Planning Board Minutes July 8th, 2019

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

MINUTES OF July 8th, 2019 REGULAR MEETING OF the Town of Rochester PLANNING BOARD, held at 7:00pm at the Town of Rochester Town Hall, Accord, NY.

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

The Secretary did roll call attendance.

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

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

ANNOUNCEMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS:

Chair Lindstrom stated they needed to discuss what members would be able to make the July 29th, 2019 Workshop meeting. There were several members unavailable for that meeting. There was discussion among the Board about doing it the Monday before on July 22nd, 2019, but only three Board members could confirm their attendance.

Mr. Zurofsky made the motion to cancel the July 29th, 2019 Workshop Meeting. Ms. Maloney seconded it.
All in Favor. Motion Carried.
6 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, 0 abstentions.

TRAININGS:

Chair Lindstrom told the Board they needed to do more training and it was always good to refresh every year.

ACTION ON MINUTES:

Mr. Williams made the motion to approve the minutes from the June 10th, 2019 Regular Meeting contingent upon the Town Attorney reviewing grammatical and spelling changes. Mr.Pinsky seconded the Motion.
All in Favor. Motion Carried.
6 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, 0 abstentions.

Mr. Zurofsky made the motion to table the June 24th, 2019 Workshop Meeting Minutes. Chair Lindstrom seconded the motion.
All in Favor. Motion Carried.
6 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, 0 abstentions.

APPLICATION REVIEW:

Open Space Development- Josh and Katrina Gibson
Referred to the Planning Board by Town Board.
Applicant wishes to build a residential home on Lower Granite Road.

Attorney Christiana explained that when someone does not have frontage on a public road way, they couldn’t obtain a building permit. She stated there was Open Development and the Board had done this on some applications before, and if they had sufficient right of way to the property the Town Board could declare that property Open Development. She said the Town Board needed the Planning Board’s recommendation to do that, including any conditions. She stated that in this case, the Highway Department had gone out and declared the road was great, and the main reason for this was to make sure emergency vehicles could get there and this road was adequate for that. She said they had offered the Town a road maintenance agreement which was required. Attorney Christiana said she was reviewing the road maintenance agreement and there was a letter from the Town Board and it had a conditions which they would like to see the Planning Board recommend.

Chair Lindstrom read the conditions which the Town Board wished for the Planning Boards to include:
1) The applicant must apply for and submit a driveway permit to the Town of Rochester Highway Department.
2) The Road Maintenance/ Easement Agreement shall be reviewed and approved by the Town Attorney
3) The applicant will be responsible to reimburse the Town for Town Attorney fees.

Chair Lindstrom made the motion to recommend that the applicant be granted Open Development by the Town Board with the following conditions: The applicant must apply for and submit a driveway permit to the Town of Rochester Highway Department, The Road Maintenance/ Easement Agreement shall be reviewed and approved by the Town Attorney
The applicant will be responsible to reimburse the Town for Town Attorney fees. Mr. Buchbinder seconded the motion.
6 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, 0 abstentions.

Chair Lindstrom read the letter that would be submitted to the Town Board:

Mike Baden, Supervisor
Town of Rochester
50 Scenic Drive
Accord, NY 12404

RE: Open Development Referral 80 Lower Granite/42 DeLeo Drive, Kerhonkson, NY
S/B/L 76.3-2-70

Dear Mike:

The Town of Rochester Planning Board received a referral from your office for an Open Development, pursuant to Town Law §280-A: “Permits for Buildings not on Improved Mapped Streets”. The Planning Board has no comment and defers responsibility to the Town Board as stated in the law, to insure that the street is suitably improved to adequate standards of public health, safety and general welfare for the special circumstances of, and acknowledges that the Town Board may, by resolution, establish an Open Development area for the parcel located off of 80 Lower Granite Road at 42 DeLeo Drive, Kerhonkson, NY S/B/L 76.3-2-70 in which case access will be given by right-of-way or easement.

The Planning Board further acknowledges that the Town Board will coordinate with the owner of the parcel to establish a road maintenance agreement, secure a driveway permit and reimburse the Town for Town Attorney Fees related to the application to achieve the aforementioned.

Sincerely,

Maren Lindstrom,
Town of Rochester Planning Board Chair

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

Mr. Alan Feinberg was present on behalf of the application.

Chair Lindstrom reminded the Board what the application was all about.
Mr. Feinberg presented the Board with photos of the property and the current home.

Chair Lindstrom stated this was being done to add a kitchen to the bottom floor of the home so there would be more of an entertainment area but that did qualify it as a two-family structure because of the additional kitchen. She stated the Catskill Forest border in the back of the home so the effect on the neighbors would be little to none at all and she noted that this application was a Type II SEQRA. She said the Board needed to set the application for public hearing because it was a special use permit.

Mr. Williams made the motion to set the application for public hearing at the August 12th, 2019 Regular Planning Board meeting. Mr. Pinsky seconded the motion.
All in Favor. Motion Carried.
6 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, 0 abstentions.

Chair Lindstrom asked if the house will share the same water and septic.

Mr. Feinberg said there were no added bathrooms or bedrooms, just a sink was being added.

There were no other questions or comments from the Board.

PB 2019-04 SPA Continued Application
Town of Rochester (applicant), Accord Fire District (owner)
Site Plan Approval
Applicant proposes the redevelopment (addition to) of the Alligerville Fire House, (S/B/L 77.2-2-17). Located at 4 Creek Road, High Falls, NY. Parcel is R-1 zoned and adjacent to Ulster County Ag District #3.
SEQRA: preliminary classification as unlisted action by Governor’s Office of Storm Recovery (‘GOSR’) Lead Agency

Mr. Bob Garrett Commissioner of Accord Fire District and Mr. Sam Dillehay, Architect, were present on behalf of the application.

Chair Lindstrom explained what the application was all about. She stated they met the rear and front setbacks but it wasn’t meeting that site’s side setbacks because it was narrow, it wasn’t infringing any worse.

Attorney Christiana said it was pre-existing so it shouldn’t need any type of variance.

Chair Lindstrom stated all lot qualifications had been met but height had been a question.

Mr. Dillehay said they weren’t building above the 35ft. Height restriction, the building would be far below that.

Chair Lindstrom asked that he note that on the plan. She read #140-20 (a) for the record and answered each question:

(1) Building design and location should be suitable for the use intended and compatible with natural and manmade surroundings.
-Yes.

(2) Building color, materials and design should be adapted to surroundings as opposed to adaptation of the site to the building or the building to a national franchise concept.
-Yes

(3) Building placement and site development layout should also incorporate the site’s topography, existing vegetation and other unique features. On a lot with multiple buildings, those located on the interior of the site should front towards and relate to one another, both functionally and visually, and may be organized around features such as courtyards, greens or quadrangles. Smaller, individualized groupings of buildings are encouraged. Buildings should be sited to provide adequate and safe fire and emergency access. Accessory buildings shall, wherever possible, be located in the rear.
-Yes

(4) Buildings should relate in scale and design features to the surrounding buildings, showing respect for existing and neighborhood architecture. Buildings should avoid long, uninterrupted walls or roof planes. Building wall offsets, including projections, recesses, and changes in floor level or other comparable design features should be used in order to add architectural interest and variety, and to relieve the visual effect of a simple, long wall. Similarly, roof-line offsets should be provided, in order to provide architectural interest and variety to the massing of the building and to relieve the effect of a single, long roof. Commercial facades of more than 100 feet in length should incorporate design features of this nature.
-Yes

(5) All facades of such a building that are visible from adjoining streets or
properties should exhibit features comparable in character to the front so as to better integrate with the community. Where such facades face adjacent residential uses, earthen berms planted with evergreen trees should be provided.
-Yes

(6)Loading docks and accessory facilities should be incorporated in the building design and screened with materials comparable in quality to the principal structure. Dumpsters, outside storage (non-display) and drop-off boxes shall be limited to rear yards or screened side yards.
-Did not apply fully but there was a dumpster in the back.

(7) Driveway, sidewalk/walkway and curb materials shall be functional and compatible with the style, materials, colors and details of the surrounding buildings. The selection and use of pavement and curb materials shall consist of a stable material.
– Yes

(8) Developers are encouraged to preserve tree borders. Existing trees over 8” dbh shall be
incorporated in the site design to the maximum extent practical, as shall be determined by the
Planning Board, and none shall be removed prior to Site Plan Review and approval.
-Yes, they were actually improving the landscape and there were no large trees being taken down.

(9) New construction affecting existing buildings of historically traditional architectural
design within the community should respect the existing height, bulk, scale and style of the existing architecture wherever practical. Materials used may be required to be of a similar color, texture and style of the existing architecture.
-Yes, met all standards.

Chair Lindstrom also noted #140-20 (F) Noise, #3 specifically:
(3) The maximum permissible sound levels of this section shall not apply to emergency or security alarms, repair or construction work to provide public utilities, construction operations between the hours of 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM, emergency repairs, agricultural activities other than kennels, motor vehicles when used on public streets in accord with state
Regulations, aircraft, government authorized public celebrations, unamplified human voices or routine ringing of bells or chimes by a place of worship or similar facility.

Chair Lindstrom stated that they were somewhat exempt from the noise as they were emergency vehicles.

Attorney Christiana noted it would be exempt anyway as it was a pre-existing structure.

Chair Lindstrom noted they had provided a basic SWPP as they were disturbing little to nothing and they didn’t need a full SWPP because it wasn’t over an acre.

Chair Lindstrom stated that they would send the parking information to the Town’s Highway Department as it was a Town maintained road. She stated the parking lot had to have one space for four seats as the building could be used for a meeting place, and she was curious as to if there was a meeting at the building how would it work with people parking on the road.

Mr. Dillehay said that was something they wanted to inquire about since they were to have thirteen parking spaces plus an accessible space; they were interested in knowing if the road could accommodate parking if necessary.

Mr. Williams asked how that building could work as a shelter then, if there weren’t sufficient parking spaces to accommodate the cars in that situation.

Mr. Dillehay stated that if that situation would occur, people would be bussed in so there would not be an overflow of vehicles.

Mr. Williams asked if the shed shown on the site plan, if that was necessary and if it was not, could it be taken down and that area then be used for parking.

Mr. Dillehay explained that had been discussed but they didn’t want a bottleneck effect.

Mr. Zurofsky asked if the shed could be removed and the parking could be changed as Mr. Williams had suggested, would it be possible to make it a one way drive.

Chair Lindstrom said it would be tight as there wasn’t a lot of space.

Mr. Pinsky asked if people could park on the bridge.

Mr. Dillehay said there was a gravel parking area on the bottom of Creek Road.

Mr. Buchbinder asked if the shelter would be used in a flood situation, wouldn’t that have an effect on the parking?

Chair Lindstrom said the building and site wasn’t in a flood plain.

Mr. Dillehay stated he didn’t know what would be the situation if there was extremely heavy rain but there were a few situations for the parking situation.

Mr. Garrett said the shed could be moved as it was not necessary for any storage.

Mr. Dillehay stated if that was to be removed then it could be an option for parking.

Attorney Christiana said a lot had been explained in regards to parking in the application but she didn’t see an actual request for a parking waiver.

Chair Lindstrom stated there wasn’t an actual request waiver.

Mr. Zurofsky stated that since the structure already existed, the way the use was being changed; it wasn’t increasing the parking demand as if it were a new building, application, etc.

Attorney Christiana said they should present the Board with a waiver request.

Mr. Dillehay wanted clarification on the parking waiver request.

Chair Lindstrom said what he had stated in his narrative about the parking was fine, but he needed to add the request for the parking waiver.

The Board discussed the parking items further but no more information or questions were presented on that subject.

Chair Lindstrom stated that the Planning Board was not Lead Agency for SEQRA but the building was technically historic, the Board should send the application to the Town of Rochester Historic Society as an interested party but they didn’t need to send it to SHPO as that was to be done by the lead agency.

Mr. Dillehay stated he thought it would something that the Town Historic Society would want to discuss.

The Board had no further questions.

Chair Lindstrom made the motion to set the application for public hearing at the August 12th, 2019 Regular Planning Board meeting. Mr. Buchbinder seconded the motion.
All in Favor. Motion Carried.
6 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, 0 abstentions.

Attorney Christiana reminded the Board they could not make any decision until there was a negative declaration from SEQRA.

Mr. Dillehay stated they anticipated that declaration in the coming week.

Mr. Zurofsky made the motion to send the application to the Town of Rochester Highway Department, the Town of Rochester Historical Society, and the Ulster County Planning Board for comments. Mr. Pinsky seconded the motion.
All in Favor. Motion Carried.
6 ayes, 0 nays 1 absent, 0 abstentions.

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

Ms. Motria Shuhan and Mr. Barry Medenbach were present on behalf of the application.

Mr. Medenbach explained that the site was on the corner of Airport Rd and Canyon Lake Rd. He said they currently had a school on Lucas Ave but it was only a lease and they wanted to purchase the property in order to build a school. He explained the aspects of the site plan including keeping the traffic away from the Canyon Lake Road side, the walkway up to the school, playground design, septic, storm waste being adjacent to the parking area, and minimal lighting being the parking area. He stated they wanted to keep the area wooded and would provide a full SWPP. He noted they would contact the Ulster County Health department in regards to the well and septic and they would need to drill a well and had dug holes already for testing.

Mr. Pinsky commented on how the applicant’s narrative stated they encouraged the parents to come via Airport Rd.

Mr. Zurofsky stated he understood what Mr. Pinsky was unclear about, but his understanding was that they were encouraging parents to come off of 209 and take Airport Rd. to the school.

Chair Lindstrom stated it would be good to put that in documentation.

Ms. Shuhan said it would be in the handbook they would provide to parents and would be explained at orientation and there would be small signage to indicate the route.

Chair Lindstrom mentioned there would be small signage at Airport and Canyon Lake roads.

Mr. Pinsky noted the property was in an archeological site.

Mr. Medenbach explained the State had a database where they find any archeological significance and put a dot on the map and a one mile radius circle which is a gray area and that area is considered it a sensitive area. He stated there weren’t that many properties in the County that weren’t in that gray area.

Mr. Pinsky said he saw that the water run-off looked like it was going onto the neighboring properties.

Mr. Medenbach stated all the runoff would go into a culvert area and they were building water quality basins and it would not increase over existing developments and there would be no impacts downstream. He said it was a very strict requirement. He stated there would be weekly inspections during construction.

Chair Lindstrom referenced areas of #140-10 and #140-11 and she stated the applicant met almost all requirements. She stated the Board would need architectural renderings with elevations and on the lighting plan they would need to do lighting contour and they would like to see something on the specs for the lights in the parking area and the walkway up to the building. She explained when it came to noise there would only be unamplified human voices and therefore a noise level study did not need to be applied.

Attorney Christiana asked if there would be any sort of P/A system.

Ms. Shuhan answered that there would be no such system.

Chair Lindstrom stated the signage was already discussed but if there were to be any interior directional signs then they would need to be included on the site plan. She said as far as landscaping, they had landscaping including bio-retention. She stated the parking was divided up the way the Board required it to be and there was one space for every 175 sq. feet.

Mr. Medenbach explained that they had done that because there could be up to fifty students to ten staff members and if there was a small event going on, they wanted to make sure that the parking did not back up onto the road.

Mr. Williams noted that the area of the building was in a large bear area so they wanted to make sure their dumpsters were well barricaded.

Chair Lindstrom stated in regards to traffic, the hours of operation were 8:30am-3:30pm so the larger amount of traffic would be in the morning, but 40% of the students were half day and that 60% of the students were full day and therefore the afternoon traffic would be less and should not be a problem.

Ms. Maloney asked if there would be any school buses transporting the students.

Ms. Shuhan said the biggest vehicle would be a small van that may be transporting students at the end of the day to the school.

Attorney Christiana asked if they had thought about reaching out to Joe Dymond in regards to the archeological aspects of the property.

Mr. Medenbach said no, not unless the State mandated that they would need to do something like that and he stated if the Board wanted to reach out to the State, they could do so.

The Board discussed reaching out to SHPO and it was decided the Mr. Medenbach and Ms. Shuhan would reach out to SHPO see if anything came back from them before going further with SEQRA which was typed Unlisted/Uncoordinated.

The Board discussed if there was enough information to schedule a public hearing but it was decided there was still a need for more items before that was schedule, specifically the architectural renderings.

PB 2019-08 SPA Amend Existing Approval (PB 2016-01)
Let Lee c/o Blake Arrowood/Arrowood Farms
Amend Existing Site Plan Approval
Applicant proposes the amendment of existing SUP/SPA 2016-01 with a production facility expansion connecting current facility (brewery) to a larger to-be-constructed 5,000 sq foot production facility on a +/- 48.5 acre parcel located at 236 Lower Whitfield Road, Accord, NY (S/B/L 68.4-4-23.110). Parcel is in the AR-3 and ‘AP Overlay’ zoning districts and located in Ulster County Ag District #3
SEQRA: TBD

Ms. Maloney recused herself at 8:02pm.

Mr. Blake Arrowood, Mr. Jacob Meglio, and Mr. Medenbach were present on behalf of the application.

Mr. Meglio read the narrative they had provided to the Board for the record:

’’Arrowood Farms is privileged to be an ambassador for our community and looks forward to the opportunity of cultivating and broadening our relationship within Accord and the Mid-Hudson Valley.

As a Farm Brewery we have built our business by being rooted in agriculture while promoting our distinct regional flavor through the products we create. At our farm we currently grow certified organic hops and grains while raising chickens, ducks, pigs and bees.We partner with local farms to source ingredients that we use in our craft production. Additionally, we partner with local businesses to showcase their farm goods. We plan to continue to expand our local partnerships and promote other small businesses at both of our locations. By expanding our partnerships within our community and our region we will work towards the greater economic development goals of the Mid-Hudson Regional Economic Development Council. As a locally established business we are uniquely suited to promote agricultural business, tourism, as well as artisanal food and beverage.

We are working to expand our brewing operations to bring our products to a wider audience and further grow our existing local business partnerships. Arrowood Farms is seeking a site plan amendment to construct additional production space. This space will house additional fermentation vessels and brewhouse equipment, as well as additional refrigeration and office spaces. All aspects of the expansion are designed to facilitate Arrowood increasing production volumes and working to further our goal to promote regional agriculture, job growth and economic development in our community.

From starting with a staff of 3 people in 2014, Arrowood has grown to currently employ 9 FTE staff with an additional 5 part-time employees. Increasing our local employment, growing as a small business, partnering with other local businesses and stimulating our local economy are all part of our foundational goals. For us as a young Farm, this expansion is critical to the success of our business as a small agricultural enterprise and necessary to bring the products we showcase to a broader audience.

Building Location: The new building will be situated next to our existing structure and will incorporate our site topography and existing vegetation.

Loading Docks & Dumpsters: We have incorporated a loading dock into our new building design which will be screened with appropriate materials. Dumpsters will be limited to screened side yards.

Driveway and Footpaths: See our site plan amendment for footpath, materials and location. We are not anticipating an increase in driveway usage from our increase in production. We will continue to use the same number of vendors and are increasing the scale of our deliveries not the quantity of deliveries.

Trees and Borders: We will preserve existing trees and tree borders. No trees will be removed prior to site plan approval.

Lighting: As shown on our site plan our lighting meets the standards of 140-20(H). Our proposed lighting is LED dark sky compliant, downward facing shielded. There are no globe lights, no direct or sky-reflected glare, no lighting over 2,000 lumens and no light poles over building height or 25 ft Average foot candles at the property lines are less than 1.0

Noise: There will be no increase in noise from this proposed expansion. Our process will remain the same as it currently exists. All proposed new land uses shall not generate cumulative sound levels (SPL), at or beyond any lot line that exceeds the ambient noise level by 10 or more decibels (dBA). Any sound of 5 to 10 decibels above the ambient noise level shall be attenuated or mitigated to the maximum degree practical.

Building Height: Our building wilt not exceed 2.5 stories.

Signs: The new building will have proper signage directing visitors towards our public space through the use of no access and ADA signage. All signs will meet the standards of 140-21 Schedule of Signs Regulations.

Landscaping: Landscaping will meet the standards of 140-15

Storm Water Treatment: The new building septic system will be engineered by Medenbach and Eggers PC as well as the addition of a shallow well to meet the new buildings water usage demand.

Wetlands: There are no wetlands affected by the new building construction.

Access: There will be no change to our current Access Drive. We are not anticipating an increase in traffic.

Parking :As shown on our amended site plan the primary parking lot, used during normal business it shown with 24 parking spots and 2 ADA parking spots. These number of parking spots will be adequate for our normal business use.

Sanitation: All sanitation will meet Ulster County Health Department regulations .

Thank you very much for your time. We look forward to the great seasons ahead.’’

Mr. Medenbach went through the site plan for the Board.

Chair Lindstrom stated everything they planned to do was on the narrative and they met all requirements in regard to the code. She said there would be no added trucks or traffic coming; the trucks coming would not be bigger but fuller. For the staff access, Chair Lindstrom explained they could go between the two buildings and were adding fireproof doors so if anything happened during production it would not spread to the tasting room. She said they had a lighting plan but there wasn’t a contour plan so that would need to be added. Chair Lindstrom referred to the noise section of the Code:

140-20: (F) (3) The maximum permissible sound levels of this section shall not apply to emergency or security alarms, repair or construction work to provide public utilities, construction operations between the hours of 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM, emergency repairs, agricultural activities other than kennels, motor vehicles when used on public streets in accord with state regulations, aircraft, government authorized public celebrations, unamplified human voices or routine ringing of bells or chimes by a place of worship or similar facility.

She stated the application was covered under Ag and Markets as an agricultural use, so it had a noise exemption.

Chair Lindstrom asked if there were going to be any new signs.

Mr. Meglio said there would be new ADA signs for parking spaces and on the property but not on the road.

Chair Lindstrom asked about landscaping and if it was going to have any impact.

Mr. Meglio stated there would be no impact on existing landscaping.

Chair Lindstom stated there were definite well and septic system needs.

Mr. Medenbach said they were working on a new system for the proposed expansion building and keep the existing system for the current building and stated they had existing wells.

Mr. Arrowood stated they had a 7,000 gallon system and the water was trucked in and they were not using the well water for production.

Chair Lindstrom stated they would need to provide a basic SWPPP for construction as it was not impacting over an acre. She stated in regards to traffic, there was no much changing except for the physical structure.

Attorney Christiana asked if the new structure was going to require parking spaces.

Chair Lindstrom answered they showed 24 spaces on their site plan and they had ADA parking called out and showed bike parking as well.

Mr. Pinsky asked that since they were increasing capacity were they taking additional safety measures.

Mr. Meglio stated their process would remain unchanged as there were already safety measures in place that were taken extremely serious.

Mr. Williams stated they would also need to meet OSHA’s safety standards.

Mr. Zurofsky said he knew they were adding a few more spaces but he knew there were also informal spaces that were going away and he knew from first hand experience that there were sometimes cars parked on the driveway and that wasn’t necessarily on their parking plan and he felt it was appropriate to ask the adequacy of parking just on a normal busy day and if it was possible to add more formal parking.

Mr. Arrowood stated they hadn’t had any problems with traffic or parking.

Mr. Zurfosky stated that he was asking if there was any way to formalize the informal parking situation.

Mr. Arrowood said they weren’t going to pave over anything.

Mr. Zurofsky said he was asking for them to show it on their site plan where there would be parking and it wasn’t a problem for the Board if there was parking on the driveway but it wasn’t on the plan and he wanted to know if they could add some signage onto the plan to note the parking.

Attorney Christiana stated they should put on the plan not to park on the driveway and have an arrow pointing to where the overflow parking would be.

Mr. Meglio said they would add to their narrative where the overflow parking would go.

Mr. Zurofsky asked what they did with brewery waste and if it was under the Board’s purview.

Mr. Medenbach said that went through the County Health Department.

Chair Lindstrom stated the restrictive conditions from the County Health Department would be what the Planning Board applied.

There were no other questions or discussion.

Mr. Buchbinder made the motion to type the application as an Unlisted/Uncoordinated SEQRA. Mr. Zurofksy seconded the motion.

ROLL CALL-
Chair Lindstrom- Yes Mr. Zurofsky-Yes
Mr. Williams- Yes
Mr. Pinsky- Yes
Mr. Buchbinder- Yes
All in Favor. Motion Carried
5 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, 0 abstentions, 1 recused.

Mr. Williams made a motion to set the application for Public Hearing at the August 12th, 2019 Regular Meeting. Mr. Buchbinder seconded the motion.
All in Favor. Motion Carried.
5 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, 0 abstentions, 1 recused.

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

Ms. Maloney returned to the meeting at 8:23pm.

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

Mr. Pinsky recused himself at 8:23pm.

Ms. Alicia Gauither and Ms. Lorraine Nicholson were present on behalf of the application as well as Mr. Allen Dumont, architect.

Ms. Nicholson explained what the project was all about which included restoring the existing structure and making it into an inn and hosting special events in the property’s barn.

Chair Lindstrom stated the Site Plan Approval was for the restoration of the existing building into an inn and the Special Use Permit was for the special events.

Ms. Gauither stated they had enough parking currently for the parking at the inn and the overflow area would be for the special events.

Mr. Dumont explained that they were fixing and renovating the buildings and there would be a seventeen room inn. He said the plan was for a 20 seat tavern place and then the event space in the barn would be able to accommodate up to 250 people. He stated they were actively discussing the project with the Health Department and they were looking at it from several perspectives.

Mr. Dumont went through the parking plan for the Board. He noted they would be diverting the sewage away from the nearby stream. He stated the pipe drainage would not gather in the property’s drainage ditch. He said they were in contact with the Town’s Highway Department and were discussing culvert pipe issues and stated the Highway Department had been very responsive and helpful.

Chair Lindstrom noted the Highway Department had already been out to the property and had suggested the entrance placement for the special events barn.

Ms. Gauither stated there would be a pea gravel area where the dumpster would be and in addition to the gravel in the parking there would also be a stockade fence.

Mr. Dumont went through the lighting plan. He stated most of the lighting plan was designed by Ms. Gauither to accommodate walking around the property.

Ms. Gauither explained that most of the lighting was motion censored so that the lights wouldn’t be on all night.

Chair Lindstrom said that when they did events they would not be using the inn’s kitchen and would be bringing in a catering company whenever there were special events going on.

Mr. Dumont mentioned that the inn would not be open to the public when there was an event taking place so there would be no issue with an event going on and on top of that public access to the property. He stated that besides the renovations of the existing structures, the only thing they were changing was really the existing landscaping.

Chair Lindstrom asked if the maximum amount of people for a special event was 150.

Ms. Nicholson said it could be more than that.

Chair Lindstrom stated there needed to be a set number and that would be something the Board would need to know.

Mr. Dumont explained they had designed the water supply to accommodate the maximum amount of people.

Ms. Gauither noted the parking would allow for 150-250 people and they would be chartered in.

Mr. Dumont explained there would be a bus arrangement.

Chair Lindstrom stated bussing was very difficult because it sometimes could cause more trouble than it was worth but it was something to be discussed further on.

Mr. Williams asked about the amplified music noise.

Ms. Gauither stated in their narrative they had provided a sound study.

Chair Lindstrom said it would be good for the Board to read the narrative as a lot of the questions they had could be answered and anything that wasn’t clear or that they didn’t see in the narrative, could be brought up at the next meeting.

In regards to the site plan approval and the special use permit application, the Board had no further questions or comments.

Chair Lindstrom stated there was a third part of the application which was a subdivision and she asked Ms. Nicholson to explain why the subdivision was necessary for the process to go further.

Ms. Nicholson explained that when she originally bought the property it was five parcels which was eventually merged into one parcel.

Chair Lindstrom noted that when they merged the parcels, they brought it to the Town to get rezoned because the properties were R-2 and AR-3 zoned and they got it rezoned to just an AR-3.

Ms. Nicholson said she had two mortgages and the bank had sold one of the mortgages and the bank told her they needed to attach the mortgage note to two separate parcels, and so now she had to subdivide at their insistence to create another parcel. She stated they wanted to put one of the lot lines back to create two parcels.

Mr. Zurofsky clarified that she needed to subdivide before the Board could approve a Lot Line.

There was a discussion among the Board about the Lot Line and how it would affect the noise level study.

Ms. Gauither stated the camp next door to their property made their ambient noise much higher than the other areas of the Town.

Attorney Christiana said the noise study would need to be redone.

Mr. Zurofsky asked if the setbacks would be sufficient and if they weren’t they would need to apply for a variance.

Chair Lindstrom stated they were trying to avoid the need for a variance.

Mr. Dumont stated they would discuss everything with their attorney and would bring the information back to the Board when they met again the following month.

The Board went over what items would be needed the following month which included a lighting plan, setback information, and there was a question about needing elevations but it was explained those weren’t needed, they just needed the lighting, parking, and setback information.
Mr. Pinsky returned to the meeting at 8:55pm.

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

Mr. Zachary Peters from MNTM Engineering & Land Surveying, P.C was present on behalf of the application.

Mr. Peters explained what the subdivision was all about.

Chair Lindstrom asked if the frontage for each lot was 50 feet.

Mr. Peters stated each lot had a width and frontage of 325 feet and 2 lots had 5 acres with some remainders.

Chair Lindstrom noted that with the remainder it would be difficult to ever subdivide again.

Chair Lindstrom asked about well and septic.

Mr. Peters explained there was existing well and septic and they had already performed test wells with the Health Department and there were no issues.

Mr. Pinsky asked if there would be enough water in the wells.

Mr. Peters answered the wells would be enough and there were single family homes going on the lots.

Chair Lindstrom explained that a well test was not required for single family homes in a 3 lot subdivision, only septic was required.

There were no other comments from the Board.

Chair Lindstrom made the motion to type the application as an Unlisted/Uncoordinated SEQRA. Ms. Maloney seconded the motion.
ROLL CALL:
Chair Lindstrom- Yes Ms. Maloney- Yes
Mr. Williams- Yes Mr. Buchbinder- Yes
Mr. Pinsky- Yes Mr. Zurofsky- Yes
All in Favor. Motion Carried.
6 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, 0 abstentions.

Mr. Williams made the motion to set the application for public hearing at the August 12th, 2019 Regular Meeting. Mr. Pinsky seconded the motion.
All in Favor. Motion Carried.
6 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, 0 abstentions.

*The Board took a 5 minute recess at 9:02pm.*

The Board resumed the meeting at 9:06pm.

PB 2019-03 SPA Public Hearing/Continued Application
Chris Ruger
Site Plan Approval/Class II Home Occupation
Applicant proposes the addition of a Class II Home Occupation for a Machinist Shop. The shop is proposed to be conducted in a fully contained 15’6” x 32’ portion of a 40’ x 60’ pole barn on the property. Parcel is +/- 17.2 acres (S/B/L 68.2-2-16.100) located at 54 Cliff Road, Accord, NY. The parcel presently has an existing single family residence with garage and detached pole barn. The parcel further contains woodlands and lawn/landscaped area. Parcel is R-2 zoned (low density residential).
SEQRA: Type II

Ms. Marie Ruger was present on behalf of the application.

The Board asked that Ms. Ruger explain the application.

Ms. Ruger stated there was an existing building on their property on Cliff Rd. and the proposed Machinist shop was intended for her husband to use and work out of. She said they had a retail store in Kingston that was both a shop and retail business but they wanted to take the shop out of the store to downsize the space. She stated the shop would not be for customers.

Chair Lindstrom opened the public hearing.

Mr. Frank Striano stated he lived on 36 Cliff Road and his concern was the machinist shop and the home occupation use. He said he didn’t want to tell the Rugers what to do, nobody wanted that, but it was a facet of a retail business and should that retail space be closed, what was stopping that space to then move to the machinist shop on Cliff Road. He stated the road wouldn’t be able to take the traffic and there was no Town maintenance at all and any additional traffic would be unsafe and that 6 months out of the year the road was very challenging. He said he wasn’t concerned about the machine shop but he was concerned about if the retail business went under, the man would still have to continue his work and business and that he would use that address as retail space. He asked what recourse would be if that happened?

Mr. Jack Shanahan said he lived at 39 Cliff Road. He stated he certainly wanted to see the Ruger business continue successfully as they were a small business and anything that could be done to continue the growth of that business was important. He said the issue was Cliff Road and should anything change in the retail space that the Board would have to look at everything to ensure that retail business would not be able to be on the road.

Mr. Steve Builder stated he lived on 83 Cliff Road and it was often a dilapidated road and it would be nice to have the Town take it over one day but at the moment Mr. Striano and Mr. Shanahan were the ones to do the work to maintain the road. He stated that he really liked Mr. and Mrs. Ruger but anymore traffic on the road would be very unsafe as there was one hill that when driven over, it is not visible to see beyond it and many other junctures on the road that were unsafe.

There were no other comments from the public.

Mr. Zurofsky made the motion to close the public hearing. Mr. Williams seconded the motion.
All in Favor. Motion Carried.
6 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, 0 abstentions.

Mrs. Ruger explained that she appreciated what the public had said about the road and she had lived there for years and she knew the condition and dangers of it. She stated she did not want customers on that road. She said if the retail store was to close in Kingston, then they would have no retail aspect of their business and they could do things at home without a retail business. She explained there was no intention of their Kingston business closing and they had absolutely zero intention to do any retail business on their property and that was speculation. She stated people went to Kingston to shop and they do not go into the middle of nowhere to buy items and it was never their intention to bring any of the retail business to their home.

Attorney Christiana stated it said in their application there would be no retail but the Board could put that in the decision if they approved the Home Occupation Class II.

Chair Lindstrom read the Home Occupation Class II Classification description for the record:

“A low-impact home-based business or commercial activity administered or conducted as an accessory use that is clearly secondary to the use as a residential dwelling and does not significantly change the character thereof, involve the use of mechanical equipment other than that customarily used for domestic purposes and involves no retail or services resulting in other than occasional and limited numbers of visitors.”

Chair Lindstrom stated that the description clearly said no retail would be permissible if a Home Occupation Class II was granted. She asked Mrs. Ruger if she would have any problem with the Board stating that in the decision should it be granted.

Mrs. Ruger stated she would not have a problem with that as she had already said there would be no retail.

Chair Lindstrom stated they were basically telling the land what it can do not what the person wanted to do.

Mr. Zurofsky stated that he wanted to clarify to the public that if they did end up doing retail, that would be a code violation.

Mr. Pinsky said it stated in the narrative there would be no customers.

There were no other questions or comments.

Chair Lindstrom read the decision:

Decision 2019-03 SPA
Site Plan Approval/Class II Home Occupation Final Approval

Applicant: Cristopher & Marie Ruger

Reason for Request: The application proposes the addition of a Class II Home Occupation for a Machinist Shop a permitted use by §140-19 with site plan approval.
The shop is proposed to be conducted in a fully contained 15’6” x 32’ portion of a 40’ x 60’ pole barn on the property. The parcel presently has an existing single family residence with garage and detached pole barn. The parcel further contains woodlands and lawn/landscaped area.

Location: 54 Cliff Road, Accord, NY
S/B/L: S/B/L 68.2-2-16.100
Total Acreage: ±17.2 acre parcel
Zoning District: Parcel is R-2 zoned (low density residential)

Code Enforcement Determination: Class II Home Occupation & Site Plan Approval
Zoning Permit: 132 of 2019, filed 5/8/2019

Planning Board Application: 2019-03 SPA
PB Application filed: 5/23/2019
EAF filed: 4/24/2019
SEQR Type: Type II

Other Referrals: N/A. Action exempt from referral to Ulster County Planning Board

Documents considered by the Planning Board for review for the application:

1. Zoning Permit 19/132 Class II Home Occupation & Site Plan Approval dated 5/8/2019
2. Planning Board Special Use/Site Plan application 2019-03 SUP/SPA – dated 5/23/2019
3. Application narrative – received 5/13/2019 & 6/28/2019
4. Site Plan sketch – received 6/28/2019
5. Existing Site Plan for parcel – received 6/28/2019
6. Short Form EAF Part 1 – received 07/8/2019
7. Aerial View of parcel – 6/6/2019
8. Letter from neighbor Frank Striano received 6/10/2019
* * * * *

Notice of Public Hearing:

1. Published in the June 27th, 2019 edition of the Shawangunk Journal.
2. Notice by mail to known landowners within 500’.
3. Posted on the T/ Rochester Clerk bulletin board and Town of Rochester website.

Date of Public Hearing: 7/8/2019 Place: Town of Rochester Town Hall Accord, NY
Public Comment: see Minutes of Town of Rochester Planning Board, July 8th, 2019

* * * *

Findings of the Planning Board with review of the application:

1. The Planning Board received a zoning referral for the approval of a Site Plan for a Class II Home Occupation for a Machinist Shop, a permitted use by §140-19 with site plan approval. The shop is proposed for a fully contained 15’6” x 32’ portion of a 40’ x 60’ pole barn on the property. The workshop walls will be insulated, the ceiling dropped and a 40’ interior wall will be built to isolate the shop from the remaining surface area of the pole barn. The workshop will not be intended for customers, but as a work/metal machining space with commensurate machine and hand tools. The applicants maintain a retail space for customer traffic in Kingston.
2. The parcel presently contains an existing single family residence with garage and detached pole barn. The parcel further contains woodlands and lawn/landscaped area.
3. . The use is a permitted use in an R-2 zone by §140-19.
4. The Planning Board received a Site Plan and Special Use application, EAF, aerial photographs of the site, a sketch plan on existing survey, narrative and related documentation from the applicant, cited above.
5. The applicant demonstrated that there will be no exterior changes to the single family residence or the pole barn in which the use will be housed. The applicant submitted a site plan sketch reflecting updated labeling of structures and site plan map notations noting 5 parking spots as required by code in front of the pole barn/proposed shop. No “external evidence of the home occupation or alterations inconsistent with the residential use or appearance of the buildings” (as per code) are present.
6. The parcel to be developed is known as SBL 68.3-4-7.100
7. The proposed use is compliant with all articles of §140-19, Home Occupation Regulations, Class II.
8. SEQRA Review was conducted on 7/8/2019 and typed as a Type II Action. No further action was required by the Planning Board.
9. A public hearing was held.

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

Adopted July 8, 2019
Ayes: 6 Nays: 0 Absent: 1

Motion to adopt findings by: Mr. Zurofsky
Second by: Ms. Maloney

* * * *
RESOLVED,
The Town of Rochester Planning Board grants Site Plan–Final Approval for a Class II Home Occupancy Use permitting a low impact home based business as defined per §140-19 on +/- 17.7 acres of property located at 54 Cliff Road, Accord NY, S/B/L 68.2-2-16.100, a R-2 zoning districts of the Town of Rochester.
Site Plan submitted is approved with the following conditions:
CONDITIONS of APPROVAL:
1. All Local, County, State, and Federal Laws or Codes shall be complied with for the current or future use of these lands.
2. Any and all fees due to the Town of Rochester involving this application shall be paid in full prior to the Chair’s signature on the Site 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. The workshop shall be constructed and maintained as indicated in the findings section #1. No retail operation shall occur at the site.
5. The proposed use must remain compliant at all times with all articles of §140-19, Home Occupation Regulations, Class II.
6. Any and all other agencies’ permits or approvals which are currently required or any which may be determined in the future to be required in conjunction with the construction and/or operation of this use shall be secured or renewed as applicable. Should any conditions imposed by other agency permits cause conditions to be in conflict, the more restrictive condition shall prevail. Should any permit approvals necessitate a change to the approved Site Plan, the matter shall be referred to the Planning Board for consideration.

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

EFFECT of APPROVAL:

1. This 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.

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

Adopted JULY 8th, 2019, by the following vote:
Ayes: 6 Nays: 0 Absent: 1

Motion made by : Mr. Buchbinder
Seconded by: Mr. Zurofsky

PB 2019-06 SBD
Glenn Dymond
Minor Subdivision Public Hearing/Continued Application
Applicant proposes the subdivision of a +/- 10.7 acre parcel (S/B/L 68.1-1-3.1) into four parcels. Three parcels are proposed to have a shared drive/right–of-way via a flag lot. Parcel(s) is accessible by/located at 273 Ridgeview Rd, Kerhonkson, NY. The parcel presently has an existing single family residence with road frontage onto Ridgeview Rd. The parcel further contains undeveloped gently sloping woodlands. Parcel is R-2 zoned (low density residential).
SEQRA: Unlisted/Uncoordinated Neg. Dec. June 10th, 2019

Mr. Glenn Dymond and Mr. Terry Ringler were present on behalf of the application.

Chair Lindstrom explained what the application was all about. She noted they had sent a correspondence to the Accord Fire Department regarding access and had received nothing back in way of a response. She stated they also had reached out to the two neighbors who mentioned they had water issues at the last meeting and had only heard back from Mr. Barringer. She asked Mr. Ringler if they had received a response from their engineer regarding the well water.

Mr. Ringler stated he wanted to wait until the people from the public spoke and the public hearing was closed.

Chair Lindstrom asked if anyone from the public wished to speak.

Mr. Bill Barringer said he had sent the Board information about the water situation which he was sure they all got and that he had written about the fire access being as he was a firefighter a while back but other than that he wanted to speak after the applicants had spoken.

Mr. Ringler stated normally the public hearing closed and then there was a discussion after.

Attorney Christiana stated that the Board had requested items from Mr. Ringler and Mr. Dymond and they had yet to present those items.

Mr. Ringler stated that it was out of procedure to not close the public hearing before a discussion and he wanted that on the record. He stated he had never seen or heard of things needing to be provided before the public hearing was closed.

Mr. Zurofsky stated that yes that did happen and it had happened with other applications.

Attorney Christiana asked if they had the information the Board had requested.

Mr. Ringler stated situations had arose from the application that he did not want to comment on until the public hearing was closed.

Chair Lindstrom asked if they had the information about the wells that the Board had requested last month.

Mr. Ringler said he had a letter from 25 people from Ridgeview Road and the surrounding roads that had been threatened by Mr. Barringer and feared retaliation from him if they said anything and it had been extremely hard to get anyone to comment to he and Mr. Dymond. He said people did not want Mr. Barringer to know that they spoke to any one, and they did not want their names or addresses or section/block/lot numbers in the public record. He stated that out of the 20 or so people contacted for the public hearing, only 3 had showed.

Chair Lindstrom stated the Board took that in consideration. She stated 18 people had been contacted, not over 20, and out of the 18 only 2 responded. She explained she had sent out 2 letters to the resident’s who had shown concern and only 1 of the 2 responded.

Mr. Ringler said he had, from the engineer, 3 additional landowners who had spoken to the engineer and provided the depth of their wells. He stated each resident had been there between 15 and 20 years and had never had any water or well issues.

Chair Lindstrom read what the engineer, Mr. Paul J. Mele, had provided in regards to the wells:

“We spoke to the following three houses:

House 1- Has a 20 year old well, depth unknown.
House 2- Has a 20 year old well, depth 200 ft.
House 3- Has a 12 year old well, depth 450 ft.

All of the above houses never had any water problems. Approximately 25 wells were drilled around Mr. Dymond’s land in the last 15-20 years and no history of water problems persist. I can certify that more wells can be drilled without any water problems.”

Chair Lindstrom noted the letter was signed and sealed by Mr. Mele.

Attorney Christiana wanted to explain that under FOIL personal information did not need to be given out, it was enough that the Board had it. If someone did FOIL for the information in the letter, the personal information could be blanked out.

Mr. Pinsky asked if the engineer had stated he could certify or that he did certify.

Chair Lindstrom said he certified the letter and stamped it.

Mr. Zurofsky stated that was what the Board had asked for.

Chair Lindstrom said that was exactly what they asked for and they had 3 wells that had no issues.

Mr. Zurofsky added they now had the confidence of a licensed engineer and that was sufficient.

Mr. Ringler stated it was his understanding that Mr. Mele had also been in contact with Titan, who had dug the wells.

Attorney Christiana explained the Public Hearing was still open so Mr. Barringer, or any others, had time left to speak.

Mr. Barringer stated he had only spoken to one neighbor. He said his brother and himself had well issues all the time. He stated their piece of land was old, they drilled a well and the well went down and in the summertime he had to get water from Cherrytown Rd. He said that a gentleman named Mr. Bolter had drilled a well on his 5 acre lot and that caused his (Mr. Barringer’s) well to go down even more. He said there were too many wells on the road and if they lived up there they would understand. He stated there were alternatives to wells being drilled, and Mr. Dymond could put one well in and have a water tank or something like that. He said that would solve the water problems of all the people and the fire company. He concluded that he didn’t have a problem with who was going on the land it was just the wells that bothered him.

Chair Lindstrom said she felt they had the problems on hand and felt they could close the public hearing.

Mr. Williams made the motion to close the public hearing. Mr. Zurofsky seconded the motion.
All In Favor. Motion Carried,
6 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, 0 abstentions.

Mr. Zurofsky asked if they were still waiting to hear back from the fire department.

Chair Lindstrom said they had not received a response from the fire department and had given them a period of time to answer and anything in regards to the road would have to be up to the fire department’s standards.

Mr. Ringler noted they had provided the pull off lanes if there was a fire emergency on the plans.

Chair Lindstrom stated they weren’t required to do that, but they did have it so that was enough.

Mr. Buchbinder wanted clarification that the engineer did certify everything in regards to the water situation.

Chair Lindstrom stated yes, the engineer had certified what the Board had requested.

Mr. Williams noted nothing was going to change with the subdivision and the Board had all the information they had asked for.

Mr. Zurofsky said he wanted to wait to hear back from the fire department.

Attorney Christiana said the letter to the fire department had asked for comments by July 5th, 2019 and the time had past.

Chair Lindstrom stated they did not respond.

Mr. Zurofsky said he was fine then, going forward.

The Board took a poll on if they were in favor of making a decision. All agreed they were in favor of making a decision.

Chair Lindstrom read the decision:

Decision: PB 2019-06 SBD
Minor Subdivision Conditional Final Approval

Applicant: Glenn Dymond

Reason for Request: Applicant proposes the subdivision of a +/- 10.7 acre parcel (S/B/L 68.1-1-3.1) into four parcels. Three parcels are proposed to have a shared drive/right–of-way via a flag lot. Parcel(s) is accessible by/located at 273 Ridgeview Rd, Kerhonkson, NY. The parcel presently has an existing single family residence with road frontage onto Ridgeview Rd. The parcel further contains undeveloped gently sloping woodlands. Parcel is R-2 zoned (low density residential).

Location: 273 Ridgeview Rd, Kerhonkson, NY.
Total Acreage: ± 10.7 acres
S/B/L: S/B/L 68.1-1-3.1 Zoning District: R-2

Code Enforcement Determination: Minor Subdivision
Zoning Permit: 123 of 2019

Planning Board Application: 2019-06 SBD
PB Application filed: 4/26/2019 EAF filed: 4/26/2019

SEQR Type: Unlisted, Uncoordinated – 5/13/2019
SEQR Determination: Negative Declaration – 6/10/2019
Other Agency Referrals: N/A

Documents considered by the Planning Board for review:

1. Zoning Permit 123 of 2019 determination of Minor Subdivision received 4/26/2019
2. Planning Board Subdivision application 2019-06 SBD received 4/26/2019
3. Short Form EAF Part 1 received dated 4/26/2019
4. Waiver request (Letter) relieving Town of Rochester from road maintenance & construction obligations and establishing a private shared driveway through a driveway maintenance agreement (to be filed with the Ulster County Clerk’s Office) for proposed rear (2) two lots not having the required 50 ft road frontage, but to have access via a shared driveway/right-of-way, received 5/23/2019 and revised and received 6/1/2019
5. Road Maintenance Agreement dated 5/20/2019
6. Sketch Plan and Site Plan/Survey prepared Terry G. Ringler, Jr., Ringler Land Surveying PLLC reviewed 5/13/2019. Revised and reviewed 6/10/2019.
7. Letter to Terry Ringler, Land Surveyor defining and requesting information on neighboring well quality and stamped certification of proposed subdivision lots’ ability to support wells., dated 6/27/2019
8. Letter of certification from Paul J Mele, P.E Consulting Engineer certifying the proposed new subdivided lots 2, 3, and 4 can support septic system(s), received 6/10/2019
9. Letter of certification from Paul J Mele, P.E Consulting Engineer certifying the proposed new subdivided lots 2, 3 and 4 can support water, received 7/08/2019
10. Comment letter (email) from Mr W. Barringer, received 6/10/2019, 6/22/2019 and 7/8/2019
11. Letter(s) from planning board chair to two neighboring properties requesting more information about their stated well problems dated 6/13/2019 and 6/20/2019
12. Letter from Titan Drilling Company dated 6/22/2019
13. NYRWA 2006 TOR Ground Water Protection Plan

Notice of Public Hearing:

4. Published in the May 30th, 2019 edition of the Shawangunk Journal.
5. Notice by mail to known landowners within 500’.
6. Posted on the T/ Rochester Clerk bulletin board and Town of Rochester website.

Date of Public Hearing: 6/10/2019 & 7/8/2019
Place: Accord Fire House, Accord, NY & Town of Rochester Town Hall
Public Comment: see Minutes of Town of Rochester Planning Board, June 10, 2019 & July 8th, 2019
* * * *

Findings of the Planning Board:

1. The Planning Board received zoning referral for a minor subdivision from the Code Enforcement Officer.
2. The applicant met with the Planning Board and presented the subdivision concept and new map for review.
3. The parcel is in the R-2 zoning district. The applicant proposes the subdivision of a +/- 10.7 acre parcel (S/B/L 68.1-1-3.100) into four parcels. Three parcels are proposed to have a shared drive/right–of-way via a flag lot.
4. The current use of the parcel is residential and vacant land.
5. Existing site conditions includes a single-family dwelling and accessory structures. The parcel further contains undeveloped gently sloping woodlands.
6. The application was determined to meet the requirements of an Unlisted SEQRA action.
● A Negative Declaration was determined upon review.
7. The Board reviewed if the proposed lot has safe and legal access. The Board discussed at length with the applicant, surveyor and Town Attorney the language of Town Subdivision Zoning Law CHAPTER §125: flag lots and lot access by right-of-way/shared driveway on a flag lot.
8. Details of proposed subdivision:
● The subdivision will create 4 parcels.
● Parcel one will have road frontage on Ridgeview Road.
● Parcel 2 will be a flag lot with right-of-way for the interior two lots and lot 2 will have a sufficient 50’ of road access.
● The two interior parcels (parcels 3 and 4) will have insufficient frontage with road access via shared driveway. The Town of Rochester Subdivision code §125(22)(j)(1) allows the Planning Board to consider lots which do not have 50 ft. of road frontage on a public or private road which will utilize shared driveways. The applicant requested a waiver, as permitted by code, from the required lot frontage for the two interior lots to permit a subdivision which would result in access to no more than two single-family dwellings or lots which do not have the required minimum lot frontage and are proposed to gain access from a shared driveway through the establishment of a right-of-way (as per code). The shared driveway shall be utilized by no more than a total of three single-family dwellings or lots including the lot it has access over, (as per code) and as indicated on the sketch plan proved at the May 13th 2019 and site plan provided at the June 10th regular Planning Board meetings.
● The Planning Board reviewed the waiver application in the manner as prescribed under subsection § 140-10(D) (3), and received and reviewed a written release to the Town exempting the Town from all responsibility for the maintenance of the proposed shared driveway The Town Board shall approve the release as a condition of approval.
● The parcel in question is not capable of being subdivided further or is so restricted.
9. A letter was sent to the Accord Fire Department (including the site plan showing the proposed shared driveway and lots and a copy of the road maintenance agreement). No response was received by the Planning Board by the requested date of July 5th, 2019. The shared driveway shall meet construction and NYS Fire Code standards for shared driveways as a condition of approval.
10. The parcel is in the R-2 zoning district. Upon review, the Board concludes that the 4 proposed parcels meet or exceed the bulk standards requirements for the R-2 zoning district.
● The Board reviewed if the proposed lot could support water and septic. Lot 1 has existing water and septic.
● The Planning Board requested verification from the Land Surveyor that lots 2, 3 and 4 can support water and septic. This shall be a condition of approval
● The board received engineer certification that the 3 new lots could support septic and will obtain UC Health Department approval as to such.
11. A Public Hearing was held. There was concern expressed by two of the 19 neighboring parcel owners (Mr. Barringer and Mr. Livornese) contacted for Public Hearing that further subdivision could negatively affect their wells, which the owners stated presently have well difficulties. The Planning Board Chair sent correspondence to the forementioned two neighboring parcel owners requesting additional data and received additional information from Mr. Barringer.
12. The Planning Board held a workshop meeting June 26th, 2019 at which the water issue was further discussed. The Planning Board requested the applicant contract an engineer to review neighboring well statistics and to certify that the proposed new subdivision lots can support water wells. Well certification is not required by TOR subdivision code, but the Planning Board determined greater verification was necessary due to the expressed water concerns.
13. The Planning Board received a letter from Titan Drilling attesting to the quality and productivity of neighboring wells that the company has drilled.
14. The Planning Board received from Paul J Mele, P.E Consulting Engineer well analysis and well documentation and certification that the proposed new lots 2, 3 and 4 can support wells without unduly affecting neighboring parcel wells.

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

Adopted July 8th, 2019 by the following vote:
Ayes: 6 Nays: 0 Absent: 1

Motion to adopt findings by : Mr. Buchbinder
Second by : Mr. Pinsky
* * * *
RESOLVED,
The Town of Rochester Planning Board grants Minor Subdivision- Conditional Final Approval to Glenn Dymond permitting the subdivision of lands situated at: 273 Ridgeview Rd, Kerhonkson, NY

The subdivision plan dated June 1st 2019 is approved with the following conditions.

CONDITIONS of APPROVAL:

1. All fees due to the Town of Rochester involving this application shall be paid in full prior to the Chair’s signature on the Final Plat.
2. Certification shall be provided indicating lots 2, 3, and 4 are capable of supporting onsite water and septic in the form of preliminary or final approval by the Ulster County Health Department or a signed letter by a NYS licensed engineer.
3. Evidence of satisfactory shared agreements for ownership and maintenance of the shared driveway shall be provided in the form of deed covenants, plat details and a road maintenance agreement prior to a certificate of occupancy being issued for any dwellings on Lots 2, 3 and 4.
a. Proof of Driveway Permit
b. Road Maintenance Agreement shall be presented and approved by the Attorney for the Town. Any costs or fees associated with such review shall be the responsibility of the applicant
c. As prescribed under subsection § 140-10(D) (3), the Town Board must receive and approve the written release received by the Planning Board exempting the Town from all responsibility for the maintenance of the shared driveway and certifying that the lots in question are not capable of being subdivided further or are so restricted.
4. The applicant shall present a Final Plat for signature with the following amendments and evidence of satisfactory shared driveway construction shall be provided prior to a certificate of occupancy being issued for any dwellings on Lots 2, 3 or 4.
a. New subdivision lot lines and lot acreage for the 4 proposed parcels shall be indicated.
b. The shared driveway shall:
i. be constructed and indicated on the final plat as per town code: Minimum ROW of 50 feet; minimum pavement (may consist of any all-weather surface and shall have drainage plans satisfactory to the Town Highway Superintendent) width of 16 feet; minimum shoulder width 2 feet on each side.
ii. be constructed and maintained in compliance with NYS Fire Code and be of sufficient width, grade and location to accommodate access by emergency vehicles and services to the lands which are the subject of the subdivision application.
iii. Shall construct and indicate on the Final Plat 20’ x 50’ turnouts every 500’ as per NYS Fire Code (driveways in excess of 500 feet in length and less than 20 feet in width shall be provided with turnouts that are a minimum of 20 feet in width and 50 feet in length).
iv. comply with all provisions of 277 of NYS Town Law and shall be maintained in a good and passable condition under all weather conditions to provide access to all emergency vehicles.
c. A plat (plan) note shall be included to clearly state “The Planning Board approves the use of a shared driveway as shown on this plat (plan) to service no more than two single family dwellings via access from a shared driveway through the establishment of a right-of-way. The shared driveway shall be utilized by no more than a total of three single family dwellings or lots including the lot it has access over. No more than one flag lot shall be created from the existing parcel. The plat is not capable of being subdivided further or is so restricted. Should any application be made for additional dwelling units in excess of the 3 single family dwellings the shared driveway approval shall be revoked”.
5. All required Local, County, State or Federal permits shall be secured for the current and future use of these lands.

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

The Town of Rochester Planning Board further grants Minor Subdivision- Conditional Final Approval permitting the subdivision of lands upon satisfactory completion of the conditions of approval 1 – 4 and grants the authority to the Chairman to certify that the conditions have been met and review, sign and date the plat without further resolution at such time.

EFFECT of APPROVAL:

1. The owner shall file in the office of the Ulster County Clerk such approved plat bearing the Chairman’s signature and any other related documents within 62 days from the date of signature or such approval shall be deemed to expire without further notice in accordance with NYS Town Law §276.
2. The owner shall have the responsibility to return four (4) Ulster County Clerk certified copies of the filed plat, the road maintenance agreement and any other related documents to the T/ Rochester Planning Board within 30 days of such filing.

Draft Resolution was prepared by the Chairman and was read, discussed and amended by the Planning Board in Public Meeting at the time of adoption.

Adopted July 8th, 2019, by the following vote:
Ayes: 6 Nays: 0 Absent: 1

Motion made by : Mr. Williams
Second by: Ms. Maloney

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

Attorney Christiana explained that Chair Lindstrom recused herself from the above application on June 10th, 2019. She stated ordinarily the Vice Chair would then step in but the Vice Chair was not present for the meeting. She said the five members present needed to have one person make the motion and then a second to appoint a member to chair the rest of the meeting.

Mr. Zurofsky made the motion to appoint Mr. Patrick Williams as acting Chair for the remainder of the meeting. Ms. Maloney seconded the motion.
All in Favor. Motion Carried.
5 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, 0 abstentions, 1 recusal

Ms. Eleni Calomiris-applicant, Mr. Bill Spade-architect, and Mr. Charles Calomiris-owner of property and Ms. Victoria Polidoro-applicant’s attorney, were present on behalf of the application.

Chair Williams asked for the applicant to explain where they were at the moment in regards to progress since they were at the last meeting.

Ms. Calomiris explained that after the last meeting she had sent letters to the Board stating she would not be returning for special events, how the waste would be and has been removed, and how she had amended her protocol for horse waste. She stated the manure pile would be removed, beginning in about 4-8 weeks to remove what was currently existing, than every 3 months or sooner if needed, there would be a manure box emptied by a company. Ms. Calomiris explained she had also sent a letter in regards to their structure educational programs. She stated in her letter she focused on 4 out of the 7 educational programs they provided. She said they were addressing the noise concerns and had spoken with several acoustic engineers to get quotes from them.

Mr. Spade stated they were following up on septic and storm water and addressing the traffic concerns that were raised as well.

Ms. Polidoro explained that there were several misconceptions about the project that the applicant wanted to clear up. She said at this point there were no special events purposed and Ms. Calomiris was trying hard to be a good neighbor. She clarified that Ms. Calomiris was not waiving her rights to ever having special events, and she could change her mind in 5 or 10 years. She explained that was not SEQRA segmentation because that portion was never dependant on a future action like that and she wasn’t saying that was Ms. Calomiris’ intention but she just wanted to explain that they were not waiving rights forever, and the Board couldn’t require an applicant to do that. She went on to state that noise was a big concern among the neighbors and that they did submit an initial noise report and she understood there were some issues regarding it, but she did see that the Board’s consultant did not come back with any concerns regarding the initial noise study.

Ms. Axelson said her understanding from the Workshop meeting was that the Board wanted a noise study. She stated at that meeting she had said they wanted to have some kind of scope. She explained it had been her recommendation to have the applicant’s team to provide a scope and they did have noise specialist on staff and they would have them look at it. She said by way of disclosure, Mr. Spade had called her that day and said that they were talking to noise consultants. She said that at the workshop meeting there was a discussion on receptor points and there were no other facilities other than single family residences in the area but that she hadn’t wanted to get more in depth about everything at the Workshop meeting until she had some sort of scope to review.

Chair Williams stated he understood that the Board would be provided information from the applicant to submit to CPL so that CPL could do the study and the Board would have a better understanding about the levels of noise and what they actually were.

Attorney Christiana stated to Ms. Polidoro that her client, Ms. Calomiris, would get a scope to the Board who would then forward it to CPL for recommendations.

Ms. Axelson said she would suggest getting a representation number of homes closest to the property that would potentially be affected by any noise.

Ms. Polidoro stated she wanted to see if they could do the 3-4 closest homes to the facility as receptor points and wanted to discuss it after the public spoke at the meeting.

Attorney Christiana stated that was reasonable.

Ms. Polidoro explained the wetlands on the property were delineated and were federal wetlands, not state, because they did not meet the definition of state wetlands. She noted the applicant was voluntarily setting the 100 ft. Buffer around the wetlands, and that would be the state regulated wetland buffer if the wetlands had been state. In regards to species, Ms. Polidoro stated they had pulled the EAF mapper and the area wasn’t one the DEC had checked as sensitive for threatened or endangered species. She noted they did have their wetland biologist go out and when he did the report he added a paragraph about natural resources. She stated she wanted to remind the Board that SEQRA did have a rule about reasonableness, so they couldn’t respond to every comment brought up from the public unless it was relevant. Ms. Polidoro said she had written a letter and provided it to the Board to review (See attached). She stated they would like to have the public hearing extended until September with a potential Workshop in August to give them time to get information to CPL.

Mr. Calomiris stated the project had his full support. He stated that they had their own standards that went above and beyond the standards the Board was going to impose on them. He said the architect design was very nice and would be integrated into their existing structures. He stated they were interested in creating something that would be a model for other similar projects that were environmentally friendly, neighborhood friendly, etc. Mr. Calomiris said his daughter, Ms. Calomiris, was very experienced in this industry and had very high standards and he fully backed her in every aspect.

Chair Willaims opened the floor for public comments.

Mr. George Duke, attorney representing Mr. Adam Glassman, stated that he strongly recommended that the Planning Board take a deep breath and pause in light of the new information brought up. He stated he thought they needed to review many items of the application for 3 reasons; 1) He felt the restrictive covenants needed to be addressed. He said he knew it was a private matter that his client and the applicant needed to sit down and talk about. 2) There was a private road issue on Loosestrife Lane that they needed to discuss and 3) He stated he appreciated the withdrawal of the special events from the application and he and his client fully appreciated that and they weren’t looking for much more to be frank, however he needed it articulated In writing and he hadn’t had a chance to review the letters Ms. Calomiris had provided to the Board and he needed to review them as it may be crystal clear in the writings, but he needed an opportunity to review them not only for them but so the general public has a clear understanding on what they are commenting on. He said when you withdraw from an application and you scale it back, there are segments that can lead to this is impermissible because it would be segmentation and violation of SEQRA and the whole application approval would be void. He stated they didn’t want to get into a situation where the approval would be up for challenge and they weren’t looking to do that. He said they were looking to get an approvable application that the applicants would be happy with and his client would be happy with and everyone could move forward. He said those reasons were why he felt the application needed to be paused until there was an absolute understanding of what was being proposed. He said there were issues that were raised at the last meeting that were germane to the application. He stated there was a lot of discussion in regards to the yield of the water wells to the adjacent properties as his client currently has a large water tank on his property because he was irrigating his well because he did not have enough water. He said the Board certainly needed to consider the aquifer. Mr. Duke said that he had just been made aware of the ZBA appeal submitted the previous week and he wasn’t aware of the full details of it but that was yet another reason why he felt the application needed to be put on hold. He said he had reached out to Ms. Polidoro about sitting down together with his client and hers so that they could come up with solutions to the private issues but he could only speak for his client.

Mr. Michael O’Connell stated he wanted to make the Board aware that they had submitted a report Hudsonia that day and he said the Board needed to look at it and review it. He said he had walked with the scientist around the property line with the permission from the other neighbors because there were great concerns. He explained that Hudsonia was a non-profit institute for research and education dealing with environmental science and they didn’t advocate for or against land use proposals but rather they do scientific studies that provide information about the planning process and aim to reducing and mitigating negative impacts on the environment. He stated in regards to the wetlands the scientist had found a problem with the study. He said no one put their foot on the ground when they mapped the wetlands and did the soil studies and the scientist stated that even though Loosestrife farms wetlands are not state regulated they probably should be because they are certainly more than 12.4 acres of contiguous wetlands. He stated the scientist had also found the study flawed and that the federal standards require hydrology, soils, and plants and the applicant’s study only provided soils, so from Hudsonia’s standpoint there was more research that had to be done and they did not feel it was sufficiently done. Mr. O’Connell said there was concerns about what was already constructed and segmentation had already been mentioned and there were already pens and structures that were already built on the property that weren’t addressed anywhere on the plans but they were there and they drained into the wetlands and there was big drainage ditch dug down the middle, and from what they saw there were no permits issued for those structures anywhere in the Town. He stated he felt the application couldn’t go forward until existing violations were taken care of and he FOILed for it and nothing came back for the existing pens at all and according to the scientist where the pens were was where the wetlands were located. He said according the Hudsonia report the most important issues needing to be addressed were the wetlands, an appropriate certified biologist needed to be retained to complete a comprehensive survey and someone who was independent not someone who was working for the Town. He added there was another thing about the noise affecting the wildlife like birds would be moving from the area because of the noise and that was so much more stuff that needed to be addressed. He stated the applicant’s property looked busy over the pass weekend and he couldn’t imagine how much busier it would get when the kennel was built and it was double the size of some resident’s houses and he felt the proposed use was non-compatible with the area and not one person who lived in the area was for the project. He said the other issues, the private issues that Board couldn’t address, needed to be addressed by the applicant. He stated the Board wouldn’t allow a 3 home subdivision to go through without road maintenance agreements, well information, septic information, and all sorts of other stuff yet the applicants were putting in 40 parking spaces and visitors in and out on a road that the Town Highway Superintendent said was not up to code, and the Town couldn’t take it over, had bad drainage and culverts needed to be replaced and yet the Board didn’t take that in consideration at all which was crazy. He said the Board’s job was to look at everything and they had heard it all and he was sure there were more to come but really what was compatible and what was not and listen carefully and he hoped the Board made a good decision.

Mr. Art Stuggervik stated he lived on Boice Mill Rd and at the last public hearing he was represented by Allan Rappleya who represented 7 other residents as well. He stated Mr. Duke had mentioned the appeal to the ZBA and that was done on their behalf and it was done this past Friday and it was a procedural appeal based on a question the Planning Board had for the CEO about the definition of Animal Sanctuary and was allowed under the Code #140-4 about what an animal sanctuary was permitted to do and the applicant was publicly stating as adoptions and visitations go against what the Town Board has certified or zoned as the definition under animal sanctuary. He stated another concern was noise that everyone was mentioning but a larger concern that he had was safety. He said the animals that the applicant had stated they would provide sanctuary to were described as dangerous and bully breeds and it had scared the hell out of the whole Town. Mr. Stuggervik stated they had pictures on their website of animals that were wearing muzzles like Hannibal Lecter would in a film and there were big scary wire cages holding the dogs faces to prevent what he felt was mishaps, but they were also showing the dogs off leashes, running around the fields, and close to the property’s fences. He said there were families with small children that were boarding the property and he walked his dog every day and has concerns with walking by the field that buttresses their property onto Boice Mill Rd. And these dogs somehow getting loose. He said safety of the road was as equal of a concern as the noise and the wetlands and they shouldn’t be afraid in their own neighborhood.

Mr. Chris O’Donnell stated he lived on Krum Rd. And just as a general comment from the neighbor’s perspective, for him it was really an issue of transparency. He stated he had first heard about the application form a local newspaper and there was one story that was talking about events and all that and he had been away overseas for work for a few weeks and when he returned it seemed like a completely different story. He said he wanted clarification and wanted to know what was really going on such as a business plan for the present and future and as a neighbor he wanted to know that clearly. He said he had heard now it was not their business if it was a not for profit or not and okay maybe it legally wasn’t t but he wanted to know that as a neighbor. He stated he had heard there would be events and now he was hearing there would be no events and then he heard there were forty parking spaces and the story just wasn’t matching up for him and that was what was making him nervous about the entire thing. He said the applicant was saying they weren’t doing events but that they were doing open houses and he wanted to know what the semantics would be, traffic patterns, and he wanted clear parameters. He asked how they could all make this work and live together when this didn’t feel transparent and he stated he wanted everything to be closely monitored and he wanted to see numbers and he wanted to see studies.

Mr. Robert Kilpert stated he was a neighbor bordering the property. He thanked the applicant for addressing the waste piles. He quoted his letter that he had written and submitted the day of the meeting “ The recent responses to Planning Board questions related to a reduction in the number of proposed parking spots, discussed also that during planned events employees could use 6 or more parking spots near the house, away from the kennel facility. If Wayward Ranch is employing staff and counting on volunteers as a workforce, then Wayward Ranch must have some description of staff duties and responsibilities. These descriptions will represent an operations plan which has not been offered as part of this planning process and is needed at these early planning stages. Re the history of the WR property, a previous owner had plans to develop this lot and two other large, neighboring parcels which made up the Dunn family Farm. Created in 1986,1 am in possession of site plans printed by Brinnier and Larios, P.C.,a local surveyor, of a multilot development plan of the three large parcels: the original Dunn bams and immediate fields, its outer fields and the present WR property, and this multilot development plan exists only on paper. It is a valuable document because it includes property lines, contour lines, streams and other land identifying and proposed features.It is my understanding sometime after 1986 the owner of these three parcels had financial difficulty and decided to remove what was most valuable: top soil. This operation was stopped with coordination of the Army Corps of Engineers but the impact remains: clay based surfaces that support specialized growth and allow limited percolation and drainage. Proper health codes and Town of Rochester instructions for above ground septic fields and unique storm drainage requirements will be necessary as there is no percolation capability and several streams are active in the planned expansion areas. Depending on the need for bathrooms and wash facilities this could result in a large above ground septic field and other unique storm drainage requirements.The need for employees creates the possibility that the Town of Rochester will be beholden to cater to the business aspect of the proposed sanctuary. If Wayward Ranch seeks sanctuary status and becomes tax exempt, then Town of Rochester resources and tax dollars will be spent on an operation that: (l)does not give back to the community(it is not clear what need in our immediate area is being met by housing, training and placing attack dogs and other animals into new homes); (2)..an operation that, has the potential to upset wildlife and waterways and disregard environmental protections(waste piles and an inadequate storm drainage plan will lead to contamination to the food chain and bacterial overgrowth in lakes and streams (3) the operation would be a nuisance to neighbors and as a major change in the agricultural land use which will add noise, unsightliness, traffic, and pollution, replacing countryside currently supporting plant and wildlife.
Without an Operations Plan, neighbors have no way of understanding what impact this new and proposed land use will have. So many possibly irreversible issues complicate this proposal, nitrogen rich run off from animal waste leads to bacterial growth and oxygen depletion in waterways, we have no Town sewer system, just septic fields and streams that take run off. Since, no animal waste should enter the environment and no record of disclosing what Wayward Ranch has used or is being given to the animals, is being insisted upon, we can only assume new additions to the environment in large volumes will be destructive. The Town cannot be the Supervisor of Wayward Ranch operations and at these early planning stages no guarantees re safety and minimal impact have been offered to local residents.”
Mr. Mark Goldberg stated he lived on Krum Rd. He said it was hard getting clarity on some things such as what was the maximum number of dogs that would be housed on the property at any given time and in the future. He stated this number had to be known in order to conduct a proper SEQRA because a negative impact increased or decreased with the number of dogs. He asked what were the written standard operating procedures for cleaning the kennels, including cleaning the floor and wash down into the septic system and effect SOP were needed in order to prevent veterinary pharmaceuticals from contaminating groundwater with potential for contamination of neighboring water and streams and pharmaceutical waste had been found in New York lakes, rivers, and streams, fish and plants. He stated there were physical and behavioral changes when exposed to even low levels of medications.
Ms. Jill Spero said she had brought it up before and she wanted to bring it up again that she had ran an animal sanctuary on the northern property and she ten lots and had attempted to purchase the entire parcel from the person who had gone bankrupt. She stated there were no covenants on the applicant’s land and even if there were they were not enforceable and when she had run her sanctuary, it was much larger than the applicant’s. She said she never had a problem with the dogs she had rescued but had more problems with the neighborhood dogs coming onto her property. She said that if this was a personal residence, like she had, with a 501 ©-3 exemption, there wouldn’t be a problem. Ms. Spero said she was a wildlife rehab and had released hawks that were still there and It was never a problem when she had her sanctuary so she didn’t understand why it was now a problem for the applicant. She stated as far as medications and so forth, the original owner of the property, who had emailed her regarding the wetlands and covenants and deed restrictions, and he had all the people come out and do the walk and the plants and it had all come back good. She stated the original owner had horses, and that when she had her sanctuary she didn’t eliminate her waste like the applicant was going to, and as far as medications how was it going to affect anything really? She stated everyone used medications for themselves, for their animals, and lots of people farm and used it and no one was giving them a hard time. She stated everyone seemed OK when it was farm animals but since it was dogs and other animals, all the sudden it was a problem. She stated she didn’t think the applicant should be discriminate against because she would have bully breeds, would someone discriminate a child because they had problems? She stated she thought the applicant did want to work with her neighbors and some of the neighbors were more willing to work with them than others, she said they should get together because there was a happy medium.
No one else from the public spoke.
Mr. Zurofsky made the motion to keep the public hearing open until the September 9th, 2019 Regular meeting. Mr. Pinsky seconded the motion.
All in Favor. Motion Carried.
5 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, 0 abstentions, 1 recused.

Ms. Axelson asked if the applicant’s representatives reached out to CPL because they had a specific comment on a technical issue was it acceptable to the Board for CPL to confer with the representatives then report back to the Board.

Attorney Christiana said that was recommended and they could just copy the Board on any correspondence.

Ms. Polidoro went through and addressed a number of items that came up during the public hearing including transparency, wetlands, existing violations, the ZBA appeal, and the use of medications. She said there was no transparency as the application had been on file since March 2019, the wetlands did not need another party to come in and access as that was what CPL was; an independent consultant, she stated they were unaware of the ZBA appeal but there were not stays for these proceedings, and as far as medications; she stated the Board had just approved a 4 lot subdivision and did not put any restrictions on monitoring a homeowner’s use of medications and what went in their well and septic and into their ground water.

Mr. Williams stated that a homeowner’s use of medications was out of their purview.

Ms. Polidoro stated monitoring a use of medications was above and beyond any reasonable condition that the Board could bestow. She stated they wanted some guidance on the receptor points for noise that was mentioned earlier.

Ms. Axelson stated they did not have wetlands experts on staff but they did take a look at the EAF resource mapper and New York State DEC Wetlands mapping on the site did not show up which was why they were confused as what looked to be Federal Wetlands had a buffer because a buffer is not required on Federal Regulated wetlands and she now understood there was a voluntary buffer. She stated they would look at the Hudsonia Report and come back to the Board with any recommendations that a specialist be hired to review that report.

The Board discussed the receptor points with Ms. Axelson and Mr. Spade and Ms. Polidoro. Mr. Spade explained four receptor points they planned to use.

Ms. Axelson suggested in their scope to discuss why they chose those specific receptor points.

Mr. Zurofsky stated it had come up in the public comments that persistent noises can cause nuisances and the Board wanted that included in the scope of the report. He said the Board agreed that was a separate issue than decibel levels and they didn’t want to be too narrow and framing it into just decibels.

Ms. Axelson said they would look at the scope and it would probably need to be revised again.

Mr. Pinsky asked that the longevity of noise source and the time of day be mentioned in the scope.

The Board discussed some traffic information along with reiterating the SWPP and wetlands items needed.

There were no more discussions.

OTHER MATTERS:

ADJOURNMENT:
Mr. Zurofsky made the motion to adjourn the meeting at 11:29pm. Mr. Buchbinder seconded the motion.
All in Favor. Motion Carried.
5 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, 0 abstentions, 1 recused.

Respectfully Submitted,

Brianna Tetro, Secretary

Accepted and Adopted, August 12th, 2019