PLANNING BOARD
TOWN OF ROCHESTER
ULSTER COUNTY
ACCORD, NEW YORK
(845) 626-2434
torpbzba@hvc.rr.com
MINUTES OF July 13, 2015 the Town of Rochester PLANNING BOARD, held at the Town of Rochester Community Center, Accord, NY.
Chairman Baden asked that everyone stand to say the Pledge to the Flag.
The Secretary did roll call attendance.
PRESENT: ABSENT: Michael Baden, Chairman John Dawson
Adam Paddock Fred O’Donnell, Vice Chair Melvyn Tapper
Maren Lindstrom
Shane Ricks
Also present:
Patrick Williams, Alternate. Rebecca Paddock Stange, Secretary. Mary Lou Christiana, Town Attorney.
Chairman Baden noted that as there were absent members at this meeting, Mr. Williams would be seated as a regular member for this meeting.
ANNOUNCEMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS
Chairman Baden noted that the Board received a memo from the Assessor’s Office addressing a policy that they were implementing in which to combine lots for tax purposes.
TRAININGS
July 15 9am-4pm (5 hrs training credit) New York Planning Federation Summer Training
Full day of training, topics: Case Law, Junk, ZBA, SEQR, Site Plan/Special Use
Location: Henry A. Wallace Center – FDR Presidential Library and Home, Hyde Park
Fee: $80.00
ACTION ON MINUTES
Ms. Lindstrom motioned to adopt the edited version of the May 11, 2015 regular meeting minutes seconded by Mr. Williams. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden: Yes Tapper: Yes
O’Donnell: Absent Lindstrom: Yes
Ricks: Abstain Dawson: Absent
Paddock: Yes Williams: Yes
Motion carried. 5 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, 1 abstentions (including alternate)
ACTION ON MINUTES
Mr. Ricks motioned to adopt the edited version of the June 8, 2015 regular meeting minutes seconded by Ms. Lindstrom. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden: Yes Tapper: Abstain
O’Donnell: Absent Lindstrom: Yes
Ricks: Yes Dawson: Absent
Paddock: Yes Williams: Yes
Motion carried. 5 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, 1 abstentions (including alternate)
PB 2015-06 LLI New Application
Lot Improvement – Lot Line Adjustment
Michael Fink and Karen Pardini – Lisa Garcia Quiroz and Guy Garcia
Proposes conveyance of +/- 7.263 acres from Fink and Pardini to Quiroz and Garcia involving four contiguous parcels, Upper Granite Rd. and Stonykill Rd.., S/B/L # 76.2-3-8.111, 76.2-3-8.112, 76.2-3-8.114, and
76.2-3-8.12, ‘H’ zoning district
Mr. Fink and Bob James, PE were present on behalf of the application.
Chairman Baden noted that this was a Type 2 action under SEQRA by definition in the Town’s Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. James noted that Ms. Quiroz and Mr. Garcia are seeking additional acreage from Mr. Fink and Ms. Pardini. They aren’t looking to do any additional improvements. They are taking +/-7.23 acres from 3 separate parcels owned by Fink and Pardini. Parcel 4, they are taking about 1.7 acres. Parcel 5, they are taking about .5 acres and about 5 acres off of parcel 6. The line will run around the edge of the quarry on the Fink/Pardini property. There is an old quarry road that is kind of another border of it and it will extend over to the Central Hudson Sub Station over in the north east corner. Parcels 4, 5, and 6 that are revised now that are owned by Fink and Pardini won’t be altered in such a way that they won’t render them unbuildable. There is no diminishment of road frontage or minimizing lot width or area. All of the remaining lots are above 30 acres each. The Garcia parcel will then be about 27 acres.
Chairman Baden questioned the access for the Garcia parcel.
Mr. James noted that is an existing easement and there will be no change to those easements, so they are current and not change will be made to those.
Mr. Ricks questioned if the parcel with the Quarry on it had any existing use or it was just sitting dormant?
Mr. Fink answered that there wasn’t much going on with it. David Lawrence stores some equipment in the garage, but nothing is happening.
Chairman Baden questioned what the reasoning was for the Lot change?
Mr. James noted that they were trying to create a bigger buffer between themselves.
Chairman Baden noted that the upper lots didn’t line up in regards to the tax parcels that the County had mapped out.
Mr. James didn’t believe that they were quite correct. He has a survey from the 60’s that concurs with his maps.
Mr. Ricks questioned if the stream in this area is shown on the map?
Mr. Fink noted that stream was on another parcel, not the ones in question.
Chairman Baden noted that the appropriate language is on the plans and all lots affected meet the appropriate density and setbacks.
Mr. Ricks motioned to accept the Lot Line Improvement. Seconded by Mr. Paddock. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden: Yes Tapper: Yes
O’Donnell: Absent Lindstrom: Yes
Ricks: Yes Dawson: Absent
Paddock: Yes Williams: Yes
Motion carried. 6 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, 0 abstentions (including alternate)
PB 2015-07 LLI New Application
Lot Improvement – Lot Line Adjustment
Wendy Hollender – Diana Wynkoop and Doreen Johnson
Proposes conveyance of +/- 0.507 acres from Hollender to Wynkoop and Johnson and conveyance of +/- 0.496 acres from Wynkoop and Johnson to Hollender involving three contiguous parcels resulting in two parcels
222 Lower Whitfield Rd. and Lower Whitfield Rd. S/B/L # 68.4-4-27.112, 68.4-4-27.113, and 68.4-4-27.111, ‘AR-3’ zoning district
Terry Ringler, Surveyor was present along with Ms. Hollender and Ms. Johnson. Also present was Josh Wynkoop, son of Diana Wynkoop and owner of adjacent property that is accessed by the property of Diana Wynkoop and Doreen Johnson.
Mr. Ringler noted that they had an issue that happened late today in regards to the proposed lot line change. Currently Hollender owns two lots that is separated by a 50’ strip of land that is owned by Wynkoop and Johnson. It’s a right of way that also leads to two lots of Josh Wynkoop and other lands of Diana Wynkoop. The goal is to remove the 50’ strip of land and move it along the Hollender northerly boundary and combine her two lots into one lot and removing that 50’ strip and move the existing driveway to the northerly bounds of Hollender’s lot, which would be giving a 50’ strip to Wynkoop and Johnson which will provide the other lots access and tie into the existing road at a location to be determined upon construction. Looking at it today, they feel that there is too tight of a turn to access the Wynkoop lands. They would like to amend the corner line by about 50’ in each direction to cut the corner off and make it more sweeping. There is going to be a 50’ wide easement to be determined after the road is built. They won’t know the exact layout until the road is put in and tied into the existing road.
Mr. Ricks thought they should be able to stake out the road and it could be surveyed and the map could be brought in.
Mr. Ringler noted that the excavator was brought to the site today.
Chairman Baden noted that the 2 one acre lots in the back owned by Steven and Diana Wynkoop and the Joshua Wynkoop lot. He found a notice in the Building Dept. files from 1987 from Mike Redmond when he was CEO noticing them that they created an illegal subdivision. There was nothing else in the file about how it was resolved after that fact, but he wanted to make the applicants aware of that. He then went to the Assessor’s Office and they supplied him with the 2 deeds for the 2 single lots in the back. He then asked for the interpretation for the right of way over that from Mrs. Christiana, Attorney for the Town.
Mrs. Christiana noted that she quickly read the deeds and it shows that both deeds give the right of way as its existing down to those two properties. She was referring to Liber 2434 and 3998. They would like to see 1759 and Hollender’s deed as well. She was concerned that if the right of way was going to be changed, that new deeds extinguishing the old right of way and doing a new deed with the new right of way is something that the Board is going to have to see. She didn’t think that they needed to become co-applicants, and she understood the situation, but before they could sign anything, she thinks they needed to see the deeds extinguishing the right of way.
Chairman Baden understood that you couldn’t build something on someone else’s property. The Board also sent this to the Highway Superintendent because they wanted his input as well as it is on a Town road. They would condition it on a driveway permit secured from the TOR Highway Dept. The Chairman would then sign the maps, but the Board would have to assure that the easement that exists would remain until the new road was completed an approved.
Mr. Ringler noted that they agreed and had that note on the map.
Chairman Baden noted that the Board needs more formal language on that.
Mrs. Christiana noted that they would also need a deed with the two small lot owners, extinguishing the old right of way and show the new one.
Mr. Ringler agreed and that’s why he wanted to get the road constructed. They were aware that they would have to do 4 descriptions for the right of way.
Mr. Ricks questioned the 90 degree turn that they were talking about earlier?
Mr. Ringler noted that would be based on construction. That was just shown for illustrative purposes that they were providing a 50’ right of way to the existing road. He was looking at this as an informational meeting for a little guidance on the process that the Board wanted to take.
Mrs. Christiana noted that the Board would actually need to see where that road was going to go and they would need to see the easements that can be recorded simultaneously and make sure the new easement is adequate for emergency vehicles. There are some things that need to be looked at.
Chairman Baden noted that it didn’t need to be built before he signed the maps, but it would need to be shown on the plan exactly where it was going. Mr. Ringler should follow up with the Highway Superintendent on his own.
Chairman Baden noted that would be a condition before he signed it. He understood the purpose. It makes sense to combine the two lots to make them into one larger, useful lot. It’s just a matter of following the correct legal process so that everyone is protected.
Mr. Ringler questioned about the letter from Mr. Redmond. Was there anything they needed to do with this?
Chairman Baden didn’t think so. Apparently it’s been addressed at some point, somehow since it’s 28 years later. He wanted to pass it on the applicant so that they knew about it at least.
Mrs. Christiana thought it would also be good to have a Road Maintenance Agreement to go with it once it’s all worked out. There probably isn’t one now since it is all family, but it may not be only family down the road. We can’t guarantee family will own it forever, this would be to protect everyone. The Town has a sample that they can use.
Chairman Baden questioned if there needed to be a separate easement in the short term?
Mrs. Christiana noted that another paragraph could be added to the deeds of easement saying it was still intact until such time that the road is constructed.
Mr. Ringler submitted a copy of Hollender’s Deed.
Chairman Baden noted that they would take no action on this for now. Mr. Ringler would work on it and come back next month.
PB 2015-01 SUP Continued Application, SEQRA Determination, Public Hearing
Special Use and Site Plan
Woodstock Farm Sanctuary
Proposes new use of a +/- 100.5 acre parcel for Multiple Uses
‘Animal Sanctuary’, ‘Commercial Events Facility’, and ‘Inn’ – requires Special Use
‘Agricultural Tourism Enterprises’, ‘and ‘Agricultural Retail Sales’ – requires Site Plan
Lucas Tpke, S/B/L #69.4-2-11.200, ‘AR-3’, ‘AP Overlay’ and ‘FD Overlay’ zoning districts, Contiguous to Ulster County Ag District #3, Contiguous to Rest Plaus Historic District listed on the National Register, Located within the 100 year flood plain, Contiguous to the Town of Marbletown
Mr. Abel was present on behalf of his application.
Chairman Baden noted that he had realized that the applicant hadn’t submitted an Ag Data Statement. Usually the County notes it, but they didn’t on this application. The applicant has since submitted one since it was requested. He also noted that a response from SHPO, and there are no adverse impacts.
Mrs. Christiana noted that she had spoken to Mr. Larios, the Engineer who did the site plan for this application and they were aware of the changes that needed to be done to the plan, and they would be part of the conditions and can be all done at the same time.
At this time the Board reviewed Part 2 of the Long EAF. Chairman Baden reminded the Board that this was a Type 1 Action due to the historic district being contiguous to the parcel. All items were checked off as ‘No or small impact may occur”.
Mr. Paddock motioned for a Negative Declaration. Seconded by Mr. Williams. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden: Yes Tapper: Yes
O’Donnell: Absent Lindstrom: Yes
Ricks: Yes Dawson: Absent
Paddock: Yes Williams: Yes
Motion carried. 6 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, 0 abstentions (including alternate)
Ms. Lindstrom questioned if the use of the Inn were to be accomplished by the applicant, would they need to revise the septic?
Mr. Abel wasn’t sure, but noted he would leave that determination up to the UCHD.
Chairman Baden agreed noting that would be up to the CEO and UCHD. Interns will be housed in the Inn as proposed by the applicant, and that is allowed under the current use according to the UCHD. If the applicant does use the building as a Bed and Breakfast, it will have to be addressed. He also noted that the applicant had the SPEDES permit updated and transferred into their name. He requested a copy from the applicant.
At 7:50PM Chairman Baden opened the hearing up to the public.
Jonathan Nedbor spoke and noted that he had moved in the past due to problems that he’s had with his neighbors in the past with noise.
Chairman Baden noted that based on the size of the property and the similarity to the current use of the property, the Board found that a sound study was not necessary. They will address it in their decision.
Mr. Ricks motioned to close the Public Hearing. Seconded by Mr. Williams. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden: Yes Tapper: Yes
O’Donnell: Absent Lindstrom: Yes
Ricks: Yes Dawson: Absent
Paddock: Yes Williams: Yes
Motion carried. 6 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, 0 abstentions (including alternate)
Mr. Tapper questioned if this was an Ag use?
Chairman Baden noted that this was contiguous to, not in a County Ag District. As he understood it, it was applied to be included as they plan on growing crops in the future and it wasn’t accepted at this time. This is not an Ag use. The new definition of “Animal Sanctruary” was added into the definitions in the Code and the CEO says that events that fall under the definition will be covered if they are educational in nature. The special events that are being applied for are those that won’t fall under that criteria. For the commercial events, the applicant will be allowed 12 per year and will need to notify the CEO before they hold them. They are also applying for a B&B under the same application as well as a farmer’s market, a seasonal café, dining, cooking classes, and a visitor’s center.
At this time the Board went over the Draft Findings as follows:
Findings of the Planning Board
1. Initial zoning permit application was made June 2014. The proposed use Animal Sanctuary was undefined in the zoning code at that time. The use was added to the zoning code with the amending of Chapter 140 of the T/ Rochester Code in December 2014 by local law.
2. The Planning Board has received zoning referral for Special Use for the use Animal Sanctuary from the Code Enforcement Officer and an application, EAF, Site Plan, and related documentation from the applicant.
3. The application proposes use of the former Camp Epworth Retreat Center utilizing existing structures and infrastructure with additional improvements.
4. After applicant discussion with the Planning Board, the application was requested to be clarified by the Code Enforcement Office (CEO) as to all the proposed uses.
5. The applicant amended the zoning permit application and the CEO amended his decision to be a referral of Multiple Uses. The uses Animal Sanctuary, Commercial Events Facility, and Inn require Special Use review. The uses Agricultural Tourism Enterprises and Agricultural Retail Sales require Site Plan review.
6. The CEO determined the following activities are allowable existing uses on the parcel:
a. Overnight lodging for sanctuary members, interns and volunteers
b. Animal or vegan-oriented camps (both day camps and overnight)
c. Animal or vegan-oriented retreats.
7. The proposed animal sanctuary use will include educational farm tours, animal and vegan food-themed summer camps, retreats, classes, and events.
8. The applicant plans to host a small farmer’s market and/or sell on-farm products. A seasonal cafe is proposed to be operated in the existing dining hall.
9. The applicant states they may utilize the existing manor house as guest lodging at some time in the future.
10. The applicant states the facility may be rented to outside organizations at some time in the future.
11. The parcel is located in the ‘AR-3’ zoning district and the use(s) proposed have been determined to meet or exceed the Schedule of District regulations pursuant to the Town of Rochester zoning code.
12. The parcel is additionally located in the ‘FD Overlay’ zoning district as it is partially located in the FEMA mapped flood zone, 36111C0595E, effective 9/25/2009. No construction or disturbance is proposed within the flood zone.
13. The parcel is additionally located in the ‘AP Overlay’ zoning district and the uses comply with the standards of such district.
14. The parcel to be developed is known as S/B/L 69.4-2-11.200.
15. The parcel contains land also located in the Town of Marbletown. The applicant was advised Marbletown approvals may be required for the use and it was suggested the applicant investigate such need.
16. The parcel is located contiguous to the Ulster County Ag District #3. An Agricultural Data Statement was prepared and presented.
17. The parcel is contiguous to the Rest Plaus Historic District listed on the National Register. Referral to the NYS Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation is required.
18. The parcel has road frontage on Lucas Ave. (CR-1), an Ulster County maintained highway. A Dept. of Public Works permit for the access may be required or the existing permit may be adequate.
19. Ulster County Health Dept. approval is required for water and septic, food preparation, and swimming pool (if the use is continued).
20. The existing NYS DEC SPDES permit will be transferred, as reported by the applicant.
21. Existing improvements on the parcel include multiple buildings, barn, kitchen facility and dining hall, three pavilions, several cabins, swimming pool, parking areas, driveway with lighting, signage, approved well and septic, and a pond.
22. Two barns have been added upon securing permits from the Building Inspector. They are indicated on the Site Plan but are not a part of this review.
23. The applicant proposes improvements of the driveway to include two pulloff areas and a bus turnaround area.
24. The applicant proposes improvements of fencing for animal pastures and gardens, a primary gravel surfaced compost area, a secondary 100’ x 100’ gravel surfaced compost area, a 46 space gravel surfaced parking area with lighting, a 112’ x 40’ barn, an 8 space handicapped parking area, a temporary 221 space grass surfaced event parking area with temporary lighting, and various directional and informational signage. The applicant proposes converting a portion of the dining facility to a visitor information center and seasonal cafe.
25. Lighting specifications are provided for the additional lighting on the site plan.
26. The applicant proposes several large-scale events. The associated traffic and parking plan is as follows as indicated on the site plan:
a. Maximum of 4 events annually attended by greater than 500 people
b. For daytime events, visitors to vacate by dusk
c. Lighting to be rented to supplement existing for any event scheduled to end after dusk
d. Planned “exit only” area from the parking area
e. Planned ability to open up additional grass pasture areas for parking should parking peak and exceed 267 vehicles
f. Gravel drive to remain free of vehicles except those arriving and departing
g. Handicapped parking located near the dining hall
h. The addition of 1 porta-john unit per 100 visitors expected to attend and TBD (as per code) addition of handicapped porta-john units.
27. Any event which is expected to be attended by greater than 1500 people requires a specific permit per each event to be issued by the Town Board under the requirements of Town Code chapter 56, Public Assemblies.
28. An Ulster County Planning Dept. “Gateway meeting” was requested by the Planning Board and scheduled with attendance by the Planning Board Chair, Attorney for the Town, County Health Dept. representative, County Dept. of Public Works representative, Planning Director, Principal Planner, the applicant, and Dennis Larios. Various concerns were discussed as to use of the property, traffic and public roadway access to the property, site distance of the access, proximity to the Rondout Creek, health department permits, and other site plan elements. It was discussed and decided the existing access to Lucas Ave. has limited sight distance to the South, however no location could be determined to exist along the road frontage which would serve the project more preferably. It was agreed the applicant would utilize parking attendant and security staff to direct the flow of traffic and post temporary signage along Lucas Ave. when large-scale events are occurring. The day to day operations would not require such treatment. Health Department permits are reportedly in good order and are in the process of being transferred from Camp Epworth to the applicant.
29. T/ of Rochester Historic Preservation Commission replied with positive comment stating the site was previously a family farm and then a resort known as the Dreamland Farm and expressed their happiness for the parcel to return to a similar use. The HPC “strongly encourages careful preservation of the exterior appearance of the stone house, and preservation of the historic structure of the building”.
30. NYS Historic Preservation replied stating “It is the opinion of SHPO that the project will have No Adverse Impact on the historic district or structures.”
31. The Chairman spoke by telephone with the T/ of Marbletown Code Enforcement Officer explaining the proposal. No further comment was received. The Marbletown Town Clerk was notified of the public hearing.
32. Accord Fire District did not reply to request for comment.
33. NYS DEC did not reply to request for comment.
34. The application was required to be referred to the Ulster County Planning Board which returned a comment of “Required Modifications” concerning Health Dept, permits. Accord Fire District review, coordination with Town of Marbletown, and highway access.
Ms. Lindstrom motioned to accept the draft findings as prepared by the Chairman. Seconded by Mr. Ricks. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden: Yes Tapper: Yes
O’Donnell: Absent Lindstrom: Yes
Ricks: Yes Dawson: Absent
Paddock: Yes Williams: Yes
Motion carried. 6 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, 0 abstentions (including alternate)
Mr. Tapper questioned if there were any requirements for people directing traffic on Lucas Tpk?
Chairman Baden noted that this was addressed at the County Gateway Meeting with the UCDPW. They wouldn’t have workers in the road.
Mrs. Christiana noted that if there were any events in excess of 15,000 people the applicant will need to obtain a mass gathering permit from the Town Board.
At this time the Board reviewed the Required Modifications from the County PB and motioned to accept them as follows:
Mr. Williams motioned to accept the Ulster County Planning Board comments of “Required Modifications” which have been addressed as follows, seconded by Mr. Tapper.
Vote:
Baden: Yes Tapper: Yes
O’Donnell: Absent Lindstrom: Yes
Ricks: Yes Dawson: Absent
Paddock: Yes Williams: Yes
Health Department
Comment:
Any changes or amendments to the site’s existing sanitary facilities will require the approval of the Ulster County Department of Health.
Response:
The Health Department has been an involved agency in the review of the application. The applicant has coordinated with the Health Department for the transfer of approvals from Camp Epworth. The Planning Board approval will be conditioned on the applicant securing any and all required Health Department approvals.
Fire District
Comment:
Comments from the local fire district have yet to be received. Of primary concern is the width and length of the existing access drive. The local planning board and applicant will need to verify whether the local fire district believes their ability to serve this site is adequate.
Response:
The Fire District was sent the application and site plan with a request for comment. No response was returned.
Notifications
Comment:
The proposal lies within the Town of Marbletown as well as the Town of Rochester. Notification of the Town of Marbletown will be necessary to determine whether or not they have comments on the proposal, particularly the portion of the property that lies within that Town. At this time, it does not appear the applicant is proposing any changes to that portion of the site.
Response:
The applicant was notified by the Planning Board that review and approval by Marbletown may be required. The Chairman and the Marbletown Code Enforcement Officer had a phone conversation regarding the Rochester application. The Marbletown Town Clerk was sent notice of the public hearing.
Access to CR-1/Lucas Avenue Extension
Comment:
It appears that based on that discussion with the County’s Department of Public Works that the existing driveway, while it does not have ideal sight distances, is perhaps in the best location given the available alternatives along the site’s frontage. Nevertheless, approval of this access should be formerly obtained from UC DPW.
Response:
The approval will be conditioned with requirement of formal application to and approval by the UC DPW for the access. Additionally, large-scale events will be conditioned to require staffed direction of vehicles onto the site and temporary signage approved by the UC DPW placed along the highway.
At this time the Board reviewed the draft resolution as follows:
RESOLVED,
The Town of Rochester Planning Board grants Special Use -Conditional Approval to Woodstock Farm Animal Sanctuary, Inc. permitting the Multiple Uses of Animal Sanctuary, Commercial Event Facility, and Inn for the lands situate at 8 Epworth Lane and Lucas Tpke., known as S/B/L 69.4-2-11.200, and located in the ‘AR-3’, ‘FD Overlay’, and ‘AP Overlay’ zoning districts.
The Town of Rochester Planning Board grants Site Plan -Conditional Approval to Woodstock Farm Animal Sanctuary, Inc. permitting the Multiple Uses of Agricultural Tourism Enterprise and Agricultural Retail Sales for the lands situate at 8 Epworth Lane and Lucas Tpke., known as S/B/L 69.4-2-11.200, and located in the ‘AR-3’, ‘FD Overlay’, and ‘AP Overlay’ zoning districts.
The Site Plan as amended dated May, 2015 is approved with the following conditions.
CONDITIONS of APPROVAL:
1. Any and all fees due to the Town of Rochester involving this application shall be paid in full prior to the Chairman’s signature on the Site Plan.
2. The Site Plan shall be amended as follows prior to signature by the Planning Board:
a. A pedestrian access gate shall be added to the fenced enclosure surrounding the proposed “event only parking area”.
b. All contiguous bounding owners, including those opposite Lucas Ave. (CR-1), shall be indicated on the Site Plan.
c. A plan notation shall be added stating “This property contains land within the 100-year floodplain as depicted by FEMA on plate 36111C0595E effective as of 9/25/2009. Any construction or disturbance within the FEMA designated 100-year floodplain shall adhere to the Code of the Town of Rochester Chapter 81, Flood Damage Prevention, or its successors.”
d. The plan notation detailed under the heading Event Parking Plan stating “Maximum of 300 visitors at a time by car – Approx. 1000 people” shall be removed from the plan.
3. Any deviation from or amending of the approved and signed Site Plan shall require resubmission to the Planning Board, except as may be permitted as determined by the Code Enforcement Officer.
4. All Local, County, State, and Federal Laws or Codes shall be complied with for the current or future use of these lands.
5. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for public use of the facility
a. The applicant shall complete the improvements of the driveway pulloffs and bus turnaround, as indicated on the Site Plan.
b. The permanent gravel parking area shall be constructed and additional lighting installed as per the specifications indicated on the Site Plan.
c. Driveway signage shall be installed as indicated on the Site Plan.
d. The applicant shall specifically secure Ulster County Health Dept. permit(s) and an Ulster County Dept. of Public Works access permit (if determined to be required). All conditions imposed in the granting of these permits shall be made a part of this Special Use approval. One copy of each approved permit shall be filed with the T/ Rochester Planning Board.
Proof of completion of such actions shall be submitted to the Code Enforcement Officer for verification.
6. The applicant shall specifically secure a T/ Rochester building permit(s) for the visitor center, cafe, inn, barn, or any other construction regulated by the NYS Building and Fire Code. All conditions imposed in the granting of the permit(s) shall be made a part of this Special Use approval. One copy of each approved permit shall be filed with the T/ Rochester Planning Board.
7. 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 Site Plan, the matter shall be referred to the Planning Board for consideration.
8. The gravel driveway shall be maintained to NYS Fire Code regulation and standards.
9. The manure storage and compost areas shall adhere to any and all Federal, State, County, or local environmental regulations.
10. Parking shall only be allowed in the spaces designated on the approved and signed Site Plan. Parking shall not be allowed within the public road right-of-way nor within the driveway or designated Site Plan traffic aisles at any time.
11. The event parking plan and conditions, as detailed on the Site Plan, shall be adhered to. Parking within the pasture area shall be allowed for overflow parking only on days of large scale events requiring parking greater than the permanent parking area. On event days when this parking area is anticipated to be utilized the driveway shall be staffed in sufficient manner to direct traffic from the driveway access with CR-1 (Lucas Avenue) to the temporary parking location so as not to cause traffic to stack on CR-1. Temporary signage approved by the
UC Dept. of Public Works may be required if that agency deems such signage necessary. The applicant shall notify and coordinate with police, fire, and ambulance for these events.
12. The applicant is approved to replace the existing Camp Epworth sign located on Lucas Avenue with one similar in size. Such signage shall adhere to sign regulations of Town of Rochester code §140 and a permit shall be secured if determined required by the Code Enforcement Officer.
13. Amplification of sound; including but not limited to live music, recorded music, public address systems, portable generators, or any other sound or noise producing element shall comply with Town of Rochester zoning code §140-20 (F) at all times.
14. Attendance of events approved with this Special Use shall be by less than 1500 people per each event. Any event which is expected to be attended by greater than 1500 people shall require a specific permit per each event to be issued by the Town Board under the requirements of Town Code §56, Public Assemblies.
15. Animal Sanctuary use shall comply with these specific conditions
a. Visitor access shall only be supervised public access by means of a structured educational visitor program.
b. The provisions of Town of Rochester code § 140-14 Animal Husbandry shall apply.
c. The provisions of Town of Rochester code § 140-14A Agricultural Use shall apply.
16. Special Use for Commercial Events Facility conditions
a. The use is approved as a renewable use for a period of two years terminating Aug. 1, 2017. Applicant shall make renewal application pursuant to Town of Rochester code §140-53, Renewal of Permits, or its successors. Such renewal shall be granted upon written application by the holder of the permit and following public notice and hearing. Such renewal may only be withheld upon a determination that the conditions attached to any previous approval have not been met.
b. The use shall comply with the provisions of Town of Rochester code § 140-35, Commercial Events Facility. Any events held at the facility which are not directly related to the operation of the animal sanctuary for educational or fund-raising purposes shall be considered a commercial event, whether a fee is charged or not for the use of the facility.
The Town of Rochester Planning Board further grants the authority to the Chairman to certify conditions 1 and 2 have been completed without further resolution and to sign and date the plat at such time.
EFFECT of APPROVAL:
1. This Special Use and Site Plan 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.
ADDITIONAL COMMENT:
Although not a condition of approval, the Planning Board concurs with the Town Historic Preservation Commission and strongly urges the applicant to consult with that agency should the applicant desire to make exterior renovations to the stone manor house (proposed inn).
Ms. Lindstrom motioned to adopt the resolution, seconded by Mr. Paddock. No discussion.
Vote:
Vote:
Baden: Yes Tapper: Yes
O’Donnell: Absent Lindstrom: Yes
Ricks: Yes Dawson: Absent
Paddock: Yes Williams: Yes
Motion carried. 6 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, 0 abstentions (including alternate)
PB 2015-02 SUP
Continued Application, Public Hearing
Special Use
Frank Macagnone and Keith Eddleman aka Crested Hen Farms
Proposes expansion of use of an existing barn on a +/- 32 acre residential parcel for the use ‘Commercial Events Facility’ with parking and related supporting amenities
607 County Route 6, S/B/L #77.002-2-12.1, ‘AR-3’, ‘AP Overlay’ and ‘FD Overlay’ zoning districts, Located in Ulster County Ag District #3, Located within Alligerville Historic District proposed listed on the National Register, Located within the 100 year flood plain
Chairman Baden noted that there was an error on the agenda, and there would be no SEQRA Determination at this meeting.
Chairman Baden noted that at the request of the applicant, the Board did not place the application on the June Agenda. Since the May 11th meeting the Board has heard back from the UCDPW in correspondence dated June 11, 2015 where they allow the change as shown on the plans with the recommendations of widening and removal of brush along County Rt. 6 to improve sight distance. The applicants will also need to move a section of guardrail and widen the entrance up to 20’ until the two stone pillars are reached. At that point it will narrow back down to the existing width.
Chairman Baden also noted that the County had recently placed highway counters on County Route 6, so he requested those results and has presented them to the Board for their review. This traffic study was done over a period of 72 hours on a Tuesday through Friday in both directions. There were approximately 1,000 cars per day.
Mr. Ricks noted that a lot of people use that road to travel to work in New Paltz and Poughkeepsie.
Chairman Baden noted that the Board also requested that a Sound Study be performed by the Board’s consultants at the cost of the applicant.
Mr. Moot from Clark Patterson Lee was present on behalf of the Board.
Mr. Moot noted that they wanted to establish a baseline sound study. The applicant did provide a sound analysis that Clark Patterson Lee reviewed and thought it was good on paper, but they really needed to get a physical study. Their sound consultant did note that they needed to do improvements to the barn, but when they did the study, it was a bare bones barn—there were no improvements except for the slab in the barn. AVL is a high profile company that performs these studies and that is who CPL works with in these areas. They did Mohonk Mountain House. AVL set up DJ equipment and closed the barn doors. They advised them not to be inside because it was so loud, and the gentleman inside actually had ear protection on. They read 96 dB inside and went outside and mapped the sound results as they traveled further and further away. He indicated the map in the report.
Chairman Baden noted that all Board members were emailed the report and saw the maps in color.
Mr. Moot noted that there was a sample point A, which was across the driveway, across the road and at 96 dB, he felt there was still some audible sound at sample point A. So, then he redid the test lowering the internal dB to about 90 and felt that created a reasonable sound level at location A. It’s subjective to weather conditions, tree foliage… it’s basically a guideline and governed by the interior tolerance of this building. They wouldn’t be able to make it so loud that everyone wants to leave the building, so it was trying to find a practical threshold interior, and transpose that to the exterior. The other thing that sound is always subjective, and people wonder how it can be monitored, and it turns out that there are apps that you can get on an iPhone that give you the actual converted decibel reading.
Chairman Baden noted that it was recommended that at 90dB be set as the limit on the inside. Both Mr. Moot and Chairman Baden were present for the sound study as well as the applicant. The applicant stated that he would have no problem with that.
Mr. Ricks noted that there was a note that 34dBA was the sound of trees rustling and birds. But at the house on the County Road in the driveway, they only read it at 28. Was that right?
Mr. Moot believed that what they were referencing was a text book background level would be, but what is shown on the map is the actual.
Chairman Baden noted that a normal speaking voice is about 60dB, traffic going by is about 80dB.
Mr. Ricks noted that they must have had to wait until traffic wasn’t going by when he recorded 28.
Mr. Moot noted that those circumstances were noted in the report.
Chairman Baden noted that he played 3 different types of music. Jazz, wedding dance, and hip hop. The wedding dance was referred to as the modern “Chicken Dance”. Then he went to a very heavy hip hop. One of the things he noted was that with hip hop, it produces a low, low, low bass at the bottom end and that is what carries. One of his suggestions in the report, and the applicant didn’t seem to have an issue was that the DJ’s be discouraged from using sub woofers, because that is what carries that bass. If they don’t use the subwoofers, then you don’t have that problem. No wood was going to stop that bottom bass from exiting the building. The applicant agreed with this.
Mr. Ricks noted that even at Skate Time 209, he could hear the bass at his house up the road.
Chairman Baden agreed and noted that the sound consultant stated that as well. He said that the real high end you wouldn’t hear, the mid you wouldn’t hear, but the bass you would. He also further went on to say that using the DEC sound analysis, while useful, is written more for industrial uses. They all agreed that amplified music is very subjective. It can be turned up and turned down. You can’t turn your chainsaws and excavators up or down. Music you can turn up and down. That is the reason that this does not specifically reflect the DEC, even though the code standards state that. The Town’s code standards were written more with industrial noise in mind. Those standards were written in the 2009 version of the code, perhaps it needs to be looked at in the future, but that is what they have to go by right now.
Mr. Moot noted that they did mention that the bass could be managed on a separate system or not have it at all. Also noting that the barn doors really need to be kept closed.
Chairman Baden agreed, noting especially the one facing Kyserike Road. He noted that when it was closed, there were still some light that came through—it wasn’t a tight seal. He did recommend that they close up any of those holes that they are able to, to make it be a tighter seal.
Mr. Ricks questioned if the barn would be air-conditioned?
The applicant replied no.
Chairman Baden noted that the sliding doors opposite Kyserike would the ones used to access the barn. Those doors would be able to be opened in an emergency, but the doors by Kyserike would remain closed and the applicant would be aware of that.
Mr. Moot noted that the consultant did suggest implemented the sound mitigation measures that the applicant’s consultant recommended.
Chairman Baden added that the Town’s consultant agreed with the curtains, but the bass would go through the curtains as well as the wood. So the best solution would be to eliminate the sub woofers and limit the overall volume to the 90dB.
Mr. Moriello submitted an estimate for the alternate roadway as requested by the Board.
Chairman Baden explained that one of the comment letters that was received by the public made the suggestion that perhaps the entrance could be moved more toward the curve, entering directly into the field where there are no homes directly across. He felt it was a valid suggestion, so he went to the site and walked up and down and found a spot that looked like it had possibility. It would need a culvert because there is a drainage ditch there, but it looked doable. So, while he was at the sound study, he mentioned this to the applicant and the applicant said he would get an estimate to see what that would cost. The idea the Chairman had, was if that was the entrance and exit for the events, it would eliminate some of the issues with the sight distance to the bridge, it would eliminate the narrow passage as well. It also took it away from the nearby homes.
The Board agreed noting that it took it away from the bad curve and away from the lights shining on neighbor’s homes.
Chairman Baden wanted to be clear—if the Board thought that this was required for health and safety, the cost didn’t become a factor. They could require it. He asked for the estimate just to have an idea. He received an estimate from Erickson Contracting for $10,700 to do prep, culvert, and finish work. He passed that around the Board. The other entrance would continue to be used as residential. They could potentially use that for handicapped only entrance, because they would want to drop the people right at the barn. His thought was that the existing entrance wouldn’t be used for the events. The other entrance would be exclusive for the events. The existing entrance would remain for residential and handicap. The Board would have to go back to the County and ask if they would need to improve the existing driveway since they weren’t using it. The County would also have to approve the new entrance. He showed on the map where the new driveway would be. If you went further toward Lucas, past the house with the red roof, halfway between there and the floodplain area—in that vicinity. The benefit is that across the street is essentially a wall of trees—it’s not a home. It came out of a conversation at the sound study based on public comment received. He showed the flood plain map and pointed out that there were several written public comments that the site was in a flood plain. There were several portions of property that were in the flood plain, but no construction would be in the flood plain according to the latest FEMA maps dated 2009 that the Town uses.
Mr. Tapper questioned if the alternative driveway would empty right into the parking area?
Chairman Baden noted that it would empty right into the field/ parking area. All that would have to be constructed would have to be the area where the culvert would be and the brush and it would be no different than what is being proposed now as far as driving over the hay field. Admittedly this is all hypothetical and came out of looking at alternatives.
Mr. Medenbach noted that he hasn’t investigated this on his part yet, but he was sure that there was a location out there that would probably be suitable, but he would look at it closer and coordinate with UCDPW.
Ms. Lindstrom would like to see it further investigated and feels it would alleviate a lot of concerns.
Mr. Ricks agreed and noted that it puts them closer to Lucas and not near the fire house or intersections.
Chairman Baden agreed noting that it took them further down away from the houses.
Ms. Lindstrom noted that they also had a better advantage to put a sign to let people know where to go for parking, etc.
Chairman Baden noted that the valet parking would still be up to the applicant. As long as the cars aren’t stacking back up onto the road, they could handle that however they wanted. They may not need to valet park, but that’s up to them.
Mr. Moriello noted that he emailed the PB office a response to some comments that were made. They have a licensed architect, and that architect has been working with Mr. Medenbach and the applicant throughout the process. Any work that is currently going on with the barn is lawfully permitted and is Type 2 under SEQRA and is an ad ministerial permit. There is no violation.
Mrs. Christiana agreed and noted that whether they obtained approval from this Board or not, that permit would be allowed.
Mr. Moriello noted that it was Type 2 and that it’s hard for people who don’t do this all the time to understand that this is an administrative Board that is governed by the regulations in the Zoning Ordinance. The idea that this Board can somehow enforce a public nuisance or do things like that is not within this Board’s province. There isn’t anything going on in that barn that isn’t lawfully permitted.
Chairman Baden noted that he did request from the CEO a copy of the building permit and it is in the PB member’s folders. The permit has been granted for the construction that is going on inside the Board. It was issued 5/19/15 and expires on 8/19/15. He knows that there are provisions in the building code where it can be extended. The only notice on the permit is that concrete for footings and walls should be poured between approved forms. Concrete shall not be poured against the earth or open trenches. Before the building is occupied, a certificate of compliance shall be obtained from the building inspector. This is work that could be going on whether or not this approval happens. This is work on the barn structure itself. The barn was in a state of disrepair and they are doing repairs to keep it whole and they do have a building permit. A number of the public comments stated that they were doing work without a permit and that is not the case. It was listed as structural alterations in existing 82’ x 23’ 6” barn. Also in member’s folders, Chairman Baden went through all written comment to date and compiled a list of all of the various concerns onto one piece of paper for member’s to see. He also listed agency concerns as well at the bottom. The DPW had concerns about access and once certain changes were done they did agree to a permit. The HPC had an issue with one of the hay doors. One of the doors was going to be changed to a 9 panel window. The applicant upon hearing from the HPC has agreed to change it to one window rather than 9 to keep it more in the style of what it would be and the HPC was satisfied with that. SHPO had no concerns. UCPB had the 5 comments: Access, stormwater, building code, lighting, waste water. That referral was done very early in the project. The DEC also had concerns with SPEDES, architectural review for disturbance and the Northern Long Eared Bat. The Board also received a letter from an attorney this past Friday. He raises concerns of noise, sight distance visibility, driveway access, NYS fire code, flood plain development, land disturbance, EAF deficiencies and UCPB referral. On that, the Chairman did comment that the sight distance visibility, the County has deemed it acceptable by stating that they would issue a permit. The flood plain development, the attorney was siting a map from 1991 and the new maps were updated in 2009. It is in the vicinity, but the construction is not in the flood plain as detailed by the maps. There also were some comments about the field flooding where the parking is. According to FEMA, it is not in the flood zone. The parking and tent will remain grass, so there would be no disturbance.
Ms. Lindstrom questioned if they would be putting sprinklers in the barn.
Mr. Medenbach answered no.
Ms. Lindstrom noted that this was a strong concern of hers.
Mr. Tapper questioned if this was an historic building?
Chairman Baden answered yes.
Mr. Medenbach noted that it would be cost prohibitive to install sprinklers.
Mr. Tapper noted that as far as a fire exit, they have large doors.
At 9PM Chairman Baden opened the Public Hearing. He knew that there were a lot of people who wished to speak and he noted that they have already heard from a lot of people at the two previous Public Hearing’s that they have had. They have also received a lot of written comments from people. He asked that people kept their comments as brief and concise as they could so they could get through everyone who wanted to speak. He wasn’t a big fan of time limits on speaking, but he asked that everyone was respectful of everyone else. If he found that people were getting long winded and repetitive, he would ask them to move it along. He would rather they just said that they agree rather than restate the same comments already heard. He also asked everyone to please be respectful to the Board and to the other people in the audience. They were speaking to the Board, not to the applicant, and not to each other. This is the Board’s time to hear what they are saying. If they asked a questions, the Board may answer it, but they may not. They will try and answer what they can. This is not a question and answer session, this is meant to be public comment for the public to speak to the Board.
Chairman Baden noted that the following people have submitted written comment and the Board Members have all been given these letters by email and hard copy.
Letters have been received from:
Mr. Godwin, Mr. Macagnone, Ms. Knudsen, Ms. Houghtelling, Ms. Dobson, Ms. Goldstein, Ms. Henderson, Mr. Matera and Ms. Jensen, Ms. Tardiobono, Mr. Friedman, Mr. Godwin again, Mr. Suhl.
A letter was also received from the Assistant Chief of the Accord Fire District. There was a misunderstanding. They stated that the owner’s intent was to park cars on both side of the driveway for the first 150’. That was a misinterpretation of what was stated. There is no intention of cars being parked along the driveway, nor would it be allowed. That letter was received, but that is not what was happening.
Chairman Baden continued on with the public comment letters:
Mr. Meserschmidt, Mr. Corbert, Mr. Sheldon, and Ms. Starsivic. These are all of the letters received since the last Public Hearing.
Chairman Baden noted that the Board would go by the list of people who requested to speak. He asked that they get through the list before they let people repeat comments.
First on the list was Steve Fornal. Mr. Fornal noted that he went through the CPL report and sound study and noted that it was very thorough. He thought that the recommendations of conditions were excellent. Specifically mentioned acoustic treatment to the barn would do the desired job and get the noise mitigated at the lot lines. Under 140-53 in the Code, Mr. Fornal suggested that a 1 year renewal be considered for this application and verified complaints that have data to back it up should be considered at the 1 year review.
Barbara Fornal was next to speak. Mrs. Fornal read the following statement: “While I was encouraged by the display, created by the citizens of our town to rally against something they were concerned about and to create a sense of awareness, I was reminded of the commercial mining, racetrack, cell tower, saw mills and landfill days.
However, I’m disappointed that there is still much misunderstanding about the codes and laws governing our town and the lack of acceptance for the equal rights for all of our neighbors here in Accord.
What I read about in the local papers is a group of citizens that does not want anything to change their way of life. One letter in the Blue Stone Press actually put forth the idea that Alligerville should be exempt from our town’s zoning laws. As if Alligerville is somehow privileged.
The new zoning codes in place today are there to protect all citizens of our town equally so as to have no more unmitigated intrusive uses impacting neighbors and harming the environment. The code applies to everyone everywhere equally.
Town government isn’t, can’t and shouldn’t be muscled or bullied into illegally governing due to public pressure or mob mentality anymore.
A concerned community should be able to express their concerns in a civilized, adult, responsible manner and be treated the same by the governing boards.
I’m sure that this and all other new businesses that will want to come to Accord in the future– and, who wouldn’t want to come here, it’s so beautiful –will need to be scrutinized as to their impact on the community and environment.
I feel the new code and laws will do so, and hopefully this will serve as a new model for the future to come.
We have a very responsible government including Town Supervisor Carl Chipman, Town Board members, Planning and Zoning board members; all working on our behalf.
After watching town government operate in this town for 25 years we should be thankful that we have these people, codes and laws to protect Accord and all of us.
Hopefully Crested Hen will turn out to be a win/win situation for all parties involved.
I’d also like to add that I would hate for this situation to be used for anyone’s political gain as the election season is upon us.
As the saying goes, “Don’t make a mountain out of a mole hill.”
Gerald Sider was next to speak. Mr. Sider noted that 3 years ago he attended his granddaughter’s wedding in New Hampshire in a place similar to this. There was no air-conditioning. People kept opening doors and windows and it was extremely noisy. He also noted that in the logarithmic scale, 80dB is twice as noisy as 70dB. At the end of the party, two young men sped away. They were drunk. As he left, he had his windows open and could hear the music from the place all the way up the road. He was truly impressed with the Board, but if they drive past Alligerville, there is sign after sign in opposition. This is a representative Board. How can a representative Board approve something that almost the entire community is against?
Nora Feingold was next to speak. She submitted a petition and noted that there was overwhelming opposition to this project in the historic district of Alligerville. You have district and the people in red are opposed. The green is the site of the proposed event and the white is residents who were unable to be contacted and there is one person in support and then there are neutral people, the Accord Fire House and the Rondout Land Conservancy. They figured it out mathematically. It is really overwhelming- 98% of the residents in the historic district who are against. The only hamlet in the Town of Rochester that is intact enough to have been nominated and accepted for the historic district and now they are up for the national status. These aren’t technical facts or figures, but it really is quite dramatic. This would really have a negative impact for people who wanted to relax. The other thing she wanted to give the Board was another 200 people against the project that were in the area, not in the historic district. Pollution, decreased property values, increase in crime, DWI’s, traffic and so forth.
David Little of Berme Road was next to speak. Mr. Little noted that 3 people would be reading excerpts from the letter written by their attorney, Whiteman, Osterman, and Hannah.
Chairman Baden noted that the Board has all received the letter and each member has read the entire letter, so if he had other comments to make, the Board would be happy to hear them.
Mr. Little understood.
Susan Einhorn noted that she has lived in the area and pays taxes and this is their home. Who will promise that the barn doors stay closed, that drunk guests won’t urinate in the Rondout at 2am, happy and drunk. The applicant won’t be standing their telling them not to open the doors and not to urinate in the Rondout. That’s not going to happen. She is concerned about all of the environmental issues that everyone knows about. Traffic safety, human and waste from food. She also doesn’t trust that this is being done for any reason other than commercial reasons for one or two people who own the land. So many are opposed to it because it will completely negatively alter their quality of life. The ability to go to sleep at 10pm if they want to. The Rondout is a megaphone. It amplifies everything. This site is right on the water. How can they control that? What are the supposed to do on the 12 weekends per year when this is going on? Leave their homes? Where should they go? This wasn’t fair. A multitude of response hears are against this. This is not progress, it’s just for commercial gains for one or two people. They have the right to have the idea. They live in an historic neighborhood. Finally another irony that the people who will be best served by this event facility will be wealthy people, bussed here from out of the neighborhood to have their events in a bucolic setting that they are going to ruin by having the event. Spending so much money to have a party in their backyard that they appreciate, treasure and respect and because it is so beautiful and quiet and not city like. This is a residential neighborhood, historic, on the water where they can’t control the sound. This is not going to benefit the Town of Rochester. The taxes will have to go down because their land values will depreciate hugely. Who is going to make money here? Just the land owners of the Crested Hen Farms. The people who will enjoy the events will mostly be out of towners. They can have parties, but they have to consider the neighborhood.
Jonathan Nedbor was next to speak. He submitted letters that were in the Blue Stone Press and the Daily Freeman. He noted that they do have a super majority of people who do not want this in the Town. It’s obtrusive and inappropriate. One of the reasons for this law is to stimulate economic growth in the area. He doesn’t know any business in the Town that rents event size tents or super fancy porta potties. Are they coming from the Town of Rochester businesses? No. They do have a few minimum wage jobs that will be local people hired short term employment for the event. He didn’t see the economic benefit to the Town and the reason for the law is to generate economic benefit to the larger community of the Town of Rochester, therefore he feels that they should not grant the permit because it is not satisfying to that aspect of the law. In response to the lawyer’s statement about following the rules and complying with every aspect of the law, a nuisance is a nuisance. He doesn’t want to live with a nuisance and he didn’t think that 96 dB is a realistic sound level in the barn for amplified music. He thinks it will really be much higher. The sound study may have been done well, but he didn’t think it was done with the idea of today’s weddings well. In the entry way to the party rooms they have ear plugs at a lot of weddings. He thanked the Board for their hard work.
Laurie Goldstein was next to speak. She was speaking on behalf of the part timers. She worked with the applicant’s at Mount Saini in the city. She was thrilled when they moved into this neighborhood because she has lived here for a lot longer and now she is mortified now that they are turning this whole neighborhood into this. She is a weekender. There was a letter that said it was only 12 events a year. That is going to be mostly in the nice weather- 3 months of weekends and she only comes up here on the weekends, so for her that is 100% of her summer weekends that are going to be affected by this. Not only the traffic, but up on the ridge where she lives, she can hear Accord Speedway like it’s next door. You know you are going to be able to hear this music. 90dB is the music only. That’s not including 150 staff and guests talking and yelling and dancing. The idea that you are going to have 150 people in an enclosed barn with no air-conditioning, you know people are going to open the doors and go outside. For those that are part timers who pay taxes and who were happy to welcome the applicants into the neighborhood. She begged them not to do this. They love this quiet community and wanted to keep it that way. She thanked the Board for their work.
Mr. Messerschmidt noted that he submitted a letter tonight, but knows that the Board didn’t get a chance to review it yet. He was asking that the Board postpone any decisions until they have a chance to read the letter. He wasn’t going to read it right now because they already had it. He also requested another sound check with the doors open on the barn.
Tom Stratton was next to speak and noted that if you were uphill from these events you could hear everything. Can you imagine what it will be like to have an animal sanctuary with 1500 people and an event site nearby with another 150 people at the same time. What happens if there are two of these events at the same time and then have a fire. This isn’t thinking ahead. A new entrance up the road—the road falls off there. $10,000 didn’t seem feasible. This seems like a disaster. 55MPH coming around that turn—never mind that –30 MPH coming around that turn with that much traffic will have some bad accidents. He knows that this is an emotional response, but we have some stewardship to respect this historic district, it’s not a Disney Land. It used to be called Port Alligerville. Maybe they should change the name to Port Authority or something like that. That’s what is going to take place.
Chris Robbins noted that he is a lifelong area resident, born and raised. 11 generations of his family have been here. For the most part they know that they have some of the higher taxes in the country. They don’t stay here because of that. He came home after 7 deployments and with his choice of place to live, but this is his home. It seems like after listening to everyone else, the word community is missing. They seem to have skipped over the fact of should I rather than could I. How can you guarantee that at one of these events someone isn’t going to be driving down the road intoxicated, mowing down innocent civilians? Is that what it is going to take to wake up? It’s a definite possibility. He asked that they take that into consideration.
Martha Tardiobono was next to speak. She noted that she lived up on Rock Hill Road, but she did go across the Bridge about 5-6 times per week. The turn is very dangerous. She almost had a terrible accident 2 weeks ago that she is assuming is those people coming out of that driveway and not paying attention. She doesn’t see how they alleviate that turn.
Ryan Basten noted that in reference to other comments, economical impact isn’t just for the applicant, but for the people who come in from out of town are going to stay at Mohonk and other B & B’s and stay for the weekend. The applicants do have a huge responsibility to their neighbors, and they should figure out how to work it out. There are plenty of locals that drive around drunk too. It’s the major thoroughfare to Mohonk. He used to work there when he was 18-20. People who are not from around here are more cautious on these roads than people who live around here and know these roads like himself.
Jane Dobson noted that she was relatively new to the area. She and her husband live up the road and they looked for a long time. They love the property they purchased and they knew it was a residential property when they purchased it. They knew it was a residential neighborhood. One of the things that concerns her is that the primary intent here is that it’s commercial. They purchased this property and are gearing it toward commercial use. The special use permit is an inappropriate vehicle to allow a commercial use in a residential area. She questions the judgement of making that pathway so easy because it really renders what is residential as meaningless and asks the Board to consider that very seriously. Again, commercial use has designated areas that would be more appropriate. She is also concerned that they are looking at paper solutions. How does a field barn host an event during the summer with no air-conditioning.
Keith Eddleman noted that a farm is a commercial entity and it’s been here longer than all of the other uses in the area. It’s not going to keep itself maintained for the next 150 years and he wants to make sure that it is maintained and he needs money to do that and this is one of the ways to do that. A farm is a commercial entity and his property is zoned as a farm, so why can’t they use it as such? Part of farming is using the land to make money.
Marijane Knudsen was recognized to speak next. She knew that the commercial facility was new to the zoning code. And the Board just approved the Woodstock Sanctuary and it was only a mile away and they were talking 1,500 people and then you are going to have another commercial event facility within a mile radius. She really has concerns over safety and the traffic flow. She also feels that what she is hearing, she doesn’t feel that she should have to wait until Monday morning to report any problems. One of the things that should happen is if it is granted, they should have to hire safe security, an inspector, fire person, paid ambulance. This is allowing all of our volunteers to be serving people who are making money. She doesn’t think that is fair to the volunteers or the Town. There are 3 event facilities on the agenda tonight. That’s a lot. That’s a lot of use or our volunteers.
Nora Fiengold was recognized to speak again. She noted that the zoning Board does work really hard and she is learning about the zoning code for the first time. She has read the guidelines. 140-2 under purposes, letter Q. These are the guidelines and standards that the laws are supposed to follow. She read 3 of them. 1. Recognizing historical neighborhoods and preserving small scale mixed use development patterns in these areas. She believes this is large scale. 2. Preventing intrusion of incompatible uses in residential areas so as to insure privacy for residents and their freedom from nuisance. 3. Protecting the community from obtrusive, unsightly, and noisy land uses and operations. She asked that these be kept in mind in this application and that it be denied.
Mr. Sitter asked the Board to introduce a motion to deny the application.
Mr. Basten spoke again and noted that there is a similar property in High Falls on the Rondout. He suggested that the 1 year check in might be a possibility. And that the Board also canvass the owners in High Falls to see how they work it.
A gentleman noted that there are signs that are now popping up in Marbletown and they aren’t happy as well.
Mr. Nedbor spoke again. He noted that maybe people should be talked to in that area. There are signs appearing there as well. There is no good about it. If it should go through, there are disruptive ways to interrupt a wedding venue within the parameters of staying legal.
Chairman Baden requested that the audience refrain from clapping as it is just adding time to the Hearing.
Mr. Nedbor also noted that his house was older than the applicant’s barn.
Mr. Fornal was recognized to speak again and noted that maybe it would help if the Board were to come up with a statement that explains that if everyone in Town is against an application that can’t be a basis for decision. There is case law that would have it thrown out in two seconds. The Board cannot base a decision based on sentiment. That’s why it is so important to have a code to mitigate impacts. That is the way the code exists now and that is what the Board is doing. While the sentiment is understandable, it isn’t usable by the Board and that is a fact.
A member of the public noted that the Board has interpretive powers.
Claude Suhl noted that when this was a farm, all of the decomposing broccoli smelled sky high. He thought it was important to distinguish between agricultural and commercial. This is so that people who have farms can gain some additional income and keep their farms viable. This is not a farm, they are not farmers. They don’t need any help. He believes that this was originally zoned as Agricultural.
Barbara Fornal spoke again. She noted that when she was speaking about previous commercial uses, like mining, the race track, cell towers, saw mills, the land fill… hundreds of people came out and protested. And that is what she learned, by law, public sentiment cannot be used to make a decision. Many of these Planning Board Members go back a long way and they know the amount of people who came out and protested and all of these uses are here. Loud, noisy, intrusive. Race track, mining, saw mills. Many sat and listen to it every Friday night to where you have to turn your TV up in your own house to be able to hear it. That is why codes and laws were put in place to protect everyone.
Chairman Baden noted zoning decisions needed to be based on findings and facts, not sentiment. If everyone is 100% in favor of this project and it did not meet the standards of the law, they could not approve it. Public sentiment for or against does not factor into the Board’s decision. They do not have that ability or power.
A member of the Public asked about democracy and noted asked if they have already decided.
Chairman Baden noted that he has not decided and he is hearing all of the facts, but he wanted to clarify that they do not have that ability. He personally has not made a decision.
Chairman Baden asked the Board if they wanted to explore the possibility of the alternate entrance.
Mr. Medenbach noted that they would seriously investigate the alternate access.
Chairman Baden noted that they were discussing that based on the changes to the access, they will need to re-refer this the County PB, but they would wait to do that once they have received revisions since they are considering this.
Mr. Moriello noted that he read the letter from Whiteman, Osterman, and Hannah and he agreed that this needs to be re-referred to the County. He had intended to ask the Board to do this anyway once they got through SEQRA. He feels that the law says that they need a full statement of the proposed action. He feels that once the Board makes the environmental determination to send it to the County PB. Whether they look at this alternative access or not, they are plowing the same ground again and again with the Public Hearing. They held the first one in April and it’s a lot of the same comments. He asked that the Board closes the Public Hearing.
Chairman Baden noted that there is going to be a change to the project, so they shouldn’t close it.
Mr. Moriello understood this. It was the Board’s prerogative.
Chairman Baden noted that he felt that the change in access was significant enough that they should delay any SEQRA decision.
Mr. Moriello noted that it sounded like this was something that the Board wanted to see. He thinks his clients were trepidations about it because they have spent a considerable amount of money already, but if this is something that the Board thinks would work better, they would be willing to work on it.
Chairman Baden noted that it would mitigate a number of concerns that have been brought up. Both public comment and physical safety issues as well.
Mr. Ricks agreed.
Chairman Baden suggested that they reach out to the UCPDW and have them give their opinion before they spend a lot of time and money designing it.
Ms. Lindstrom motioned to hold the Public Hearing open until the August 10, 2015 Meeting. Seconded by Mr. Paddock. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden: Yes Tapper: Yes
O’Donnell: Absent Lindstrom: Yes
Ricks: Yes Dawson: Absent
Paddock: Yes Williams: Yes
Motion carried. 6 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, 0 abstentions (including alternate)
PB 2015-03 SUP Continued Application, Public Hearing
Special Use
Verna Gillis aka Accord Train Station
Proposes new use of a +/- 1.10 acre parcel for the use “Commercial Events Facility”
9 Tobacco Rd, S/B/L #77.9-1-24.110, ‘H’ and ‘AP Overlay’ zoning districts
Christine Atkinson was present on behalf of the application.
Chairman Baden reminded the Board that at the last meeting the Board reviewed the site plan and approval for the existing café from 1993. They had some questions about parking and the actual approved site plan which never really materialized. The Board referred it to the CEO and asked him to review the decision and the approved map. The Board received a memo back that noted that the parking submitted to the CEO by the applicant was adequate for the maximum seating in the café area. There was still one concern that the area that was shown to re-open the portion of the former driveway is not where the road actually ended up being. The Chairman went out and looked. GLF road used to go straighter and sued to intersect into Main Street, but Verna Gillis did a lot line adjustment with the post office next door to give them that little piece where GLF Road used to be. The issue is that for the applicant to re-open the driveway right now, there is a significant amount of trees and vegetation she’d have to remove. She could proceed with that, but he wanted to point out that where the road is on the map vs. reality over the years as many of the Board Members mentioned last time widened and widened. The area that was designated for parking is where the road actually became and that is no longer part of this property, so the Board can’t give approval for that driveway to exit into someone else’s property. Also that area is the Post Office’s approved parking area. The applicant’s driveway would be going right through the approved parking. He knew that they weren’t reviewing the café, but the Board was reviewing this site plan. He was pointing it out in case the applicant wanted to consider taking that part of the site plan away. You can see very clearly in an aerial. He noted that the Board also asked for a plan of action for parking. The Board received the document dated 6/30/15 submitted by the applicant and it is noted that it is proposed for events that the municipal parking be used. Was the applicant still considering the 4 permanent parking spaces to the side of the café to be used as the handicap spaces for events?
Ms. Atkinson replied yes.
Chairman Baden noted that the other 3 spaces would just need temporary handicap designations.
Mr. Ricks noted that he was one of the most pro-business people on the Board, but he saw a lot of issues with this. All of the parking that they had before along Tobacco Road is all gone. That was on the original site plan and is now gone. The other thing that is hard for him to come across is that people will be emailed directions on where to park and they will have to email them to their guests and a lot of senior people don’t have emails. The other thing is that they have to walk with flashlights along Main Street back to the parking area. He just didn’t see that happening. Maybe if it was just in the day time, maybe it would be easier for him to get through—but at night with flashlights, to have people out and walking down a public road with flashlights at night as part of an application just didn’t make sense to him.
Ms. Atkinson noted that the flashlights would just be supplemental to the lighting that already existed along Main Street. People wouldn’t be walking down the middle of the road.
Mr. Ricks noted that it wasn’t that well-lit and there was barely a sidewalk on the other side of Main Street if they cross the street twice. Other than that there is no place to walk.
Ms. Lindstrom noted that it was a shame that there wasn’t any municipal lighting, otherwise this would be a moot point.
Chairman Baden noted that the parking area was lit behind the fire house.
Mr. Ricks wished that there was more parking on site. There was at one time and through the years it has all been eliminated. He felt that the site didn’t even fit the original site plan, which you would think would have to adhere to that. That was his opinion.
Mr. Williams wondered about creating a new driveway-
Chairman Baden noted that it was a County road up to Granite Road from Route 209, and after it reaches Granite Road, Main Street is a Town Road, so where that access is meeting looks to be Town controlled.
Ms. Atkinson noted that wasn’t what she was told. She has been bounced back and forth for a few months with this. She has been to County twice and Mr. Kelder, Town of Rochester Highway Superintendent, said it was absolutely County. Not only that, but he forwarded this information to the Board.
It was always the Chairman’s understanding that it was Town maintained at that point.
Ms. Atkinson noted that the County said that this still was an existing driveway and to go ahead and open it.
Chairman Baden didn’t think that they understood that it was an existing driveway because the existing driveway was on someone else’s property now. He read the memo from Mr. Kelder as follows: “I spoke with Ms. Atkinson, since there is already an existing driveway, no changes need to be made at this time.” He was probably not aware of the fact that that piece of land changed to the other parcel. This was pretty clear that the old roadway empties directly into the Post Office property.
The Board continued to discuss the fact that the driveway is on the Post Office property. The initial site plan showed the roadway where it is on the drawing submitted by Ms. Atkinson. It’s not where it became physically over time. The only way to have it confirmed is to have someone survey it.
Ms. Atkinson noted that this was what was originally approved, not what it became over time. What something comes over time becomes irrelevant.
Chairman Baden noted that what was approved as the former driveway has all trees through it.
Mr. Paddock questioned if they could exit through the Town parking lot?
Chairman Baden noted that it would be up to the applicant to approach the Town Board about that.
Mr. Ricks noted that she could use the old granite place.
Chairman Baden believed that the County owned that parcel now.
Ms. Atkinson noted that Ms. Gillis told her she could park at the old Chinese place across the street.
Chairman Baden noted that they would need to present a legal agreement to the Board.
Mr. Ricks didn’t believe that would give them any more than 10 spaces. What about putting the original spots back in front along Tobacco Road?
The Board discussed this further. Chairman Baden suggested that the applicant speak with the CEO. He agreed that another option would be to put all the spaces back as it was originally approved. Whatever she proposes, she needs to create.
The Board now discussed the road between the Community Center and the municipal parking lot. Could people go that way?
Board Members were aware that the portion of road between the Community Center and municipal lot was owned privately and once again, the Board could not grant approval for an application where traveling over private property is proposed. The Board agreed to write a memo to Mr. Kelder to find out who owns the road between the Community Center and municipal lot.
Chairman Baden pointed out that the application would still need to cross Town property via the Community Center parking lot and it would be up to the applicant to approach the Town Board to get approval to do that.
Ms. Atkinson noted that she was getting frustrated as she felt like she was being bounced back and forth and not getting anywhere.
Chairman Baden noted that the Board needs to address all of this and the plan is questionable as far as ensuring safety is concerned.
Ms. Atkinson stated that she was getting the feeling that the Board didn’t want this business to happen.
Chairman Baden noted that this was a very small parcel and the Board has to consider parking and walking between two different parcels. It is the Board’s job to consider the safety of the public when reviewing an application.
Ms. Atkinson noted that she does this for a living at a lot of different venues. Now the Board is telling her that her plan isn’t good enough.
Mr. Ricks noted that the only way he would feel this was safe enough would be if they shuttled people between the two properties. He said that he didn’t think that walking down the road with flashlights was safe at last month’s meeting. As far as the existing uses, they are all fine. As far as the special events and having people walk between the two parcels and having to cross a public road twice with barely a sidewalk available, he didn’t feel comfortable with that. Other than having a transport van, he didn’t see how it would be safe.
Ms. Atkinson was still very frustrated as she felt that she had done everything the Board has asked.
Ms. Lindstrom questioned if being conditioned to daylight events only would be a deal breaker for her?
Ms. Atkinson answered yes.
Mrs. Christiana noted that whatever the applicant proposed to use or walk over that wasn’t Ms. Gillis’s land, the applicant would need to get permission.
At 10:45PM Chairman Baden opened the Public Hearing.
Mr. Travers was recognized to speak and noted that maybe the new owner of the Post Office would be able to work with Ms. Atkinson to re-open the driveway and maybe have common parking.
Chairman Baden noted that subsequent to the Lot Line Improvement that has been mentioned, the former owner of the Post Office property obtained site plan approval to open the downstairs apartments into businesses, so that area that once belonged to the train station and now belongs to the Post Office is now approved parking for the Post Office.
Mr. Travers also noted that the road from the Community Center to the municipal lot may have a right of way for people to travel.
Mr. Ricks noted that it didn’t mean that it was for public use though.
Mr. Travers was trying to find a solution. Main Street isn’t Route 209. Would it be so unreasonable for people to walk along the sidewalk to the municipal lot? He believed that there was a solution to help the applicant here, it just needed a little thought.
A member of the public was upset with the late hour of the meeting and that this application should be held earlier.
Chairman Baden noted that they set the agenda according to the application number.
There was no further public comment at this meeting.
Chairman Baden noted that the Hearing should be kept open to further consider how to get people back and forth, and the applicant should submit any new information prior to the meeting date.
Mr. Paddock motioned to hold the hearing open until August 10, 2015 seconded by Ms. Lindstrom. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden: Yes Tapper: Yes
O’Donnell: Absent Lindstrom: Yes
Ricks: Yes Dawson: Absent
Paddock: Yes Williams: Yes
Motion carried. 6 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, 0 abstentions (including alternate)
Special Use
Beach Automotive Inc. (applicant) and R.O. Rohan (owner)
Proposes expansion of use to allow retail sales used car dealer (Retail and Service Establishments – Vehicle and Equipment)5752 Route 209, S/B/L #76.2-2-8.100, ‘B’, ‘AP Overlay’, ‘FD Overlay’ zoning districts, Contiguous to Ulster County Ag District #3
Mr. Ricks recused himself from the application as he held the mortgage on the building that Mr. Basten was applying for.
Ryan Basten was present on behalf of his application. Mr. Basten noted that he wasn’t proposing any additional lighting or signage. He was proposing to park the cars on grass. The office space did have a bathroom.
Chairman Baden noted that this application wasn’t required to be done by a professional, but it did need a better blow up of detail to scale for the parking area and for the applicant to put in distances between the spaces and the property lines. Also for the applicant to verify that all of the spaces were 10’ x 20’. A blow up of only the front of the building would be fine. The parking in front of the building is existing. If the applicant is changing the sign, he suggested that he go to the CEO and just adhere to what the code allows. This application does need to be referred to the County PB because it is on Route 209. If the applicant can get the changes to the secretary by next week they could refer it for the August meeting.
Ms. Lindstrom motioned to schedule the public hearing for August 10, 2015 pending receipt of the revised site plan prior to July 22, 2015. Seconded by Mr. Paddock. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden: Yes Tapper: Yes
O’Donnell: Absent Lindstrom: Yes
Ricks: Recuse Dawson: Absent
Paddock: Yes Williams: Yes
Motion carried. 5 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, 0 abstentions, 1 recusal (including alternate)
Ms. Lindstrom motioned to refer the application to the Ulster County Planning Board pending receipt of the revised plans prior to July 22, 2015. Seconded by Mr. Paddock. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden: Yes Tapper: Yes
O’Donnell: Absent Lindstrom: Yes
Ricks: Recuse Dawson: Absent
Paddock: Yes Williams: Yes
Motion carried. 5 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, 0 abstentions, 1 recusal (including alternate)
Mr. Williams motioned for an Unlisted Action under SEQRA. Seconded by Ms. Lindstrom. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden: Yes Tapper: Yes
O’Donnell: Absent Lindstrom: Yes
Ricks: Recuse Dawson: Absent
Paddock: Yes Williams: Yes
Motion carried. 5 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, 0 abstentions, 1 recusal (including alternate)
OTHER MATTERS:
Mr. Ricks returned to the Board.
Chairman Baden noted that the PB has received an advisory request from the Town Board regarding Local Law #3 of 2015 to amend Chapter 140-43 of the Zoning Code which gives accessory structures their own section.
Ms. Lindstrom motioned to send a favorable advisory to the Town Board for Local Law #3 of 2015. Seconded by Mr. Paddock. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden: Yes Tapper: Yes
O’Donnell: Absent Lindstrom: Yes
Ricks: Yes Dawson: Absent
Paddock: Yes Williams: Yes
Motion carried. 6 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, 0 abstentions (including alternate)
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Williams motioned to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Mr. Tapper . No discussion. All members present in favor.
Chairman Baden adjourned the meeting at 11:15PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Rebecca Paddock Stange, Secretary