PLANNING BOARD
TOWN OF ROCHESTER
ULSTER COUNTY
ACCORD, NEW YORK
(845) 626-2434
MINUTES OF January 27th, 2020 WORKSHOP MEETING OF the Town of Rochester PLANNING BOARD, held at 6:30pm at the Harold Lipton Community Center , Accord, NY.
Acting Chair Rick Jones asked everyone to stand for the Pledge to the Flag.
The Secretary did roll call attendance.
PRESENT: ABSENT:
Rick Jones, Acting Chair Maren Lindstrom, Recused
Sam Zurofsky Brian Buchbinder
Patrick Williams Ann Marie Maloney
Zorian Pinsky
Also Present:
Mary Lou Christiana, Attorney for the Town. Brianna Tetro, Secretary.
APPLICATION REVIEW:
PB 2019-01 SUP/SPA Public Hearing/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, AG-3 district, ACOE national wetlands on property and within 500 ft of a registered historic property.
SEQRA TBD
Present on behalf of the application were the following: Ms. Eleni Calomiris, Applicant. Mr. Bill Spade and Ms. Keiko Sasaki-Spade, Architects. Ms. Victoria Polidoro, Attorney for the applicant.
Chair Jones explained to the Board that he had prepared a packet for them with the following items: A letter from Ms. Calomiris dated 1-21-2020 and a letter from Mr. Rob Kilpert, a resident.
Chair Jones explained in Ms. Calomiris’ letter she outlined the expected kennel hours. He stated there would be 6 hours in total and the hours would be 9am-12pm and then 2pm-5pm. He noted there was another document where it stated how they would help decrease noise pollution.
Chair Jones noted that Mr. Kilpert’s letter brought up similar concerns he was having in regards to water, not specifically the amount of water being used per day, but what it meant as he wasn’t an engineer.
Ms. Polidoro explained they had reached out to the engineer and asked him to provide them with information for the meeting that evening. She stated he wasn’t able to get them a letter but he emailed her with some back up data explaining how he had estimated the 910 gallons. She also had a print out from the EPA where it stated the average family used about 300 gallons a day at a home so in terms of equivilancy it was about 3 single family homes on a 63 acre property.
Chair Jones asked for Ms. Polidoro to forward the email from the engineer to him.
Ms. Polidoro said she’d forward Mr. Jones the email and also hoped the engineer would get a more fleshed out explanation on his letter head.
Chair Jones explained in Mr. Kilpert’s letter, there was a question on how they came to the number of 910 gallons.
Ms. Polidoro said she could explained it was figured out by: 15 Kennels = 50 gallons/day, Employees use = 15 gallons a day, Shower= 5 gallons/day. That totaled the 910 gallons.
Mr. Zurofsky noted that the engineer had felt the 50 gallons used by the kennels a day was high.
Ms. Polidoro agreed with Mr. Zurofsky.
Attorney Christiana stated it was better to overestimate rather than underestimate the use.
Chair Jones moved on to two letters that were submitted by the law firm of Brown, Duke, and Fogel who were representing a neighbor.
Attorney Christiana stated they had given the Board conditions should the Board approve the application that they would like to see in the decision in the first letter and the second letter they were asking for a response to the items they wanted addressed in the first letter. She stated the Board accepted all the documents and are give them serious consideration and they become a part of the record, but the Board does not respond to the letters. She said the response is whatever the Board decided.
Ms. Polidoro read from a letter she had submitted in response to the letter from Brown, Duke and Fogel as well as in response to a neighbor who had written a letter with issues they were concerned about and addressed all the points of concern.
Mr. Bill Spade went through the items he had submitted on 1- 15-2020. He stated it had included the SWPP plans and report, site plans update which included the muck dumpster placements, added paddock fencing and where the existing paddock fencing was located.
Ms. Calomiris clarified that they were still getting rid of the muck left by the previous owner.
Mr. Spade explained the submittal of 1-15-2020 further. He said on the kennel plans he had added colors and materials being used, on the landscaping plan he had added shrubs around screen fencing and also added a detail of split rail fence in SWPP.
Chair Jones noted the shurbs had been added to screen the 8 ft fence so it would not look so harsh on the south side of Boice Mill Rd. He also stated the maintenance report was in the SWPP.
Mr. Spade stated he also had provided a note about noise control (the 6 hour limitations for the kennel) and had responded to a letter from CPL dated 11-21-19 and had provided fencing detail and labeled the building contour.
Mr. Zurofsky asked that there be an added note to the plan about what TC meant and was, as it had been referenced in the SWPP report.
There was some further Board discussion.
The Board went on to open the public hearing.
Mrs. Donna O’Connell stated she was a neighbor of the property and had been at every meeting since May. She stated the majority of the neighbors were opposed to the proposed kennel project as it was much too large. She read from a letter that was signed by other residents who opposed the project.
Mr. Michael O’Connell asked if they were going to be able to see the latest submission and updated plans other than him looking at them at that evening’s meeting? He asked if they would have time to review the plans and digest them and ask questions.
Chair Jones stated the latest plans had been availbile to review since the 15th of January and that evening would be the chance to look at them to review.
Mr. O’Connell stated that was fine as he had seen and heard all he needed to see and it just kept getting bigger every night.
Chair Jones said they were available to review in the Planning Board office and the Board hadn’t done the SEQRA process at the moment so there was time to view the plans.
Mr. John Mashamesh asked if there were going to lights such as ones of telephone poles or spotlights down in the valley.
Mr. Spade they had a lighting plan and they were going to be 10 ft high poles around the parking lot and they would be on a timer and would go off at 11pm and they were dark sky compliant so if they would look at it straight on they wouldn’t be able to see a bulb, the light would be straight down and it was required for the parking area.
Mr. Zurofsky noted there was a lighting plan available to view that evening on a side table and it showed lines that were showing decrease in brightness as the farther someone moved away from the area of the lights.
Mr. Spade said the lighting would be around the parking lot and there would be three poles.
Chair Jones noted the Town had an extensive lighting code that and all the lighting on the plans for Wayward were in compliance.
Mr. Mashamesh stated he was asking because there had been a gentleman who lived on Boice Mill Rd a long time ago and they had all complained because they were in a rural area and who wanted to look out and see lights? He said the gentleman had taken it down out of respect for the neighbors.
Chair Jones said he suspected that had been a flood light that was not in compliance with the new regulations but since this was a new project and new construction they had to be compliant so there would be no flood lights.
Mr. Robert Kilpert said it sounded like there would opportunities for the Planning Board to review the site plan and make comments and he wanted to know if there were going to be future public hearings.
Attorney Christiana said the Board would decided if they wanted to close the public hearing.
Chair Jones stated the Board had had the newest set of plans, which were really only revisions to previous site plans, since January 15th, 2020 and there wasn’t any significant changes.
There were no further comments or questions from the public.
Chair Jones said on the issue of public hearings and whether or not they should close it, he had reviewed the record and they had upwards of 60 letters from members of the community commenting on many topics and some commenting on topics more than once, and the first public hearing was held in June of 2019 so they were at the 7 month mark and in his opinion the Board should close the public hearing. He stated the didn’t know of anything else besides the public not liking the project that the Board was going to find out that was new, not that it wasn’t important to know the public didn’t like the project, but at the moment it needed to be decided whether or not the public hearing should continue.
Mr. Williams made the motion to close the public hearing. Mr. Zurofsky seconded the motion.
There was a discussion.
Mr. Pinsky stated he felt they should wait for SEQRA to be reviewed before they made a decision on closing the public hearing.
Mr. Zurofsky stated he agreed with Chair Jones about the length of the time the public hearing had been opened and he felt the public had commented on a completed application.
Chair Jones told Mr. Pinsky that initially he felt the same way however he did a lot of reading and asked quite a bit of advice and he found that the public comment period had to do with the project and the site plan and to continue it after they reviewed SEQRA would suggest that they had already made a SEQRA determination.
Attorney Christiana stated if the Board did a positive declaration for SEQRA, then there would need to be a public hearing under the SEQRA law.
Mr. Pinsky said he understood but he did not want to shut down the public.
Chair Jones challenged that they hadn’t shut down the public and what they had been doing was asking for mitigation. He stated if the Board did a positive declaration, he didn’t know if there was anything they would ask of the applicant over and above what they had already as part of the detailed Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) scoping session. He stated he honestly didn’t see any value into continuing the public hearing beyond the 7 months they had continued it.
Attorney Christiana said if they closed the public hearing they had 62 days to make a decision.
Ms. Polidoro said not to worry about the time frame on making a decision because they could waive that if they felt the Board needed more time and information.
Chair Jones reminded the Board there was a motion and a second and they needed to vote on it.
Mr. Williams made the motion to close the public hearing. Mr. Zurofsky seconded the motion.
All in Favor. Motion Carried.
4 ayes, 0 nays, 3 absent, 0 abstentions.
The Board began to review SEQRA.
Attorney Christiana stated that the Board should go through part II of SEQRA that evening, question by question and start discussing. She stated the applicant still had more items they wanted to submit and there were only 4 members present that evening and she thought this was something they would want to wait for more members to have input on before there was a final decision and she suggested that they go through Part II and then make the SEQRA decision at the regular February meeting.
Chair Jones explained the SEQRA process to the Board and to the public. He noted that Part II had been put together by Elizabeth Axelson from CPL, the Town’s Planning Consultant and Part III would not be done that evening. Chair Jones had provided a narrative document for the SEQRA review.
*Secretary note: Please see attached original Part II EAF form, without completed revisions for reference.
The Board reviewed SEQRA and made the following changes:
#4- Impacts to Ground Water: Changed from “No” to “Yes” with a-h being answered: “No, or small impact may occur”
The Board discussed that since they were putting in a new well this should be answered “Yes” however, the property had been previously approved for an 11 lot Subdivision years prior so the impact to neighboring wells would not be impacted by new addition well installation.
#7- Impact on plants and animals: Changed from “No” to “Yes” with a-h being answered: “No, or small impact may occur”.
The Board discussed that were 2 acres of pasture/hayfield that may have rodents and small reptiles, therefore there may be a small impact.
Chair Jones noted there had been two wetland studies done. One was completed by the applicant’s wetlands consultant, Paul Jahneig and the other was done by Hudsonia which the residents had contacted. Mr. Jahneig did not feel there were any bog turtles being threatened as the property had been and was currently being hayed. The Hudsonia report stated there may be some rare plants in the area. Therefore, the Board felt there may be a small impact.
#8- Impact on Agricultural Resources: Changed from “No” to “yes”. The Board also changed letter d to “moderate or large impact may occur” due to the wording of the question. Mr. Zurofsky referenced the DEC website for clarification on: “The proposed action may irreversibly convert agricultural land to non-agricultural uses, either more than 2.5 acres if located in an Agricultural District, or more than 10 acres if not within an Agricultural District.” The Board discussed and decided it should be changed because the proposed project was 2.64 acres, therefore it was a “yes” not a “no.”
#15- Impact on Noise, Odor, and Light: Changed from “No” to “Yes” with a-h being answered “No, or small impact may occur” however, it was discussed by the Board that added to letter a should be noted that noise mitigation provided by 8’ wooden fence with 2’ cantilevered top lined with acoustic material around outdoor runs would result in compliance with Town Code 140-20f.
In regards to question 15, Mr. Pinsky provided further noise mitigation ideas to the applicant.
The Board discussed making sure Mr. Buchbinder and Ms. Maloney reviewed the material for the next regular meeting of February 10th, 2020 so SEQRA could be voted on. It was discussed by the Board of if SEQRA was voted on at the February 10th meeting, the findings could begin to be discussed at the February 24th workshop meeting.
There was no further discussion.
OTHER MATTERS:
Mr. Williams made the motion to approve the November 25th, 2019 Planning Board Workshop Meeting minutes. Mr. Williams seconded the motion.
All in Favor. Motion Carried.
4 ayes, 0 nays, 3 absent, 0 abstentions.
ADJOURNMENT:
Mr. Williams made the motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:53pm. Chair Jones seconded the motion.
All in Favor . Motion Carried.
4 ayes, 0 nays, 3 absent, 0 abstentions.
Respectfully Submitted,
Brianna Tetro, Secretary
Adopted and Accepted: March 9th, 2020