PLANNING BOARD
TOWN OF ROCHESTER
ULSTER COUNTY
ACCORD, NEW YORK
(845) 626-2434
torpbzba@hvc.rr.com
MINUTES OF aUGUST 10, 2015 the Town of Rochester PLANNING BOARD, held at the Town of Rochester Community Center, Accord, NY.
Chairman Baden asked that everyone stand to say the Pledge to the Flag.
The Secretary did roll call attendance.
PRESENT: ABSENT: Michael Baden, Chairman Adam Paddock
John Dawson Fred O’Donnell, Vice Chair Melvyn Tapper
Maren Lindstrom
Shane Ricks
Also present:
Patrick Williams, Alternate. Rebecca Paddock Stange, Secretary. Mary Lou Christiana, Town Attorney.
Chairman Baden noted that as there were absent members at this meeting, Mr. Williams would be seated as a regular member for this meeting.
ANNOUNCEMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS
Chairman Baden noted that the Board received a notice from John Lanc from Lanc and Tully regarding the progress on the Dollar General construction. The Dollar General was issued a temporary C/O so they could stock their shelves. The Chairman would be meeting with Mr. Lanc later this week to just follow up on everything.
Board Members noted that they’ve driven by and it looks good.
Chairman Baden noted that the Town Board passed Local Law #3 amending the Zoning Code. Once they hear back that it’s finalized with the State, they would print that page and give it to everyone to put in their books to replace that section.
TRAININGS
Chairman Baden noted that there was a training happening in New Paltz sponsored by Hudsonia. It was a 3 day training. If anyone was interested, the cost was $55. He would forward the information on to Board Members.
The UCPB is planning on training in early October at UCCC on transportation. They will be releasing the dates soon.
ACTION ON MINUTES
Mr. Dawson motioned to table the July minutes as they were not yet complete as the secretary has been on vacation and hasn’t had a chance to complete them. Ms. Lindstrom seconded the motion. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden: Yes Tapper: Yes
O’Donnell: Absent Lindstrom: Yes
Ricks: Yes Dawson: Yes
Paddock: Absent Williams: Yes
Motion carried. 6 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, 0 abstentions (including alternate)
PB 2015-07 LLI Continued Application Lot Improvement – Lot Line Adjustment
Wendy Hollender – Diana Wynkoop and Doreen Johnson
Proposes conveyance of +/- 0.507 acres from Hollender to Wynkoop and Johnson and conveyance of +/- 0.496 acres from Wynkoop and Johnson to Hollender involving three contiguous parcels resulting in two parcels
222 Lower Whitfield Rd. and Lower Whitfield Rd. S/B/L # 68.4-4-27.112, 68.4-4-27.113, and 68.4-4-27.111, ‘AR-3’ zoning district
Chairman Baden noted that they have not submitted any new information since their last meeting, so he assumes that they are still sorting it all out and will contact the Board when they are ready to get back on the agenda.
PB 2015-02 SUP Continued Application, SEQRA Determination, Public Hearing Special Use
Frank Macagnone and Keith Eddleman aka Crested Hen Farms
Proposes new use of an existing barn on a +/- 32 acre residential parcel for the use ‘Commercial Events Facility’ with parking and related supporting amenities
607 County Route 6, S/B/L #77.002-2-12.1, ‘AR-3’, ‘AP Overlay’ and ‘FD Overlay’ zoning districts, Located in Ulster County Ag District #3, Located within Alligerville Historic District recommended listed on the National Register, Located within the 100 year flood plain
Mr. Moriello and Mr. Medenbach were present on behalf of the application.
Chairman Baden noted that there was a sign up sheet for anyone who wanted to speak at the Public Hearing portion of the review. The Board has received a new site plan with changes to the access. At the last meeting the Board requested that the applicant explore an alternate access.
Mr. Medenbach noted that he met with the UCDPW for the alternate access discussed and he picked out an alternate site. It has good sight distance. The main criteria was this location had the best sight lines. It’s also an area where the grade differential from the highway to the field is not that much, so it will be easier to put in and it is also at the end of the guard rail. So it would just require putting a culvert there because there is some drainage that runs along the highway there and filling it with gravel and putting a nice item on top so it was smooth and they would bring that down in just to the field and from there they would mow just the field, so they could drive over just the field. The disturbance would be limited to the construction to that actual entrance which is about 2,000 square feet. They removed the improvement away from the other driveway as that use will remain as it is today.
Chairman Baden noted that on the plan it said “temporary access”.
Mr. Medenbach noted that it’s not a full continuous all year access. It wouldn’t be used in the winter. Maybe he should label it seasonal?
Chairman Baden and the Attorney for the Town, Mary Lou Christiana, suggested labeling it “event facility access”.
Mr. Ricks questioned what would happen if they got 2 or 3 days of rain? Was that field going to stay hard where they were going across it? They didn’t have to put any base on it at all?
Mr. Medenbach noted that they didn’t plan on it. They may have to make some improvements. He knows in the past he has seen people just roll it out. It compacts the soil more and smooths it out. They wouldn’t want to be using during a really wet, wet season. They may get some low spots where they have to put some gravel in. They would repair that as needed.
Chairman Baden questioned if the width would be 20’ the entire way?
Mr. Medenbach noted that it would be as wide as they wanted to really. 20’ coming off of the highway with the gravel base coming in. From there they would mow it out and it would probably be a lot wider than 20’, but quite honestly, a car would probably only follow a path one way and then turn around and follow the same path on the way out.
Chairman Baden noted that if they were going to roll a specific area, he’d like to see some posts or something to designate the area so that people aren’t just driving wherever in the field.
Mr. Medenbach was sure that they would have people directing traffic and putting up flags or posts. There would definitely be people flagging in and he believed the intent would be to have a car stop at the barn and then they would valet park the cars.
Ms. Lindstrom questioned fire access? Would this be adequate for that?
Mr. Medenbach didn’t see a need for fire trucks to come through here.
Ms. Lindstrom noted that if they used the existing entrance she didn’t think it would be wide enough.
Mr. Medenbach noted that they would still use the existing driveway access and it wouldn’t need to be improved because there wouldn’t be any cars. These structures have been there a long, long time and this is how they have always been accessed and how they will continue to be accessed. If the fire trucks did need to get in the other entrance, they would make an assessment as to whether they wanted to bring a truck in from another direction.
Ms. Lindstrom questioned if there was a code that the PB needed to follow for commercial events?
Chairman Baden noted that for a commercial facility it was a 20’ wide access. But, if the grass area was 20’ wide all the way to the barn, then they would have access.
Ms. Lindstrom questioned if the grass could hold the weight of the fire apparatus?
Mr. Ricks agreed noting that the other question would be if people were arriving in busses.
Mr. Medenbach noted that tour busses wouldn’t be able to come through a field. They don’t’ go off of the pavement. The van busses shouldn’t have a problem.
Chairman Baden noted that the letter received from the UCDPW noted that the existing entrance would only be used for residential.
Mr. Medenbach noted that it would only be used for residential.
Mrs. Christiana questioned what would happen if a bus came in and couldn’t access the grass fields?
Mr. Medenbach didn’t think they would have tour buses come. They would have to be van busses.
Chairman Baden noted that could be something specified in the conditions.
Mr. Moriello noted that issue of what happens in periods of wet weather is something that he and Mr. Medenbach are going to have to talk about and look at. That is an issue. Maybe rolling it will work. This is an engineering question. Mr. Moriello doesn’t think it would need to be paved.
Chairman Baden didn’t think it would need to be paved.
Mr. Ricks agreed that it didn’t have to be paved, his point was that even if it was rolled and it got a lot of rain, cars would still sink.
Chairman Baden noted that it needs to provide access and he believes that it also needs to provide emergency access. The other access is fine for emergency access for the residential use. Residential driveways don’t’ have the same requirements for fire access that commercial facilities do. They all know of driveways all over the place where it would be really tough to get a fire truck in. But it was different when you were doing commercial. The Board has to address that to some degree.
Mr. Moriello agreed and again noted that he and Mr. Medenbach, the applicant’s engineer, would need to discuss that.
Mr. Ricks questioned the event tent. There would be no music in that? Correct? It would be only in the barn, right?
Chairman Baden noted that was what was being proposed and that would be a condition. No amplified music. It could be an acoustic guitar playing, etc.…
Mr. Ricks noted that he drove by the other day and noted that the tree line was pretty heavy as far as being able to see in there. There were a few light spots, but in general it was pretty heavy.
Chairman Baden questioned if part of the newly proposed access was partially in the flood plain?
Mr. Medenbach noted that it was right against the fringe of the flood plain.
Chairman Baden noted that the Board would require a Flood Development Permit.
Mr. Medenbach didn’t think that would be a problem.
Chairman Baden noted that would also be a condition of the UCDPW’s permit as well.
Mr. Medenbach didn’t believe that it would be. They are only concerned with the access and drainage. Once you get into the site they don’t get involved. They rely on the town for that and it’s no longer a county issue. As far as a building permit, they would need to follow up with the CEO on that. The County actually helped to pick this access location. It’s further from the barn than the applicant would like, but this is where the County wanted it. It was about 500’ from the road to the parking lot.
Mr. Williams noted that there were no houses across the street from this new access, so there would be none of the issues with the headlights shining in people’s houses.
Mr. Dawson questioned in regards to the noise study, there wasn’t a study done with the doors open? Just with the doors closed?
Chairman Baden noted that the noise study was done at the Town’s request and it was done with the doors closed.
Mr. Dawson just wanted clarification that the doors weren’t open.
Chairman Baden noted that in their recommendations it was that the two larger sliding doors remain closed. The one on the back side of the barn could be opened because that is where the portable toilets and tent would be. It could be opened and closed because it was on the opposite side. The two larger sliding doors which are on the other sides of the building needed to remain closed.
At this time Chairman Baden noted that the Board hasn’t reviewed SEQRA yet, all they have done is declared the action a Type 1. They are the Lead Agency. SEQRA for this is going to take a fairly large discussion. He’d like to schedule a special Workshop Meeting just for the purposes of discussing SEQRA. The Attorney for the Town was available on August 31st, which was the Monday, 3 weeks from this meeting. The 5th meeting of the month. It would be 2 weeks prior to the regular meeting in September.
Board Members stated that they should be available.
Mr. Dawson motioned to schedule a Special Workshop Meeting on August 31, 2015 for the purposes of reviewing SEQRA for the Crested Hen Farm and to ask the Secretary to post notice of same. Seconded by Ms. Lindstrom.
Chairman Baden noted that this would be a public meeting. Anyone will be welcome to come and listen, but it would be a Workshop Meeting only, not a Public Hearing. The Board will be discussing the SEQRA and going through the paperwork for that and discussing their comments for that. Everyone is welcome to come, but it is not a Public Hearing.
Vote:
Baden: Yes Tapper: Yes
O’Donnell: Absent Lindstrom: Yes
Ricks: Yes Dawson: Yes
Paddock: Absent Williams: Yes
Motion carried. 6 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, 0 abstentions (including alternate)
The other thing Chairman Baden requested was that the applicants submit an amended Part 1 of the EAF of the SEQRA. There have been enough changes to warrant one. If there have been minimal changes they either ask for a revision and initial from the applicant or they don’t even do that because it has been discussed at a Board Meeting, then it doesn’t need to be changed on the form itself. There is enough on this that it warrants and amended EAF. He’d also like this to be recirculated for comment to all of the agencies that have been reached out to already. He’d like the EAF by the end of the week to make sure it’s circulated in time. He’d like this to be recirculated to all agencies that have already been circulated to and asks for comment to be returned to the Board by August 28th.
Mrs. Christiana noted that with the revised EAF, the applicant should submit the revised plans to change the ‘Event Facility Access’ note.
Chairman Baden also noted that this would need to be re-referred to the County PB in addition to the other agencies.
Mr. Moriello would like to wait until a SEQRA Determination is made to re-refer it to the County. The law firm that has been submitting things to the Board is well versed in General Municipal Law 239-M and there is a fairly well known case with the Town of New Paltz, where there was an early referral before all of the information for SEQRA or a SEQRA Determination was made and it was found to be premature. He may not agree with it, but he wanted to err on the side of caution.
Chairman Baden noted that would mean that it wouldn’t be referred to the County until October.
Mr. Moriello thought that they could refer it as long as they make a SEQRA Determination sometime in September.
Chairman Baden noted that the County PB Meeting in September is September 2nd.
Mr. Moriello agreed, but felt that it would be better to err on the side of caution.
Mrs. Christiana noted that if the County had any comments that would lead the Board to change anything on SEQRA, they need to do an amended SEQRA decision.
Chairman Baden noted that they normally get the County comments back prior to doing SEQRA and the Determination.
Mr. Moriello noted that it has been sent to the UCPB once already.
Chairman Baden noted that there were changes to the application that is why he wanted to re-refer it.
Mr. Moriello agreed, just noted that it was a question of timing.
Chairman Baden noted that if the applicant was asking for it to get pushed another month, it may delay any decisions being made, but that was up to the applicant.
Mr. Moriello was familiar with that case and the law firm that won it.
Mrs. Christiana noted that the Board may need to do an amended decision for SEQRA.
Chairman Baden agreed and noted that it would be re-referred to everyone except for the Ulster County UCPB. The other agencies are just for comment at the Board’s request.
Ms. Lindstrom questioned about some of the stuff that is a bit loosey goosey as far as the planning, for example—there might be some large busses, there might not or they might just be vans. For her education, do they just write it into the decision whether they can or can’t, or do they have them resubmit?
Mr. Ricks noted that if they don’t improve the proposed entrance with a base, the Board would only allow vans, no big busses.
Chairman Baden noted that the Board would condition the draft decision and it would be up to discussion and a vote. Since the last meeting a couple of letters were received. There was correspondence received just this afternoon from the County DPW and he would read that letter into the record during the public comment period. There was also a letter from the Save Alligerville Attorney, Whiteman, Osterman, and Hannah. It is 28 pages long, so he won’t be reading that one into the record, but all Board Members have a copy. Did anyone on the Board want to discuss any points brought up?
Mrs. Christiana noted that since that just came in the Board Members may need more time to read that.
The Chairman agreed that it just came in on Friday and was only circulated to everyone over the weekend. The Chairman thanked the Secretary who he noted came in on Saturday when she got home from her vacation to get everyone’s files together and to get the info for the meeting pulled together for this evening. It was very much appreciated.
Ms. Lindstrom noted that regarding the endangered species part of it, when driving by it, there weren’t really a lot of trees.
Mr. Moriello noted that they would expect the Board, if there was an approval granted, to condition the approval, with the standard—
Chairman Baden noted that the condition would read that tree clearing would only be allowed during the time period that the DEC allows.
Mr. Moriello noted that he may also talk with Mike Nowicki, who did their ecological report, and show him the new plan and do a little bit of an update. He didn’t think it would be any kind of an impact.
Chairman Baden and Ms. Lindstrom agreed, any trees removed were scrubby, brush like trees.
Chairman Baden noted that on July 21, 2015 the Board received a letter from NY State Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation stating that this was not specific to this application, but the Alligerville Historic District was recognized as of June 30, 2015 on the National Register. It was accepted on the State Register and the National was reviewing it so it has now been approved.
At 7:40pm Chairman Baden opened the Public Hearing. He reminded everyone that this was the 4th Public Hearing on this project and he asked the public the same as he has done in the past to please be respectful of each other and to remember that when they were speaking, they were speaking to the Board, not to each other or the applicant. This is the Board’s time to hear their comments. He also asked that they allow anyone who wanted to speak at least once to speak first before they recognize anyone else a second time. He realized that a lot of times people like to make a second point, but to be fair he wanted to let everyone to speak at least once first and then they would go from there. He wouldn’t put a time limit on their speaking, but if they become repetitive of themselves or others in this meeting or from past meetings that we have already heard, he may ask them to move on with the comments. The Board has heard a lot of comments already and the Board does take the comments as was demonstrated by having this access changed. There was a concern with the location of the access and the Board asked the applicant to show an alternative and that is the stage we are at now.
Gerald Weiner was recognized to speak. He appreciated the seriousness and diligence of the Board has used to discuss this matter. He wasn’t an attorney and didn’t have any kind of legal background, but he did see an innumerable amount of legal issues involved here. He thinks that they are doing the best that they could to deal with it, but in all seriousness, he thinks that eventually this was going to wind up in court, no matter how it would be decided. If they decided in favor of Crested Hen, he believed that the Alligerville group will seek to go to court. He thinks if they decide in favor of the Alligerville group that the Crested Hen will seek to go to Court.
John Messerschmidt was recognized to speak next. Two meetings ago he asked the Board if their opinions mattered or were they wasting their times. 4 or 5 Board Members individually said that, “oh yea, we listen to you. It matters to us what you think.” The last meeting, Mr. Baden told everyone at the end of the meeting, “Your opinions don’t matter at all. You could all be 100% for it, and we wouldn’t even care. We are going to go by the law.” So, which is it, does it matter or does it not matter?
Chairman Baden noted that wasn’t exactly what he said. His statement was that the Board is required to follow the law. Their opinions do matter to the Board, within the constraints of the law. He also said that if everyone was for it and the project didn’t meet the law, the Board couldn’t pass it. His point was that it is not up to public sentiment whether it can be passed or not. Their opinions do matter to the Board and he used the driveway as an example. The Board asked the applicant to look for options. The applicant proposed a new one and they are reviewing that now. In his opinion it is in a better location than the previous location. The Board will discuss it. He did not say that their opinions didn’t matter, what he said was that the Board was obligated to follow the law.
Mr. Messerschmidt asked what law that was. The Town of Rochester Zoning Law?
Chairman Baden stated that was one of the many laws. There were a number of laws that the Board was obligated to follow. That was the primary law, but they were also obligated to follow NYS Law, NYS Fire Code Laws, NYS Building Code. The Board didn’t enforce those, but they also had to review a project to make sure it adheres to them.
Mr. Messerschmidt quoted 140- 2Q. Preventing intrusion of incompatible uses in residential areas so as to ensure privacy for residents and their freedom from nuisances.
Chairman Baden stated that was quoted from the Comprehensive Plan. Those are the basis for the law, but was not a law itself, that was a purpose of the law as the header states.
Mr. Messerschmidt noted that there was nothing about incompatible uses or freedom for privacy and nuisances made it to the Planning Board, but not the law.
Chairman Baden noted that there were many more specific areas that addressed exactly what he was talking about.
Mr. Messerschmidt noted that there was something in the law about community’s right around individual application.
Chairman Baden noted that how the project was sited on the property.
Mr. Messerschmidt questioned about reducing traffic congestion.
Chairman Baden noted that there was a whole section on traffic.
Mr. Messerschmidt questioned how the Crested Hen reduced traffic congestion?
Ms. Lindstrom noted that there were other clauses that were in there. Mr. Messerschmidt is citing the ones that were to his cause. There were other ones about commercial growth, etc. So, when implementing and looking at ideas like this, the Board would want to mitigate correctly, but it’s not the only thing. If all traffic were to be mitigated we’d have to go back to horse and carriages. That would be complete mitigation that we all have to walk. That is not a law that we all have to walk now. Think of those as mission statements and underneath those you execute the parts of the plan addressing lots of these issues at the same time as achieving a balance. It’s about achieving a balance. Two parties that are like this on the balance, the Board’s goal is to achieve a balance. Through all of those various mission statements he is talking about, the Board tries to achieve a balance and execute it.
Mr. Messerschmidt liked that. It’s not two parties to find a balance—it’s one party vs. a community to set a balance.
Chairman Baden noted that it’s not even that. It’s the Town’s perspective against the applicants. The PB is the representatives of the entire Town. It’s not just the Alligerville group; the PB is reviewing it from the perspective of the Town.
Mr. Ricks used the Train Station as an example and noted that it is also before the Board for special events. There isn’t a single person who came to the Public Hearing or addressed it at all. And they are planning on having music and other things like that and they are right here in the Accord Hamlet and not a single person came. So, it just depends where you are and what public reaction you are getting.
Ms. Lindstrom noted that at the same time, that applicant is frustrated because the Board is working on safe access for parking which is delaying it, so once again, it’s a balance.
Nora Feingold was next to speak. She noted that her group has been submitting Freedom of Information Acts (FOILS) to see what has been going on. Just today they received what is being the 3rd revised site plan. She was wondering about the 2nd one—
Chairman Baden clarified and noted that the first one was the one that was submitted with the initial application. The second one was when the driveway was going to be widened.
The Secretary noted that another one had been submitted, but she had been asked to disregard it as one was coming to replace it, it was in the file.
Mr. Medenbach noted that when they relocated the driveway as required by the County, he showed the driveway across the field to come to the other end of the parking lot. He submitted it to the PB because they were under the deadline. Then the applicant looked at it and said no, they didn’t want it there, they wanted to bring everyone right to the barn so they could still have their valet parking. So, the next day, he resubmitted.
The Secretary clarified that Mr. Medenbach’s office mailed them out, and before they even made it to the PB office, Mr. Medenbach’s secretary called and asked for those plans to be disregarded. When she received it, she put in the file, but did not distribute it.
Chairman Baden clarified that at any given time, they are only reviewing the current plan. The current plan right now was the one dated July 28, 2015. It will be updated again to reflect the requested language “Event Facility Access”.
Ms. Feingold submitted statements in writing. She was confused when things were submitted and which site plan they were reviewing.
Chairman Baden noted that they were reviewing the latest site plan that was submitted July 28, 2015.
Mr. Jonathan Nedbor was next to speak. He questioned how a fire truck could be brought across a field if it rained even only a day ahead? As was mentioned minutes ago, the driveway that exists is residential use. Fire trucks are going to be using the new access across slippery grass and mud and imagine the weight of a fire truck. They weren’t talking about busses delivering people; they were talking about fire trucks. He didn’t know how that would work without making a road.
Chairman Baden noted that as part of the referrals done tonight, this would be referred to the Fire District requesting their comments.
Mr. Nedbor wanted to know if it was in the code what the surface requirements were.
Chairman Baden noted that there were surface requirements in the code, but there were also allowances for other surfaces if approved.
Mr. Nedbor wanted to know how they were going to deal with party central. As good a use as the Woodstock Animal Sanctuary might be, if there are concerts, noise may be an issue and then afterwards about the number of people attending was brought up. 1,500 to 3,000 people, but that combined with this…
Chairman Baden noted that the PB event allows them up to 1,500 people. Any event in excess of that which they say may be 3 or 4 times per year, they have to seek out special permits from the Town Board for that single event for Mass Gathering Permit.
Mr. Nedbor noted that still didn’t change his concern for a Saturday concert at Woodstock Animal Sanctuary and a Saturday wedding at Crested Hen and there are basically thousands of people swarming through Alligerville, it’s going to be crazy—and the noise level. He thinks that there needs to be considered. They didn’t move there to be in Disney World and now they are being turned into party central.
Art Friedman was next speak. He noted that the DPW was contacted by the Alligerville Attorney and sent over material that was reviewed. The map dated 7/27, the comments that were provided in the letter that was filed with the PB, were based on that map. Subsequently, today they received a copy of the newest revisions and the handout reflects their attorney’s comments of the deficiencies with this map.
Chairman Baden clarified that DPW did have the latest revision.
Mr. Friedman continued and noted that their attorney’s letter that was submitted talks about the deficiencies of the new access. Also attached to that letter is a response to a poor sound study. There are a lot of issues that the Board needs to consider. His next question was if the Workshop meeting was open to the Public?
Chairman Baden noted that the Public can sit in the audience and view the meeting, but it is not a participatory meeting, it is the Board’s meeting to review SEQRA. On larger projects they will often do a Workshop to take up that one issue rather than take up a big chunk of time in a regular meeting. It’s common practice.
Barbara Fornal was next to speak. She noted that she was surprised at the traffic study that said that there were already 1,000 cars per day already that drive on that road, for Alligerville being a quiet neighborhood in spite of that.
Chairman Baden noted that it was an average of 950 cars per day. That was Tuesday at 9am-Friday at 10am. The two days, Wednesday and Thursday when it was a full 24 hour period it was approximately 950-1,000 cars depending on the day and the direction. That was a County traffic study that was done on May 12, 2015-May 15, 2015.
Mr. Nedbor noted that maybe there were 1,000 cars during the day, but at night it is a lot quieter. It will be noisier with the increased night time events between this and the Animal Sanctuary concerts. As it was stated that the operational hours of the Crested Hen will be 9am-11pm with an hour either way for set up and clean up. So, 8am to midnight, so now we have thousands of people leaving Animal Sanctuary and Crested Hen at midnight.
The event planner for Crested Hen Farms commented that if there are 1,000 cars on any given day, the parties by Crested Hen which will be 12 per year with a max of 150 people, most would be more in the 60-70-80 range. So that’s about 30-40 cars. Given 1,000 vehicles a day already, he doesn’t think it will be a noticeable increase in traffic.
Mr. Messerschmidt was recognized to speak again. Regarding the sound engineering report. He isn’t a sound engineer, but he has been to plenty of weddings, which have air-conditioning. With the air-conditioning, people go in and out all the time. He would think that a sound study would want to study the worst case scenario and not the best case scenario. And they would want to do it on all sides of the property because there are people on the other side of the creek who live there that would hear the noise. He wasn’t really sure and hasn’t seen their business plan, but having a wedding in a chicken barn in the summer time that isn’t air-conditioned, it just seems like they are wasting everyone’s time.
Mr. Friedman was recognized to speak again. He noted that the queueing theory and talking about peak traffic volumes at condensed periods of time. The events are at a certain time and people all leave at a certain time, so it will be noticeable.
Diane Quick was recognized to speak. She noted that she didn’t think that the Train Station event facility could be compared to the Crested Hen. One is public and one is private.
Chairman Baden clarified that the Train Station is privately owned as well.
Mr. Ricks agreed and noted that during the day it was a café, but the events were in the evening similar to this application.
Mr. Nedbor noted that in regards to the traffic, this is the first time he heard that there would be mostly 60-70 people at events. He’s been hearing 150 people. And you have to take into account all of the people working at the wedding, musicians, caterers, caterer helpers… it’s not going to be the basic car rate however it’s figured for just wedding attendance, you have to add the people who are working so the numbers are not as minimal as being presented.
Martha Tardiobono was recognized to speak. She noted that if she were under 30 years old, she wouldn’t want a wedding with no bass where they were just playing Barry Manilow music. So, again, this may be just a waste of time discussing this whole thing if that’s how it’s going to be.
A member of the public needed clarification. She knows that the PB received the Save Alligerville group’s sound study that they had done that seriously and professionally refutes the initial sound study. That is in the documents that the Board received. She knows that they received the materials on Saturday, but was wondering if any of the members had looked it over?
Chairman Baden did. Other members did as well. Chairman Baden noted that they look at everything they receive.
Barbara Fornal noted that she was sad that so much money was going to attorneys over this, including her tax payer dollars.
There were arguments and profanities towards one another in the audience. The Chairman asked that everyone please act like respectable adults.
Chairman Baden noted that because they have not completed SEQRA he would like the Public Hearing to be held open again until the September Regular Meeting. He is anticipating that it will be closed at that meeting as it has been held open for 4 months of public comment over the last 5 months.
Ms. Lindstrom motioned to hold the Public Hearing open until the September Regular Meeting. Seconded by Mr. Dawson. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden: Yes Tapper: Yes
O’Donnell: Absent Lindstrom: Yes
Ricks: Yes Dawson: Yes
Paddock: Absent Williams: Yes
Motion carried. 6 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, 0 abstentions (including alternate)
Chairman Baden noted that Roshashana is on the same date as the scheduled September Meeting, 9/14/15.
The Board agreed to move the meeting to Thursday, September 10, 2015 and the public hearing would be held on this date.
Mr. Dawson motioned to reschedule the September monthly meeting to September 10, 2015 and hold the continued Crested Hen Public Hearing that evening. Seconded by Ms. Lindstrom. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden: Yes Tapper: Yes
O’Donnell: Absent Lindstrom: Yes
Ricks: Yes Dawson: Yes
Paddock: Absent Williams: Yes
Motion carried. 6 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, 0 abstentions (including alternate)
PB 2015-03 SUP Continued Application, SEQRA Determination, Public Hearing Special Use
Christine Atkinson (applicant) and Verna Gillis (owner) aka Accord Train Station Proposes new use of a +/- 1.10 acre parcel for the use “Commercial Events Facility” 9 Tobacco Rd, S/B/L #77.9-1-24.110, ‘H’ and ‘AP Overlay’ zoning districts
Ms. Atkninson was not present for the application review.
Chairman Baden noted that at the last meeting they discussed the access from the Community Center parking lot to School House Road. It was determined that there is an easement issued to the Town to access that field, but not where the traveled roadway is. The travel roadway is private property.
Ms. Lindstrom noted that doesn’t help the applicant.
Chairman Baden agreed.
Mr. Ricks was aware of the gentleman who owned the property that they were discussing and as he understood it, the gentleman didn’t want any liability to come back on him.
Mrs. Christiana noted that this was never a public roadway and legally she wasn’t aware if it had ever become a road by use. It was probably just used for the Community Center parking lot (and the old Agway building which is now the Community Center). It’s not intended to be a thorough fare.
Ms. Lindstrom noted that this would bring the applicant back to asking to use Main Street to get to and from the train station property. She questioned if the applicant could place battery operate lanterns or lights along the path described?
Mrs. Christiana noted that she would have to get approval from the County as Main Street is a County roadway.
A member of the Board again asked if she was given permission, she could consider the Community Center for functions.
Mrs. Christiana advised the Board that they would need to consider any functions held at the Community Center as possible conflicts.
Mr. Ricks noted that if the Board okays this application with walking on Main Street at night he wouldn’t vote in favor. He was okay with events during the day or shuttling people to the municipal parking in vehicles.
At this time the Board went over Part 2 of the Short EAF. All items were checked off as ‘no or small impact may occur’.
Mr. Dawson motioned for a Negative Declaration based on Part 2 of the Short EAF. Mr. Williams seconded the motion. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden: Yes Tapper: Yes
O’Donnell: Absent Lindstrom: Yes
Ricks: Yes Dawson: Yes
Paddock: Absent Williams: Yes
Motion carried. 6 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, 0 abstentions (including alternate)
The Chairman opened the Hearing to the public at 8:30 and no one was present to speak.
Mr. Dawson motioned to leave the Hearing open until September 10, 2015. Seconded by Ms. Lindstrom. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden: Yes Tapper: Yes
O’Donnell: Absent Lindstrom: Yes
Ricks: Yes Dawson: Yes
Paddock: Absent Williams: Yes
Motion carried. 6 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, 0 abstentions (including alternate)
Chairman Baden noted that he would have a draft decision ready for the September Meeting.
Mr. Ricks noted again that he would not be voting in favor of this application if people were walking down Main Street in the dark. He would only be agreeable to the special events if they were held before dark or if people were shuttled back and forth.
Chairman Baden noted that he would work those options into the draft decision.
Mr. Tapper questioned what if someone was in favor of the project, but not the conditions?
Chairman Baden noted that it’s passed by a majority vote.
Mr. Tapper didn’t care if people walked in the dark along Main Street. He didn’t see that as a safety risk.
Mr. Ricks believed that would be a big liability for the Board.
PB 2015-04 SUP Continued Application, SEQRA Determination, Public Hearing Special Use
Beach Automotive Inc. (applicant) and R.O. Rohan (owner)
Proposes expansion of use to allow retail sales used car dealer (Retail and Service Establishments – Vehicle and Equipment)
5752 Route 209, S/B/L #76.2-2-8.100, ‘B’, ‘AP Overlay’, ‘FD Overlay’ zoning districts, Contiguous to Ulster County Ag District #3
Mr. Ricks recused himself from the application as he holds a financial interest in the building in which this application is being applied.
Mr. Basten was present on behalf of the application.
Chairman Baden noted that the Board didn’t receive the County referral back yet. They won’t be able to take any action on the application in light of that, but the Board will still be able to hold the public hearing. He noted that because he was at the meeting he knows what issues the County discussed. The County PB was concerned with the signage and lighting. They were looking at the whole parcel and not just this small section of the building and property. They would like to see more energy efficient lighting.
Ms. Lindstrom didn’t think it was the applicant’s responsibility to improve the lighting for the entire lot.
Chairman Baden agreed, but noted that the UCPB looks at the entire parcel. The Board can either abide by their modifications or they can overrule them, but they need a supermajority of the whole Board which is 5 votes. And there were only 4 members present at this meeting. The UCPB was also concerned with the parking of the cars for sale and the test drives. They didn’t want them driving right from the spots onto Route 209. He noted that the Board would need to see a revised drawing showing at least 25’ from the parking spaces to the side of the parcel. He noted that the mail boxes may be in the way, so those should be shown too.
Ms. Lindstrom questioned if they could condition that cars could not pull from their display spaces right out on to Route 209.
Mr. Basten noted that would not happen as he would be the only person with the keys to the cars.
At this time the Board went over Part 2 of the Short EAF. All items were checked as ‘no or small impact may occur’.
Mr. Dawson motioned for a Negative Declaration based on Part 2 of the Short EAF. Mr. Williams seconded the motion. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden: Yes Tapper: Yes
O’Donnell: Absent Lindstrom: Yes
Ricks: Recused Dawson: Yes
Paddock: Absent Williams: Yes
Motion carried. 5 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, 0 abstentions (including alternate)
At 8:40PM Chairman Baden opened the Hearing to the public.
A member of the public questioned the comment from the County about cars parking on the grass.
Chairman Baden explained that the applicant was proposing to park display cars in the grass. In front of the office on the left hand side they would be parking 6 cars and in front they would be parking 4. The County was concerned that the spaces wouldn’t be paved or graveled. Chairman Baden didn’t understand this concern.
Mr. Fischer was recognized to speak and noted that if any oil leaked with the parked cars it would go into the ground.
Mr. Dawson noted that there were no repairs happening here, this wasn’t a garage.
As there was no further public comment Mr. Dawson motioned to close the Public Hearing. Seconded by Ms. Lindstrom. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden: Yes Tapper: Yes
O’Donnell: Absent Lindstrom: Yes
Ricks: Recused Dawson: Yes
Paddock: Absent Williams: Yes
Motion carried. 5 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, 0 abstentions (including alternate)
Chairman Baden noted that after the Hearing is closed, the Board has 62 days to make a decision. He would draft one and the Board could review it at the September meeting.
Pre application Meeting
Special Use
Krista Kaufman
Proposes new use Low Impact Health Care Center
658 County Route 6, S/B/L #77.2-4-58.1, ‘R-5’ and ‘AP Overlay’ (partially) zoning districts, Within 500’ of Ulster County Ag District #3
Mr. Ricks returned to the Board.
Ms. Kauffman and Mr. Ellsworth were present on behalf of the application. Ms. Kauffman noted that she was interested in opening a low impact health care center off of County Route 6.
Chairman Baden read the definition of a “Low Impact Health Care Practice” from Chapter 140: “Low Impact Health Care Practice — An establishment of less than 2,500 square feet floor area and containing 4 or fewer patient examination or treatment rooms which is primarily engaged in providing licensed diagnosis and treatment services for human health and which may also incidentally offer for sale products associated with such diagnosis and treatment. This shall include doctor, dentist, optometrist, chiropractor, physical therapy, acupuncture, massage therapy, psychiatrist, psychologist, and other similar health care practices. This shall not include health care facilities where the use is primarily retail sales, such as an eye care center or pharmacy.”
Mr. Ellsworth showed existing improvements to the property. There was a well, a pond. There was a building which was 2 pentagons joined by a breezeway that was 90% complete. They were proposing treatment rooms and setting up 2 smaller rooms opposite those. The septic is rated for 6 bedrooms and they are looking to build a house in the future.
Mr. Kauffman noted that they could start with 1 or 2 treatment rooms if that made things easier.
Chairman Baden noted that they would need to show the ultimate final version. They could start small and if it grew, they would just have to come back to the Board for further approvals. They should include everything that they want including signage.
Ms. Kauffman noted that they didn’t want signage, but they would show anything that they are thinking of including.
Chairman Baden noted that because this is on a County Road it would need to go before the County PB as well. The applicants will need to address the lighting, signage, and parking and also submit a brief narrative explaining the scope of the project. They also need to submit a site plan to scale that shows more detail—how many parking spaces and where, the number of employees, etc. He recommended that they look at the site plan requirements in the code. He noticed that they purchased the lot next door. Were they going to combine them?
Ms. Kauffman answered that she was going to combine them for tax purposes only. They would still have their own separate deeds.
Chairman Baden noted that in that case they would need to show them on their plan as two separate lots to make sure that they would meet setbacks. They would also need to show the parking, lighting, landscaping, give a narrative and to show on the plan where all of this will be.
Ms. Kauffman didn’t think they needed lighting as she would only be seeing clients during the day.
Chairman Baden noted that she would also need to show how people would get from the cars to the house- what path they would take and if it would be a sidewalk, walkway, etc. They will also need to show the whole driveway and where the pond is located on the property. He did check and there were no wetland or flood plain issues. They will also need to fill out a Long EAF form as this property is contiguous to the new Alligerville Historic District. He suggested that the applicants fill out the form on the DEC website. A lot of the info is self-filling once you type in some property information. There is also a guide book that they can utilize on the site as well. So, Application, Site Plan following 140-46 for requirements, and Part 1 of the Long EAF all needed to be filled out and submitted to move forward. He also noted that this was an extremely long driveway. It would need pull offs and need to be 20’ in width as per the Fire Code.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Ricks motioned to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Mr. Williams. No discussion. All members present in favor.
Chairman Baden adjourned the meeting at 9:15PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Rebecca Paddock Stange, Secretary