Planning Board Minutes February 10th, 2020

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

MINUTES OF February 10th, 2020 REGULAR MEETING OF the Town of Rochester PLANNING BOARD, held at 7:00pm at the Harold Lipton Community Center , Accord, NY.

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

The Secretary did roll call attendance.

PRESENT: ABSENT:
Chair Lindstrom, Chairperson
Patrick Williams, Vice Chairperson
Rick Jones
Brian Buchbinder
Sam Zurofsky
Zorian Pinsky
Ann Marie Maloney- 7:10pm

Also present:
Mary Lou Christina, Town Attorney. Brianna Tetro, Secretary.

ANNOUNCEMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS

Chair Lindstrom explained that the February 24th Workshop meeting was going to have an agenda that included a lot line improvement for the Alligerville Fire House along with Wayward Ranch. She also noted she would not be at the March 9th regular meeting and Vice Chair Williams would be Chairing that meeting.

TRAININGS

Chair Lindstrom reminded the Board of the Association of Towns training being held the weekend of February 15th, 2020 in New York City.

ACTION ON MINUTES

Mr. Jones made the motion to accept the minutes of the January 13th, 2020 regular meeting. Mr. Buchbinder seconded the motion. Mr. Pinsky abstained as he was not in attendance for that meeting. Ms. Maloney was not present at the time of the motion.
Motion Carried.
5 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, 1 abstentions.

APPLICATION REVIEW

PB 2020-01 LLI New Application
Adam & Jamie Paddock (Owners) & Borrego Solar (Applicants)
Lot Line Improvement
Applicant proposes a lot line adjustment. Northeastern property line is proposed to be moved 35 feet to 50 feet further to the northeast, enlarging the lot to +/- 2.869 acres. Parcel is S/B/L 69.3-2-23 (+/- 2.437 acres). Parcel is in the R-2 zoning district and is residential. An access easement for a utility grade solar facility exists along the northeastern lot line.
SEQRA: Type II by Code

Chair Lindstrom notified the Board that this application was not going to be on the agenda that evening due to the Code Enforcement Officer revising his previous decision and that it would now be reviewed by the Zoning Board of Appeals.

2019-11 SUP Continued Application
Farmers in Accord, LLC (Applicant & Owner)
Two Family Dwelling Conversion
Applicant proposes the conversion of a single family residence into a two family residence by the use of an existing apartment space for a second dwelling. Property is +/- 42 acres (S/B/L 77.1-2-33.610) and is located at 2880 Lucas Turnpike, Accord, NY in the AR-3 zoning district and is in the Ulster County AG-3 district. Existing facilities include a single family residence, farm, greenhouses and vacant land. Parcel contains freshwater & ACOE wetlands, hydric soils, prime farmland and farmland of statewide importance, and is partially in the FD Overlay District.
SEQRA: Type II determination at January 13th regular PM Meeting

Mr. George Kaplan was present on behalf of the application.

Chair Lindstrom explained to the Board what the application was all about.

Mr. Pinsky asked how many people would be living in the proposed space.

Mr. Kaplan stated 1 but 2 at the maximum would be living there.

The Board went through the items Mr. Kaplan had provided as requested at the previous month’s meeting and felt the application was ready to be scheduled for a public hearing.

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

Mr. Jones made the motion to set the application for public at the March 9th, 2020 Regular meeting. Mr. Zurofsky seconded the motion.
All in Favor. Motion Carried.
7 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent, 0 abstentions.

2019-15 SBD New Application
Catskill Farms Inc. (Applicant & Owner)
Minor Subdivision
Applicant proposes the subdivision of a +/- 9.6 acre parcel (S/B/L 68.1-3-32.111) into two parcels, one of 7.64 acres and one of 2 acres. Parcel(s) are located at 10 Old Farmhouse Rd, Kerhonkson, NY. The parcel presently has a single family residence under construction. The parcel further contains undeveloped gently sloping woodlands. Parcel is R-2 zoned (low density residential). Parcel contains Ulster County Habitat Core lands.
SEQRA: TBD

The application was put on hold to a later portion of the meeting due to no one being present on behalf of the application.

2019-12 SPA New Application
Rup Kishan Realty, LLC (Applicant) Nimisha & Tejal Patel (Owner)
Amend Site Plan Approval PB 2017-09 SPA
Applicant proposes changes (amendment of Site Plan) in the landscaping plan for PB SPA 2017-09
Parcel is +/- 1.45 acres (S/B/L 76.9-2-39.100) and is located at 6270 Route 209, Kerhonkson, NY in the H (Hamlet), FD and AP Overlay zoning districts. Located in the 100 year flood plain and within 500’ of Wawarsing.
SEQRA: TBD

Mr. And Mrs. Nimisha and Tejal Patel were present on behalf of the application. Also present on behalf of the application was Ms. Jaime Roxby who had landscaped the property.

Mr. Patel argued that the trees on the original landscaping plans were too big and that they would block the sign for the liquor store.

Chair Lindstrom stated the trees in the front needed to be done.

Mr. Jones said planting the trees would not have that much of an impact on the visibility of the sign.

Mr. Jones and Ms. Roxby went through the items on the landscaping plans and Mr. Jones offered some alternatives.

Chair Lindstrom stated they needed to do what was exactly on the original approved site plan. She noted that a portion of the area of the site was suppose to have lawn and had been filled in with rocks instead, that was not what had been approved.

Mr. Patel said the rocks required less maintenance than the lawn that was why they put rocks in.

Chair Lindstrom reiterated that they needed to stick with the original site plan. She explained if they wanted to amend the current site plan, they would need to go get a brand new site plan map with the alternative landscaping options. She said the Board would also have to send it to The Ulster County Planning Board and the NYS Department of Transportation for their comments.

Mr. Patel stated it would be less expensive and time consuming to just do what had already been approved on the original site plan.

Chair Lindstrom stated it was almost time for spring planting and they needed to get the proper landscaping done. She said if it wasn’t done in time, the C/O for their building could be pulled. She also noted if they did intend on trying to amend the site plan the cut-off for getting their items in was February 24th, 2020.

There was no further discussion.

Mr. Chuck Petersen was present on behalf of the application.

Chair Lindstrom noted they had received the updated maps requested at the previous month’s meeting. She stated the neighbors across the street would need to be added to the maps.

Mr. Jones asked if this was going to be on a private road.

Chair Lindstrom explained that was why it was being accessed by Cedar Drive. She added the other notation that would need to be on the revised maps as well were the subdivision restriction. She also pointed out it was not touching the habitat core.

Mr. Petersen explained the subdivision would be 150-200 ft off of the private road.

Mr. Pinsky said in the EAF Part I it had been marked that the property had access to public transportation.

Mr. Petersen stated that was an error and he would make the correction.

Chair Lindstrom made the motion to list the application as an unlisted/uncoordinated action for SEQRA. Mr. Buchbinder seconded the motion.
ROLL CALL:
Chair Lindstrom- Yes Mr. Jones-Yes
Mr. Williams- Yes Ms. Maloney-Yes
Mr. Pinsky- Yes Mr. Zurofsky-Yes
Mr. Buchbinder- Yes
All in Favor. Motion Carried.
7 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent, 0 abstentions.

The Board went through the EAF Part II.

Chair Lindstrom made the motion to delcare a negative declaration for SEQRA. Mr. Jones seconded the motion.
ROLL CALL:
Chair Lindstrom-Yes Mr. Jones- yes
Mr. Williams- Yes Ms. Maloney- Yes
Mr. Pinsky- Yes Mr. Zurofsky-Yes
Mr. Buchbinder- Yes
All in Favor. Motion Carried.
7 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent, 0 abstentions.

Chair Lindstrom made the motion to set the application for public hearing at the March 9th, 2020 regular meeting. Mr. Jones seconded the motion.
All in Favor. Motion Carried.
7 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent, 0 abstentions.

There was no further discussion.

PB 2019-01 SUP/SPA SEQRA Decision
Wayward Ranch Animal Sanctuary, LLC (Applicant) & CWC Loosestrife, LLC (Owner)
Site Plan Approval/Special Use Permit
Proposes the establishment of a farm animal sanctuary and construction of a 90’x 60’ dog & cat kennel, on +/- 63.5 acre parcel located at 30 Loosestrife Lane, Kerhonkson, NY, S/B/L 76.1-2-2.111.
SEQRA: Type I
*Chair Lindstrom recused herself at 7:40pm*

Acting Chair Jones gave the Board an overview of SEQRA and noted that the Board had already classified as a Type I action for SEQRA and a full EAF was done by CPL and had done a coordinated review to ensure everyone who had been sent the application was satisfied with the Board being lead agency and then the Board had reviewed EAF Part II and III two weeks prior at the January 27th, 2020 Workshop Meeting to go through each of the 18 items in the EAF Part II to determine the significance was a yes or no. He stated he would go through the EAF Part II again, quickly, focusing on what had been changed and why. Chair Jones said they were looking either to positive or negative declare the application. He explained the process for if the Board decided on either positive or negative declarations.

Acting Chair went through EAF Part II again for review.

Chair Jones explained at the previous meeting the Board had requested a statement from the applicant’s engineer in reference to the impact on ground water. He noted that they had received a letter from the engineer along with a written statement from the property’s previous owner, Mr. Myron Langer. He read the letter:

Chair Jones and the Board continued to go through what had been changed on the EAF Part II at the January 27th, 2020 Workshop meeting and explained why.

Attorney Christiana explained that when it came to Part III, an analysis was done and she read it for the record:

1. Part 2 Small to Moderate Impact analysis
The identified potential small impacts on land include land disturbance and resulting erosion during construction; and increased impervious surfaces on the site, which would be mitigated by grading, implementation of erosion and sedimentation control measures; stormwater management practices; and landscaping. The average water table is 4 feet. NO construction is to take place on any area where the depth of water is less than 3 feet.

The identified potential small impacts on surface water include land disturbance and resulting erosion and siltation during construction; and increased impervious surfaces on the site, which would be mitigated by implementation of erosion and sedimentation control measures; and stormwater management practices.

The identified potential small impacts on groundwater stems from the need for up to 910 gallons of water per day being needed for the project. This may require that a third well be drilled on the property. The applicants engineer presented analysis demonstrating adequate water on site.

The identified potential small impacts on Plants and Animals is from a study undertaken by Hudsonia, on behalf of neighboring property owners which iden tifies one rare plant on the border with another property. The plant is not on any DEC listing and is not in the vicinity of the land disturbance. There may be small rodents or reptiles currently living in the pasture/hayfield in the area of development. None are on the DEC listing endangered or threatened.

The identified potential small impact on historic resources is related to the Dupuy Stone House located on an adjoining parcel. The parcel boundary of the Dupuy House is approximately 280 feet (280′) from the project site boundary. The closest proposed improvement to the Dupuy House is a proposed turnout along the Wayward Ranch driveway, which is about 700′ from the Dupuy House. The proposed kennel building, which resembles a barn; and the outdoor run are approximately 1,090′ from the Dupuy House. Given the distance between the historic structure and proposed improvements and structures, the historic nature of the Dupuy would not be affected. Additionally, the intervening topography on the subject site and existing evergreen trees on the Dupuy parcel would minimize any small impact to the historic character.

The Impact of Energy was checked as there will be some small degree of additional energy utilized with the construction of the kennel, but not to a degree that would cause any environmental concern.

Attorney Christiana read Part III addendum for the record:

WAYWARD RANCH ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSEMENT REVIEW
PART 3 ADDENDUM

The identified potential small impact on noise would be mitigated by the proposed installation of an 8′ high wooden fence with a 2′ cantilevered top lined with acoustic material around the outdoor runs, which would result in compliance with Town Code section 140-20. F. Additionally, there will be further mitigation by the limitation of time that dogs will be permitted to be outside in the dog runs. The applicant has designed the Kennel facility to actively decrease the impact of nuisance noise which may arise from intermittent barking as outlined in the document entitled “Expected Daily Kennel hours/schedule” submitted by applicant on January 21, 2020.
The identified potential small impact on community character is related to the construction of a kennel building, which may be viewed as being inconsistent with nearby residential buildings. This potential effect would be mitigated by the proposed architecture, which resembles a barn; and is compatible with current and former structures on the site and nearby farms. There is a farm on an adjacent property and previously there was an animal sanctuary in this area.
2. Moderate to Large Impact Analysis
The Potential Moderate impact to Agricultural Resources is that 2.64 acres of agricultural land located in an Agricultural District is being developed and when interpreted narrowly may be irreversibly converted to non-agricultural land. This is .14 acres over the threshold provided on Part 2 of the EAF. In reviewing all plans, however the lead agency determines that much of this land can be easily converted back to agricultural uses which mitigates any potential impacts.
3. The proposed action will not result in any impacts on: geological features; flooding; air; aesthetic resources; open space and recreation; critical environmental areas; transportation; human health; or inconsistency with adopted land use plans or zoning regulations.
4. The Lead Agency notes that with regard to Consistency with Community Plans, The Town’s comprehensive plan and zoning law were reviewed, and it is determined that the project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Town Zoning Law.

Mr. Pinsky stated the new kennel building was not consistent with the agricultural use even though it had been noted in the addendum that the structure was going to resemble a barn and would be compatible with the current and former structures.

Mr. Zurofsky stated the design would be compatible with the current buildings and it wasn’t speaking to the use.

Mr. Pinsky read portions of the Comprehensive Plan that he felt applied to the application:

What is A Comprehensive Plan? Under New York State law, a Comprehensive Plan is an officially adopted document that sets the general direction for development and growth in a town and identifies ways in which the Town can move in that direction.

Planning in the Face of Change: This Comprehensive Plan is intended to ensure the Town of Rochester has policies in place so that the property rights of landowners and the community are protected by a balanced set of standards that preserve the rights to use land as desired and address the impacts of such development on adjacent landowners and their property rights.

The Planning Process: The development of this Comprehensive Plan, at meetings of the committee and general public, has been greeted with mixtures of praise, doubt, and skepticism. In honoring this sentiment, this Comprehensive Plan has sought to find areas of common ground—not an easy thing to achieve in a Town of rugged individualists—and is offered as a first step of an ongoing process of maintaining and/or improving the present and future quality of life for all of its residents.

Objectives: Each plan goal is accompanied by objectives that identify specific actions that the Town can take to move in the direction set by the goals. There are, however, alternative ways these goals can be accomplished.

Plan Element: Community Character Goal: Recognize and respond to the wide variety of individuals, enterprises and organizations that help define Rochester’s character. Shape growth so that it contributes to and strengthens the qualities that make Rochester unique.
Prevent intrusion of incompatible uses in residential areas.

Mr. Williams commented that this was not a residential area, it was a mixed use.

Ms. Maloney noted it was an existing farm before hand.

Mr. Zurofsky explained that it was in a zone that allowed every use.

Mr. Pinsky said he understood it fit in the zoning.

Mr. Zurofsky stated he felt Mr. Pinsky was suggesting that the zoning was not compatible with the Comprehensive Plan, which was a reasonable question to ask, and he wanted to know if there was friction in the Comprehensive Plan, how would the Board go about it.

Attorney Christiana asked why he felt there was friction.

Mr. Zurofsky explained he personally did not feel there was and he asked Mr. Pinsky where he felt there was an issue.

Mr. Pinsky said he was reading residential use but Mr. Zurofsky had been right and it was a mixed use.

Chair Jones noted that the property had been all agricultural at one time and it had been subdivided. He said many or most of the homes bordering the property were part of the original plot so if there was anything that was incompatible with the original use would be the houses. He further explained that the property itself was meant to be subdivided as well but it went bust and it stayed the original use and his point was that it was originally all agricultural and that he could argue that the proposed use could be inconsistency but on the flip side he could say that if 2.64 acres out of +/- 63.5 acres being disturbed was so diminishing of anyone’s quality of life and or the potential future use of the land, that he’d rather see 2.64 acres used as Kennel and Animal Sanctuary and the rest of the land being undisturbed vs. Having 11 houses on the property.

Mr. Zurofsky added that he had read the Comprehensive Plan a few times and some of the objectives were cross cutting.

The Board discussed the Comprehensive Plan and the use of the property.

The Board moved on to discussing the SEQRA.

Mr. Buchbinder made the motion to make a Negative Declaration for SEQRA. Ms. Maloney seconded the motion.

There was a lengthy discussion about the changes the Board wanted to add to SEQRA.

Mr. Buchbinder made the motion to rescind the previous motion to make a Negative Declaration for SEQRA. Ms. Maloney seconded the motion.

Mr. Buchbinder made the motion to accept the revisions and make a Negative Declaration for SEQRA. Ms. Maloney seconded the motion.
ROLL CALL:
Chair Jones- Yes Mr. Buchbinder- Yes
Mr. Williams- Yes Mr. Zurofsky- Yes
Mr. Pinsky- Yes Ms. Maloney- Yes
All in Favor. Motion Carried.
6 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent, 0 abstentions, 1 recused.

Chair Jones stated the February 24th, 2020 Workshop would be dedicated to outlining the Findings for the application.

There was no further discussion.

ADJOURNMENT:

Mr. Williams made the motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:48pm. Ms. Maloney seconded the motion.
All in Favor. Motion Carried.
6 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent, 0 abstentions, 1 recused.

Respectfully Submitted,

Brianna Tetro, Secretary
Adopted and Accepted: March 9th, 2020