Planning Board Minutes August 12th, 2019

PLANNING BOARD
TOWN OF ROCHESTER
ULSTER COUNTY
ACCORD, NEW YORK
(845) 626-2434

MINUTES OF August 12th, 2019 REGULAR MEETING OF the Town of Rochester PLANNING BOARD, held at 7:00pm at the Town of Rochester Town Garage, Accord, NY.

Chairperson Lindstrom asked everyone to stand for the Pledge to the Flag.

The Secretary did roll call attendance.

PRESENT: ABSENT:
Maren Lindstrom, Chairperson
Rick Jones, Vice Chairperson
Brian Buchbinder
Sam Zurofsky
Patrick Williams
Zorian Pinsky
Ann Marie Maloney

Also present:
Mary Lou Christiana, Attorney for the Town. Brianna Tetro, Secretary.

ANNOUNCEMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS:

Chair Lindstrom stated that they would wait until the end of the meeting to decide if the Board felt there should still be a Workshop Meeting on August 26th, 2019. She stated there were four applications on the agenda that evening that were public hearings, the rest of the applications were not up for public hearing and therefore there would be no public comments.
TRAININGS:
Chair Lindstrom told the Board about the NY Planning Federation 2019 Planning and Zoning School Courses, which were to take place in September 2019 should they be interested and/or need the training hours.

ACTION ON MINUTES:

Mr. Zurofsky made the motion to approve the minutes from the June 24th, 2019 Workshop Meeting and the July 8th, 2019 Regular Meeting minutes. Ms. Maloney seconded the motion.
All in Favor. Motion Carried.
7 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent, 0 abstentions.

APPLICATION REVIEW:
PB 2019-12 LLI New Application
Glenn Dymond (Applicant & Owner)
Lot Line Improvement
A lot improvement proposing the combination of two contiguous lots: S/B/L 68.3-1-57.1 (+/- 3.3 acres) and S/B/L 68.3-1-58 (+/- 1.7 acres) into a single 5 acre parcel. Both parcels are R-1 zoned and located on Leghorn Road, Kerhonkson, NY

Mr. Glen Dymond was present on behalf of the application.

Mr. Dymond explained what the application was about.

The Board looked over the information he had provided.

Chair Lindstrom stated he needed a full survey map in order for the lot line to be approved.

Mr. Dymond stated his attorney told him that he did not need a full survey map.

Attorney Christiana said it was the rule of the Town and in the Code that the map had to be done by a surveyor.

Chair Lindstrom stated he needed to come back next month with the full map as they needed the metes and bounds.

PB 2019-10 LLI New Application
Harvey Marshak & Wendy Monk (Applicants)
Harvey Marshak, Wendy Monk & Sean Boyd (Owners)
Lot Line Improvement
Applicants propose the transfer of +/- 3.12 acres from S/B/L 68.1-2-84 located at 31 Fawn Lane, Accord, NY owner Sean Boyd to S/B/L 68.1-2-6.115 located at 779 Queens Highway, Accord, NY. Both parcels are located in the R-2 zoning district

Mr. Harvey Marshak was present on behalf of the application.

Mr. Marshak explained what the application was about.

The Board looked over and discussed the Lot Line and did not find anything concerning or needing further discussion.

Chair Lindstrom stated the application was SEQRA Type II for the record.

Mr. Buchbinder made the motion to certify the lot line improvement. Mr. Pinsky seconded the motion.
All in Favor. Motion Carried.
7 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent, 0 abstentions.

PB 2019-05 SUP Public Hearing/Continued Application
Alan Feinberg (Applicant), Mattheos Vrasidas (Owner)
Special Use Permit
Applicant proposes the conversion of a single family dwelling into a two family dwelling by the addition of a kitchen in the basement of the residence on a +/- 68.6 acre parcel (S/B/L 59.15-1-22.100). Parcel is located at 519 Upper Cherrytown Road, Kerhonkson NY. Parcel is R-5 zoned (rural conservation district).
SEQRA: Type II

No one was present on behalf of the application.

Chair Lindstrom explained what the application was all about.

Chair Lindstrom opened the public hearing. No one from the public spoke.

Mr. Williams made the motion to close the public hearing. Ms. Maloney seconded the motion.
All in Favor. Motion Carried.
7 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent, 0 abstentions.

There were no comments or discussion from the Board.

Chair Lindstrom read the decision:

Decision 2019-05 SUP
Special Use Permit Final Approval

Applicant: Applicant, Alan Feinberg Owner Mattheos Vrasidas

Reason for Request: Applicant proposes the conversion of a single family dwelling into a two family dwelling by the addition of a kitchen in the basement of the residence on a +/- 68.6 acre parcel (S/B/L 59.15-1-22.100).

Location: 519 Upper Cherrytown Road, Kerhonkson NY
S/B/L: 59.15-1-22.100
Total Acreage: ±68.6 acre parcel
Zoning District: Parcel is R-5 zoned (rural conservation district).

Code Enforcement Determination: Special Use Permit

Zoning Permit: 152 of 2019, filed 5/28/2019

Planning Board Application: 2019-05 SUP
PB Application filed: 6/21/2019
EAF Part 1: 7/8/2019
SEQR Type: Type II

Other Referrals: N/A. Action exempt from referral to Ulster County Planning Board
Documents considered by the Planning Board for review for the application:

1. Zoning Permit 19/152 for a two family dwelling conversion dated 5/28/2019
2. Planning Board Special Use/Site Plan application 2019-05 SUP/SPA – dated 6/21/2019
3. Application narrative – received 6/25/2019 amended and received 7/8/2019
4. Site Plan sketch – received 5/29/2019
5. Short Form EAF Part 1 – received 7/8/2019
6. Aerial Views of parcel from PB Secretary – 7/3/2019
7. Exterior photographs of residence, porch and parking area from applicant received 7/8/2019
* * * * *

Notice of Public Hearing:

1. Published in the August 1st, 2019 edition of the Shawangunk Journal.
2. Notice by mail to known landowners within 500’.
3. Posted on the T/ Rochester Clerk bulletin board and Town of Rochester website.

Date of Public Hearing: 8/12/2019
Place: Town of Rochester Town Hall Accord, NY
Public Comment: see Minutes of Town of Rochester Planning Board, August 12th, 2019

* * * *

Findings of the Planning Board with review of the application:

1. The Planning Board received a zoning referral for the approval of a Special Use Permit for a two family dwelling conversion. The proposed use is to construct a kitchen and remodelled great room on the lower floor of a single family dwelling. The lower floor opens onto a bluestone patio. The use is a permitted use in an R-5 zoning district.
2. The Planning Board received a Site Plan and Special Use application, aerial and site photographs of the residence showing parking, drive, residence and fieldstone patio on the parcel and sketch plan and related documentation from the applicant, cited above.
3. The parcel to be developed is known as SBL 59.15-1-22.100
4. The applicant demonstrated that there will be no external physical changes to the parcel and/or single family residence or any accessory structures with the use. The footprint of the residence and the parcel are not altered by the use and no “external evidence of the use or alterations inconsistent with the residential use or appearance of the buildings” (as per code) are present.
5. The use as proposed is compliant with all articles of §140-10 Lot Development Standards and §140-27 Conversions of Residential or Non-Residential Structures.
6. The Planning Board inquired about the adequacy of water and sewer plans. There are to be no added bathrooms or laundry for the conversion, solely the addition of a sink/dishwasher. Water and septic will remain shared. A Ulster County Health Department certification of sufficiency of wastewater management will be a condition of approval.
7. No additional exterior lighting is planned and the site plan shows ample room for parking on crushed gravel around the residence.
8. SEQRA Review was conducted on 7/8/2019 and was typed as a Type II Action. No further action was required by the Planning Board.
9. A Public Hearing was held.

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

Adopted August 12th, 2019
Ayes: 7 Nays: 0 Absent: 0

Motion to adopt findings by Mr. Jones
Second by Mr. Williams

* * * *
RESOLVED,
The Town of Rochester Planning Board grants Special Use–Final Approval for a two family dwelling conversion as defined per §140-27 on +/-68.9 acres of property located at 519 Upper Cherrytown Road, Kerhonkson, NY, S/B/L 59.15-1-22.100, a R-5 zoning district of the Town of Rochester.
Special Use Permit dated August 12th, 2019 is approved with the following conditions:
CONDITIONS of APPROVAL:
1. All Local, County, State, and Federal Laws or Codes shall be complied with for the current or future use of these lands.
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 Special Use Permit.
3. Any deviation from or amending of the approved and signed Special Use Permit shall require resubmission to the Planning Board, except as may be permitted as determined by the Code Enforcement Officer.
4. Ulster County Health Department certification of adequacy of septic shall be a condition of certificate of occupancy.
5. Construction and remodeling shall not deviate from the applicant’s narrative and from findings #4 – #7.
6. Any and all other agencies’ permits or approvals which are currently required or any which may be determined in the future to be required in conjunction with the construction and/or operation of this use shall be secured or renewed as applicable. Should any conditions imposed by other agency permits cause conditions to be in conflict, the more restrictive condition shall prevail. Should any permit approvals necessitate a change to the approved Special Use Permit, the matter shall be referred to the Planning Board for consideration.

The Town of Rochester Planning Board further grants the authority to the Chairman to certify condition 2 has been completed without further resolution and to sign and date the plat at such time.

EFFECT of APPROVAL:

1. This Special Use approval and associated conditions shall be binding upon the applicant and all successive owners of the land so long as such use(s) shall occur.
2. This approval shall remain effective as an authorization to secure the required permits and establish the use(s) 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.

Draft resolution was prepared by the Chairman and was read, discussed and amended by the Planning Board.

Adopted August 12th, 2019, by the following vote:
Ayes: 7 Nays: 0 Absent: 0

Motion made by Mr. Pinsky
Seconded by Mr. Maloney

PB 2019-09 SBD Public Hearing/Continued Application
Jane Huey-Chai Lin (Owner & Applicant) c/o Howard Chang
Minor Subdivision
Applicant proposes a minor subdivision of a +/- 65.9 acre parcel located at 148 Schwabie Turnpike, Kerhonkson, NY (S/B/L 60.3-1-32.100) from one to three lots. Parcel is in the R-5 and ‘FP Overlay” zoning districts, and contains ACOE & DEC wetlands
SEQRA: Unlisted/Uncoordinated

Mr. Larry Marshall from Mercurio-Norton-Tarolli-Marshall, PC Engineering-Land Surveying was present on behalf of the application.

Mr. Pinsky asked if there was a nature trail on the property.

Mr. Marshall stated it wasn’t a public trail. He stated the purpose of the lot was that the owner had put some trails throughout the property for their own enjoyment and they wanted to retain Lot 3 and they would use the trails to access the property from the rear. He stated they also didn’t intend on building a home on Lot 3 and their plan was to sell off the existing home and potentially sell Lot 2, but keep Lot 3 for themselves.

Chair Lindstrom stated the houses that were shown on the maps were just indicative that they had done a pert test and that was why they didn’t need to do a SPDES because they weren’t actually doing anything but just showing what was done if someone did want to build a house.

Mr. Marshall stated they had no intention of doing any construction on Lot 3 and Lot 2 would be the only one that would potentially have construction on it.

Mr. Jones asked if the lot line on lot 3 just skirted the wetlands.

Mr. Marshall stated that was common lot line and the buffer between the line and the wetlands was 100 ft.

Chair Lindstrom stated when and if they got to it, there was some plat notes that needed to be added to the maps: no further subdivision and that there were flood plains. She stated there were woodlands but they had stated they did not want to develop that area of the lot.

Mr. Marshall said they kept the lots at 1 to 2 acres for that reason.

There was no further discussion or questions from the Board.

Chair Lindstrom made the motion to make a Negative declaration determination for SEQRA. Mr. Buchbinder seconded the motion.

ROLL CALL:
Chair Lindstrom- Yes Mr. Pinsky- Yes
Mr. Buchbinder- Yes Mr. Jones- Yes
Mr. Zurofsky- Yes Ms. Maloney- Yes
Mr. Williams- Yes
All in favor. Motion carried.
7 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent, 0 abstentions.

Chair Lindstrom opened the public hearing.

No one from the public spoke.

Mr. Williams made the motion to close the public hearing. Mr. Buchbinder seconded the motion.
All in Favor. Motion Carried.
7 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent, 0 abstentions.

There were no other comments or questions from the Board.

Chair Lindstrom read the decision:

Decision: PB 2019-09 SBD
Minor Subdivision Conditional Final Approval

Applicant: Jane Huey-Chai Lin (c/o Howard Chang)

Reason for Request: Proposes the subdivision of S/B/L 60.3-1-32 (+/- 65.9 acres) into 3 lots

Location: 148 Schwabie Turnpike, Kerhonkson, NY
Total Acreage: ±65.9 acres
S/B/L: S/B/L 60.3-1-32 Zoning District: R-5 (Rural Conservation)
Parcel is in the ‘FP Overlay’ zoning district and contains ACOE and DEC Wetlands

Code Enforcement Determination: Minor Subdivision
Zoning Permit: 217 of 2019

Planning Board Application: 2019-09 SBD
PB Application filed: 6/24/2019 EAF filed: 6/24/2019

SEQR Type: Unlisted, Uncoordinated – 7/08/2019
SEQR Determination: Negative Declaration – 8/12/2019
Other Agency Referrals: N/A

Documents considered by the Planning Board for review

1. Zoning Permit 217 of 2019 determination of Minor Subdivision received dated 6/19/2019
2. Planning Board Subdivision application 2019-09 SBD received 6/24/2019
3. Notarized letter of Representative powers from Ms Lin to Howard Chang and MNTM Engineering & Land Surveying received 6/24/2019
4. Short Form EAF Part 1 received 6/24/2019
5. Cover letter from MNTM Engineering & Land Surveying, Subdivision Site Plan/Land Survey, Basic SWPPP, and Well/Sewage Disposal Details received 6/24/2019
6. Ulster County Parcel Viewer Ariel View from PB Secretary 8/01/2019

Notice of Public Hearing:

4. Published in the August 1st, 2019 edition of the Shawangunk Journal.
5. Notice by mail to known landowners within 500’.
6. Posted on the T/ Rochester Clerk bulletin board and Town of Rochester website.

Date of Public Hearing: 8/12/2019 Place: Rochester Town Hall, Accord, NY
Public Comment: (see Minutes of Town of Rochester Planning Board, August 12th, 2019)
* * * *
Findings of the Planning Board
1. The Planning Board received zoning referral for a minor subdivision from the Code Enforcement Officer.
2. The applicant met with the Planning Board and presented the subdivision map for review.
3. The parcel is in the R-5 zoning district. The applicant proposes the subdivision of S/B/L 60.3-1-32 (+/- 65.9 acres) into 3 parcels of +/- 55.91, 5, and 5 acres, respectively.
4. The existing plat is filed with the Ulster County Clerk.
5. The current use of the parcel is residential and woodlands. Town of Rochester R-5 zoned districts are Rural Conservation Districts, which are intended to conserve large open areas of the Town while allowing for very low density residential development. The Board informed the applicant that adherent to the guide lines to preserve the existing natural resources and woodlands as per subdivision code guidelines stated in TOR zoning code §125-21 and §125-22. This shall be a condition of approval.
6. ACOE and DEC wetlands and ‘FP Overlay’ zoning is found on the parcel. No development is to occur within 100 feet of the wetland area(s). No development shall be permitted within the ‘FP Overlay’ designated lands that does not comply with §140-18 B. (FD). This will be a condition of approval.
7. Existing site conditions includes a single-family dwelling with water and septic and accessory structures which are to remain within one of the three lots.
8. The application was determined to meet the requirements of an Unlisted SEQRA action.
• A Negative Declaration was determined upon review.
9. A Public Hearing was held.
10. The Board reviewed if the proposed lot has safe and legal access.
• The Board concludes that all three proposed lots will have adequate>/ 50 foot frontage on the Town Highway Schwabie Turnpike.
11. The parcel is in the R-5 zoning district. Upon review, the Board concludes that the 3 proposed parcels meet or exceed the bulk standards requirements for the R-5 zoning district.
• The Board reviewed if the proposed lots could support water and septic. Lot 1 has existing water and septic. Test Pit (Geotechnical Testing) for well and Percolation Test for Septic were performed by MNTM Engineering & Land Surveying. The Planning Board requested engineer certification or UC Health Department approval that the 2 new lots (lots 2 and 3) can support water and septic. This shall be a condition of approval.

Draft findings were prepared by the Chairman and were read and discussed by the Planning Board in public meeting at the time of adoption.

Adopted August 12, 2019 by the following vote:
Ayes: 7 Nays: 0 Absent: 0

Motion to adopt findings by Mr. Buchbinder
Second by Mr. Williams
* * * *
RESOLVED,
The Town of Rochester Planning Board grants Minor Subdivision- Conditional Final Approval to permit the subdivision of lands situated at: 148 Schwabie Turnpike, Kerhonkson, NY

The subdivision plan revised July 26th, 2019 is approved with the following conditions.

CONDITIONS of APPROVAL:

1. All fees due to the Town of Rochester involving this application shall be paid in full prior to the Chair’s signature on the Final Plat.
2. Certification shall be provided indicating lots 2 and 3 are capable of supporting onsite well and septic in the form of preliminary or final approval by the Ulster County Health Department or a signed letter by a NYS licensed engineer.
3. The applicant shall present a Final Plat for signature. The following plat note shall be included:
a. “The plat is not capable of being subdivided further or is so restricted without Planning Board permission”.
b. “This property contains lands within the 100-year floodplain as depicted by FEMA on plate 36111C0595E effective 9/25/2009. Any construction or disturbance within the FEMA designated 100 year flood plain shall adhere to the Town of Rochester Chapter 81 Flood Damage Prevention, or it’s successors”
4. No development shall occur within 100 feet of defined wetland areas.
5. Any and all development shall comply with §140-18 B. (FD) and §125-21 and §125-22; with specific attention to be paid to §125-21 (D) & (G) regarding the preservation of natural features and subdivision of lands in FEMA 100-year flood plain and §125-22 A (4) & (5) regarding woodlands preservation.
6. All required Local, County, State or Federal permits shall be secured for the current and future use of these lands.

This Conditional Final Approval shall expire 180 days from this approval date unless the Final Plat is presented and signed by the Chairman. This period may be extended for two additional 90 day periods upon application to and resolution by the T/ Rochester Planning Board.

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

EFFECT of APPROVAL:
1. The owner shall file in the office of the Ulster County Clerk such approved plat bearing the Chairman’s signature and any other related documents within 62 days from the date of signature or such approval shall be deemed to expire without further notice in accordance with NYS Town Law §276.
2. The owner shall have the responsibility to return three (3) Ulster County Clerk certified copies of the filed plat and any other related documents to the T/ Rochester Planning Board within 30 days of such filing.

Adopted August 12, 2019, by the following vote:
Ayes: 7 Nays: 0 Absent: 0

Motion made by Mr. Pinsky
Second by Mr. Buchbinder

PB 2019-04 SPA Public Hearing/Continued Application
Town of Rochester (Applicant), Accord Fire District (Owner)
Site Plan Approval
Applicant proposes the redevelopment (addition to) of the Alligerville Fire House, (S/B/L 77.2-2-17). Located at 4 Creek Road, High Falls, NY. Parcel is R-1 zoned and adjacent to Ulster County Ag District #3.
SEQRA: Unlisted Action (‘GOSR’ Lead Agency) Negative Declaration 7/31/2019

Mr. Sam Dillehay, Mr. Bob Garrett, and Mr. Mike Baden, Town Supervisor, were present on behalf of the application.

Chair Lindstrom stated they had sent the application to the Town of Rochester Highway Department and the Historic Preservation Commission. She stated they had the sent the parking narrative to the Highway Department to see if they had any suggestions, which they did not, and had no further comments what so ever. She said the Historic Preservation Commission had sent back a letter supporting the project and the only outstanding matters they had was with the purposed roofing material.

Mr. Wilton Duckworth from the Historic Preservation Commission was present at the meeting and addressed his concerns about the shingles that were being purposed on the structure. He wanted to ensure the roof would be historically appropriate.

Mr. Dillehay explained what shingles would be used for the roof and why. Mr. Duckworth was satisfied with the response.

Chair Lindstrom noted the Board had asked for Mr. Dillehay to provide a parking waiver request.

Mr. Dillehay stated he had provided it to the Board’s secretary and further more he had spoken with the Rondout-Espous Land Conservancy, specifically Peter Nelson, and they had received permission in the form of a letter, to park across the street on their gravel lot if ever a need arose.

Attorney Christiana wanted the Board to be aware that since the permission was granted through a letter, the Rondout-Espous Land Conservancy could change their minds at any point in time, so the Board needed to take that in consideration when they made their decision.

Chair Lindstrom stated the application would need to be extended into the next month as the Ulster County Planning Board had not sent their comments in time for the Planning Board meeting that evening.

Supervisor Baden stated since he was on the Ulster County Planning Board, he could confirm they had unanimously approved the project with the required modifications that it needed Ulster County Health Department Approval and the conveyance of the land. He stated he could comment on the land issue and it was on the agenda for the County Legislature the following week and it should be adopted and after all the legal aspects were satisfied it would be done in October.

Chair Lindstrom said they still needed that confirmation in writing. She stated there needed to be a height notation on the plans.

Mr. Dillehay stated they would add the notation on the final sets of plans.

Chair Lindstrom opened the public hearing.

Wendy Henderson stated she lived on Creek Road and she and her neighbors were wondering what was the purpose of the addition.

Supervisor Baden explained that after the flooding that took place in the Town of Rochester, New York stated had made grant money available for all kinds of flood remediation projects, and what they were doing was creating an emergency shelter in the facility and it would have bathrooms, showers, and new HVAC units. He stated in addition they were expanding the fire apparatus areas so the fire district could get full sized truck through there and it was all paid for, 100%, by State money, which would be reimbursed by federal money, and it was similar to the project they were doing at the Town’s Community Center, which was also creating an emergency shelter.

No one else from the public spoke.

Chair Lindstrom noted the public hearing needed to remain open until the September 9th, 2019 Regular meeting so the Board could review the official comments from the Ulster County Planning Board when they received them.

Mr. Williams made the motion to hold the public hearing open until the September 9th Regular meeting. Mr. Pinsky seconded the motion.
All in Favor. Motion Carried.
7 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent, 0 abstentions.

Supervisor Baden asked Attorney Christiana if it would be better to have an actual agreement with the Rondout-Esopus Land Conservancy, rather than just a letter.

Attorney Christiana stated it would have to be a recorded agreement that ran with the land.

Chair Lindstrom said if they would agree to something like that, it would make the waiver request even more supportable.

Supervisor Baden stated he would ask.

There was no further discussion.

PB 2019-08 SPA Public Hearing/Continued Application
Let Lee (Qwner) c/o Blake Arrowood/Arrowood Farms (Applicant)
Amend Existing Site Plan Approval
Applicant proposes the amendment of existing SUP/SPA 2016-01&2018-03 with a production facility expansion connecting current facility (brewery) to a larger to-be-constructed 5,000 sq foot production facility on a +/- 48.5 acre parcel located at 236 Lower Whitfield Road, Accord, NY (S/B/L 68.4-4-23.110). Parcel is in the AR-3 and ‘AP Overlay’ zoning districts and located in Ulster County Ag District #3
SEQRA: Unlisted/Uncoordinated
*Ms. Maloney recused herself at 7:57pm.
Mr. Barry Medenbach, Blake Arrowood, and Jacob Meglio were present on behalf of the application.

Mr. Pinsky asked why there was only one sheet for the lighting plan as it said there should be three sheets total.

Mr. Medenbach stated the lighting plan was part of the entire site plan, therefore it was sheet 2 out of the total plan.

Chair Lindstrom asked if they had finalized their well and septic.

Mr. Medenbach said the septic was before the Health Department and they had been out to the site and they looked at the soil conditions and it was up to the review of the map to get it all finalized.

Chair Lindstrom stated they didn’t need a SWPP because it was under an acre.

Mr. Jones asked if they were using the ground water for the new building.

Mr. Arrowood stated no, they had water carted in as the ground water couldn’t be used for their beer production.

Chair Lindstrom said on the current plan it still stated “Proposed Site Plan”

Mr. Medenbach stated their most recent submission no longer said “proposed.”

Chair Lindstrom said it was on the second page where it stated “proposed event space” and that needed to be taken out.

Chair Lindstrom opened the public hearing. She stated she would open it and keep it open until September as the Ulster County Planning Board did not get their comments to the Board in time for the meeting.

Ms. Laura Finestone asked if the public hearing was going to be continued into September.

Chair Lindstrom answered it was going to be opened until September because Ulster County Planning Board hadn’t given their comments on the application.

Ms. Finestone stated she was new to the conversation and she had some questions and she asked who would she go to? She asked could she ask Mr. Arrowood? She said she was very concerned about the water usage and the water was being carted in was one thing, but had anyone looked into what effect the septic would have on the aquifier as that would be a concern to her, and the parking which the Board had stated was already done.

Chair Lindstrom said the parking was the old existing area and it would not be expanded.

Ms. Finestone said she was concerned about the traffic on the road.

Chair Lindstrom answered it was just an expansion of the business so the traffic on the road would remain the same, the trucks would just be more loaded.

Ms. Finestone said then she was just most concerned about the septic and the effect it would have on the aquifier and if anything had been discussed on what would be done to prevent anything being effected.

Mr. Medenbach said there was a detailed process in permitting from both the Ulster County Health Department and the DEC. He stated they fill out an application, the Health Department came out and inspected and dug test holes to make sure there was adequate soils and proper treatment. He explained they also did pert tests which told them how big the system needed to be based on the hydro conductivity of the soil and there was also a treatment process before that and it went through a series of tanks and biological process before it went into the leech field and into the soil. Mr. Medenbach said all that complied with both the State, Department of Health, and DEC regulations.

Ms. Joann Decour she stated she had same concerns as the previous speaker and she wanted to know how high was the proposed building and what kind of lighting they intended to use.

Chair Lindstrom stated the building was under the height restrictions for the area and it was under two and a half stories high. She stated it was very similar to the existing structure and all those items were always stipulations of approval, that a building couldn’t be above what the zoning code allowed, and the lighting was what was seen on the brewery which was downward facing, fully shielded, dark sky compliant. She noted that was also a condition of approval.

Mr. Pinsky asked what the numbers meant next to the lights on the plan.

Mr. Medenbach explained that was what was called foot candles and it was the intensity of the illumination.

Chair Lindstrom said they had the applicants do that because there was a limit of illumination at the periphery.

The Board further discussed the lighting mechanics with Mr. Medenbach.

Chair Lindstrom asked if there were any more questions or comments from the public.

Ms. Finestone spoke again and stated she knew there was no noise ordinance for the Town but she wanted to know how noisy the beer production would be and the hours of operation would be and if that was going to be taken into consideration for the neighbors.

Mr. Meglio said it was basically the same process and the use would remain during the same operating hours, the same equipment was being used and the noise level would be as it was at the moment.

Supervisor Baden stated he wanted to clarify for the public the Town did not have a noise ordinance but new applications or expansions in front of the Planning Board, there was a section of the Code addressing noise that the Planning Board reviewed. He stated that no there was no ordinances but any use besides residential had to go through a review process.

Mr. Cory Countryman stated he lived on Mettacahonts Road, he stated the applicant had stated there would be more deliveries and that would mean more box trucks coming in and out for their brewing operations and the bridge on Mettacahonts was only 15 tons and any box truck loaded with items would be more than 15 tons so would that be an issue with the bridge, being as it was so old and now there would be more traffic going up and down with bigger trucks?

Mr. Meglio said they were anticipating the same number of deliveries the idea was instead of one pallet off of each truck, there would be four. He stated they were using the same number of vendors, the same number of ingredients going in each batch of beer, and as far as Mettacahonts and Lower Whitfield that was a detour route for 209, so for him he felt that meant they could have their standard business operation using that road.

Mr. Zurofksy suggested that a letter be sent to the Highway Department.

There were no other questions or comments from the public.

Mr. Buchbinder made the motion to keep the public hearing open until the September meeting. Mr. Williams seconded the motion.
All in Favor. Motion Carried.
6 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent, 0 abstentions, 1 recused.

The Board discussed sending a letter to the Highway Department. There was concern over the weight limit of the delivery trucks going over the bridge on Mettacahonts road.

Mr. Williams stated the trucks were under regulations by the DOT.

Mr. Medenbach stated if a truck approached the bridge and saw the weight of the truck was more than the bridge, they wouldn’t go over it.

The Board discussed sending a letter to the Highway Department to ask the weight limit of the bridge.

Mr. Williams made the motion to send a letter to the Highway Department to ask for comments and specs on the weight limit of the bridge on Mettacahonts Road. Mr. Pinsky seconded the motion.
All in Favor. Motion Carried.
6 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent, 0 abstentions, 1 recused.

*Ms. Maloney returned to the meeting at 8:17pm.

PB 2019-06 SUP/SPA Continued Application
Acorn Waldorf School c/o Motria Shuhan (Applicant), George Schoonmaker (Owner)
Special Use Permit & Site Plan Approval
Applicant proposes the construction of a one level 2,400 sq ft private pre-school/kindergarten, on a +/- 23 acre parcel (S/B/L 69.3-1-20). Parcel is located on Canyon Road, Accord, NY. Parcel is AR-3 zoned, adjacent to Ulster County Ag District #3 lands and contains limited habitat core lands.
SEQRA: TBD

Mr. Medenbach was present on behalf of the application.

The Board went over the architectural renderings provided by Mr. Medenbach.

Mr. Medenbach stated the designer of the building had designed the structure specifically for this project and the building would be built from a kit. He stated the designer submits all the materials and then a local contractor would put them all together. He explained it was a simple building with a pitched roof, a deck area, three basic classroom areas, and an office section. He stated it was all natural pine siding with dark gray windows and a black metal roof.

Mr. Pinsky asked why they wanted a black metal roof.

Mr. Medenbach explained the whole idea was to hide the building within the woods and with a black metal roof there would not be a glare. He also stated it would be extremely well insulated. He said insulation requirements were very strict and different colored roofs did not have the impact they use to have because of the heavy insulation. Mr. Medenbach stated since they had met with the Board the previous month, they had the Health Department out to the site and there had been test holes dug and pert test done for the well. He said the entire design had not been submitted at that time but he anticipated there would be a completed application by the next regular meeting in September.

Chair Lindstrom asked if anything regarding signage had been completed.

Mr. Medenbach stated that he thought they had spoke about a sign being at the corner of Airport Rd and Canyon Lake Rd just directing people to the school and another one next to the driveway.

Chair Lindstrom stated any significant signage should be called out on the plans but if they were going to be small, hidden, interior signs, the Board did not need to see that.

Chair Lindstrom asked if they had reached out to SHPO regarding the property being an archaeological site through the State data base.

Mr. Medenbach said they had filled out the SHPO form and had not heard anything back from them as of that time.

Chair Lindstrom stated the property was not in an Ag District but they were adjacent to one so they couldn’t type the application as a Type I SEQRA but she felt that they would fall under a Type II SEQRA. She read for the record her reasoning:

“§ 617.5 Type II Actions: (c) The following actions are not subject to review under this Part:(9) [7] construction or expansion of a primary or accessory/appurtenant, nonresidential structure or facility involving less than 4,000 square feet of gross floor area and not involving a change in zoning or a use variance and consistent with local land use controls, but not radio communication or microwave transmission facilities, the primary environmental impacts associated with these types of actions are usually infrastructure related concerns such as traffic, storm water drainage, and sewage disposal, any nuisance issues such as noise, lighting, and littering. In communities with site plan review or special use permit requirements, these routine concerns may be managed under the local review standards without the need for the additional analysis or authority which an EIS could provide.”

Chair Lindstrom asked Attorney Christiana if they could type the application as a SEQRA Type II.

Attorney Christiana suggested waiting until the next month’s meeting as she had to research a bit more.

Mr. Medenbach asked why they couldn’t type the application at that moment as it seemed pretty straight forward to him. He stated it was a 4,000 sq ft cut off.

Chair Lindstrom agreed that it seemed like a Type II.

Attorney Christiana explained they could type the application as a Type II subject to her research, as it could change.

Mr. Jones asked before they typed the application, had traffic been addressed?

Chair Lindstrom stated that had been addressed at the last meeting and it had been suggested that parents come from Airport Rd to access Canyon Lake Rd.

Mr. Medenbach added it would be the same parents dropping off and picking up their children all the time, so they would be aware and knowledgeable of what roads that would be used to access the school.

Chair Lindstrom went over what had been discussed at the last meeting. She stated they would refer the application to the Highway Department, the hours and dates of operation were Monday-Friday 8:30am-3:30pm, the daily traffic was 50 students maximum for morning and full day programs. She stated there would be 20 cars, one per student for the half day and 30 cars, one per student, for the full day programs. She explained those numbers were the maximum allowable and there were some students who would stay after school and leave on a staggered basis. She stated there wouldn’t be a lot of additional traffic and there would not be school busses just an occasional use of a van. Chair Lindstrom said in regards to a traffic management plan, that each parent would receive a welcome packet from the school that would instruct them that school could be accessed only by Airport Rd. Onto Canyon Lake Rd, and this would be prominently posted in the parent/guardian handbook.

Chair Lindstrom stated they would wait to set the public hearing and sending it out to other agencies for comments until they received all the items that had been requested. She went through all the items Mr. Medenbach had provided and reiterated they were waiting on contours and tear sheets, the application was a Type II SEQRA pending additional research, the applicants were working on well and septic, and the landscaping and parking was pretty well done.

There was no further discussion or comments in regards to the application.

PB 2019-07 SUP/SPA Continued Application
PB 2019-10 SBD Continued Application
Lorraine Nicholson (Owner)
Colony House NY, LLC d.b.a Stonehill’s Farmhouse
Applicant proposes conversion of existing structures into bed and breakfast style inn/lodging, and use of the existing barn and grounds for commercial special events. Vacant land is proposed to be converted into farming and additional paring. Parcel is +/- 19.75 acres (S/B/L 68.4-4-22.116) located at 77 Mill Hook Road, Accord, NY. The parcel presently has two existing single family residences, 4 vacant bungalows, and a 2,500 sq. ft. detached barn and accessory structures. The parcel further contains woodlands/vacant land and lawn/landscaped area. Parcel is AR-3 zoned (agricultural residential).
SEQRA: TBD

*Mr. Pinsky recused himself at 8:30 pm.

Ms. Alicia Gauither was present on behalf of the application.

Chair Lindstrom read, for the record, the narrative Ms. Nicholson and Ms. Gauither had provided for the Board the previous month.

Chair Lindstrom noted that the applicants needed to decide on a max number of people they would allow for special events.

Ms. Gauither stated there would be no more than 150 people.

Chair Lindstrom discussed the lighting plan and stated it was all downward facing, dark sky compliant. She stated they had to re-do the original sound study because of the lot line changing due to the subdivision the applicant needed to do because of a mortgage issue and the applicant had provided a sound study. She noted she had checked and the new lot line would meet all the setbacks and the lot line would only be temporary however, it would change the criteria for the initial sound study which was why they were asked to provide the Board another. She explained, for the record, that the first sound study was done on a Saturday, in the summer, from 7:30pm-10:30pm which was when they would most likely have parties, all the windows and doors of the barn had been opened during the sound study for both ambient and amplified noise testing. Chair Lindstrom stated the requirement of the Board was that applicants had to measure all points at the peripheral because they could not exceed 10 decibels over what ever was the ambient noise level. She stated the ambient varied between 39 to 60 as the ambient periphery and inside the barn it measured 35, and when the music was turned all the way up, it measured at 95 decibels but at the periphery , the highest increase was 7 decibels, so they did meet the Board’s noise criteria for music at all the periphery points. She stated all signage would meet their standards, there would be a wood sign done by a professional out in front that would Stone Hill Farm House. Chair Lindstrom explained there was a landscape plan that used native species for the landscaping and they intended to keep as much as the woodlands as was possible, including some peripheral trees. She added the only new construction was essentially just leveling and adding Item #4 for the new parking that would be across the street.

Ms. Gauither stated they would be keeping the parking lot grass, and it would be packed down. She said it the lot would used for overflow parking.

Chair Lindstrom stated they would be building the septic across the street as well, so it was mostly a septic project. She stated when it came to the build-out the disturbance of the land was very little and it was essentially digging a septic and because of all the small houses on the property it did qualify as a private septic for the landowners. She noted they had been in touch with the Department of Health, extensively, in regards to septic.

Mr. Jones wanted to clarify that each of the small buildings would be on one well and septic system.

Chair Lindstrom stated that was correct as it would be illogical for each building to be on a separate well and septic.

Chair Lindstrom went on the explain there was small portion of wetlands on the property, but far enough away from where the parking lot would be and it was on the site plan. She stated in regards to traffic, the number of cars on the road would not exceed 50 and would be sporadic in nature. She noted there were only 50 parking spaces and therefore there could only be 50 cars total.

Ms. Gauither stated they had provided a new sound study for the Board and they had done a sound test that included the new lot line and it didn’t exceed the decibel limit.
Chair Lindstrom stated the new study provided was also done on a Saturday at 8:19pm and they had noted the instruments they used to measure and the time of the test was between 8pm-9pm. She explained at the new lot line the interior read 48,47, and 48 decibels and inside the barn it measured 35 decibels and that 48 went to 51,47 went to 52, and 48 stayed at 48 decibels.

Ms. Gauither explained they did the test with amplified music to provide a worse case scenario if something was plugged into the speaker inside of the barn.

Mr. Jones asked if the events would or would not have amplified music.

Ms. Gauither stated it would be amplified within the barn, there would not be speakers outside.

Mr.Jones asked if that was what they tested, the amplified noise in the building.

Ms. Gauither answered yes and that the barn currently did not have any windows or barn doors so the test was conducted with everything wide open. She stated the barn was being restored and new windows would be put in and barn doors put on so the test was going to go down in terms of noise.

Ms. Maloney stated she had drove by the property and the barn did not have doors or windows at the moment so when they did put the windows in and the doors, the amplified sound would decrease. She asked Ms. Gauither if they were going to insulate the barn.

Ms. Gauither said they would eventually.

Mr. Jones stated the Board had done a lot of event applications and they had learned a series of things and he felt that the Board needed to have CPL look at the sound study and make sure it is acceptable as there were no sound experts on the Board and they should have someone look at it. He stated with prior applications the Board had insisted there would be insulation around what he referred to as “the band area” so there would be more sound proofing.

Chair Lindstrom commented that with the applications Mr. Jones was thinking about, had a noise problem, as in their sound studies had the amplified noise over the allowable 10 decibel increase, but with this application that didn’t seem to be an issue.

Mr. Jones asked would the Board then request that all the doors and windows be shut or closed during the times when music would be played, as they had done that in the past.

Chair Lindstrom stated they could request something to that effect but at the moment they met the threshold so they could keep the doors open.

Ms. Gauither stated that they had to wait to perform the sound study until the previous weekend because all the other weekends since the last Planning Board meeting, were so loud due to the music being played at the campground and from the neighbors to her left so she couldn’t actually perform a sound study without being over the original sound test they had provided.

Chair Lindstrom stated if the Board decided if the applicant was so far away that they were not going to have a problem with the way the sound test was done and they had a certified sound engineer do the study, then it would not need to be sent to CPL.

Mr. Jones said he wanted to be careful when it came to precedence, because of what the Board had asked other applicants to do.

Mr. Zurofksy stated they were surrounded by noisy neighbors but the Board had been requiring additional overview in specific response to what had been brought up in public comments. He said he felt if they got public comment then they could determine if they needed to go further, but what had been presented thus far didn’t seem to have the need for any further consultation.

Mr. Jones wanted clarification that there would be 150 people maximum for events.

Ms. Gauither stated that was correct and it was inclusive to their build out so there would not be an event with 150 people plus guests not part of the event and if someone was doing an event they would have to rent the entire facility.

Mr. Jones asked if they intended to sleep 150 guests.

Ms. Gauither stated no.

Mr. Zurofksy commented that there were 14 parking spots for normal operations and then 46 additional for the overflow when there was a special event.

Mr. Jones stated he was looking for clarification on the maximum number of cars/people that would be involved in the events.

Chair Lindstrom said 50 was the maximum number of cars and there would be no concerts, if someone wanted to have an event they would need to rent out the entire facility.

Ms. Gauither stated they would have a 2 night minimum stay, therefore the people would come on a Friday and leave on Sunday, so the differential in cars would be on Saturday.

Mr. Jones asked how many events were allowed per year.

Chair Lindstrom stated 12 events were allowed a year, which would equal about one event a month. She stated the time frame for events was 9am-11pm with setup and breakdown times being 8:30am-Midnight.

Chair Lindstrom stated to the applicant that they needed to amend their SEQRA to include the Subdivsion portion of the application, as the SEQRA provided just had the Special Use Permit and Site Plan Approval listed.

Attorney Christiana explained the Board needed to look at the whole project under SEQRA and that was why there needed to be an amendment so they could make a determination.

Ms. Maloney made the motion to set both the subdivision and the special use permit/site plan approval portions of the application for public hearings at the September 9th meeting. Mr Williams seconded the motion.
All in Favor. Motion Carried.
6 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent, 0 abstentions, 1 recused

Chair Lindstrom noted they would do SEQRA before the public hearing on September 9th.

Attorney Christiana commented the parcel was near an Ag district and therefore the application needed to be sent to the County planning board.

Mr. Buchbinder made the motion to send the application to the Ulster County Planning Board. Mr. Williams seconded the motion.
All in Favor. Motion Carried.
6 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent, 0 abstentions, 1 recused

Chair Lindstrom stated she felt the application could also be sent to the Town of Rochester Highway Departmant and the Accord Fire Department for their comments or input.

Mr. Buchbinder made the motion to send the application to the Town of Rochester Highway Department and the Accord Fire Department. Ms. Maloney seconded the motion.
All in Favor. Motion Carried.
6 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent, 0 abstentions, 1 recused.

There was no further discussion from the Board.

*Mr. Pinsky returned to the meeting at 8:56pm

Chair Lindstrom made the motion for the Board to take a 5 minute recess at 8:57pm. Mr. Buchbinder seconded the motion.
All in Favor. Motion Carried.
7 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent, 0 abstentions, 1 recused.
PB 2019-11 SBD New Application
Woodstock Farm Animal Sanctuary (Owner and Applicant)
Minor Subdivision
Applicant proposes the subdivision of a +/- 149.3 acre parcel (S/B/L 69.4-2-11.2) by the separation of +/- 15.373 acres into a second parcel to be transferred to 641 Berme Road, Accord, NY. Existing parcel is accessible by Lucas Turnpike, High Falls, NY and located at 2 Rescue Lane, High Falls, NY. The existing parcel contains a lodge and educational center, animal sanctuary, pasture lands, waterway and undeveloped woodlands. Parcel is AR-3 zoned (agricultural residential), adjacent to Ulster County Ag District #3, within 500’ of the Town of Marbletown, is in the ‘FP’ and ‘AP overlay zoning districts and the DOH Aquifier district and contains ACOE Wetlands.
SEQRA: TBD

Mr. Jeff Lydon from the Woodstock Farm Animal Sanctuary was present on behalf of the application.

Mr. Lydon explained they wanted to sell a portion of their parcel to their next door neighbor.

Chair Lindstrom asked if all the parcels were already delineated.

Mr. Lydon stated he believed they were.

Chair Lindstrom and Attorney Christiana stated they both did not recall any subdivision being done on the property.

Attorney Christiana advised that the Board should confer with Supervisor Mike Baden in regards to any prior subdivision taking place, as he was the Chair for the Planning Board when the Woodstock Animal Sanctuary initially came in front of the Board.

Supervisor Baden stated he believed there were four parcels and the original property had been split into four pieces, but one of them was a lot line adjustment that had been split off and then sold. .

Attorney Christiana stated if it was a subdivision already, then the Board did not need to look at anything further.

Chair Lindstrom explained if they were all parcels already with the mets and bounds, then the submission with the Code Enforcement Office would just need to be reclassified.

Attorney Christiana asked Mr. Lydon if the lot he wanted to sell off would effect the site plan.

Mr. Lydon stated it would not because the parcel was so far way from the site plan.

There was a discussion among the Board about weather the parcel had already been split into four pieces.

Chair Lindstrom stated it seemed as though the parcel had already been divided up and therefore he did not need anything from the Board. She said that they would double check with the Code Enforcement Office to make sure they did not miss anything so pending any comments from the CEO, the Board did not see anything needed going forward.

PB 2019-01 SUP/SPA Continued Application
Wayward Ranch Animal Sanctuary, LLC (Applicant)
CWC Loosestrife, LLC (Owner)
Proposes the establishment of a farm animal sanctuary and construction of a 90’x 60’ dog & cat kennel, on the +/- 63.5 acre parcel located at 30 Loosestrife Lane, Kerhonkson, NY, S/B/L 76.1-2-2.111. Parcel is presently used as a farm and equestrian facility with barn, stables, paddocks, etc. also including a single family residence. AR-3 zoned, Ulster County Ag District #3, ACOE national wetlands on property and within 500 ft of a registered historic property.
SEQRA: TBD

*Chair Lindstrom recused herself from the application on 6/10/2019. Vice Chair, Rick Jones, would chair Wayward Ranch going forward.

Ms. Eleni Calomiris-Applicant, Mr. Bill Spade and Ms. Keiko Saski-Spade- Architects, and Ms. Vicotria Polidoro- Attorney for applicant, were present on behalf of the application.

Ms. Elizabeth Axelson from the Town’s planning consultant CPL, was also present.

Chair Jones stated the items he wanted to address at the meeting were the issue of special events and weather or not the applicant was in agreement with putting the special events off to the side, the issue of the noise and the noise study, and also the wetland studies including the study that was done by the applicant and he one provided to the Board from the neighbors of the property that had been done by Hudsonia. He noted there were also recommendations from CPL that he wanted to discuss with the Board as well. Chair Jones stated he wanted to reiterate some other items that were brought up at the previous month’s meeting that he was not in attendance for, that he wanted to address as well such as private covenants- which was a private matter between the landowners and not for the Board to deal with, the only thing in some what of relation to the covenants the Board would address was the access to the property. He said another item that was brought up at the previous month’s meeting was the appeal that was in front of the Town’s Zoning Board of Appeals and it was not the Planning Board’s concern, they could proceed and go forward and their process did not stop because of the pending appeal.

Attorney Christiana explained there was law that when somebody goes to the Zoning Board their proceedings were stayed but there was case law those proceedings that were stayed if a property owner was challenging something the Building Department said, the building department would bring them to court and they would come to get a variance or an appeal, than the court proceedings would be stayed. She stated the Planning Board could continue on simultaneously as the appellants were in front of the Zoning Board and the Planning Board could continue the review of the application.

Mr. Williams asked how the Zoning Board decision would effect the Planning Board if the Zoning Board went in favor of the appellant.

Attorney Christiana stated if that happened it would be addressed at that time but at the moment if the applicant wanted to continue to move forward they could or they could say they wanted the application on hold until the Zoning Board was done.

Ms. Polidoro stated they understood they were proceeding at their own risk and if they stopped the application in front of the Planning Board it would cause repeated applications to the Zoning Board and they would never be able to move forward.

Chair Jones stated he wanted to address an item that had to do with the historical building near the property and SHPO had sent the Board a letter stating they did not have an issue with the project. He noted the property was approximately 1100 feet from the historical building. He said there was a letter from the Town of Rochester Historical Preservation Commission and he didn’t know how to respond to some of the items that were mentioned in the letter except to say yes to some of the things for example they stated the building was 34 feet tall and that was correct and the maximum allowable height of a building in the Town was 35 feet.

Mr. Spade commented the letter was incorrect, as the building was 24 foot X 6 inch high to the midpoint of the gable roof. He stated the peak of the cupala at the center of the building was 34 feet. He explained that the entire building wasn’t 34 feet high, it was just the center point.

Attorney Christiana stated even if the entire building was 34 feet high it would still be under the 35 foot maximum height limit.

Chair Jones explained there was a comment in the letter that stated the existing building was a Kentucky derby style steel horse barn and the building looked to be less than 20 years old. Chair Jones stated that was correct and the new building was being built to code. He said in the letter it was mentioned that there were trees blocking the view of the historical building and he felt that was done by the owner of the historical home so they wouldn’t see the horse barn and he didn’t believed that impacted the Board’s consideration. He stated there was a comment about the drawings of the proposed buildings, with regards to offices, etc., and he didn’t feel that was germane to the historical matters. Chair Jones stated the letter also referenced that there would be 30 parking spaces and there was a comment about it being a clear commercial enterprise with agricultural zoning. He said he wanted to make it clear that the proposed project was allowed by the Town’s code. He stated the letter he felt the Board should consider in consideration of the historical impact, was the one from SHPO with due regards to the work done by the Town’s Historical Preservation Commission.

Chair Jones stated he wanted to move on to special events and since he was not at the last meeting he wanted to make sure he understood the comments that he had read in both the June and July meeting minutes, it was his understanding that Ms. Calomiris was willing to put aside or withdraw any part of the application that had to do with special events.

Ms. Calomiris stated that was correct and she had also written a letter stating as such.

Attorney Christiana noted they had that in writing and it was in the file.

Chair Jones asked if they were removing the special events for all time or removing them for only a certain amount of time because he had read Ms. Polidoro’s comments in the July meeting minutes where she had stated that Ms. Calomiris could come back whenever she wanted and apply for special events.

Ms. Polidoro stated they could not commit to a perpetual restriction on the property but it was not something that was a part of the project at the moment or in the foreseeable future.

Ms. Calomiris stated it was not something she predicted they would ever come back for and that was what she had put in the letter she had written for the Board.

Chair Jones said in terms of their findings it would be safe to say that the special events had been withdrawn from the current application and there was no consideration or intentions to go forward with special events for the foreseeable future.

Attorney Christiana stated that the concern of Chair Jones was the question of segmentation with SEQRA. She explained if they were going to do special events in five years then the Board would have to look at everything all together, and Ms. Calomiris was stating she had no intention of ever doing them but her attorney was advising that she may want to them in 20 years.

Mr. Zurofksy wanted clarification on if a non for profit business did an event just for themselves, would that fall under the commercial special events.

Ms. Polidoro stated she didn’t believe it did fall under special events as a lot of people did have ribbon cutting ceremonies and the like. She explained they were not planning on doing anything like that anyway.

Attorney Christiana explained that a board member from Wayward Ranch did speak at a public hearing where she had stated they were not going to be doing fund raising on the property either and had intentions on looking elsewhere in order to do events.

Ms. Calomiris stated one of the reasons they had withdrawn the application was because when they had looked into one of the paddocks for run off parking, they would have to so much work in order for the parking to be supported because of the soil and the only parking they would have would be in a parking spot that was not affected by the soil level.

Attorney Christiana stated it would be part of the decision that they were not doing fund raising, private or commercial.

Mr. Zurofksy stated he still wanted clarification.

Supervisor Baden asked to speak as he thought he could address Mr. Zurofsky’s concerns.

The Board allowed it.

Supervisor Baden explained the intent of the law was special events were in the code as an ancillary use and there had to be another use on the property that was allowable weather it was residential, commercial, industrial, there had to be another use. He said in the case of what had been discussed, in a residential use someone could have as many parties as they wanted privately, it had nothing to do with if they were raising money or not, It was all if it was a normal occurrence to the use then it was okay. He explained in a business situation like the current application, no one was living in the barn so if they were holding an event that was not part of their allowed use they could as long as they had parking, water, etc. He stated the point of the code wasn’t about if someone was making money or not, it was intended to make sure a person would have everything needed to safely have an event.

Mr. Zurofsky stated he still didn’t feel satisfied with the explanation, he asked if anyone else on the Board felt the same.

Mr. Williams commented it was a gray area, he agreed, but he didn’t believe the solution to it resided there in the current application.

Mr. Pinsky agreed it wasn’t clear cut.

Mr. Zurofsky asked if they could put in the decision that they couldn’t do fund raising.

Attorney Christiana stated if the applicant agreed to that, the yes, but if they didn’t then it would be shaky ground to say they could not do fund raising.

Chair Jones asked the applicant if they would allow themselves to be encumbered by fund raising. .

Ms. Polidoro stated the reasonable limit would be events not exceeding the 40 parking spaces because that was what they were being reviewed for.

Ms. Calomiris commented she had already stated that in her letter.

Chair Jones stated she did say that in her letter and she had also added if there were cars arriving that exceeded that 40 parking space limit, they would be turned away.

The Board moved on to the review the items the applicant had provided in terms of noise.

Chair Jones explained the applicants had originally done a noise study on their own but the Board had felt more needed to be done. He stated the applicant had hired another party to do the noise study and there had been an issue the previous month as the applicant had wanted to go forward with the heightened noise study but the Board had not been able to review the study to confirm that the scope was okay and the Board had told them to proceed at their own risk. He noted the idea for the current meeting was the Board would have an answer for the scope that the applicant had already started to approve and to have CPL to take a look at the new noise study scope and CPL had indicated they did not feel comfortable reviewing the provided scope.

Ms. Axelson stated they didn’t have the specialist with the qualifications that was comparable to the noise consultants the applicant had hired.

Chair Jones stated the CPL had come back to the Board and said they were not comfortable given the qualifications of the consultant the applicants had hired, and therefore CPL had suggested to the Board another firm to do the study and it was the same firm who had been doing commentary on the scope of their study.

Mr. Pinsky wanted clarification on the process.

Ms. Axelson explained there were noise specialists who provided he scope of the study they would be performing including points they were going to measure, etc. She then explained CPL had contacted a consultant at AKRF and asked if they could quickly look at the noise scope submitted by the applicant’s consultant had done and make any commentary so the applicants could address the comments and move forward with their study. Ms. Axelson stated she had looked at the comments they had not asked for any more points of measurements, so the applicant’s noise consultant was spot on. She stated most of the comments were pretty technical, as in their clarifications and recommendations, and she didn’t believe they were too controversial in slowing down the noise study done by the applicant’s noise consultant.

Ms. Polidoro stated they had gone forward and hired a noise consultant that was highly credential and that they were now being penalized for hiring someone with high credentials because CPL could not review the study which was disappointing. She said they did review AKRF’s proposal and they didn’t feel it was reasonable. She stated that she wanted to remind the Board that when they were charging an applicant escrow money for a consultant, they had an obligation to make sure the fees were reasonable and necessary and they couldn’t charge just whatever someone was willing to pay. Ms. Polidoro said AKRF had stated they would be spending 28 hours reviewing the noise study and they had proposed if the Board had wanted them to come to meeting and answer questions which was not unusual, it would $1800.00 which was about 8 hours of work if they sent the highest rated of their employees. She stated she didn’t believe the Planning Board could hire AKRF until they negotiated their fees and hours as she felt this wasn’t the going rate of most consultants in Ulster County, they had no problem getting professional assistance but they did ask that the fees would be reasonable.

Mr. Zurofsky shared his sentiments with Ms. Polidoro and stated he felt the same when he read AKRF’s proposal and the Board had plenty of applicants who had come in front of them before who had done their noise studies independently and the Board had accepted them and now the application before them had provided not one but two noise studies, it did seem excessive to him.

Ms. Axelson stated she understood there was concern about the charges but there was also a second concern about weather or not the Board wanted a specialist reviewing on behalf of the Planning Board and at least on that point she was under the impression that’s what they wanted . She said in regards to the charges, she was also surprised by $1800.00 rate as well, but she thought that AKRF thought they were to do a presentation, it could potentially be less if that was not what the Board wanted.

Ms. Polidoro pointed out that the Board had just heard an application in regards to a bed and breakfast and they weren’t requiring those applicants to hire a noise consultant, and they just wanted to be treated the same as all the other applications.

Chair Jones stated they couldn’t compare one to the other as in the case of the bed and breakfast it was an open building, played music, and there was little to no impact at the lot lines whereas with the current application, it had been established that there would be some sort of impact. He stated what he had heard was that AKRF had some suggestions but overall they were fine with the noise study and he suggested they wait for the applicant’s study before the went forward with deciding anything further.

Ms. Polidoro stated maybe if they provided the Board with a full study and AKRF, then AKRF would be more apt to negotiate/change their rates.

Mr. Zurofsky wanted to clarify to the applicant that the reason the Board had asked for more on noise on the current application, rather than the one referenced by Ms. Polidoro, was this was a response to public comment and there were two concerns with the public nuisance and noise.

Ms. Calomiris explained they were asking their consultant to respond specifically to the public comments.

Mr. Williams commented what could a nuisance to one person, may not be to another and a barking dog could be very annoying but it could still be within the decibels limits whereas a racing car could be a noise that someone does like but it could be well above the decibel limits.
Ms. Axelson suggested that the Board could ask the applicant to directly address all those public comments, not just a letter, but something that provided evidence and it was one avenue they could pursue.

Mr. Pinsky wanted clarification on what the points meant on the maps in Paul Carpenter’s (The applicant’s hired consultant’s) scope.

Ms. Axelson stated they were property lines.

Mr. Pinsky asked what was the existing noise level and would they be doing a noise test with comparable noise?

Ms. Polidoro explained they would take the ambient noise and then go into the kennel and take measurements. She stated it was not going to be 100% exact but there would be a model to account for the differences.

The Board discussed the noise scope and study further.

Mr. Spade stated they could make sure the noise consultants provided topographic impacts.

Mr. Williams said there were many variables to a sound study including wind, humidity, and all of it made a difference, and you couldn’t account for all those factors.

Chair Jones stated there were two items the applicant needed to address further in their noise study the topography and presumed noise/nuisance factors.

Attorney Christiana wanted to add that they address the AKRF comments as well.

Chair Jones stated he would like for the applicant’s consultant to come and make a presentation to the Board.

Ms. Maloney asked if the Board was making them jump through a couple of extra hoops based on other applications.

Chair Jones stated every application had to be treated differently and two factors were a concern with the current application and those were the nature of the noise and the public concerns.

Ms. Maloney made the motion to amend Paul Carpenter’s scope to include estimates based on the topography of the land and to also ensure that the decibel level and the nuisance factor was part of the scope of the work that was done and the AKRF comments were to be included. Mr. Pinsky seconded the motion.
All In Favor. Motion Carried.
6 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent, 0 abstentions, 1 recused.

Mr. Zurofsky motioned to await the study before the Board went forward with any more studies. Ms. Maloney seconded the motion.
All In Favor. Motion Carried.
6 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent, 0 abstentions, 1 recused.

Ms. Polidoro stated they didn’t object to compensating AKRF for the work they had already done.

The Board moved on the discussing the wetlands.

Chair Jones stated a wetlands study had been done and including in the original application and he wanted to remind the board a 100 foot buffer was not required by the Army Corp of Engineers, but the applicant had voluntarily put a 100 ft buffer. He explained some time in the last month and a half a study was provided to the Board via a citizen group that had been done by the Hudsonia Institute and it essentially brought up points but didn’t have specific data for the property. Chair Jones said the study stated the wetlands on the property could link to other wetlands in the surrounding area and the linkage would be by surface water and they also stated they had viewed, not walked, the property but that the wetlands looked as though they could contain bog turtles and endangered, threatened, or rare plants.

Ms. Axelson explained that there were a few ways to address the public concern over the wetlands and they included the applicant addressing them on their own and/or the Board hiring their own consultant to address the comments and the Hudsonia report. She stated that they had received a proposal from North Country Ecological and gave a list of what was stated in the proposal. She explained that Paul Janheig had done a report as well and she had looked at it. She stated he was a wetland and soil specialist but she wasn’t sure if he did habitat assessments.

Mr. Zurofsky said he wasn’t entirely clear as what was at stake and say they find there were wetlands that were unmarked and the boundary moves and it becomes a DEC wetlands, there would be a 100 foot buffer, etc what would change?

Ms. Axelson said it would change the impact.

Mr. Williams stated it was already and had been a horse farm and if there were bog turtles they were getting trampled by horses as it was.

Mr. Zurofsky said the use had changed and the applicant had voluntarily put up the 100 ft buffer and even if there was something found he didn’t believe anything would change.

Ms. Calomiris stated the purposed site was in the middle of a hay field which they currently hayed, so there wasn’t overflowing flora and fauna, it was hayed and would be hayed again that year, and it was a lot of noise and it was over the entire field and that in itself impacted the area over the impact of one building.

Ms. Polidoro reminded the Board of the rule of reasonableness and that the potential impact of the project would be very small.

Mr. Buchbinder noted the Hudsonia report was not specific to the property.

Ms. Polidoro said they had a letter from Paul Janheig that addressed some of the items that had been brought up in the Hudsonia report.

Mr. Spade provided a quick summary of what Mr. Janheig had addressed.

Attorney Christiana noted that another municipality had to wait a year to complete a project due to a report from Mr. Janheig, so his qualifications spoke for themselves.

Mr. Zurofsky made the motion that the Board would not be hire by North Country Ecological services to do a wetlands study subject to the report that Paul Janehig was going to provide to the Board. Mr. Buchbinder seconded the motion.
6 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent, 0 abstentions, 1 recused.

The Board dicussed what would need to be provided the following month from the applicant which included the noise study , SWPP and detailed site plans.

OTHER MATTERS:

Mr. Zurofsky made the motion to cancel the August 26th, 2019 Workshop meeting. Ms. Maloney seconded the motion.
All in Favor. Motion Carried.
6 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstentions, 0 absent, 1 recused.

ADJOURNMENT:

Chair Jones made the motion to adjourn the meeting at 10:38pm. Mr. Buchbinder seconded the motion.
All in Favor. Motion Carried.
6 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstentions, 0 absent, 1 recused.

Respectfully Submitted,

Brianna Tetro, Secretary

Adopted and Accepted: October 10th, 2019