TOWN OF ROCHESTER
ACCORD, NEW YORK
MINUTES OF June 10th, 2019 REGULAR MEETING OF the Town of Rochester PLANNING BOARD, held at 7:00pm at the ACCORD FIRE HOUSE , Accord, NY.
Chairperson Lindstrom asked everyone to stand for the Pledge to the Flag.
The Secretary did roll call attendance.
Maren Lindstrom, Chairperson
Rick Jones, Vice Chairperson
Brian Buchbinder- 7:02pm
Ann Marie Maloney
Brianna Tetro, Secretary. Mary Lou Christiana, Attorney for the Town.
ANNOUNCEMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS:
Chair Lindstrom reminded the Board of the following training options:
NYPF onsite training courses.
RECOGNIZING HABITATS: Field Workshop
6/14/2019 1 – 4 PM Fahnestock State Park Cold Springs NY
6/21/2019 1 – 4 PM River Road, New Baltimore NY
UCDOE: Battery Energy Storage
6/25/2019 6 – 8 PM SUNY Ulster Kingston Center 94 Marys Ave, Kingston, NY
ACTION ON MINUTES:
Chair Lindstrom stated that she had at the last minute changed some items from the May 13th, 2019 Regular Meeting Minutes. She stated they were mostly grammatical and she wanted to know if the Board wanted to table them until the July meeting so everyone could see her comments, she stated the only material change she had made was to the Wayward Ranch Application as it had stated that the applicant had withdrawn the Special Use Permit but it was only the Special Use Permit for the Special Events that had been withdrawn so she had clarified that as well as that they still had a Special Use Permit for the Animal Sanctuary.
Mr. Jones made the motion to approve the minutes from the May 13th, 2019 Regular Meeting. Ms. Maloney seconded the motion.
All in Favor. Motion Carried.
7 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent, 0 abstentions.
PB 2019-09 LLI New Application
Lot Line Improvement
Sally Roy, Peter Nelson, Robert Cairo and Deborah Martin
Proposes the conveyance of +/- 4.41 acres of parcel S/B/L 77.1-3-15.112 to parcel S/B/L 77.1-3-19.100. Further proposes the removal of the lot line between S/B/L 77.1-3-15.112 and parcel S/B/L 77.1-3-15.111 (+/- 30 acres) to create one parcel. The properties are AR-3 zoned. S/B/L 77.1-3-15.112 has a de minimus portion in FP. Parcels are located on St Josen Road, Accord, NY
SEQRA Type II (by code)
Peter Nelson and Robert Cairo were present on behalf of the application.
Mr. Cairo explained that he and his wife had purchased property on St. Josen Rd and they were going to split it with Mr. Nelson and Ms. Roy.
The Board did not find anything concerning or that needed further questioning.
Mr. Zurofsky made the motion to certify that Lot Line Improvement. Mr. Williams seconded the motion.
All in Favor. Motion Carried.
6 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent, 0 abstentions.
Decision: PB 2019-09 LLI
Lot Improvement – Certification
*Pursuant to Chapter 125 and Chapter 140 of the Code of the Town of Rochester.
Applicant: Sally Roy & Peter Nelson
Owners: Sally Roy, Peter Nelson, Robert Cairo and Deborah Martin
Reason for Request:
Proposes the conveyance of +/- 4.41 acres of parcel S/B/L 77.1-3-15.112 to parcel S/B/L 77.1-3-19.100. Further proposes the removal of the lot line between S/B/L 77.1-3-15.112 and parcel S/B/L 77.1-3-15.111 (+/- 30 acres) to create one parcel (eliminating S/B/L 77.1-3-15.112 and distributing between the two remaining parcels). The properties are AR-3 zoned. S/B/L 77.1-3-15.112 has a de minimus portion in FP. Parcels are located on St Josen Road, Accord, NY
Location: #1 & #27 St Josen Road, Accord, NY
S/B/L: 77.1-3-15.112, 77.1-3-19.100, and S/B/L 77.1-3-15.111
Zoning District: AR-3
Zoning Permit filed: 05/22/2019 SEQR Type: Type II by definition
Planning Board Application #: 2019-09 LLI PB Application filed: 05/23/2019
* * * *
The Planning Board has reviewed the plat and certifies the lot improvement proposed will meet Town of Rochester lot requirements for the AR-3 zoning district and, for recording purposes only, further represents an exempt lot improvement in accordance with Section 125-18 of the Town of Rochester Subdivision Regulations. No subdivision approval is required or given by the Planning Board. The Planning Board further grants the authority to the Chairman to sign the plat certifying the lot improvement for filing purposes without further resolution upon receipt and the Chairman’s determination such plat meets the requirements of the code is in agreement with the sketch plan provided for review.
The owner shall file in the office of the Ulster County Clerk such certified plat bearing the Chairman’s signature within 62 days of this certification. The owner shall have the responsibility to return four (4) Ulster County Clerk certified copies of the plat to the Town of Rochester Planning Board within 30 days of filing.
PB 2019-03 SPA New Application
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).
Marie Ruger was present on behalf of the application.
Chair Lindstrom read the following for the record:
Class II Home Occupation: Ruger Metal Machinist Shop:
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, [does not] 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.
Mrs. Ruger explained that her husband was going to be the only person working at the site. She stated they had a business in Kingston and they wanted to split the retail from the repair end of the business and therefore they would be renting less space if they had a workshop at their home.
Mr. Jones asked what type of equipment her husband used.
Mrs. Ruger stated all the equipment was at the shop at the moment and included a surface grinder, sand blast cabinet, air compressor, among other items.
Mr. Jones asked where the metal shavings went when using the machines and asked if he used lubricants of any sort and if so how does Mr. Ruger discard them?
Mrs. Ruger stated he only uses a little lubricant as needed and there is nothing really shooting out when using the machines.
Mr. Pinsky asked for Mrs. Ruger to point out on the site plan where the machine shop was going to be.
Mrs. Ruger explained to the Board the location of the shop.
Mr. Pinsky asked how much noise the air compressor would make.
Mrs. Ruger stated the air compressor didn’t run constantly it was only running as needed and that no one would probably hear it as her husband planned on insulating it well for the purpose of not using a lot of fuel to heat the structure and it would also help with the sound.
Chairperson Lindstrom stated that they could make a stipulation in the decision, if approved, in regards to solid waste, sewage, discharge volume, etc. if there was a lot of metal shards built up that they would need to be disposed of properly.
Chairperson Lindstrom stated the one thing the Board had looked at that posed a difficulty was according to the way the Code was written, which she read for the record:
§ 140-19 Home Occupation Regulations. A. Home occupations are permitted in all districts subject to regulation by class. Classifications of home occupations and limitations applicable to each follow:
Class II: -Shall not occupy more than 25% of the habitable floor area of the dwelling or 500 square feet of floor area, whichever is less, regardless whether located in the dwelling or in an accessory structure
She stated that the Rugers were looking to do just under 500 sq. Ft.
Mrs. Ruger stated they actually had 1100 sq. Ft of full basement and 1700 sq. Ft of total house.
Chairperson Lindstrom stated that on the Planning Board application it stated that the livable space of the house was much smaller.
Attorney Christiana said the application said it was 26×44.
Mrs. Ruger stated it was 26×44 but it was basement, second floor, and first floor.
Attorney Christiana stated that is was 26×44 but it was two stories, and that wasn’t clarified on the application and would need to be corrected. She stated that the secretary could correct it on the application and Mrs. Ruger could initial it.
Chair Lindstrom listed some of the others items in the Code regarding a Class II Home Occupation: Involves no retail or services resulting in other than occasional and limited numbers of visitors- Chair Lindstrom stated some drop off/pick-ups on a limited basis was okay- No external evidence of home occupation or alteration inconsistent with the residential use or appearance of the building(s)- Chair Lindstrom stated that it was all internal-No display or parking of equipment or products storage of goods or materials or signs visible from the outside of the building except for a name or accessory use sign-Chair Lindstrom stated they could have a name or accessory sign at the end of their driveway stating that was where the location of the shop was for anyone who may pick up an item. Chair Lindstrom stated the other part that needed to be addressed was in regards to parking, according to the Code for a Class II Home Occupation there needed to be parking; one space per 100 sq. ft. of floor area devoted to use because some people would have a Class II Home Occupation and have customers so there would need to spaces for them to park, and with their square footage that would require 5 spots.
Mrs. Ruger stated they had space for the 5 spots and she showed the Board on the Site Plan where the spots were.
Chairperson stated on the sketch Mrs. Ruger provided to the Board previously, she would have to now show where the designated parking spots would be.
Attorney Christiana stated they needed to be 10×20 and to mark that on the sketch.
Chairperson Lindstrom stated the application was a Type II SEQRA by Code.
There were no other questions from the Board.
Mr. Jones made the motion to set the public hearing for the July 8th, 2019 Regular Meeting. Mr. Williams seconded the motion.
All in Favor. Motion Carried.
7 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent, 0 abstentions.
Attorney Christiana stated that Mrs. Ruger needed to bring in the revised maps to the Secretary before the next meeting, not at next meeting.
PB 2019-06 SBD
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).
Mr. Glen Dymond, applicant, and Mr. Terry Ringler, surveyor, were present on behalf of the application.
Mr. Zurofsky asked if the Board had heard anything back from the Town Board.
Attorney Christiana stated that Mr. Ringler had given a note to the Board and she was going to talk to the Board about that and stated they were going to incorporate the items from the note into the Road Maintenance Agreement and even though it came from Mr. Ringler it really needed to come from Mr. Dymond.
Mr. Ringler stated they had heard from the engineer in regards to the well and septic.
Chairperson Lindstrom read to the Board what the engineer, Paul Mele consulting engineer from Gardiner, NY, had written in regards to the well and septic: Town of Rochester, Regarding: Dymond 4 Lot Subdivision dated 6-6-2019: “I saw test holes on all four lots in subject subdivision. I can certify that all lots can support septic systems and will get approval of the Ulster County Department of Health.” and Chair Lindstrom stated it was sealed and signed by Mr. Mele.
Mr. Jones stated that was septic but they had asked for well too.
Mr. Ringler stated he didn’t believe well was mentioned.
Chair Lindstrom stated even so if they were asked for septic information it was usually known that well information would be provided too.
Mr. Ringler stated he didn’t know how an engineer would be test if it was suitable for a well as there was plenty of clearance on the lot for well and septic.
Chair Lindstrom said it could be an issue of water table or lack of water.
Attorney Christiana stated before the Board could hear from the Public they needed to complete SEQRA.
Chair Lindstrom made the motion to Type this application as an Unlisted/ Uncoordinated SEQRA. Mr. Zurofsky seconded the motion.
Chair Lindstrom- Yes Mr. Williams- Yes
Mr. Jones- Yes Mr. Pinsky- Yes
Mr. Buchbinder- Yes Ms. Maloney- Yes
Mr. Zurofsky- Yes
All in Favor. Motion Carried.
7 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent, 0 abstentions
The Board went through the SEQRA Part 2-Impact Assessment. There was some debate among the Board members in regards to question #2: Will the proposed action result in a change in the use or intensity of use of land. Chair Lindstrom asked each Board member their opinion of that question, weather they felt it was a small impact or a large impact:
Ms. Maloney: Small Mr. Jones: Moderate
Mr. Zurofsky: Small Mr. Pinsky: Small
Mr. Buchbinder: Small Mr. Williams: Small
Chair Lindstrom: Small
Chair Lindstrom stated the Board had decided it would be a small impact and that was what would be on the SEQRA.
Mr. Zurofsky read for the record how the DEC Website defined “Small impact” in regards to the change in land use:
“If the change in land use is consistent in size with the surrounding development patterns, does not introduce a new land use to the area, create a need for new transportation, water, or wastewater infrastructure, eliminate any important habitat types, and handle all stormwater runoff onsite or with existing infrastructure, there may only be a small impact.”
Mr. Zurofsky read for the record how the DEC Website defined “Moderate Impact” in regards to the change in land use:
Moderate to Large Impact
“If the scale of the proposed land use is significantly different from surrounding land uses, it may have a moderate to large impact.”
Mr. Zurofsky read for the record how the DEC Website defined “Small Impact: in regards to Will the proposed action result in an adverse change to natural resources?
A small impact could occur if:
• A small part of the project site is impacted.
• The impact is isolated to the project site, is of minimal size, and does not affect adversely rare or unusual species, habitats, wetlands, waterbodies, or critical environmental areas.
• The impact does not affect any resource that is regulated (such as streams, wetlands, or lakes). For instance, a project site may have state regulated wetlands on it, but the parcel size may be so large that there will be no disturbance of the wetland.
• Air emissions will occur, but they are below the level at which they fall under regulatory control.”
Mr. Jones made the motion that the Board had determined that based on the information and analysis of Part 2 of SEQRA and any supporting documentation that the proposed action would not result in any significant environmental impacts or a negative declaration. Mr. Williams seconded the motion.
Chair Lindstrom- Yes Mr. Zurofsky- Yes
Mr. Jones- Yes Mr. Williams- Yes
Mr. Buchbinder-Yes Mr. Pinsky- Yes
Ms. Maloney- Yes
All in Favor. Motion Carried.
7 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent, 0 abstentions.
Chair Lindstrom opened the Public Hearing.
Chair Lindstrom read a letter from Mr. William “Bill” Barringer for the record:
“> to all planning board members
> from william barringer
> i have been on this property for over 60 years and we had a hand dug
> 16 foot well , all was good in the early 70s even after we hooked up
> my aunt that moved a trailer in on the spot im in now we ran a
> underground water line from our home to hers,then we sold a parcil
> they drilled a well our well after that in the hot summers we had to
> go to cherrytown and get drinking water ,as time went on my brother
> moved next door drilled a well then our well went even lower and in
> 82 i moved next door drilled a well got 3.5 gal a minute then in mid
> 80s a place across road drilled well lowerd my old place well then
> came the development on farm land next door to us on what is now
> called victoria lane wells were drilled and now my well is 1.5 gal a
> minute and im down 310 foot also because of that development my
> brothers well went dry and had to try to drill another one witch is
> some what ok for now until summer time it also goes low cant drink so
> if there are more wells im sure we will be dry also the nieghbor
> pretty much drained the pond also there is only just so much that can
> be taped into and its at its limit
> thank you”
Mr. Pinsky asked for the applicant to point out on the map where Mr. Barringer’s property was located on the map.
Bill Barringer stated that The Board read what he wrote. So now he could add to it. He stated he had a couple of fireman also come to him and said that it is no place for a development due to the fact that there is no water around on that particular area. He asked if his well goes dry, who would he go to get the money to pump a new well? He stated it was getting ridiculous up there. He said the Board had stated it wouldn’t change anything but it would change the animals. Mr. Barringer stated they had bears that come out, deer that come out, coyotes coming out, fishers coming out, all that stuff, but if the subdivision happened, where would they go? He said enough was enough, and this was in the country and not in a city, the way it was setup there, looking at the map, there was Schroon Hill Rd. and another road that went in, then there would be another road going in, then there was Victoria Lane going in. He said it had to stop, there was only so much water in the ground to begin with. He stated if people kept drilling wells, they would be draining it out, just like oil or anything else, there was just so much there. He said he was proof of it and was born and raised on that land, and he knew what it was. He concluded that it was high time people started thinking about the neighbors and it was time to think about what was in the ground and if his well went dry who was going to pay for a new well. The Town? He doubted it.
Paul Livonese stated that he owned the property that was 474+ feet adjacent to the lot. He stated he didn’t know much about the water but he had experienced his well run dry 120ft. in. He said if he did decided to water the garden or take a shower or run the dishwasher he had experienced the well running dry, especially in the summer time he had to wait an hour and a half for the well to fill. He noted it hadn’t been a horrible experience but it had happened at the most importune time to run out of water. He asked if the 40 ft. barrier written into the boundaries was going to remain wooded. He said they were on top of a mountain so he wanted to have the water tables checked.
Christina Campion stated she was speaking on behalf of herself and her daughter Cleandra Martin Waldron, they owned the lot 26 Nicholas Lane that came off of Ridgeview Rd. And she stated she had an easement and she wanted to know what would happen to that easement with the proposed subdivision.
The Board asked for Ms. Campion to show them on the map.
The Board discussed where Ms. Campion’s property was and it didn’t look as though her property was on where Mr. Dymond was proposing to subdivide.
Ms. Campion stated in her deed it came up through a small part of her property.
Mr. Jones asked if she had a map that showed that.
Ms. Campion stated she bought the land off of Joyce Wyland in 2014 and they had walked through the property and if she wanted to build something on that land she wanted to know if that was an option to come in on.
Mr. Ringler stated where Ms. Campion was showing the Board where her property was, it was on another person’s property where Victoria Lane was located and he didn’t see Mr. Barringer’s name anywhere near the property and Mr. Barringer stated that his property had been in his family for over 60 years, so he didn’t believe she was in the right spot and he didn’t know where this would come from without a deed.
Ms. Campion stated she had a copy of the deed and she presented it to Mr. Ringler and the Board.
Mr. Ringler stated it was a 50 ft. right of way in with leading from Ridgeview Rd over lands of Richard L. Bolter, which was not Mr. Dymond’s property and as far as he knew, Mr. Bolter’s property was on Victoria Lane.
Ms. Campion stated that was not what she had been told.
Mr. Ringler said it might not have been what she was told but that was what was written in her deed.
Ms. Campion stated she would check with the lawyer who helped them with the sale about that because she was quite adamant that if anything went on with her property that the easement was kept.
Attorney Christiana stated it seemed as if she was told the wrong property and that private easements between two people was a private matter before them and that wasn’t something the Board considered, and should that easement go through the property, Ms. Campion could enforce it, but it appeared that it didn’t effect Mr. Dymond’s property at all, but there was case law out there that stated the Board didn’t take in consideration private easements.
Ms. Campion stated that apart from the easement concerns, she was also concerned with the water table factor as her well had gone dry a couple of times. She further noted that she wanted the boundary of the proposed development would stay wooded as it kept the privacy up there.
Mr. Jones asked how deep her well was.
Ms. Campion stated it was 170 ft.
Mike Baden, Town Supervisor and Board Liaison stated that regarding the question about the Code, as somebody who was on the committee and could clarify what it meant, that the intent of the Code was that a shared driveway could exist to cover 3 new lots including the lot it was created from, to serve no more than 3 lots. He stated that in this case they were doing a 4 lot subdivision but one of the lots was affronting a public road so the intent of the Code, the way it was written was that that lot would not count toward the shared driveway because it would have the legal required frontage on Ridgeview.
Attorney Christiana stated that the Board had interpreted it in that way.
Mr. Baden further stated that nobody had read the Code in that way before but he saw how it easily could be read that way and when the Code was re-done, they would try to clarify it. But he wanted to just clarify that the intent of the shared driveway could not be more than 3 lots.
Bill Barringer spoked again to the Board and said he didn’t think he had brought it up before but there would definitely be more traffic on the road if the development happened because there would be about 3 more houses averaging about two cars a piece and right there that would be six cars going in and out plus the other house that would be there and that would be probably another eight to ten cars up and down the road and the road was bad enough with the other one back by Victoria Lane and the road would not put up with it. He stated it was a narrow Town road and you couldn’t fit two vehicles on there to begin with.
Paul Livonese addressed the Board again and asked how many square feet were the proposed homes.
Mr. Dymond responded 1600 sq. ft.
Chair Lindstrom asked the Board that since Mr. Barringer had brought up that the fire department didn’t think there was enough water, should the Board send a letter to the fire department and see if they would comment on the water.
Mr. Jones stated that the Board should do that but in a situation like that, it was his understanding that was why the fire department had tanker trucks to cart water up as opposed to trying to tap into a pond but that it wouldn’t hurt to keep the public hearing open and talk to the fire department and see what they said. He also noted that they had heard from three people that there was a problem with well water on the road so he felt that the Board needed to discuss how they would handle that. He further stated they could ask for a test of the well to see if the drilling of well on the purposed lots would draw down the existing wells and he felt in this case, given the existing problems, he didn’t believe they should not pay attention to the problems that the existing landowners had.
Ms. Maloney stated that she agreed with Mr. Jones and to have the fire department go up and just see what they said about it.
Mr. Jones stated he believed the fire department would say it was fine and that was a situation they dealt with all the time but he was concerned with the wells running dry.
Mr. Zurofsky said they had an aquifer district in the Town.
Chair Lindstrom stated yes, but this wasn’t in that district.
Mr. Jones said if the property was in it, then they wouldn’t be having the discussion.
Mr. Ringler asked why it had been excluded.
Chair Lindstrom stated it was by geography and that certain areas or developments in the Town wouldn’t be allowed in an aquifer area because it could contaminate the aquifer.
Mr. Zurofsky stated he believed it was in the Natural Heritage plan there was a low output. He asked if that had been put into the Town Code.
Mr. Mike Baden stated the aquifer protection zone was based on a study that was done a gentleman named Steve Winkley, it was a water study of the entire town based on the well records that were on file in the County Health Department, and the aquifer protection area was the area of challenged water supply, low water supply, concerns about pollution and contamination. He stated it was mostly on the 209 corridor and a little bit above and below, which he belied was East and West, and it was mostly based in that region. He asked what the other question that had been asked was about.
Mr. Jones stated Mr. Zurofksy thought in the Natural Heritage plan there was a low yield overlay.
Mr. Baden stated what was in the Natural Heritage plan was the re-iteration of the study done by Mr. Winkley and he would be happy to provide the Board with the study.
Chair Lindstrom stated she thought they should keep the public hearing open and see if Mr. Dymond could do any analysis of how deep he would have to drive the well or something to that effect.
Mr. Ringler stated he didn’t see how that was a reasonable request that they would drill a well and pump it down to see how it would affect adjoining wells and he had never heard of that being done.
Attorney Christiana stated she had seen it done many times.
Mr. Ringler asked for a minor subdivision?
Attorney Christiana stated it didn’t matter if their wells were running dry at the moment and they have gone deeper and they were still running out of water.
Mr. Jones stated that the existing wells have particular problems and would have to be dealt with but he didn’t think the Board should be approving a subdivision that is going to exacerbate existing problems and it was in his opinion that a well log test where something was drilled and the other wells were monitored to see what the impact would be on the existing wells, would be appropriate in this situation.
Mr. Ringler asked how they were going to get the ability to monitor existing wells.
Mr. Jones stated there was technology that did it.
Mr. Ringler asked if he could a letter from the Board stating exactly what they needed to do so there was no confusion.
Attorney Christiana stated she suggested they consult with the Town Planners, CPL, on that because she felt that they were in a position to tell them exactly how everything was done.
Chair Lindstrom asked if they had to set escrow for that or could she just confer with them.
Mr. Jones stated that the Board should consult with the Town’s engineer on what the Board should be asking for.
Mr. Ringler said he believed that there were other ways to get information without drilling.
Attorney Christiana stated that they could propose that to the Board and the Board could ask CPL if that would be sufficient enough or if they would have another suggestion.
Chair Lindstrom asked Mr. Mike Baden, Town Supervisor, if this was something the Board needed to Escrow.
Mr. Baden said if money was going to be expended to the independent engineer then yes the Board would have to establish the amount of Escrow.
Mr. Zurofsky asked that assuming the Board went through all the engineering and the result was that three additional wells would cause significant problems, what would the Board do if all the other Lot development standards were being met.
Attorney Christiana stated it would be something taken into consideration for the final determination.
Chair Lindstrom said the determination in that instance could be that if the impact was really quite small, the subdivision could go along perfectly fine and if the impact was extremely large, then maybe the subdivision couldn’t go forward or the impact wasn’t much of anything, then maybe less lots could be a condition.
Chair Lindstrom asked Liz Axelson from CPL if she could give the applicant an estimate of Escrow if it was established.
Ms. Axelson stated that she first wanted to address what the steps would be. She said ordinarily someone would come up with a scope for a small hydro-geological study and her suggestion would be to first have the applicant’s representatives come up with a protocol and then someone from CPL would review that. She noted that she didn’t know off the top of her head but she could give a ball park suggested Escrow of $3,000.00 to cover some back and forth of the outline for review, suggested changes to a study scope to implement that.
Chair Lindstrom asked if the applicant could come up with an outline of protocol to test the neighbors on their own, could CPL review that which would make the amount significantly less.
Ms. Axelson stated that was what she was trying to suggest.
The Board had a discussion with Ms. Axelson in regards to the steps that went into testing a well.
Mr. Jones made the motion to table the application until the June 24th, 2019 Planning Board Workshop Meeting. Mr. Zurofsky seconded the motion.
All in Favor. Motion Carried.
7 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent, 0 abstentions.
Mr. Bill Barringer wanted to just make the Board aware that it had been an extremely wet season so the impact won’t be as high and he really wanted the Board to understand that.
Mr. Paul Livonese stated he didn’t mind the homes being built but building four homes on that site and it would be a worry to him that no one would get water.
Chair Lindstrom made a motion to keep the public hearing open for the July 8th, 2019 Planning Board Regular Meeting. Ms. Maloney seconded the motion.
All in Favor. Motion Carried.
7 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent, 0 abstentions.
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.
Ms. Eleni Calomiris, applicant and Mr. Bill Spade and Ms. Keiko Saski-Spade were present on behalf of the application.
Attorney Christiana clarified for the Board and for the people in attendance that the public hearing was for two separate applications. She stated one application was for the Site Plan for the proposed kennel that required Site Plan approval or denial and the second was for the Special Use Permit review for the animal sanctuary. She noted one could be approved and not the other, both could be approved, or both could be denied but she wanted to clarify the public hearing was for both because they were related.
Chair Lindstrom reiterated what Attorney Christiana stated for the Board. She also noted that the meeting was primarily for the public to speak but there would be a workshop meeting on June24th, 2019 where the public would not be able to speak and would just be for the Board to go over line items. She stated she wanted to thank everyone from the public who sent in letters because as they saw in the previous application, the Board doesn’t always know everything about the land, and some things the Board would be addressing all the same but it was good to hear new things the neighbors had brought to light and their general concerns.
Chair Lindstrom read for the record the intent of an AR-3 zoned district according to the Town Code: “This district is intended to recognize and preserve the high-valued agricultural lands of the Town, while allowing for low density residential development of a compatible nature. The district is further intended to complement the New York Ag District Program and maintain full rights-to-farm within these areas.” Chair Lindstrom stated she contacted Bob Somers at Ag and Markets, and that he was the manager of the Farm Land Protection Unit Department of Agricultural and Markets. She stated she also contacted Burt Samuelson of the Ulster County Planning Board who managed the Ag Districts within the area. Chair Lindstrom stated that both Mr. Somers and Mr. Samuelson responded that “Animal sanctuaries are not considered farm operations under Ag and Markets Laws. The charging on adoption fees for the animals is not considered gross sales and commercial under the Ag and Market Laws and that their mission is not commercial agricultural.” She noted that since the 80s the area had been a New York State Ag Zone but it is not considered a commercial use and it is not considered a farm. She said Ag and Markets would still have certain licensing monitoring especially on the kennel as that was considered Ag and Markets.
Mr. Williams asked if it is not commercial then it would be a private enterprise?
Chair Lindstrom said it could be a not for profit enterprise, it could be private, but they aren’t taking a product and selling it. She stated they had added some things into Ag and Markets like equine operations where someone was not selling and killing a horse but would be producing a service of riding, but generally there would have to be a product made to be sold for it to be a commercial use.
Mr. Williams stated they were selling a service.
Chair Lindstrom stated they weren’t selling anything, they were rescuing farm animals.
Chair Lindstrom stated that because of the complexity of the application, she believed the Board should bring on CPL, the Town’s Planner, for an overview of the site plan, overview of the documentation especially the noise study since that was an issue brought up by some Board members and members of the public and that they were completely neutral noise study consultants, she also mentioned the soil study, wetlands, water infiltration system that was proposed under the parking lot, and sizing and placement of the well and septic and leech that it can support the use, would be other items brought to CPL for overview.
Chair Lindstrom asked that CPL skip the landscaping review because the landscaping was fine.
Mr. Mike Baden asked as the Town Supervisor could he recommend an amount of Escrow based on his past experiences with Escrow.
Chair Lindstrom stated she’d allow Mr. Baden to make a recommendation.
Mr. Baden said $5,000.00 based on what the Board was asking and on past Escrow. He stated if it was more than necessary then they would refund the applicant whatever was left over.
The Board agreed with that estimate.
Mr. Williams made the motion to fund $5,000.00 initial Escrow. Mr. Jones seconded the motion.
All in Favor. Motion Carried.
7 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent, 0 abstentions
Chair Lindstrom said she wanted to tell everyone that the Board did send out a letter to all interested agencies and the letters went to: The Ulster County Planning Board, New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets, SHPO- New York State Historic Preservation Office, Army Corps. Of Engineers, Town of Rochester Animal Control Officer, Accord Fire Department, Town of Rochester Historic Preservation Committee, and the Town of Rochester Highway Superintendent for their commentary. She stated as of that moment, the only response had come from SHPO who stated there would be no impact on the historic home or the archaeological resources that were on the property. She stated that all the other agencies still had time before the workshop meeting on June 24th, 2019 to get their responses to the Board.
Chair Lindstrom noted that any approval; conditional, final, or non-approval would take in consideration all of the commentary of the interested agencies.
Chair Lindstrom stated she wanted to note something else for the public in regards to the kennel use. She stated the kennel use was exempt per #140-14 (b) from regulation under that chapter and was permitted by right and does not require a permit. She read for the record:
§ 140-14 Animal Husbandry B. The following are exempted from regulation under this Chapter, are permitted by right, and do not require a permit: (3) The keeping of animals in conjunction with a kennel or veterinary office
Chair Lindstrom stated they were reviewing the site plan and the Board saw that the site plan fit the land use, the lighting was correct, etc but it was permitted by right in this AR-3 district.
Mr. Williams asked if it was permitted by use then why was there a need for a special use permit?
Attorney Christiana stated the Kennel was just a site plan and the Animal Sanctuary needed the special use permit that was why they explained earlier that there were two separate applications.
Chair Lindstrom opened the public hearing.
Mr. Allan Rappleyea, Attorney, spoke on behalf and in representation for: Art Skuggevik, Mark Owens, Ron Keillor, Kate Keillor, and Fahad Al-Malloh. He said there were actually fourteen property owners on Boice Mill Rd that he was representing and that they were in the letter and that Mr. Anthony Ullman had written two letters to the Planning Board, and Mr. Ullman identified who the property owners were on May 31st and June 3rd. He said he had listened carefully and that the Board had spent a large amount of time on the subdivision application prior to the Wayward Ranch application and rightfully so, and he knew the Board would spend an equal, if not greater, amount of time on the two applications for Wayward Ranch. He asked that could the Board clarify for his benefit, that there were some threshold zoning issues that he didn’t think had been addressed. He said for example the Board had stated that evening that a kennel is allowed by right, which he agreed with the Board on, but what wasn’t clear to him and what he believed wasn’t clear to the Town, as he was reading from a letter from the Code Enforcement Officer dated June 3rd, 2019 that was addressed to the Planning Board Chair, that in point 3 the issue of similar domesticated animals seemed to be unresolved. Mr. Rappleyea stated that if someone said they wanted to build a kennel and they don’t represent what was going to be in it, then he didn’t believe it was allowed by right. He continued that a kennel has to contain the types of animals that the Zoning Code allowed for, so someone couldn’t just build a structure and then have it housed or occupied by animals that aren’t permitted under the Zoning Code, that would be like building a house and making it a mini mart and then saying it was a house. He said he wanted to ask the Board to think about that. He stated that wasn’t the only threshold zoning issue that had not been addressed. Mr. Rappleyea said the issue of if this was an animal sanctuary in his mind, remained open. He stated he knew it was in front of the Planning Board and he knew it had been there for a bit, but there were some communications going back and forth from the Zoning Office to the Planning Board that seem to make a lot of the issues, unresolved. He said the Farm Issue had been resolved that evening, and he wished farming was as easy as killing and eating but it wasn’t, and if the applicant had in mind perhaps a different use, and he was very familiar with Mr. Somers and Ag and Markets Law, it wasn’t something that could be dub-tailed in, it had to be a legitimate farm operation. He stated he knew the Planning Board had to be familiar with the notion of segmentation and if one was withdrawing part of their application with the intention of coming back later, that on its face was segmentation because an application couldn’t have so many reviews so that a cumulative effect is avoided, so if the applicant was saying they were not going to do special events period, and that was the representation to the Board and the Public, that would be great. However, Mr. Rappleyea stated if that was not what they were saying then that would be inviting segmentation and through FOILs it was pretty clear to him that that was what was happening. He stated that Mr. Anthony Ullman’s letter covered it in a pretty considerable way, a number of issues that were concerning to the neighbors. Chair Lindstrom stated that the Board had the letters and have reviewed them and they were in the record. Mr. Rappleyea stated that he thought it was great that they were bringing on the Town Planner for this application and assist the Board in that process, as all the folks he was representing were directly impacted, deeply impacted by what would happen at the location if the proposed application went through- lighting, noise, traffic, visual impact -he stated this was a quiet country road and by the zoning code definition what would be expected to occur there and that the Chairman had quite accurately read that this was what would occur in this zoning district. He stated that the fact that it was zoned in an agricultural district was of no help to the application but that sort of proceeds the type of activity that would go on there. Mr. Rappleyea stated there was an issue he wanted to raise that might raise discomfort in some people but it had to be brought up. He then addressed Chair Lindstrom and stated that in some of the emails the language that was used he didn’t feel was appropriate. He said he could give the Board a copy of the email he was referring to, but what he was talking about was a letter between the applicant and the Chair where Chair Lindstrom stated that the applicant shouldn’t “cave to the mob.” He stated he didn’t think those were words that you use when you are describing a neighborhood that was very concerned about the project. He said in addition the email itself coaches segmentation and he stated to Attorney Christiana that it was basic process that an applicant and every owner effected by an application has a right to fairness, has a right to due process, and has a right to impartiality, so they had a very difficult job to do on the Planning Board, he was a Town Board for 11 years so he understood that, but one of the things they had to do was consider every body’s needs and questions and issues equally. He noted they could not soft ball an application, they couldn’t use words that describe people in a certain way, because what it did was created an appearance of taint and he believed the record showed that evidence existed to create that appearance. He said it wasn’t something he was happy about bringing up, it wasn’t something that made anyone comfortable, but it was one thing to assist an application and it was another thing to coach an application and if the Board would have liked he would give them the email he was referring to. Chair Lindstrom stated they had all the emails. Mr. Rappleyea asked even the one where she referred to the neighbors as the mob? Chair Lindstrom said yes. Mr. Rappleyea stated then he wouldn’t site the law that he had that would create a clear conflict of someone using words like that. He thanked the Board for their consideration.
George Duke from the firm Brown, Duke, and Fogle, spoke in representation of Adam Glassman who resided on 6 Loosestrife Lane and it was directly adjacent to the applicant’s property. He said he had heard encouraging things from the Board that evening and that he wasn’t in front of the Board very often so he appreciated their time and he would keep his comments brief and he wouldn’t be redundant. He stated his letter spoke for itself and he said that many of the items and issues he had put in the letter had been addressed already that evening to some extent so he would just highlight some of the issues he felt needed more clarification. He said one of the threshold issues he wanted to raise, and he found it interesting that the issue of easement had been brought up, he said that was a private property rights issue but what Mr. Glassman had asked him to look at the file and he had looked at it that last week, and they looked at the title reports, and the underlying land use documents, and what was interesting was there was a subdivision class filed and he said there was actual 4 phases of subdivision classes. He stated both of which covered his client’s property at 6 Loosestrife Lane but also the applicant’s property at 30 Loosestrife Lane. He said there was clear record in the County Clerk’s office of plats filed with the common scheme of development and what that meant was with the common scheme of development there also came rights that were issued, on the record, with the covenants’ rights and easements that were part of his client’s record. He stated what that meant was he would encourage a private conversation between the applicant, and he hadn’t been involved long enough to have a private conversation with the applicant, and his client because his client was extremely well measured and reasonable as the Board would hear from him himself, and they weren’t looking to stop things, they just wanted to maintain and enforce what rights exist and of what they were allowed to do. He said that was one of the things that was a threshold issue before the Planning Board exerted more effort, that they needed to handle these restrictions, covenant’s and easements that were part of the record that needed to be addressed privately between his client who had the ability to enforce these rescepricable easements and covenant’s that the Planning Board wouldn’t need to review of any of it. He stated that this was a threshold issue that hadn’t been discussed because it wasn’t something the Board needed to discuss but it was something that had to be addressed because it was obliquely referenced in the applicant’s letter by saying the plats showed the subdivision had been abandoned. He noted it wasn’t quite as simple as that, abandoning a subdivision, there was a lot more to it and there were rights of enforceable and easements of covenants which his client clearly had as adjacent, upgradeant, and so on and so on a private road that was something he respectfully asked they consider and he had outlined some of those rights in his letter, he said he re-encouraged that the applicant reach out to him and Mr. Glassman and he would make himself available so they could resolve those issues but that was a threshold issue. He stated putting that aside he wanted to bring up SEQRA as Mr. Rappelyea brought up SEQRA and the segmentation issue, what wasn’t clear to him was the Special Events space. He stated at the last meeting which he was fortunate enough to attend, he said Chairwoman Lindstrom discussed the option of going to Ag and Markets, getting an independent assessment to address potential Special Events. Chair Lindstrom interjected that she had stated was no longer an issue. Mr. Duke said he knew it was no longer an issue however, it was clear they were talking about this overall project and all the aspect of the project and the cat was out of the bag and it was clearly something that may come up and he and his client weren’t saying it was improper, they were saying it had to be addressed under SEQRA because the point of SEQRA was to take the entire project, the cumulative impact, and look at it as early as possible. He said weather that was a part of this approval was irrelevant but it needed to be addressed, the global impact of all of it, all the proposed uses and potential uses. He stated some of the Planning issues he and his client respectfully disagree with, some of the interpretations in respect to the Kennel being a permitted use, but the animal sanctuary he and his client believed was also an incompatible use under the zoning code and he wouldn’t bring up the uncomfortable language and the bias that Mr. Rappleyea brought up as he didn’t think there was anything malicious in any of the comments, what he did think was that there would may be an appearance of perhaps favorable view of the application. He stated lastly in regards to the Ag and Markets interpretation, and he appreciated the clarification, but he did look at the emails and there was one last email from the County Planning department where they said if the application would go through and get approved those uses were not Agricultural uses and that would no longer deem the application eligible to be in the ag and markets district 3 and it would be added to the list to be declassified in the 2025 round of review to be an eligible property so that would be something to consider that this would pull it out of the ag and markets district and this does fall into the overall covenant’s. He thanked the Board for their time.
Mr. Adam Glassman stated he was the owner of the property located at 6 Loosestrife Lane that was directly adjacent to the North side of this project site. He stated he also shared a private road, and he wanted to stress the word private, Loosestrife Lane which was a sole and primary access to both of their properties. He said when it rains, the road was about to be under water and the only way into the road is via Krum road and the only way onto Krum road is Queens Highway which was a very dangerous road to begin with let alone when it rains or Boice Mill. He stated he had own the property since November of 2017 and prior to purchasing the property he did his homework, he wanted to live in the Town, it was a beautiful town, the neighbors were great, it was rural, it was pretty, it was everything he wanted. He said it was the anti “Kerhamptons” that we had read about in all of the papers, this was way he came to this town. Mr. Glassman stated he had lawyer review all the permitted uses, the recent Town of Rochester comprehensive plan, and any protected covenants, easements, and restrictions on his own and the immediate surrounding properties. He said he was very comfortable when buying the property because it had been part of a prior subdivision that Mr. Duke had mentioned that contained existing covenants, easements, and restrictions, that were in keeping with the surrounding environments. He said the restricted covenants restricted uses to single family residential purposes only, they prohibited business and commercial uses, except for professional offices where the professional person residing on the lot used a portion of his or her residence as an office, limited animals including but not limited to cats, dogs, horses and similar domestic animals, to be kept and maintained on a lot in reasonable numbers for the use of the occupants but may not be maintained, kept, or bred for commercial purposes. He noted he was an animal person, he was an animal lover, he loved what the applicants were trying to do, they all did, no one there was against animals, the covenants also prohibited swine from being kept on the lots. He stated while the adjacent horse farm was present, based on the underlying subdivision, he was comfortable with the use of the lots would either continue as a horse farm because it was a beautiful piece of property, or shift uses to contemplative consistent with the existing restrictive covenants consistent with the surrounding areas and the existing character. He said he was also very comfortable knowing that subsequent changes to the area would be consistent with the local zoning and the comprehensive plan. He stated that he was surprised when he realized that the purposed project would actually change the existing character of the community as well as result in not only a change of the allowed uses set forth in the restrictive covenants that control all developments in the subdivision but also result in the decrease in the farm land. He said the Town’s comprehensive plan requires that the Town take measure to preserve productive farm lands as a viable industry resource and as a means for maintaining open space by maintaining the right to farm protection. Mr. Glassman stated the purposed project would shift the use to animal sanctuary and/or farm would inadvertently result in the removal of the site from the State list of agricultural districts, a result that would be contrary to the comprehensive plan, as neither an animal sanctuary nor kennel is considered a farm usage. He said he was concerned about the quality of life resulting from the proposed project, he was also concerned about the potential impacts of the property values in the area, while they all wanted to maintain the affordability of homes in the area, they didn’t want the homes to be affordable due to incompatible uses that are contrary to existing community character and comprehensive plan. He stated the sole access to the purposed project went across Loosestrife Lane, it was a private roadway, that served only his property and the project site, and he could assure the Board it was really not capable of handling much traffic, really not. He said no provisions had been made to address the increase, impacts or property rights affected, no accommodations have been made to direct traffic properly on the project site, where were the signs going to be posted? On his property, next to his mailbox? How would people know his house wasn’t Wayward Ranch? He asked would he need to put gates up around his entire property. Who was going to pay for that? He stated he didn’t know how the applicants even got the application to the Board since they are not the owners of the property and that they claimed to be lessees, and he was sure they were, but no one knew if the lease was for one month or ninety-nine years. He asked if anyone had seen the lease. Because he hadn’t. He said he looked at the property every day and it was a beautiful view, it was a beautiful farm, and last November they put up a dog run and it was one of the most horrid things he had ever seen in his life, it was chain link fencing that was built on the wetlands going down, and every time it rained there was a stream of water that went down the dog run. He noted there was also barbed wire on the fence, who and what were they putting in the fenced area? He asked if the dogs were going to jump up and meet barbed wire? He stated he had pictures of the fence and he knew it sounded horrifying but he wanted the Board to see them, if they were willing to look at the pictures. He said the chain link fenced area that he has looked at since November, hadn’t been mowed in weeks, was the applicant going to have her dogs there, the 11 dogs that live in their home right now? He stated it was tick season, the worst season was currently and the grass hadn’t been mowed in weeks. He said he wanted to bring up the well issue since it was in the previous application and stated his well to begin with was mediocre at best, he could take a quick three minute shower, and before his three minutes were up he would have cold water, and that was he alone not guests coming. He thanked the Board for listening and he was hoping that he and the applicants would be able to have an open conversation and encouraged everyone to read George Duke’s very comprehensive letter.
Howard Krauthamer was concerned about the wetlands and the size of the purposed kennel. He stated the purposed kennel was bigger than most houses and that the Board needed to pay more attention to the wetlands and how far they really went back. He wanted to know what the limits of dogs would be.
Robin James stated as a long-time resident who has lived very close to the ranch and was very familiar with the area, on multiple different levels, she was coming from a very different perspective as a neighbor not across the street, or down the road, or around the bend. She stated she spent many years off the adjacent property for other reasons and it was a beautiful area and she believed they all lived up there because it was an amazing and beautiful place and they all wanted to preserve that. She said where she was coming from, was that she had been there and had visited the ranch and had seen what they did and her observation so far was that it was a beautiful, loving, and exceedingly well maintained environment that anyone who cared about animals or the earth would be proud to step foot in. Ms. James stated she believed it only enhanced the community and every single one of them who lived there. She stated she did understand the concerns about chain link fences as she wasn’t a fan of them in general herself, but she did know that the care that the animals get there is extraordinary and it would be the kind of care she would want all the animals in the world to receive and she only saw this project as an enhancement to Kerhonkson to Accord and to the neighboring communities. She added that as a therapist animal therapy, equine therapy, etc which Wayward Ranch was planning on providing and not have large groups but a very small amount of people come, and help them take care of the animals and help them through their own trauma, Ms. James stated she was working with female veterans and she was inspired by what they were doing. She stated she didn’t envision car after car would be going down the road or down the driveway or up Loosestrife Lane, going around Krum Road, coming off of Queens Highway that very dangerous road that many of them had lived off of for a long time, she didn’t believe they would be a nuisance to the community. She noted she had heard about the dogs and that she had not heard one dog barking and in fact was shocked when her daughter told her there were 11 dogs in the house as she did not hear one peep. She said as someone who was not coming from a legal point of view but from the true community point of view, she thought Wayward Ranch was fantastic and she really hoped they got the support that she felt in her heart they deserved.
Jeff Wischover stated he had written a letter to the Board. He stated the property was no consistent with the neighborhood and it was not the right place for the purposed project.
Mark Goldberg stated he was there with his wife and he wanted to address the noise issue. He stated he and his wife were both occupational and environmental health professionals and they had a lot of experience with measuring and teaching about noise and that it was a complicated issue and not something that someone without any background could look at and say was right. He said that noise was defined as unwanted sound but that one person’s noise could be another person’s music yet generally noise is something most people don’t want. He gave the example of if he was by a window and was trying to hear what someone was saying and all the sudden he heard a saw being started up, that would unwanted sound, it would get in the way of what he would be trying to think about and what he was trying to focus on. He stated noise didn’t have to be deafening to be annoying, stressful, it could hinder on their privacy and disrupt their daily lives, and that it could be a detrimental presence. He said that there was scientific literature that said an increase in noise that rose above what someone could hear ambient in the environment, that could have an adverse effect on people’s health and it could increase the risk of stress and heart disease or stroke. Mr. Goldberg said noise is a very difficult thing to measure and it was even more difficult to control. He said a bark of a dog could be measured at 100 decibels and that was a very loud sound but that when it was Googled it stated that a barking dog’s noise level was actually 122 decibels. He stated it didn’t sound like much of a difference but that it was the difference of five times stronger to the ear drum, it was not a small thing. He said that it wasn’t known what the exact noise level of multiple amount of dogs would be in a 5400 sq. ft. kennel. He said another thing he wanted to bring up which was in the segmentation that had been spoken about prior, was the noise produced by music and he realized that wasn’t really part of what they were discussing but just in case there was a need for discussion that the World Health Organization stated that music from a concert was not deafening, which Mr. Goldberg said was true, but if you are living a couple of hundred yards away and you are listening to that concert, it’s a nuisance. He said another observation was that in the report it stated that the noise from the kennel would not disturb the neighbors and he wasn’t sure what they used to measure when they did the noise study but he stated that it didn’t make sense. He stated the person who did the measurements in this case should have taken more time and consideration and more measurements that the noise was not going to be disturbing to the community. He said his property does abut where the applicant’s property and the applicant had not provided accurate data and he believed changes needed to be made as mentioned under SEQRA and what was referenced in the Town’s Code for noise.
Mr. Mike Baden, Town Supervisor and Planning Board Liaison stated that the Town Board had received many of the comments and letters from the concerned residents about the application as well as some of the letters had been copied to the Zoning Board of Appeals and he wanted to let everyone know that while he and the Boards appreciated the letters, they had no authority or ability to make any decisions over the application. He stated that as the Town’s representative on the Ulster County Planning Board, who was the agency that oversaw the Ag districts, he wanted to make everyone aware that just because a property is no longer used for agricultural, did not automatically remove it from an agricultural district. He stated the County does a review every eight years and would do another one in 2025. He said there were several properties in the Town of Rochester that had warehouses on them that were in the Ag district and remained in the Ag district. He stated the County looked at the land and that if the land was still there that just because a change of use happened, in his opinion, didn’t mean that the land couldn’t be used for a farming in the future and he didn’t anticipate they would remove a property such as the applicant’s. He stated he just wanted to make that clear because he had heard several statements that evening that it would be removed but that was an opinion that the Ag Board would make and review and would make a recommendation to the County who would then make a recommendation to the Town. Mr. Baden said another thing he had heard that evening, and he would confirm with the Highway Superintendent, but he believed a portion of Loosestrife Lane was actually a Town road and it only came to be a private road at a certain point. He stated he did not know the dimensions of that but he would confirm with the Highway Superintendent.
Michael O’Connell stated he lived right across from the project and he owned two properties and he overlooked the Wayward Ranch property. He stated he had written a letter which the Board had and he had put down a few points but it was clear to him that everyone was just saying “It’s permitted” and for him to stand up there and argue the hundred reasons why it shouldn’t be permitted was silly. Mr. O’Connell said the noises and he wasn’t sure where the one woman lived where she said she couldn’t hear the noise from the dogs, but he wasn’t the next door neighbor and he could hear barking. He stated he didn’t mind the barking, the neighbor had dogs, but the fact that he could hear dogs just barking and barking and then have the applicant state that they would have a full kennel of dogs and the neighbors wouldn’t be able to hear any noise at any end of the property, that was nothing and on their road that didn’t mean anything. He said he wasn’t a sound engineer but he could hear dogs already and they hadn’t even built the kennel yet so he was concerned about the data as other people were too. He stated the size and scale of the kennel, if this was in the ag district business, all those buildings were capped at 4000 sq. ft. and he knew there wasn’t a cap in this district but the fact that the ag business district had a 4000 sq. ft. cap and the applicant’s proposed kennel was 5400 sq. ft., it would be twice the size of most of the houses. He said he thought everyone was hitting traffic on the head and there was an error because if the Town owned that road, he’d like some money back because they have been plowing it and the Town doesn’t take care of that road because he lived there for twenty years and the Town has never plowed it. He stated he would like to see the paperwork if the Town did own part of that road and that he had gone to the Town to ask if they could take over Loosestrife and his road and he was told no, and that should be on record by Wayne Kelder. He said there was an error on the application and it was verified by the Board that evening because it was a private road, land owner’s maintained it and they had to take care of it and clear it. He was told the culvert was in need of repair and that was the reason the Town wouldn’t take over the road, so had anyone checked the culvert? He stated he had seen well over a foot of water on the road when it rained because it floods as it was a flood plain. Mr. O’Connell stated while on the subject of the flood plain he said the big buildings and the chain link fences that had gone up, that they knew there were drainage issues and wetlands because they had to dig huge draining ditches in the middle of the kennels to get rid of the water, so those supposedly weren’t wetlands but they had to dig huge drainage ditches to get rid of the water. He said that study about it not being a flood plain was done in January, last he knew there was pretty good frost in January, and he knew they looked at soil studies but there was a lot more to look at than soil studies. He stated with the 5000+ sq. ft. footprint for the kennel, with the concrete, etc, there would be an increase in run-off which meant the water table and all the wetlands were going to go up so the wetlands were going to move closer to that building and it didn’t take rocket science to figure that out. He said there was all kinds of problems there, what they were doing now was wonderful, the previous owner of the horse farm did beautiful, what was going on there at the moment was beautiful, but adding all these things- and he added he saw in the newspaper that the applicants had stated they still had desire to fundraise to add even more- that scared him. Mr. O’Connell stated speaking about segmentation of the application, it said it right in there from the applicants, so he had a lot of concerns and he kept hearing “it’s permitted, it’s permitted, and it’s permitted.” Once it was in, what happened then? He stated the applicant was leasing the land, if they were to close or lose interest, they would have that building there so what would the next person do? He said the Town was having a lot of zoning enforcement issues and once something went in at the Town of Rochester, it wasn’t leaving, he had been there for twenty years and had seen junk piled up on people’s properties for all that time and they were told the Town couldn’t do anything. He stated he was concerned that if the applicants built the kennel, who would enforce anything? Who would make sure they only had fifteen dogs, who would make sure the sound wasn’t too much? He stated what if they didn’t build it to the specs that they wanted, there was just no follow through and it was all very concerning.
Dwayne Linville stated he was a resident on the south side of the property line and he had some concerns as well. He said he had heard other people mention the character of the neighborhood and that it was a very special place and he felt the proposed project was out of character for their neighborhood. He stated the size of the proposed kennel was five times the size of his house in addition to the 12,000 sq. ft. barn that was on the property and their home and he just kept hearing that they were building another kennel and what if there were more animals that needed homes and he was concerned with the scope of that and the effect it had on the community. He stated he was concerned about the types of dogs that would be there, he said he was a dog lover he had a dog, but he was worried about dogs that the applicant had stated had behavioral issues and that they could potentially be aggressive or dangerous. He said there were family and pets that lived in the area and there were at least a dozen direct neighbors. He stated he didn’t believe the dogs were going to be kept in the kennels all the time and that he had seen on the Facebook page that they were walking around the property with the dogs and he had seen them walking the dogs on Krum road. Mr. Linville stated he knew the Special Events application had been pulled about a month ago but that they had been invited to come back at a later time, and he believed there was going to be an impact on traffic and noise, light from nighttime events, he didn’t know the rules and regulations but he had his concerns. He also stated he was worried about environmental impacts as there were wetlands on the property and the water table and water waste on the property and he was worried about the waste of the animals on the property as he saw the plans for the manure compost area and that would be what he would have a direct view of as well as the kennel. He stated he was concerned about the effect the kennel would have on the native animals that were there, he said he had lived there for three years and he noticed coyotes, deer, bears, foxes, and bald eagles on the property line and when there were dozens of dogs barking all the time it would have an effect on the native animals. He said those were his concerns and he knew property owners had rights too but he felt neighbors had equal rights for their properties and he felt this would infringe about that. He thanked the Board for their time.
Rob Kilpert stated he had lived on the adjacent property for over 20 years. He stated his first concern was in regards to the animal waste storage piles and he wanted to know if the Town had any requirements in those piles in relation to wetlands or in close proximity to wetlands. He said his second concern was that Wayward Ranch’s operation had not been disclosed and would vet services include the administration of vaccines and/or medicines, possibly anti-depressants to animals? He stated following that in regards to the waste piles there would be toxic waste close to the wetlands and the animal waste could contain the prior mentioned toxins, if the operation approaches more of a commercial operation he had many of the same concerns that had been addressed. He noted just as a side there was a lake in Switzerland that had Prozac, caffeine, anti-depressants, and other chemicals and there wasn’t a lot of capabilities to remove toxins from the environment and he was concerned these waste piles would be releasing these toxins into the stream.
Al Favata stated that many years ago they had approached the Town about how dangerous the roads were in the area. He said they were farm roads and not meant for the type of traffic of today. He stated the Town didn’t listen to the concerns and there was almost a horrible bus accident. He was concerned with the shortcuts and people flying up and down the road, which would be an issue with the traffic of people coming to the purposed project. He also stated he did not like the way Chair Lindstrom had spoken to the residents at last month’s meeting when she told them they could not speak because it wasn’t a public hearing and they just wanted to be heard.
John Mashemash stated he lived on Krum road and he had lived there for years. He stated they use to call that the hole and it was called that because when it is 95 degrees outside it’s a hell hole. He stated most of the people who live around that place live above the hole. He said noise level, he was going to hear it, and the others weren’t going to hear it because it would rise. He said it needed to stop. He said there were two kennel runs on the property and he wanted to know if there was a permit to put those kennel runs in, did the Board approve the kennel runs he wanted to know that. When Chair Lindstrom tried to answer he interrupted and asked if the Board did approve it, why they put it on the wetlands that goes into a stream, where urine and feces goes into the stream. He asked about the traffic coming off of Queens Highway, Boice Mill Rd, taking a left off of 209 onto Boice Mill Road would be committing suicide.
Jill Spero stated up until about 3 months ago she owned the adjoining property it was a ten lot property part of a subdivision. She mentioned that someone had brought up the covenants and that a few years ago ARC had attempted to build on one of the lots. She stated the residents that surrounded that property had fought it tooth and nail and held it up and fought it, but that she found out the covenants didn’t stick and there were other homes in violation of the covenant that were not being enforced. She stated back in the early 2000’s she had a Catskill Animal Sanctuary that she started on her property and that she had trumped the Ms. Calomiris’s by far, 2 and half years she never had a complaint, never had a problem with traffic, nothing. She stated she had also had a cat shelter and maintained a minimum of 60 cats and never had an issue with the neighbors, never had a complaint and she welcomed them onto her property and held events to raise money for wildlife and she didn’t agree that dogs prevented wildlife from coming. She said currently she could walk to her old farm on Krum Road and she rents a dog kennel, she stated she had more dogs than Ms. Calomiris had. Ms. Spero said she was a dog trainer, she competes her dogs and shows her dogs, her ex was a vet, and when she owned her house he use to come once a week from the city and spade and neuter cats from Ellenville or from around the local area and it was never an issue. She stated in regards to the applicant needing more sound barriers for the dog barking, as far as she was concerned the applicant didn’t need them as the dogs were her dogs and she didn’t have to comply with the shelter rules. She reiterated that she was renting a shelter on Krum road and had more dogs than Ms. Calomiris and no one had said a word. She stated in regards to building and space and frontage that she trumped Ms. Calomiris by far. She said she sold her property and it was ten lots and it wasn’t a problem, she said she didn’t know of any of the neighbors that were present that would disagree that it was a beautiful piece of land that she sold, she had maintained it to the nine and had taken a lot of pride in the property. She stated as far as the wetlands and the water and the protected land, the prior owner had many horses, they had a manure pile that got removed every so often because the landscapers appreciated getting it, and it was no problem. She stated she didn’t see where a lot of this became such a big issue, chain link fencing was an individual choice as those were the applicant’s private dogs. As far as Mr. Massamesh stating it was a hot hole, she stated she had her horse in that stable many times and it was a wind tunnel, it wasn’t a hot hole it was a wind tunnel as was her farm, it came right through and she use to leave her barn doors open so she didn’t have the blow the aisle and it was by no means hot if anything that was one of the coldest barns she had ever been in. She said the comment that was made about the dangerous dogs, she trained dogs and had dangerous dogs on her property and if Ms. Calomiris put up fences around her property, she would be a better neighbor than those who allowed their dogs to roam around the area at night and she encountered that over and over. She said Jill Shufeldt, Town of Rochester Dog Officer, was a good friend of hers and she had done rescues with her, including rescuing of pit bulls and had broken up Pitbull fights, and that everyone had been implying that a rescue dog had a fight history and Ms. Calomiris would automatically just take the animals but she said Ms. Calomiris had approached her in regards to a horse that someone was trying to have her rescue and Ms. Spero told her not to take the horse as the people were just trying to get over on her and she said Ms. Calomiris asked her if the horse would be able to be put down and Ms. Spero respected that. She stated she didn’t like euthanasia but that it was the right thing to do for that horse and it would be the right thing to do to any animal that was unsafe to the community and the applicant knew that as well. She stated she didn’t agree that the animals would push wildlife out as she was training new puppies and the eagles hover over to the point where she has to cover her puppies and she felt people were making a lot of assumptions that weren’t true. She said the Ulster ARC had brought more traffic to the roads that some of the speakers of the evening lived on, than she thought the project would ever bring because it would be on her road. She stated if Ms. Calomiris was in a 501 (C), they wouldn’t even be sitting there. She said if Ms. Calomiris wanted fifteen dogs then they should have fifteen dogs, if the applicant wanted ten cats- Ms. Spero stated she had sixty and no one knew or cared what she had it wasn’t an issue. She stated all Ms. Calomiris was doing now was repeating history and it was never a problem and all the sudden it was a problem. She stated that again she had more dogs than the applicant and no one cared.
Kate La Spina stated that she had spent a year trying to find a place for her young daughter who had a lot of learning disabilities to help on a farm. She stated she had no clue there were dogs there until one day the applicant’s had brought a dog on a leash and closed all the doors and stated the dog was going to stay in one area and that she would never have allowed her daughter to go anywhere that she felt was unsafe. She said Ms. Calomiris spent a month training with her and her daughter. She stated they had signed papers, they made sure of everything. She said that Ms. Calomiris didn’t want concerts, animals didn’t do well with rock concerts, and they wouldn’t put Taste of Country in Accord. She stated it had been amazing and she was a TA at Rondout Valley and Ms. Calomiris was allowing for animals to be fostered there, it had brought kids an animal who had never had one before, kids that couldn’t sit still that would sit and read with the animals, and it was amazing and she knew Ms. Calomiris could do so much more for the community. She stated Ms. Calomiris was allowing an autistic boy to come to the farm and he was helping there. She stated her daughter told her every day that Ms. Calomiris and her husband were her best friends, every day, and her daughter told her that was her heaven. She said the places was so clean and that if that was still a horse farm there would have been 400 people there for a horse show and it would be considered agricultural. She stated there would be manure piled next to the farm and it would be smelling, but that they drive it all the way out and she was sorry that the neighbors could see it but they could use it for their gardens and that the applicants would probably donate it to them, they were so giving. She said they treated her 7-year-old like she was an amazing person and give her all the time in the world. She stated her daughter sits with every animal, it was safe, and there was no dangerous animal there. She said there was a mule that they told them right away to stay away from, they told them so that she and her daughter knew. She stated so what if the board some horses, she said that she use to ride and it was expensive and they were giving her daughter that experience and it was just an incredible place. She said she understood the concerns and that she grew up in a very rural area and they weren’t bringing a rock concert, there were no dogs barking and she had never heard them barking. She stated there was a chain link fence so the dogs wouldn’t be on other properties. She said if they didn’t want the beautiful pit bull that sat with her daughter, she understood, but really they had maintained the place and if they weren’t there, it would be destroyed. She stated the place would be abandoned and become nothing and then they would have a crap hole, as others were calling it, literally just deteriorating. She said she never had seen a cleaner barn and why the place was so big was because they were giving the dogs a room, not a kennel, a room, each dog would have their own area. She stated Ms. Calomiris was a dog trainer and wasn’t ignorant about dogs and that she only took animals they knew they could handle. She said this was her daughter’s passion and they were allowing it to happen and it was incredible and there were more people calling her that they wanted their children there and her daughter had asked if she could be on the project’s Board. She asked could anyone imagine what Ms. Calomiris could do for a couple of teens, even if the residents were worried they were disturbed teens, but they would be teens that want to go somewhere and do something that don’t have money to ride a horse and now could, or sit with a dog or bunny, or mouse. She stated they went from mouse all the way up to horse. She said her daughter demanded they attend the meeting that evening and waited two hours to hear the application because she wasn’t going to deny her daughter’s passion and it was.
Sabrina Hartless stated that she was also a part of the community and she grew up in Warwarsing so she was very familiar with the community and Kerhonkson and she had family in the area and spent a lot of her time and child hood on Krum Road and she had seen the ranch for the last twenty-three years of her life. She said that what these people were doing was needed in the area and that she could see the stray cats, dogs, and animals in the area that didn’t have a home or were out on the road getting hit by cars and unfortunately had nowhere else to go, and these people were giving them a chance to have a home and get the medical care they need. She stated that if the community didn’t allow them to do that she didn’t know who else would. She said she couldn’t take in fifteen dogs or albino rats or rabbits and she didn’t have 63 acres to dedicate her time and her space to the animals and it just baffled her day to day that they see these animals at their worst when everyone else had given up on them and they were giving them that second chance they deserved. She stated that why wouldn’t the animals deserve a second chance? She said she understood the concerns for the area but she thought what they were trying to do would far more benefit what was needed in the community than hurt it. She thanked the Board for their time.
Donna O’Connell stated she lived by the farm. She said she didn’t think anyone there had a problem with the current operation of the sanctuary but she felt the big issue was the kennel and the 5400 sq. Feet of it. She said it didn’t belong in the middle of a residential neighborhood and that was a big concern for everyone there. She stated that what they were doing with the dogs and animals at the moment was fine but they needed to be more aware of the concerns of the neighbors. She stated anyone who spoke in favor of the organization that evening didn’t live there, not one of them was an adjoining neighbor, just to point that out. She said they didn’t understand because they didn’t live there and they had to look at the big picture. She said what they were doing now was great but any bigger was not, sorry.
Valerie Thompson stated shared the sentiment that what the applicant was currently doing was wonderful but the community didn’t want to look at a 5400 sq. ft. kennel. She stated her other concern was the traffic as currently when cars came up the road they were in the middle of the hill and the residents knew they had to stay all the way over to the right because sometimes people coming towards them don’t know that they need to stay to their right. She said there were a lot of contradictory statements about how there would be concerts or what the applicants were planning in the future, but in the meeting minutes from the previous month (secretary’s note: She was referring to the minutes from April when there was still a Special Events option, not May when they pulled that application.) that there would be parking for 300 cars. She stated if that were to be allowed to happen, there would be people who didn’t know that road, and then their kids who were driving would have to deal with it. She said they didn’t want that in their neighborhood it wasn’t what envisioned when they bought their homes, and they paid a lot of money for their homes by their standards, and she saw this as bringing her property value down. She stated they were looking at a venue that would have events that would bring a crowd and have a 5000 sq. ft. building in the middle of average 2000 sq. ft. homes. She thanked the Board for their time.
Abby Levitt stated she was a Board member on Wayward Ranch’s Board. She stated she worked in the non-profit sector for a living and she had to say the thought of being able to get 300 separate cars to an event would be amazing in a situation where there weren’t animals trying to live peacefully on the land. She said there would be a lot of opportunity in the area to fund raise outside of the property. She stated New Paltz was fantastic and there were other areas to fundraise that wouldn’t pull in even fifty cars to the farm. She said that she understood that because she didn’t live on the road that perhaps what she was saying wasn’t of value, but she would say that perhaps they needed to think that Wayward had other plans. She said they didn’t want 300 cars coming and parking on their land, they understood it was a wetland, they understood they had neighbors, they don’t want to be destructive. She stated that what she hoped was going to happen from the meeting was that there was an exchange and it didn’t seem like what Wayward wanted was going to happen exactly as they wanted, everybody had been heard and there were so many concerns, no one wanted any injured on the street, or a road, on a bus. She said she really hoped they could come together as a community and find a way to support Wayward Ranch. She stated keeping it as it was at the moment wasn’t going to work. She said Wayward Ranch needed to be able to expand perhaps not to the extent that they had purposed but they needed to be able to function and keeping them as they were at the moment was not going to allow that. She stated she hoped that the community could with their hearts understand that this was something that would benefit the community, people visiting, the animals, but she didn’t believe worries like manure running into the stream, etc- she didn’t think there would be that much action on the farm. She said she hoped instead of criticizing perhaps they could come together to find a solution that would work for both sides short of not allowing them to be there.
Bonnie Weaver stated she bought the property that was a Dunn farm and they took one of the barns and made it into a home and she had been there for about twenty-five years. She said what she loved most about it was what most people had talked about and that was the respect that they had for each other. She stated the initial plan was to keep her property and the neighboring ones, the one Wayward Ranch was on, as farm like as possible and it could still look like the big Dunn farm. She stated they changed the road from Fischer road to Dunn Farm road and they had spent the last twenty-five years doing everything they could to make it still feel rural, farm like, loving, and being happy to meet new people, and have new people come and be a part of it. She stated the Planning Board’s obligation was to live up to its obligation and making sure the covenants that exist continue. She stated the Board’s obligation was to make sure the wetland issue was addressed. She said she didn’t think people were anti-sanctuary, in fact her farm had once had empty barns and that became the Catskill Animal Sanctuary and moved to Saugerties. She stated they wanted to see things work but they didn’t want to see things get so out of control that the essence of why they were all there and it was the Board’s obligation to do this. She said she was one of the pioneers of “the mob” and she didn’t want to go there but she really did want to say that all of the people there voted in the Town and they understood growth and they understood the point of the sanctuary and they were all animal lovers, they all had animals, farm animals, domestic animals, etc. She stated it was about making sure that there was a respect and that someone had moved on the road at one point and put up a lamp post and no one said anything for a while but then the person found out the people didn’t really want a lamp post, they wanted to keep it rural and keep it looking like the farm that it was and the day he found that out he took it down and that was the kind of neighborhood respect they really wanted to have. She stated she had a lovely conversation with Mr. Glassman on the phone but it would be hard for her to live where he was living and be worried about signs and buildings and what it was going to do. She said there had to be communication and the Planning Board had the obligation to do what it was supposed to do and that was not to disrespect them and not to think about themselves, they had to think about the people who lived there on the property.
Mr. Baden stated he had sent a text to the Deputy Highway Superintendent Jeff Frey, and that he had been mistaken earlier in the evening when he said that part of Loosestrife was owned by the Town. He said Mr. Frey confirmed it was in no way a Town road. He said for the people who wanted the Town of consider it the Highway Superintendent Tony Spano would consider it.
No one else from the Public spoke.
Chair Lindstrom made the motion to keep the public hearing open for the next regular Planning Board meeting on July 8th, 2019. Mr. Williams seconded the motion.
All in Favor. Motion Carried.
7 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent, 0 abstentions.
The Board took a five minute recess to wait for the public to exit.
Before the next application was presented, Chair Lindstrom announced to the Board that she was recusing herself from the Wayward Ranch application.
PB 2019-04 SPA New Application
Site Plan Approval
Town of Rochester (applicant), Accord Fire District (owner)
Proposes the redevelopment (addition to) of the Alligerville Fire House, SBL 77.2-2-17. Located at 4 Creek Road, High Falls, NY. R-1 zoned, adjacent to AG-3 district.
SEQRA: preliminary classification as unlisted action by Governor’s Office of Storm Recovery (‘GOSR’) Lead Agency
Mr. Mike Baden, Town Supervisor, Mr. Bob Garrett, Accord Fire Chief, and Mr. Sam Dillehay were present on behalf of the application.
Mr. Dillehay presented the site plan to the Board and explained the expansion and renovation of the current Alligerville Fire House.
The Board discussed various concerns such as the concept color of the building and brick size and color and if it was just a normal site plan review instead of something else due to it being an emergency building and parking.
Chair Lindstrom asked where was the Board going on the process as they were waiting on the County to get the land and waiting on someone else for SEQRA and should they just set a public hearing for just reviewing the site plan.
Mr. Baden suggested the Board start moving through with the site plan process and they had gotten it approved to be surveyed, once it was surveyed then he would get the maps and then he would need to approach the County and request that they turn the land over to the Town and it was his guest it would be a 3 month process for the Town to get it and then it would take some time to figure out how the Fire District would get it. He suggested they go through the site plan review and if they came to the end point, just make a condition that it wouldn’t be completed until they came back to the Board for a Lot Line adjustment.
Attorney Christiana stated it said that it had been classified as an unlisted action, had a SEQRA determination been made by the Governor’s Office of Storm Recovery (GOSR)?
Mr. Baden said he didn’t believe they had heard back yet but the Planning Board and the Town Board had notified them but hadn’t heard back from GOSR at the time.
Attorney Christiana stated they couldn’t make any determinations until SEQRA was determined.
Chair Lindstrom stated the Board should wait to go forward until they heard from SEQRA.
Mr. Baden asked could the Board vote to allow Chair Lindstrom set the public hearing after a negative declaration of SEQRA was made.
Chair Lindstrom stated they could schedule if they should do that at the June 24th Workshop meeting.
Attorney Christiana stated they could do a narrative on the parking for the Board.
Mr. Zurofsky asked for anything that was in the standards for the emergency services.
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 on a +/- 20 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).
Mr. Alan Feinberg was present on behalf of the application. He stated that Matt Vrasidas was the property owner and had owned the property since 1991 and around 2005 he put a house in and it was mainly a hunting camp and guest house and he wanted to add a kitchen and a finished basement.
Chair Lindstrom stated they needed a site plan, a Planning Board application, a SEQRA-Short EAF, and a narrative before the July 8th meeting.
Chair Lindstrom made the motion to adjourn the meeting at 10:43pm. Mr. Zurofsky seconded the motion.
All in Favor. Motion Carried.
7ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent, 0 abstentions.
Brianna Tetro, Secretary