, breads, mustards and crackers;
(c) food items, which shall include locally produced farm products and any food or food product not specifically prepared for immediate consumption upon the premises. Such food items may be combined into a package containing cider, beer and/or hop related products;
(d) beer supplies and accessories, which shall include any item utilized for the storage, serving or consumption of beer or for decorative purposes. These supplies may be sold as single items or may be combined into a package containing beer;
(e) beer-making equipment and supplies including, but not limited to, home beer-making or homebrewing kits, filters, bottling equipment, hops, barley, yeasts, chemicals and other beer additives, and books or other written material to assist beer-makers and home beer-makers or homebrewers to produce and bottle beer;
(f) souvenir items, which shall include, but not be limited to artwork, crafts, clothing, agricultural products and any other articles which can be construed to propagate tourism within the region.
20. The Planning Board has determined the applicant is lacking detail as to how the celebrations would be run due to vague information as to approximate numbers of attendees, frequency of festivals celebrations, and other details.
Draft findings were prepared by the Chairman and were read and discussed by the Planning Board.
Adopted April 11, 2016
Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Absent: 2
Motion to adopt findings by Mr. Ricks Second by Mr. DeWitt
At this time the Planning Board reviewed the Required Modifications as directed by the Ulster County Planning Board as follows:
Motion:
To accept the Ulster County Planning Board comments of “Required Modifications”
1. Health Department
Comment:
Review of the sites septic by the County Health Department will be necessary. A review of the adequacy of the existing water supply to support the proposed use should also be conducted.
Response:
The Planning Board will require Health Dept. permits for food. Health Dept. approval has been secured for septic. The water supply has been determined adequate for the use.
Therefore the Planning Board accepts the mandate of the Required Modification.
2. Lighting
Comment:
Lighting levels should be calculated for the plan and levels should not exceed the Illuminating
Engineering Society (IES) Outdoor Site/Area Recommended Illuminance Levels (see attached). All luminaires should meet the “fully shielded” definition adopted by the International Dark Sky Association (IDSA) or be an approved fixture of IDSA. Where Metal Halide (MH) or Light Emitting Diode (LED) lamps are not proposed the applicant should be required to provide reasons why they were not chosen. MH and LED luminaires produce a more natural light (true color) as opposed to the yellowish-light of either high or low pressure sodium. Studies have shown that lower light levels are needed for this type of light than the yellowish light produced by HPS lamps. The LED fixtures are also more energy efficient, have a longer lamp life, and can be teamed with solar to add to project sustainability.
Response:
The applicant has provided lighting details and states all exterior lighting will be LED.
Therefore the Planning Board accepts the mandate of the Required Modification.
3. Access
Comment:
The existing driveway should meet the Town’s standards, particularly as it relates to providing sufficient right-of-way width for emergency response vehicles.
Response:
The Planning Board sought advisement from the Code Enforcement Officer as to the adequacy of the existing access. He concluded the existing access meets town standards and Fire Code.
Therefore the Planning Board accepts the mandate of the Required Modification.
Advisory Comment – Commercial Events Facility
Comment:
The applicant is currently proposing seasonal events, but it is unclear as to how many events will occur on site over the long term. Should the applicant desire to host weddings and other similar events they may need to apply to the Town for a Special Permit in order to become a “commercial events facility.
Response:
The Planning Board notes this advisory comment and concurs
Adopted April 11, 2016
Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Absent: 2
Motion to accept Required Modifications by Mr. Dawson Second by Ms. Lindstrom
At this time the Planning Board reviewed the draft resolution as follows:
RESOLVED,
The Town of Rochester Planning Board
Grants Site Plan -Conditional Approval to Blake Arrowood and Let Lee permitting the expansion of use Agricultural Tourism Enterprises for the operation of a farm brewery tasting room, as defined by NYS Ag & Markets and NYS Alcoholic Beverage Control.
AND
Denies Site Plan Approval to Blake Arrowood and Let Lee permitting the expansion of use Agricultural Tourism Enterprises for the operation of “farm harvest celebrations”.
For the lands situate at 236 Lower Whitfield Rd., known as S/B/L 68.4-4-23.110, and located in the ‘AR-3’ and ‘AP Overlay’ zoning districts.
The Site Plan presented Feb. 01, 2016 is approved with the following conditions and amendments.
Conditions of Approval for the Operation of a Farm Brewery Tasting Room:
1. The Site Plan shall be amended to change the project description from “Agricultural Retail Sales” to “Agricultural Tourism Enterprises”.
2. Any and all fees due to the Town of Rochester involving this application shall be paid in full prior to the Chairman’s signature on the Site Plan.
3. Prior to issuance of a certificate of compliance and commencing operation the following specific permits shall be secured. All conditions imposed in the granting of these permits shall be made a part of this Special Use approval Site Plan Approval. Should any conditions imposed by these other agency permits cause conditions to be in conflict, the more restrictive condition shall prevail. Should any permit approvals necessitate a change to the approved Site Plan, the matter shall be referred to the Planning Board for consideration.
a. Ulster County Board of Health approval shall be secured and/or certified as existing complying for water and septic use
b. Ulster County Board of Health approval shall be secured for food sales and preparation.
c. Applicant shall maintain a valid NYS Farm Brewery License and shall be responsible to adhere to all laws and regulations which are associated with such license.
d. Any and all applicable provisions of New York State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code associated with the use and/or structure shall be met. The facility shall be inspected and certified for compliance.
e. The Building Department shall determine the maximum occupancy for the facility according to the NYS Uniform Building and Fire Code and such occupancy shall be visibly posted.
4. The driveway shall be maintained to NYS Fire Code regulation and standards.
5. Parking shall only be allowed in the spaces designated on the approved and signed Site Plan. Parking shall not be allowed within the public road right-of-way or within the driveway or designated Site Plan traffic aisles at any time.
6. One existing parking space shall be made to meet accessible parking code standards and signage shall be posted indicating such parking restriction.
7. Sound, including but not limited to, live music, recorded music, public address systems, or any other sound or noise producing elements shall comply with Town of Rochester zoning code §140-20 (F) at all times, excepting any sound which may be generated by the normal and customary agricultural use of the property.
8. There shall be no changes in signage allowed from existing site conditions, except that which may be determined by the Code Enforcement office to not require Planning Board review and approval. Should changes be sought at a future time, the code standards at the time of application shall be applicable.
9. Any deviation from or amending of the approved and signed Site Plan shall require resubmission to the Planning Board, except as may be permitted as determined by the Code Enforcement Officer.
10. All Local, County, State, and Federal Laws or Codes shall be complied with and all required Local, County, State, or Federal permits shall be secured for the current or future use of these lands.
Effect of Approval:
1. This Site Plan approval and associated conditions shall be binding upon the applicant and all successive owners and/or lessees of the land so long as such use shall occur.
2. This approval shall remain effective as an authorization to secure the required permits and establish the use for a maximum of one year from this date of approval unless the applicant shall have submitted written request and the Planning Board shall have adopted such resolution granting an extension and provided the applicant has submitted proof of having diligently pursued the implementation of the plans.
The Town of Rochester Planning Board further grants the authority to the Chairman to certify condition 1 and 2 have been completed without further resolution and to sign and date the plat at such time.
Reasons for Denial for the Operation of Farm Harvest Celebrations:
1. The Planning Board understands some specific aspects of a business use may be unknown at inception, however finds this proposal to be severely lacking in even generalities. The Planning Board supports the intent of the use proposed, however is unable to apply the standards of the laws to the review as it has not been provided detailed enough information as to the exact nature of the “harvest celebrations”.
2. The application is lacking in details of frequency, scale, attendance, and general characteristics of what such celebrations may entail and the potential impacts on the community.
3. Lacking such detail, the Planning Board finds it impossible to review the proposed use for health, safety, and community welfare and has no choice except to deny the proposed use.
4. The Planning Board advises the applicant to establish a more detailed and specific plan and to resubmit to the Planning Board. The Planning Board will offer to apply the application fees already paid toward any future resubmitting of the application for the “harvest celebrations” use.
DISCUSSION:
Ms. Lindstrom explained that this application goes with the land, if someone else ever ends up running the business and it’s not clear as to what they are approved for, the Town has no enforcement over it. This is not the applicant getting the permit, it’s the land.
Adopted April 11, 2016, by the following vote:
Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Absent: 2
Motion made by Mr. Dawson Seconded by Mr. Dewitt
2005-12 SBD Amend Conditional Preliminary Approval Phase 2 and 3
2014-01 SBD Continued Application, Public Hearing
Major Subdivision
Catskill Farms, Inc aka Mountain Laurel Estates
Proposes amending of decision 2014-01 SBD granting Conditional Preliminary Approval for Phase 2 and 3 of a +/-90.44 acres subdivision of land into 15 lots. Applicant proposes amending decision to shorten the access road and reconfigure the parcel into 8 lots of varying size ranging from 5.0 acres to 19.50 acres.
private road Dawson Lane (off Samsonville Rd.), S/B/L 60.1-2-2.15 and 60.1-2-3, R-2 zoning district
Mr. Dawson recused himself from the application.
Mr. Jones, Alternate was asked to join the Board at the table.
Mr. Petersheim was present on behalf of the application along with engineer Barry Medenbach.
Mr. Petersheim noted that there were some recommendations at the last meeting that they took into consideration whole heartedly. They took those changes to the field to make sure that they made sense with the topo. It turned out that there were better ways for cars and emergency services to access. The proposal where the Board was happiest turned out to be a little gully. They moved the whole road, which was a clear road. There were a couple of logging trails and there was a nice one that set up a little higher and it made more sense. So they moved the whole road to the south. So, they followed the topo and it came out pretty nice and is better. It didn’t change the lot totals or substance of what was being proposed, which was 8 lots instead of 16. Lot 7 grew to 13 acres and lot 10 shrank.
Mr. Medenbach noted that he forgot to put a north arrow on the plan. He would fix that. have been a series of minor changes of lot lines. The length of the common road didn’t really change, it just slid over. What they shortened was the common driveway.
Mr. Ricks questioned if lot 7 would have to have a right of way to get over lot 9 to get on the road?
Mr. Medenbach noted that should have been cut back and would be fixed. They shouldn’t have brought the 50’ all the way across the cul-de-sac. They should have stopped. He will fix that. Either way it still works, but he’ll fix it. If you look at the private road. It’s an easement over all of the lots that it passes over so that easement goes all the way around… like he said, either way it still works, but he wouldn’t have run that 50’ strip like that.
Mr. Jones questioned if the water quality basin just served lot 7?
Mr. Medenbach noted that it was for the road mostly. There is kind of a natural area. They had originally designed it there when it was 23 lots. It is scaled way back and they pulled the road back, but with that original design they had designed all of the stormwater systems and this particular water quality basin was taking the run off from the road. The owner of the road, which is a Home Owner’s Association, will be responsible for it. There are requirements for how it is to be maintained and operated under DEC guidelines. That has been approved, but it will need to be modified and refiled with the State.
Vice Chairman Paddock noted that they needed to speak about lots 6 & 7 and the stormwater retention area. The property line runs right through it—and it would need a right of way and easement to it. Could they move the line so that it was all on one lot?
Mr. Medenbach noted that they were probably going to redesign that basin.
Vice Chairman Paddock confirmed that there would also have to be an amendment to the SWPPP at that point?
Mr. Medenbach answered yes.
Mr. Ricks questioned how the RMA was set up.
Mr. Petersheim noted that it is set up so there is a required amount that is put into an account each year. He would administer it until he is gone. Someone would be elected every January to administer it. It’s all set up. It’s all even, it doesn’t matter how much road frontage or where each lot is located.
Mr. Medenbach noted that when the deed changes hands it’s all laid out in there.
Mrs. Christiana would review the HOA when the time comes to make sure it’s still all relevant.
Vice Chairman Paddock noted that the Board received the referral response from the County and there was no County Impact.
At this time the public hearing was opened.
Mr. Medenbach explained that this application received approval in 2006 for 23 lots. Phase 1 received preliminary and final approval which was for 7 lots. The road was built for those lots. Those lots now have houses on them and will all be occupied by the end of July. The second phase which was originally going to be 15 lots is being scaled back now to 8 lots and they vary in size from a little over 5 acres to 21 acres. They are all large parcels. There will be an extension of a private road that will be maintained with a private Road Maintenance Agreement where the home owners will pay for the road. It’s a very rural wooded lot.
There was no public comment.
Ms. Lindstrom motioned to close the public hearing. Seconded by Mr. Ricks. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden: Absent Dewitt: Yes
Lindstrom: Yes Ricks: Yes
Paddock: Yes Williams: Absent
Jones: Yes
Motion carried. 5 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, 0 abstentions *including alternate
At this time the Board reviewed the amended findings as follows:
Findings of the Planning Board [amended April 11, 2016]
1. The Planning Board has received zoning referral for a Subdivision from the Code Enforcement Officer.
2. The application proposes to subdivide a parcel of land into 22 lots resulting in a Subdivision.
3. The Town of Rochester Planning Board granted Conditional Preliminary Approval for the project with decision PB2005-12SBD on 9/22/2006.
4. The project was subsequently divided into 3 phases. Phase 1 to be lots 1-4, 20-22. Phase 2 to be lots 5-9, 14, 15, 19. Phase 3 to be lots 10-13, 16-18.
5. Phase 1 was completed and Final Approval granted by the Town of Rochester Planning Board on 8/28/2007 and amended 12/18/2007.
6. The Phase 1 plat has been filed with the Ulster County Clerk dated 12/09/2007.
7. Upon review of decision PB2005-12SBD and NYS Town law Condition Preliminary Approval for Phase 2 and 3 previously granted has expired with time and in no longer valid.
8. The application for the development of Phase 2 and 3 must be reheard by the Planning Board and will be treated as a new application; however the information, reports, and studies conducted on behalf of the original application remain valid and will be made a part of the record and considered in the review of this application.
9. The Code Enforcement Office advised by letter the zoning permit remains valid as determined.
10. The applicant has prepared a new application for Subdivision and presented to the Planning Board.
11. Dawson Homes, Inc. applicant is John Dawson. He became a member of the Planning Board January 2014. He has recused himself from the review.
12. Town of Rochester Subdivision law, Chapter 125, was completely revised by Local Law #6 of 2009 and will apply to the new review. The zoning district for the parcels has changed from ‘A’ zoning district to ‘R-2’ zoning district with the revision. Under previous law there was no distinction for Major Subdivision classification. This application meets the definition of Major Subdivision under Town of Rochester Subdivision law, Chapter 125 and will be reviewed using those standards.
13. SEQRA coordinated review was completed and a Negative Declaration was determined 8/15/2006. The SEQRA determination remains valid with this application.
14. The entire project was the subject of significant environmental review under the initial application. Chazen Engineering & Land Surveying Co. PC, Town Planner and Engineer at the time, conducted significant review on behalf of the Town.
15. Dawson Homes secured Ulster County Real Property approval for the named private road Dawson Lane on 5/02/2006.
16. Dawson Homes secured Ulster County Dept. of Public Works approval for access to Samsonville Road for the private road Dawson Lane on 10/09/2007.
17. The parcels to be subdivided with Phase 2 and 3 are known as S/B/L 60.1-2-2.15 and 60.1-2-3.
18. Phase 2 and 3 encompasses +/-90.44 acres.
19. All proposed lots meet the bulk standards requirements for the ‘R-2’ zoning district.
20. The current use of the parcels is vacant land with heavily wooded conditions. Proposed lots for Phase 2 and 3 have no existing improvements.
21. Phase 1 has road frontage on Samsonville Road, County Route 3 and utilizes a private road known as Dawson Lane for individual lot access.
22. Phase 2 and 3 will utilize and extend private road Dawson Lane for access to the individual lots. All lots, as proposed, will exceed the required minimum road frontage on a mapped private roadway.
23. On March 21. 2006 the Planning Board granted the applicant a waiver to allow the private road to exceed 2000 feet based on the proposed 3 cul-de-sac turnarounds and letters from emergency services providers indicating the proposed road was adequate for emergency access. This waiver will continue to apply provided NYS Fire Code requirements are met in extension of the private road.
24. The previous proposal provided for utilization of a private driveway for lots 13, 16, 17, and 18. With Subdivision Code amendment in 2009 this is no longer allowable and the private roadway designation will be required to be extended.
25. NYS DEC has agreed to the delineation of nearby wetlands to the project as mapped by the applicant’s consultant and DEC staff has signed the filed map of Phase 1.These wetlands are located contiguous to Phase 1 parcels.
26. The Chairman conducted a visual onsite examination of the condition of the Dawson Lane and the existing stormwater improvements and reported they are in excellent condition and functioning as planned.
27. Applicant voluntarily agreed with Phase 1 approval to provide a “100 foot buffer to restrict clear cutting of trees except for clearing and grading related to utilities, drainage improvements, and removal of dead or diseased trees” by filed map restriction with Phase 1. This restriction will apply with the development of Phase 2 and 3.
28. A Stormwater Management Plan was prepared for the entire project. It will require recertification from the NYS DEC for the continued development of Phase 2 and 3.
29. A Stormwater Maintenance Declaration, Private Driveway Right-of-Way and Maintenance Declaration, Private Right-of-Way and Private Road Maintenance Declaration were filed in the offices of the Ulster County Clerk with Phase 1 dated 9/10/2007. This may require amending prior to Final Approval of Phase 2 and 3. The Planning Board will seek advisement from the Attorney for the Town on the applicability of these documents.
30. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have recommended to protect the forest habitat of the Indiana Bat. With such the applicant agreed to restrict the “conduct of tree clearing activities be limited between October 1 and March 30 and to minimize future forest clearing activities to the greatest extent possible” with Phase 1 plat declaration. This restriction will apply with the development of Phase 2 and 3.
31. The application for Phase 2 and 3 was referred to the Ulster County Planning Board which rendered a decision of “No County Impact”. Such referral requirement was a change in Ulster County law in 2009 and not required during previous review.
Draft findings were prepared by the Chairman and were read, discussed, and amended by the Planning Board.
Adopted May 12, 2014 by the following vote:
Ayes: 6 Nays: 0 Absent: 1
Motion to adopt findings by: Mr. Paddock
Second by: Mr. O’Donnell
↓
Findings 1 – 31as adopted 5/12/2014 by the Planning Board are found to remain except as noted below with the following changes and additions as amended 4/11/2016
32. The Subdivision has been sold Catskill Farms, Inc.
33. SEQRA coordinated review was completed and a Negative Declaration was determined 8/15/2006. The SEQRA determination remains valid with this application.
34. All references in findings 1 – 31, adopted 5/12/2014, to the words “Phases 2 and 3” are replaced with “Phase 2”.
35. Finding 2, 4, and 22 are deleted and replaced with the following language, respectively.
a. The application proposes to subdivide a parcel of land into 15 lots resulting in a Subdivision. Phase 2 has been amended to be 8 lots.
b. The project was subsequently divided into 2 phases. Phase 1 to be lots 1-4, 20-22. Phase 2 to be lots 5-12.
c. Phase 2 will utilize and extend private road Dawson Lane for access to the individual lots. All lots, except lot 8, as proposed, will exceed the required minimum road frontage on a mapped private roadway. Lot 8 will access by shared driveway over the land of lot 9. A road maintenance agreement will be required for the shared driveway between lots 8 and 9.
36. The application for Phase 2 was referred to the Ulster County Planning Board which rendered a decision of “No County Impact”.
Draft amended findings were prepared by the Chairman and were read and discussed by the Planning Board.
Adopted April 11, 2016 by the following vote: (Mr. Dawson recused, Mr. Jones seated)
Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Absent: 2
Motion to adopt findings by: Ms. Lindstrom
Second by: Mr. DeWitt
At this time the Board reviewed the resolution as follows:
RESOLVED,
The Town of Rochester Planning Board grants Major Subdivision-Conditional Preliminary Approval to Dawson Homes, Inc. permitting the subdivision of lands known as Mount Laurel Estates Phase 2 and Phase 3 situate at private road Dawson Lane off Samsonville Road, known as S/B/L 60.1-2-2.15 and 60.1-2-3 and located in the ‘R-2’ zoning district, into 15 lots.
CONDITIONS of APPROVAL:
11. Applicant shall present an independent plat for Preliminary Approval signature for Phase 2 and 3 indicating
a. The phrases “Preliminary Plat” and “Mount Laurel Estates Section 2 and Section 3” in the title block.
b. All applicable zoning data for the ‘R-2’ zoning district.
c. The proposed layout, numbering, dimensions and acreage of lots.
d. Tentative sites for houses, driveways and sewage systems, including designated building envelopes or alternatively provide documentation indicating professional engineer’s signed and sealed certification that each lot is buildable and has the ability to provide water, septic, and meet zoning district standards as proposed.
12. Any and all fees due to the Town of Rochester involving this application shall be paid in full prior to the Chairman’s signature on the plat.
13. All Local, County, State, and Federal Laws or Codes shall be complied with and all required Local, County, State, or Federal permits shall be secured for the current or future use of these lands.
The Town of Rochester Planning Board further grants Major Subdivision-Preliminary Approval permitting the subdivision of lands upon the satisfactory completion of conditions of approval condition 1 and 2. The Planning Board grants the authority to the Chairman to review and certify the conditions have been completed without further resolution and to sign and date the plat at such time.
EFFECT of APPROVAL:
1. Preliminary Approval
The subdivider, within three (3) years of the approval of the Preliminary Plan, shall install or, pursuant to Town of Rochester Code § 125-16, financially guarantee all subdivision improvements and submit the Plan in final form as provided herein. Preliminary Plan approval shall expire if a Final Plan is not submitted within three (3) years, unless the Planning Board shall have granted an extension of the preliminary approval based upon a phasing plan set forth as provided for submission of Final Plans by section, provided that no Preliminary Plan shall remain valid if a Final Plan(s) for all phases, has not been submitted within three years.
2. “Conditions to be Completed Prior to Final Approval Submission” are attached herein as “Attachment A” and are adopted by the Planning Board pursuant to NYS Town Law, Article 16, § 276 requirement of the Planning Board to state the requirements for Final Approval in writing.
Adopted May 12, 2014, by the following vote:
Ayes: 6 Nays: 0 Absent: 1
Motion made by: Mr. O’Donnell
Second by: Mr. Rominger
↓
The decision adopted 5/12/2014 by the Planning Board is removed and replaced with the decision below on 4/11/2016
RESOLVED,
The Town of Rochester Planning Board grants Major Subdivision-Conditional Preliminary Approval to Catskill Farms Inc. permitting the subdivision of lands known as Mount Laurel Estates Phase 2 situate at private road Dawson Lane off Samsonville Road, known as S/B/L 60.1-2-2.15 and 60.1-2-3 and located in the ‘R-2’ zoning district, into 8 lots.
CONDITIONS of APPROVAL:
1. Applicant shall present an independent plat for Preliminary Approval signature for Phase 2 indicating
a. The phrase “Preliminary Plat” in the title block.
b. The proposed layout, numbering, dimensions and acreage of lots.
2. Documentation indicating professional engineer’s signed certification that each lot is buildable and has the ability to provide water, septic, and meet zoning district standards as proposed.
3. Any and all fees due to the Town of Rochester involving this application shall be paid in full prior to the Chairman’s signature on the plat.
4. The location of proposed water quality basin shall be amended to encompass one lot.
5. A 50’ wide access easement from the private road Dawson Lane cul-de-sac to the water quality basin located on lot 7 shall be added for access for maintenance.
6. The stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) shall be amended as determined necessary due to the changes on the site plan resulting in less disturbance.
7. All Local, County, State, and Federal Laws or Codes shall be complied with and all required Local, County, State, or Federal permits shall be secured for the current or future use of these lands.
8. Final Plat shall show adjusted cul-de-sac lines and easements.
9. The Road Maintenance Agreement shall be presented with the Final Plan for review by the Attorney for the Town.
The Town of Rochester Planning Board further grants Major Subdivision-Preliminary Approval permitting the subdivision of lands upon the satisfactory completion of conditions of approval condition 1 through 6. The Planning Board grants the authority to the Chairman to review and certify the conditions have been completed without further resolution and to sign and date the plat at such time.
EFFECT of APPROVAL:
1. Preliminary Approval
The subdivider, on or before May 12, 2017, shall install or, pursuant to Town of Rochester Code § 125-16, financially guarantee all subdivision improvements and submit the Plan in final form as provided herein. Preliminary Plan approval shall expire if a Final Plan is not submitted within three (3) years, unless the Planning Board shall have granted an extension of the preliminary approval based upon a phasing plan set forth as provided for submission of Final Plans by section, provided that no Preliminary Plan shall remain valid if a Final Plan(s) for all phases, has not been submitted within three years.
2. “Conditions to be Completed Prior to Final Approval Submission”, as amended April 11, 2016, are attached herein as “Attachment A” and are adopted by the Planning Board pursuant to NYS Town Law, Article 16, § 276 requirement of the Planning Board to state the requirements for Final Approval in writing.
Adopted April 11, 2016, by the following vote: (Mr. Dawson recused, Mr. Jones seated)
Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Absent: 2
Motion made by: Mr. Ricks
Second by: Mr. DeWitt
TOWN OF ROCHESTER PLANNING BOARD
May 12, 2014
As Amended June 18, 2014 where noted
As Amended April 11, 2016 where noted
Attachment A
↓
All requirements and statements, adopted 5/12/2014 by the Planning Board, remain in force except as amended where noted below on 6/18/2014 and 4/11/2016.
1. “Attachment A” is adopted by Planning Board pursuant to NYS Town Law, Article 16,
§ 276.
2. The subdivider, within three (3) years of the approval of the Preliminary Plan on or before May 12, 2017, shall install or, pursuant to Town of Rochester Town Code § 125-16, financially guarantee all subdivision improvements and submit the Plan in final form as provided herein. Preliminary Plan approval shall expire if a Final Plan is not submitted within three (3) years, unless the Planning Board shall have granted an extension of the preliminary approval based upon a phasing plan set forth as provided for submission of Final Plans by section, provided that no Preliminary Plan shall remain valid if a Final Plan(s) for all phases, has not been submitted within three years. [amended April 11, 2016]
3. When the Final Plan is in substantial agreement with the Preliminary Plan, the Planning Board shall, by resolution, conditionally approve with or without modification, disapprove, or grant final approvals and authorize signing of such Plan within 62 days of its receipt by the Secretary. No additional public hearing shall be required. When the Final Plan is not in substantial agreement with the Preliminary Plan, the Preliminary Plan procedures shall apply to a Final Plan insofar SEQRA review, public hearing, notices and decision.
Requirements to be Completed
Prior to Final Approval Submission
1. The Final Plans shall be prepared in accordance with all provisions of Town Code §125 and §125 -17 Final Approval requirements and submitted to the Planning Board for consideration at a scheduled meeting.
2. Any and all Local, County, State, and Federal Laws or Codes shall be complied with and all required Local, County, State, or Federal permits shall be secured for the current or future use of these lands. This shall specifically include, but not be limited to, the following:
a. The private road known as Dawson Lane shall conform to all regulations of the New York State Fire Code for Fire Access.
b. Ulster County Health Department approval shall be secured for water and septic for each approved lot the subdivision plat prior to the issuance of Final Approval. All conditions of UCHD approval shall be made a part of this approval. One (1) copy of certified approvals shall be filed with the Planning Board. [amended June 18, 2014]
c. A stormwater management plan prepared in accord with the requirements of Town of Rochester Code §125-28 and NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation guidelines and standards shall be established. Applicant shall secure and submit to the Planning Board documentation from the NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation indicating reacceptance of the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) as was prepared in 2007 prior to changes in NYS Stormwater requirements. Should any additions, deletions, or amendments be determined required by the NYS DEC the applicant shall file a copy of the amended report with the Planning Board.
3. As per Town Code §125 -16, the subdivider, in a manner consistent with the New York State Town Law, Article 16, §277, shall provide for the installation of the required improvements, defined in §125 -16 as those physical additions and changes which may be necessary to provide usable and desirable lots. This shall specifically include, but not be limited to, the private road and stormwater improvements. Before requesting Final Plan approval the subdivider must:
a. Install all the improvements approved on the Preliminary Plan or required by these standards, or
b. File with the Town Board a performance guarantee to insure installation and construction of those improvements at the standards required. Such guarantee shall meet with the approval of the Attorney for the Town as to form and procedure.
4. A Road Maintenance Agreement (RMA) as described in §125-29(R) of the Town of Rochester Code shall be established. The Road Maintenance Agreement previously filed with Section 1 may require amendment to change the access to lots 13, 16, 17, and 18 from private and shared driveway access to private roadway access to comply with 2009 Subdivision regulation updates in Town Code §125. The Attorney for the Town shall make such determination.
a. A Road Maintenance Agreement between the owners of lots 8 and 9 for the shared driveway shall be presented and approved by the Attorney for the Town. The applicant shall be responsible for any and all fees associated with the approval. [amended April 11, 2016]
5. A Homeowner’s Association (HOA) shall be legally established. The HOA shall sign and record Management and Maintenance Agreements for Stormwater improvements and Private Road improvements.
6. The Stormwater and Road Management and Maintenance Agreement shall include the following:
a. The Road Management and Maintenance Agreement shall include all provisions for continued operation and maintenance to insure safe passage over such private road for owners and emergency vehicles.
b. The Stormwater Management and Maintenance Agreement shall contain all requirements and provisions for continued operation, maintenance, and inspection as per Town Code §125-28(B). It shall be approved by the Town Engineer.
c. Maintenance easements shall be established for all storm water management improvements designed to serve more than a single lot or dwelling to allow access to the stormwater improvements.
d. The operation and maintenance plan shall include the estimate of annual maintenance costs and establish responsibilities for the continued operation and maintenance of all common storm water management improvements. A provision shall be included that sediment shall, at a minimum, be removed from sediment traps or sediment ponds whenever their design capacity has been reduced by 50%.
e. All such facilities associated with the approved subdivision plan shall be maintained. The developer shall be responsible until no less than 90% of all lots are sold. The owner shall at all times properly operate and maintain all facilities and systems of treatment and control (and related appurtenances) which are installed or used to achieve compliance with the requirements of this law.
f. The applicant shall file a Statement of Release exempting the Town of Rochester from all responsibility of maintenance of road and Stormwater improvements. Nothing contained herein shall be construed in any way to require the Town of Rochester to accept dedication of any street.
g. The Attorney for the Town shall review and approve the Homeowner’s Association, Road Maintenance Agreement, and Stormwater Management and Maintenance Agreements prior to the issuance of Final Approval. The Applicant shall file the approved Homeowner’s Association, Road Maintenance Agreements, and Stormwater Management and Maintenance Agreements with the Ulster County Clerk and shall return one (1) filed copy of each to the Town of Rochester Planning Board.
7. As per agreement by filed map restriction with Phase 1 of the subdivision and as recommended by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to protect the habitat of the Indiana Bat, the conduct of tree clearing activities shall be limited to between October 1 and March 30.
8. As per agreement by filed map restriction with Phase 1 of the subdivision, applicant will provide a “100 foot buffer to restrict clear cutting of trees except for clearing and grading related to utilities, drainage improvements, and removal of dead or diseased trees”.
9. Applicant shall provide the Planning Board with documentation from utility providers of agreement to provide public utilities. Utility easements for electric, phone, and/or cablevision to the lots shall be indicated on the plat and by deed, if determined to be required.
10. Each lot shall bear identification numbers of NYS Fire Code standards for safety and identification purposes.
11. Applicant shall legally dissolve two 20’ right-of-ways allowing access to Dewitt Road shown as “Road up the Hill” and “Dug Road” on map provided by Medenbach & Eggers dated 8/30/2006 as was agreed during Phase 1 Final Approval and provide proof to the Planning Board.
12. The Final Site Plan plat shall bear the following notices. These notices shall also be included in deed covenants for each respective lot.
a. Title block indicating Final Plat
b. A plat and deed statement: “This property may border a farm, as defined in Chapter 75 of the Town of Rochester Code. Residents should be aware that farmers have the right to undertake farm practices which may generate dust, odor, smoke, noise, and vibrations and which may involve insecticides, herbicides, pesticides, etc.”
c. The plat notes as included on the filed Final Plat for Section 1.
d. NYS Wetland Boundary Validation as included on the filed Final Plat for Section 1.
e. The Stormwater and Road Management and Maintenance Agreements shall be noticed on the Final Site Plan plat and in the form of deed covenants. Each existing or future purchaser/owner of each lot shall be provided with a copy of this plan.
f. All easements involving the subdivision shall be clearly identified by both metes and bounds and plat notice on the Final Plan. They shall be further recorded as deed covenants. Specific notation shall be made for the following:
i. The Private Road and right-of-way.
ii. All elements of the HOA maintained stormwater improvements including access right-of-ways for maintenance.
iii. All easements for public utilities and access right-of-ways for maintenance.
iv. The shared driveway for lots 8 and 9 [amended April 11, 2016]
13. The Applicant shall be responsible for all costs and expenses incurred by the Town in connection with the review of the HOA, the RMA, Stormwater Improvements and any easements; including but not limited to, preparation of said agreements, engineering costs and attorney fees, and inspection by other Town representatives. The Applicant acknowledges and agrees that said engineers, attorneys, and other Town representatives are acting on behalf of the Town and in addition, the Applicant may obtain their own attorney or engineer.
14. Any and all fees due to the Town of Rochester involving this application shall be paid in full prior to the Chairman’s signature on the Final plat.
Adopted May 12, 2014, by the following vote:
Motion made by: Mr. Rominger
Second by: Mr. O’Donnell
Ayes: 6 Nays: 0 Absent: 1
Amended as noted within June 18, 2014, by the following vote:
Motion made by: Mr. Tapper
Second by: Mr. Paddock
Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Absent: 2 (Mr. Dawson recused himself)
Amended as noted April 11, 2016, by the following vote: (Mr. Dawson recused, Mr. Jones seated)
Motion made by: Mr. Ricks
Second by: Mr. DeWitt
Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Absent: 2
2016-02 SBD New Application
Minor Subdivision
William D. and Rose Farrell (owner) and William R. and Alyssa Farrell (applicant)
Proposes 2 lot subdivision of a 5.01 acre parcel, with existing shared well agreement
44-46 Tobacco Lane, S/B/L 77.9-1-14.112, H and AP Overlay zoning districts, Located within 500’ of Ulster County Ag District 3
Mr. Dawson rejoined the Board. Mr. Jones went back to his seat in the audience.
Alyssa and William R. Farrell, Applicants, were present on behalf of the application.
Mrs. Farrell noted that they built a house on proposed lot 2.2. It has its own well and septic. They share the same driveway at this point and theirs veers off to the left when you go in. All they are trying to do is to cut the property in half so they have their own. Proposed lot 2.1 actually shares a well with the Roe Family listed as Lot #1 as Shown on Files Map #1105 and the well line goes across their proposed lot 2.2. The lawyers who are drawing up the new deed for the applicants will state in their deed that this subdivision will not disturb the maintenance and well rights. They will be able to do whatever they want to do to maintain it, but they will be financially responsible for it.
Mr. Ricks questioned if they would have an easement in case down the road the applicant’s parents don’t own that house and they need to maintain it.
Mrs. Christiana noted that they submitted a copy of the deed that does show the well rights, but the location should be shown on the map and there should be a note that says it as well that it is subject to the right of the people to maintain. If Mr. Eggers has any questions he can contact her.
Vice Chairman Paddock noted that they also needed to show the septic locations on both lots.
The applicants also have a signed driveway maintenance agreement.
Mrs. Christiana noted that she would need to review it so that they can make sure it meets the Town’s requirements.
Mr. Dawson motioned for an Unlisted Action under SEQRA. Seconded by Ms. Lindstrom. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden: Absent Dewitt: Yes
Lindstrom: Yes Ricks: Yes
Paddock: Yes Williams: Absent
Dawson: Yes
Motion carried. 5 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, 0 abstentions
Mr. Dawson motioned to set the public hearing for the May meeting and circulate notice. Seconded by Ms. Lindstrom. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden: Absent Dewitt: Yes
Lindstrom: Yes Ricks: Yes
Paddock: Yes Williams: Absent
Dawson: Yes
Motion carried. 5 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, 0 abstentions
2016-03 SBD New Application
Minor Subdivision
Quiet Please Farm, LLC
Proposes 4 lot subdivision of 2 lots totaling ±178 acres
6 Quiet Please Drive and Wright Lane, S/B/L 67.-1-45.100 and 59.-2-22.100, AR-3, R-5, and FD Overlay zoning districts
Mr. Medenbach was present on behalf of the application. He explained that this was 2 tax parcels right now—the middle is a dashed line and that is the two tax parcels. There are two homes on the southern piece and it’s a family estate. Two sisters own the two homes independently and they want to break it up into 4 parcels. Lot 1 would be a vacant lot. Wright Road is a public road right up to the property line. The Quiet Please Road is a private road and all of the internal roads are private. So, lot 1 would have frontage on Wright Road. Lot 2 would have a new driveway created where it says, “proposed right of way” so it would come off of Wright Road and then it would come into their private road and access the house and also lot 3. So, that right of way would service lots 2 and 3. And lot 4, although it’s drawn the way it is, the driveway would probably be entirely on lot 4 and they would move that line over. They would create a Road Maintenance Agreement for common areas.
Vice Chairman Paddock brought up a discrepancy between what the tax maps show for this land and what is presented by the applicant.
Mr. Medenbach noted that Mr. Eggers said that they were getting ready to survey the lots and he said that the title was pretty clear. The only thing you can rely on a tax map for is a tax bill. They find errors on them all of the time.
Mrs. Christiana clarified that the right of way to lot 2 does need to be built.
Mr. Medenbach understood and noted that lots 2 and 3 will have a shared driveway and the lot line for lot 4 will be moved to include the whole road.
Mr. Ricks motioned for an Unlisted Action under SEQRA. Seconded by Mr. Dawson. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden: Absent Dewitt: Yes
Lindstrom: Yes Ricks: Yes
Paddock: Yes Williams: Absent
Dawson: Yes
Motion carried. 5 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, 0 abstentions
Mr. Medenbach would come back with further information for subsequent meetings.
NEW APPLICATION
Special Use
Motria Shuhan (applicant) and Joe Esposito (owner)
Proposes change of use of an existing structure for a Private Educational Facility grades N-3
2911 Lucas Tpke., S/B/L 77.1-2-42.31, R-2 zoning district
Linda Parks was present on behalf of the application. She explained that R-2 Zoning allows for day care under OCFS (Office of Child and Family Services). Ms. Shuhan runs a home daycare. The school is expanding so she needs to apply for a Special Use Permit so she can accommodate more children all under the age of Kindergarten. There are no changes to the land or structure or anything. She thinks it’s really because Ms. Shuhan wants to move out of the OCFS. Under that she is technically running a day care. If she can get a Special Use Permit, then she can apply to the Dept. of Ed and be considered a proper school and offer Kindergarten.
Mr. Ricks questioned if this was her residence also?
Ms. Parks noted that it is not anyone’s residence at this time, it’s mostly just the school, but it used to be.
Mr. Ricks questioned how large the yert was (this is the structure that is being discussed and currently houses the day care.)
Ms. Parks noted that Mrs. Shuhan stated that it is 900sf, but her understanding is that there is another piece of paper that states that it is a 30’ circumference yurt, and with the deck it is 1,600 sf. She thinks with the deck, it’s 1,600sf and the yurt itself is 900sf.
Vice Chairman Paddock noted that one of the things to keep in mind is that under the private education facility, under the Town’s zoning, even though she would only be using it for Kindergarten, it would be approved for grades nursery school through 3rd grade.
Mr. Dawson questioned if there was a fire standard for a building like that for the structure?
Ms. Parks noted that Ms. Shuhan has checks by the Fire Dept. every year because she has a summer school program and that does not fall under the OCFS jurisdiction. This is why she wanted to apply for the Special Use because OCFS is very limited. Every time she offers a summer program it falls under something else. So it would be more consistent and straight forward for Mrs. Shuhan to just be considered a school. It is currently a day care and kindergarten and summer camps.
Mr. Ricks questioned if she had any kind of permits on file with the Town for the day care?
Vice Chairman Paddock wanted to confirm if the existing school held about 20 families right now?
Mrs. Christiana noted that day cares don’t need permits from the Town.
Ms. Parks noted that Kindergarten doesn’t even fall under the Dept. of Education because it’s not technically considered schooling. She has 6 year olds going through Kindergarten. You don’t actually have to enroll children in Kindergarten and Mrs. Shuhan has a whole curriculum that she wants to unfold for the Kindergarten children because they have different needs than a 3 or 4 year old. If she gets the special use permit, then under the Dept. of Education, she then can be a school to hold different curriculum based on age.
Vice Chairman Paddock reiterated if they expected to expand the amount of families or kids that they serve or anytime in the future? That’s what this permit would be, now and in the e future.
Ms. Parks stated not at this time. There aren’t 20 kids there at one time. Not every child attends every day. She doesn’t have the exact numbers, but she doesn’t think it’s any more than 15 at a time. There is a morning section and afternoon section. She does know that she is very mindful of the occupancy number and what she can hold. There is a whole ratio from OCFS by the number of children you have that day and the number of care givers you have. She has more care givers than that usually.
Mr. Ricks questioned if there was any kind of sketch plan for the inside?
Ms. Parks did not have anything of the inside of the school.
Vice Chairman Paddock didn’t think this application needed to show anything on the inside of the building. There weren’t going to be any changes to the inside that he understood. The use is being applied for. He asked the applicant if they had addressed the parking yet? Right now there are 3 employees, plus Mrs. Shuhan, plus the families that are coming and going and currently there is only 1 parking spot. The biggest concern is parking.
Ms. Parks noted that there are actually 6 clear spots and those are separate from the teachers. She ropes off an area so that there is an area for drop off where the cars aren’t going through. There are at least 10 spots that she can clearly mark on the plan. If more are needed they can provide for those. These spots were existing now.
Vice Chairman Paddock noted that the big question was if they existed or proposed to be constructed as a vast majority of this property falls into the flood plain. So, the applicant has stated there are 10 existing and she will show them on the plan.
Mr. Ricks questioned since they were already doing this, what prompted them to come in and apply?
The Secretary replied that the applicant initiated the process so it could be a school rather than a daycare.
Mr. Ricks questioned if there were certain standards that she needed to meet in regards to the sizes of the class rooms or anything like that? How many bathrooms? Anything like that?
Mrs. Christiana noted that those weren’t things that the Board needed to be concerned with as another agency would be dictating those standards. The Board will say that they have to comply with all other applicable laws and guidelines. If it’s a school, the CEO will have to follow up on all of those things.
Mr. Ricks wondered if the Board could request to see her permit from the Board of Ed?
Mrs. Christiana answered yes, but she couldn’t apply for a permit from them, unless she gets the Special Use Permit from the Board. It was just like with the microbrewery people. We told them they had to get a number of permits from other agencies. They don’t necessarily have to have them all now, but they will have to have them.
Vice Chairman Paddock noted that because this was on a County Road the Chairman did recommend sending this application to the DOT, UCPB, Fire District, ACOE… What we would need is a sketch plan of the property showing the building and laying out where the parking spaces would be. It does look like there are spaces for them, the problem being if they are the right size and if they were lined up the right way.
Ms. Parks noted that she was told that 10 x 20’ was what was required.
Mr. Ricks noted that it needed to be located on one plan showing everything.
Vice Chairman Paddock questioned if the Board was going to require a handicap spot? It wasn’t the size of the structure for the number of lots; they were going off of the amount of students/families. There is some flexibility for the Board on how many spots they would require and if they required a handicap spot.
The Board thought they should.
Ms. Parks thought they could do that with no problems.
Mrs. Christiana didn’t think that was something that the Board could decide—it was required.
Vice Chairman Paddock instructed the applicant again that all of these things needed to be shown on a map, detailed to scale. This entire structure is surrounded by wetlands. Any new disturbance would be a real problem. He would like to find out about if they were seeing an increase in the amount of students in the foreseeable future?
Ms. Parks noted that wasn’t in the plans at this time because the building could only take so many students so they were limited by that. She noted that she did look at wetland maps, but it didn’t look like there was any conflict with existing parking spaces and the wetlands.
Mr. Ricks questioned if there was room for two cars to pass each other if they met in the middle of the length of the driveway.
Ms. Parks stated that she drops off her daughter and picks her up and there is plenty of room. A third car couldn’t come through, but two cars can pass comfortably. Sometimes when they’ve had a parent meeting, they have had cars park along that driveway.
Ms. Lindstrom noted that she needed to show that width to be included on the map.
Ms. Parks noted that another parent put together the sketch that she had for the meeting.
Mrs. Christiana noted that the Town Website has the Zoning Code on it and if you go to Section 140-46 it tells you what you need on the plan.
The Secretary noted that Chairman Baden already copied that and the parking section for the applicant.
Ms. Parks questioned if this plan needed to be done by a professional.
The Board answered that they didn’t need a professional to do it, but they did let her know that typically a professional knows everything that needs to go into an application and on a site plan, so it is generally a quicker process if a professional handles it, but it is not required. The board will require that everything needs to be official, to scale, and have all the site plan requirements included before it will be approved.
Vice Chairman Paddock noted that at this point, in order to move forward with this application, the site plan needs to show parking, number of spots, width of road, length of road, and all other requirements listed in section 140-46.
Ms. Lindstrom motioned to type the application as Unlisted under SEQRA. Seconded by Mr. DeWitt. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden: Absent Dewitt: Yes
Lindstrom: Yes Ricks: Yes
Paddock: Yes Williams: Absent
Dawson: Yes
Motion carried. 5 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, 0 abstentions
OTHER MATTERS:
Town Board Referral for proposed amendment to Chapter 140 regarding Solar Energy, will be discussed under Other Matters.
Board Members stated that they didn’t have enough time to review the proposed law prior to the meeting.
Mrs. Christiana noted that Chairman Baden requested that the Town Board send the proposed law for referral for this meeting to get a timely reply back to the Town Board. If everyone has individual comments they could go to the Public Hearing. The PH has been scheduled for April 28th.
Mr. DeWitt wasn’t halfway done reviewing the proposed law and had really important comments so he wanted the Board to have more time. He had a lot of questions and thinks that for municipalities, a Town shared distributed generation program, which was a new thing from the Public Service Commission, was not addressed. This was like net metering, but you didn’t have to put the panels on your own house. All of the panels would be on one plot of land adjacent. Some of the language doesn’t sound like this was being taken into account.
Ms. Lindstrom noted that for Large Solar Farms, should it be called out that you couldn’t do anything over 20 acres specifically?
Mr. Ricks noted that this was a discussion the other night at the TB meeting.
Mrs. Christiana noted that anything applied for over 20 acres would go to the ZBA for a variance.
Ms. Lindstrom questioned if there was any discussion on how this would play into historic districts or areas?
Mrs. Christiana noted that the TB also referred this proposed law to the Town’s Historic Commission to get their input.
Board Members questioned if they should consider a special meeting where they discussed this further?
Board Members discussed tax ramifications.
Mrs. Christiana noted that those topics couldn’t be considered under this proposed law.
Board members continued to have several different viewpoints and questions, but all agreed that they wouldn’t be able to come up with a streamlined referral from the PB as a whole, but may issue individual comments to the TB.
Mr. Dawson motioned to give a referral to the Town Board stating that the PB has no formal recommendation however individual PB members have strong individual feelings and will bring those to the Town Board on their own. Seconded by Ms. Lindstrom. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden: Absent Dewitt: Abstain
Lindstrom: Yes Ricks: Yes
Paddock: Yes Williams: Absent
Dawson: Yes
Motion carried. 4 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, 1 abstention
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Dawson motioned to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Ms. Lindstrom. No discussion. All Members present, in favor.
As there was no further business, Vice Chairman Paddock adjourned the meeting at 9:40PM.
Respectfully Submitted,
Rebecca Paddock Stange, Secretary