TOWN OF ROCHESTER
ACCORD, NEW YORK
MINUTES OF June 24th, 2019 WORKSHOP MEETING OF the Town of Rochester PLANNING BOARD, held at 6:30pm 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, Chair Brian Buchbinder
Rick Jones, Vice Chair Ann Marie Maloney
Mary Lou Christiana, Attorney for the Town. Brianna Tetro, Secretary.
PB 2019-06 SBD
Minor Subdivision 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).
At 6:30pm, No one was present on behalf of the application.
Chair Lindstrom noted that according to the law, for Subdivisions, the Board did require a soil test if they wanted and they did require septic, but they did not require well testing as part of the subdivision unless something came up, as it had for this application, and could be added in. Chair Lindstrom stated that when the Zoning Code was up for a change again, that it could be added in that the requirement would be septic AND well.
Mr. Williams stated he thought that would be a good idea but there wasn’t always a water table issue and that maybe have it be some sort of modification that a well test would only need to be done if the Planning Board deemed it necessary.
Mr. Jones agreed that it would be a good idea to put in it would be up to the Planning Board’s discretion.
Mr. Pinksy stated in the comprehensive plan, it was mentioned about areas where there was ground water sensitivity.
Chair Lindstrom stated they didn’t know that for certain because the claim of the wells being effected was mentioned by only two people and there had been over 18 people notified of the project and only two had spoken about his well having issues. She noted there could be more that came forward before the meeting but that she had sent letters to both the residents who had spoken about their wells and they had only heard back from one of them but that the applicant was going to have a hydrologist come and look at everything.
Mr. Jones mentioned the aquifier overlay and how this piece of property was not part of that.
Chair Lindstrom stated Mr. Zurofsky had mentioned that at the last meeting that it was A) protecting aquifier and B) that there could be aquifier difficulties.
Mr. Jones said that for example, no one could put gas stations in an aquifier overlay district and that there may be gas stations there now, but there couldn’t be any new ones put in.
Chair Lindstrom said if the property had been in the aquifier overlay district there would be a whole new standard of tests to be done. She stated the applicant had written a request for a waiver for the two rear lots to have to have access via the flag lot and that was fine because they had covered that, they were in the process or had the approval from the Town Board in regards to the Right of Way and those papers were needed by the Board, the applicant had established a shared driveway agreement, the applicants had a shared access for the fire department in regards to pull-off widths, etc. She noted that one of the people from the public at the last meeting had mentioned that he had spoken with the fire department and they had said it would be hard to get up there if there was ever a fire, however, re-listening to the minutes it was said that he had spoken to a “couple” of fire men, not the chief or anyone specific. She stated the Board could send a letter to the fire department to verify the road.
Several members of the Board said they would like to have a letter sent to the fire department.
Mr. Jones wanted clarification if the person from the public had stated it would be tough for the fire department because of the width and length of the road, or to get access for water.
Chair Lindstrom stated the resident had mentioned it would be tough in general and the water issue.
Mr. Jones stated the fire department wouldn’t need to worry about the water because they had tankers.
Chair Lindstrom made the motion to send a letter to the Fire Department for their commentary. Mr. Pinsky seconded the motion.
All In Favor. Motion Carried.
5 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, 0 abstentions.
Mr. Pinsky stated that he wanted more clarification of the storm water on a property and if there were two properties subdivided and one property was collecting all the storm water would the Board share that.
Chair Lindstrom said yes, but this application wasn’t disturbing enough ground to have a SWPPP level disturbance but they would give the Board a storm water plan while they were constructing but these were small houses, it wasn’t a large subdivision. She noted that this was R-2 zoned so the only issue that would maybe need to be addressed eventually was if the area could support an R-2 zoning. She stated she had driven Ridgeview Rd. and there were a lot of “for sale” signs on vacant property so the whole road could potentially have small houses put on it.
The Board discussed that going forward when applications came in, the applicants could bring in a map that had some hand-drawn configurations on it but by the second meeting and going forward, there needed to be complete and formal maps.
Chair Lindstrom stated that the application had all the other requirements for a minor subdivision but she asked the Board if they wanted to send a letter to the Highway Department to get their commentary on the traffic.
The Board didn’t see a reason to send anything to the Highway Department because there was only going to be three added homes or really only three lots since it was uncertain if there would be homes added to all the new lots.
Chair Lindstrom stated that what was left to discuss was the well issue and said the resident who had concerns said he would be fine with the applicant using his well to test everything.
Mr. Terry Ringler showed up at 7:05pm on behalf of the application.
Mr. Ringler presented a letter from Titan Drilling Corp and stated that the company had done wells in the surrounding areas of the purposed subdivision.
Chair Lindstrom read the letter to the Board:
“As per our conversation I searched the wells in the Ridgeview Road and Victoria Lane area in Kerhonkson. I have found several wells that we have either drilled or worked on. There were no mention of the customers having a shortage of water at any time in our records. Titan has done wells in many subdivisions in the Kerhonkson area consisting of ten or more wells in the subdivision. These houses have plenty of water for domestic home usage. It is my professional opinion that the three homes you are proposing to build should have little to no effect on the water for the neighboring homes. I hope this is helpful and if you have any questions please feel free to contact me.”
Mr. Ringler stated he hoped that would suffice as enough evidence to the Board that were would be no issues with the wells.
Mr. Jones said it didn’t suffice his concerns.
Mr. Ringler said that since the code didn’t require applicants to provide well information he believed it was sufficient.
Mr. Jones said the reasonable thing to do was when an issue or concern was brought up from someone from the public, that the Board took the proper time and measures to address it.
Mr. Ringler stated the reasonable thing to do was to bring that information to the Board to support there was an actual issue and bring the well log and the well depth, and bring the dates when there was a problem, but these claims were brought on by heresy.
Chair Lindstrom read an email [sic] provided to the Board by Mr. William Barringer, the resident who had initially voiced his concerns and who stated he would give Mr. Dymond and Mr. Ringler permission to use his well to test on:
“To: town of rochester planning board
as i stated i was getting 3.5 gal per minute until other wells were drilled near by then dropped to aprox 1.5 gpm its not limited to just hot summers but normal summers and the well at 273 goes dry during the summer or so low cant be used as far as minerals there is none other than iron that we know of i have a 3/4 horse pump 30 gal pressure tank and only 2 of us on my well and we never water the grass or wash car i save rain water for garden i dont know the addresses of the ones on victoria lane but 265 ridgeview i know for a fact has even more problems than me his went dry and had to re drill another and even that 1 gos low in normal summer yes you can test my well as well as well as 265 ridgeview thats my brother ken i can only speak for myself and brother and the over all history of the property gos back in ower family over 100 years and when it was a farm that little 16 foot well took care of the stock and family no problem but as time moved on and wells were drilled so did the water table drop
thank you William Barringer”
Mr. Zurofsky stated that listening to the public comments it sounded as though there were legitimate concerns and if he were a neighbor and he had those experiences, he would be concerned. He noted that just based on that concern he wouldn’t want to spend all the money to test the well himself just to provide evidence that was factual.
Chair Lindstrom stated that in the letter she had written to Mr. Barringer she had asked for a well test and well logs.
Mr. Zurofsky said he could see where the applicant was coming from because it wasn’t based on hard evidence; he stated he could see why the applicant was frustrated with having to go through this whole process.
Attorney Christiana said she believed they had the evidence which were the public comments. She noted that what the concerns were could be true or not true but that was why there were public hearings, so the Board was informed of concerns they may not have been aware of otherwise. She said SEQRA stated they needed to look at the water, which the Board did, but then they had the public comments and the Board felt it needed to be addressed.
Mr. Williams said he didn’t have a well log on his well just because he didn’t feel it was necessary unless there was anticipation that this was going to be an issue.
Mr. Ringler stated that the Ulster County Department of Health could provide anyone a well log who hadn’t received one when they bought a property.
Mr. Williams said he understood that, but the records the Department of Health had were from when the well was first drilled and that conditions changed over the years that could then affect the well.
Chair Lindstrom said conditions did change but they didn’t know if it was the housing or not so it couldn’t be known that additional housing would affect or change anything.
The Board discussed the well issue further and past subdivisions that the Board didn’t require well testing.
Mr. Williams asked what would be an alternative to requiring the applicant to dig a well.
Mr. Ringler stated this whole thing was based on heresay and there was no definitive proof.
Mr. Jones suggested getting the information from Titan such as the properties they had referenced in their letter such as the well logs for those properties.
Chair Lindstrom stated she agreed with that Mr. Jones had said and that if they could get more information from Titan then that would be extremely helpful for the Board.
Attorney Christiana said the engineer from Titan could certify all of the information.
Mr. Ringler stated the engineer would provide the information from the wells he had tested that were around the area of the purposed subdivision but Mr. Ringler stated he felt that the letter should have been enough given that this whole discussion and concern was based on heresay and Mr. Barringer hadn’t provided any factual evidence.
Attorney Christiana stated what she asking Mr. Ringler was, would the engineer be willing to certify that the properties would have adequate water.
Mr. Jones said he wanted to see the well logs from the engineer.
Chair Lindstrom said the applicant would have three lots and he would be able to put three houses on those lots but $15,000 for a well test was a bit excessive as there was one house already on one of the parcels but if well logs could be provided then that would give a better idea to the Board about what would be the outcome of the subdivision.
Mr. Zurofsky said the Board didn’t want to put excessive burdens on the applicant on the basis of hearsay but there were legitimate concerns that needed to be addressed.
Mr. Ringler argued that again this was based on two comments from the public and providing well information wasn’t part of the code or requirements for a subdivision, so they were going well beyond to provide anything to the Board.
Mr. Jones asked how would they move forward from this as a Board. He asked would they continue to go back and forth with opposing views, would the Board get some evidence, would the Board make a motion that they needed the evidence, would they make a motion for the Board to forget about it and vote on it and whatever the outcome of the vote was, that was what was to be done. He stated it just needed to be resolved.
Mr. Williams stated with the subdivision there was going to be wells that needed to be dug for the proposed houses the applicant wanted to build, so why couldn’t they dig one well right now for the test?
Mr. Ringler said they would still need to run the test which would cost thousands of dollars. He asked what would happen if they did the test and it failed, would all the other vacant lots on that road then be deemed unbuildable because of the well?
Mr. Zurofsky said he didn’t agree with that statement because those lots already existed they weren’t created and the purposed lots didn’t exist at the moment.
Chair Lindstrom asked what the applicant’s plan was from there on out.
Mr. Ringler said the engineer would provide the well log for the surrounding lots and the engineer would provide a letter stating he reviewed the well logs and determine whether or not those lots could support three more wells. He stated the engineer would certify everything and that was all they should need.
Attorney Christiana said it needed to be certified to the Town and to Mr. Ringler’s client.
The Board discussed it further and all stated they would be satisfied with that, except Mr. Jones.
Mr. Jones asked what would happen if the well would get worse, where was the protection to the homeowners? He stated he wanted the Town’s Planner, CPL, to do the review, as they were a disinterested third party.
Mr. Zurofksy stated the engineer putting his license on the line would address any issues and the engineer Mr. Ringler had would be looking into everything and certify the lots could support three more wells.
Mr. Pinsky stated a certify letter from the engineer would be more than enough assurance and any engineer would be looking into future impacts not just present, so if the engineer’s letter said “potentially” that would be a legitimate assurance but if it said anything about “right now” then the Board may have to go to other sources.
Mr. Jones said he still would prefer to have the Town Planner do the review as they had the responsibility to the Town and he wanted to make sure the existing homeowners would be protected should any issues come up with three new wells.
Attorney Christiana stated that was why the engineer would be certifying to the Town and the Board so if any issues did come up he would be responsible.
Mr. Williams stated technically since it would be certified to the Board it would be the same as if it came from the Town’s Planner.
Chair Lindstrom stated that the Board should see what data was collected and provided by the engineer and certify everything to the Board and if the Board still found holes or things that still needed to be addressed then they could go forward with getting CPL to take things on from that point.
Mr. Jones said that the engineer Mr. Ringler wanted to do the review wasn’t the Town’s engineer and he wanted the Town’s engineer to do the review.
Mr. Zurofsky said Mr. Jones was making it sound like there would be a difference in credibility.
Mr. Jones said he didn’t know the credentials of the engineer Mr. Ringler wanted to use, but he reiterated he wanted the Town’s engineer.
Attorney Christiana stated getting a certified letter to the Town and the Board was pretty standard and she would be satisfied with that route.
Mr. Ringler stated the engineer would get the information from the existing land owners like the depth of their wells, the date they had any issues, well logs, and he would check with the Board of Health of what the wells were like when they were first drafted.
Mr. Zurofsky asked Attorney Christiana what would the approval process be for lots that were already existing in an area with water concerns versus that process for a lot that hadn’t been created yet, how would the Planning Board address those concerns.
Attorney Christiana stated that the Planning Board wouldn’t, as it was irrelevant to the Board, that would be up to the Code Enforcement Office to determine. She stated if there was another subdivision in front of the Board that was in the same area as the current application then the Board would have to look at everything all together to avoid segementation.
Chair Lindstrom made the motion to have the engineer of Mr. Ringler provide the Board with a certified letter and provide any additional documents that supported the letter. Mr. Williams seconded the motion
All in Favor. Motion Carried.
5 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, 0 abstentions.
Mr. Pinsky stated the more data provided would be best.
Mr. Jones stated that there should be stipulation in the Code that when it came to subdivisions depending on the size and the public comment about the project that the Board would be well within their rights to ask for a well test.
Chair Lindstrom stated that they couldn’t make the assumption that just because someone digs more wells that it would automatically affect the water of the other residents of that area.
Mr. Jones said if there was never a discussion then the Board wouldn’t be protecting the people who live there already.
Mr. Ringler asked could the Board deny a subdivision because a lot doesn’t have water.
Attorney Christiana stated the Board could ask him to provide them an EIS and explain how it got to that situation.
The Board discussed the application further but no new questions or concerns came up.
Chair Lindstrom made the motion for the Board to take a five minute recess. Mr. Zurofsky seconded the motion.
All In Favor. Motion Carried.
5 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, 0 abstentions
Chair Lindstrom recused herself from the Wayward Ranch application on June 10th, 2019. Vice Chair, Rick Jones would from here on out be Chair for the Wayward Ranch application.
Chair Jones made the motion for the meeting to be back in session. Mr. Pinsky seconded the motion.
All in Favor. Motion Carried.
4 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, 0 abstentions, 1 recused
PB 2019-01 SUP/SPA 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, application and Mr. Bill Spade and Ms. Keiko Saski-Spade, architects were present on behalf of the application. Also present on behalf of the application was Ms. Calomiris’ attorney, Mr. J. Patrick Logan, ESQ of Rodenhausen Chale & Polidoro LLP.
Chair Jones presented a packet to the Board members where he stated the following items were attached: a series of narratives from Saski and Spade (Architects), the Wetlands Survey, Letters from the Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer, Letter from the Highway Superintendent, Letters from Ulster County Planning Board, Letters from Ag and Markets, and numerous other items that he would be referencign throughout the meeting for the Board to look at if they couldn’t access through the Google Drive.
Chair Jones read, for the record, the application information. (Listed Above)
Attorney Christiana commented that CPL, the Town’s Planning Consultant, had just received escrow and at the moment hadn’t reviewed anything so the Board wouldn’t be asking them anything that evening but that the Board had asked them to be there to observe.
Chair Jones stated a lot of what he was going to be referencing to that evening would be as a result of the public hearing held two weeks prior. He stated he wanted to comment on some of the things the Board would not be looking into as it wasn’t in their purview such as covenants, road maintenance agreement, etc that was not the Board’s concern it was a private matter between the applicant and any other property owners mentioned in the covenants. He noted the Town was not part of the covenants nor the road maintenance agreement.
Mr. Zurofsky wanted to clarify that even though the Board didn’t get into private matters in reagards to private roads, he stated the Board still discussing things such as fire access, was still applicable to discuss.
Attorney Christiana stated that was still relevant because the Board would want to make sure there was sufficient access for the fire department.
Mr. Zurofsky noted they had a letter from the Highway Superintendent stating there were no issues in regards to the public roads near the property or with the private road because it was a private road.
Attorney Christiana said when Mr. Jones was referencing private matters, it meant agreements between the private owners along the road. She stated the Board could absolutely address weather the access is adequate.
Mr. Zurofsky asked if discussing the road maintenance agreement would be germane to the project.
Attorney Christiana stated the Board could say that the applicant had to make sure the road stayed in good condition
Chair Jones stated the Board would define everything in regards to maintaining the road in the decision.
Attorney Christiana wanted to remind the Board that the Public Hearing was still open and the Board wasn’t at the point to discuss findings or decisions, the Workshop meeting was for items such as what sort of clarification would the Board need from the applicants, etc.
Mr. Williams stated what the point of the meeting was, how was the Board going to approach the problems and come up with a compromise.
Chair Jones asked if the applicant or any member of the applicant’s representation wanted to summarize the project.
Ms. Calomiris stated she thought they had summarized the project enough but she wanted to address some things that were brought up at the public hearing. She stated that some of what the public had stated was valid, but she felt that there was still a lot of mis-communication and misunderstandings what exactly they were trying to do. She stated there was still a lot of mention of commercial special events which they had pulled and that she thought it wasn’t made very clear that they would not be going back to the Board for special events. She said the soil testing was one of the reasons that they decided it wasn’t a good idea to do commercial special events on the property and a lot of other reasons why they weren’t going to do commercial special events.
Attorney Christiana stated there was a concern about segmentation in regards to the special events in regards to SEQRA so she was glad the applicant had clarified they were not coming back for a commercial special events permit.
Ms. Calomiris stated she just thought there was a lot of mis-communication and one thing she wanted was at the next public hearing would be for them to be able to present first and really explain what they were trying to do as she felt they didn’t have a chance to explain to every body what the reality of what they were asking for and if they were able to speak themselves there would be better understanding for every one over all.
Attorney Christiana asked that since commercial special events were off the table now and always, would the parking change as well? She stated the original plan had parking spots for up to 300 cars.
Ms. Calomiris stated it would be changed and the only parking there were now purposing was around 35 parking spots outside of the kennel.
Mr. Zurofsky asked that since the applicant had stated that they would not be doing commercial special events would that be sufficent enough for the Board to not consider the special events as part of SEQRA.
Attorney Christiana stated yes and that she thought it would be a good idea for the applicant to provide that in writing. She wanted the clarify that when the applicant had initially pulled the special events from application there was talk among the Board that they could come back and apply for special events in the future, it was not the applicant who had stated the desire to come back.
Ms. Calomiris stated she would provide a statement in writing saying they would not come back for commercial special events.
Chair Jones said that Mr. Spade had provided a new narrative where it had stated they were pulling the commercial special events but it would be a good idea to have an official statement from the applicant.
Mr. Zurofsky asked if in ten years they for whatever reason decide they did intend to do commercial special events, were there things they could do put in the decision at the present time to preclude that won’t happen.
Attorney Christiana stated as mentioned before the Board could put in the findings that they couldn’t do special events.
Mr. Zurofsky asked if they put in the decision there could never be commercial special events on the property, it would be enforceable and it would stay that way even if they sold the land.
Attorney Christiana stated it would apply to the land.
Ms. Axelson from CPL stated she wanted to add on what Ms. Christiana had stated that it could be a condition of approval and one way to nail that down was to put a notation on the plan.
Chair Jones said that Ms. Calomoris was adamant about no commercial events but what other type of events did she plan on having.
Ms. Calomiris stated at most they would have open hours because at the moment they were appointment only and that was one of the ways they had tried to control traffic. She stated the only type of event they may have in the next few years was to say something to the effect of they would be open 10-3 on a Saturday maybe once a month.
Mr. Jones asked that they define standard open hours in a document and that there may a particular day that they may have open hours as oppose to their normal appointment only restrictions.
Ms. Calomiris said maybe one day a month there would be open hours.
Attroney Christiana stated it would be like any other kennel where they said if there was someone who was interested in adopting a dog, stop by between such and such hours.
Mr. Zurofsky said if it was a non-profit entity then by definition no event they would have would be commercial but the Town Code didn’t distinguish between commercial and non-commercial events.
Chair Jones stated they would need to be a 501(c )3 business to be not for profit and to do events.
Mr. Williams stated a 501 (c ) 3 event was not covered in the Code and could potentially cause the same burden as a special event.
Chair Jones said that could not happen. He stated that he knew the applicant had to come up with a Structural Education Visitor Program to qualify as an animal sanctuary, and he wanted to know what that entailed.
Ms. Calomiris stated they do that with their volunteers at the moment, people who come to visit who have made donations, every person got the same tour from them.
Chair Jones said he wanted to see the structural education document.
Attorney Christiana stated they had received that.
Chair Jones said he wanted to put that into the findings.
Mr. Zurofsky said he wanted more clarification with commerical events verses the special events distinction as he wanted to convince himself fully that there was no loop hole.
Attorney Christiana stated the Board could put a condition on as to the number of people who could come at any time, so if they were having an educational thing or an adopt a pet event going on the Board could put limitations.
Mr. Zurfosky stated that he didn’t want to have an attorney say for the applicant in the future to say there was a loophole that will enable these commercial special events.
Attorney Christiana stated she did not know of loop hole at the time but that wasn’t to say there may not be some loop hole in the future.
Chair Jones asked what the Board thought about narrowing the number of people that could be at the facility by way of the number of cars that could be parked there.
Ms. Calomiris stated she thought that was fair and there would be a total of 40 parking spaces.
Chair Jones asked how many parking spaces would be needed for the herself and the employees.
Ms. Calomiris stated none of those would be needed for the employees because she lived on the property and they could park in her driveway.
Chair Jones stated that would accommodate about 100 people.
Mr. Zurofsky stated he liked the idea of having a limit of cars parked on the property.
Ms. Calomiris said she thought that was fair as she didn’t see where they could put any cars other than the designated parking spaces.
Attorney Christiana stated there could be a condition that there would be no parking along Loosestrife Lane or any of the other roads.
Chair Jones said they would want to say no parking along the private road.
Mr. Zurofsky said that there would be no parking on the private roads, only parking in the designated spots and no walking to the property from the private road.
Mr. Williams said there would not be allowed to be parking on the private road because that would impede on the emergency vehicle access.
Mr. Spade wanted clarification on what to put in the letter requested by the Board in regards to the withdrawal of commercial special events.
Attorney Christiana said they would be stating the withdrawal from their application of a special use permit for the commercial special events facility.
Chair Jones stated he would do more research into what Ms. Calomiris had already provided the Board in regards to the educational programs.
Chair Jones stated the Board would move on to the wetlands as a discussion and asked if anyone wanted to start.
Mr. Spade stated he would go through what they had already provided as the Board thought on the wetlands topic.
Chair Jones said that would be fine.
Mr. Spade in relation to the wetlands in the area of the proposed kennels and they had been delineated on the site plan and it was a survey delineated wetland and was based on soil samples done on both sides, on one side there was wetland soils but on the other there wasn’t. He stated they covered the area of Loosestrife Lane and well over pass the proposed kennels project and they showed on there the 100 foot wetland boundary and he stated they specifically tried to keep all of the disturbance outside of that boundary line and they did intend to improve the gravel road and the access to it. He said they had an engineer on board who was designing the septic system to the end of the storm water drainage system in light of the wetland delineation all of those facilities would be beyond the buffer line and they had provided a one page summary in their last submitted narrative from the engineer of his design analysis for the septic system and the storm water which indicated that those systems could be done in that area in those soils. He stated that he had been told by the engineer that there would no ground water within six feet of the surface and that the rate was slow but fine for the area.
Chair Jones stated CPL would be reviewing the drainage.
Mr. Spade said they had confidence that they could solve the septic system and storm water drainage system for the proposed kennel, parking areas, etc in the soil conditions that were there as he was aware there were comments raised in the public about the soil conditions on the property. He stated they had not done any wetlands studies beyond the area of the proposed kennel. He said they did the wetland studies for the down hill gradient on the area they would be disturbing but they also did soil testing in the area of the proposed building.
Chair Jones stated there was an existing swale and there was a drainage pipe in the north quadrant of the property and there was to be a new gravel road over the drainage pipe, so the pipe would need to go under the gravel road and needed to be sized properly. He stated the engineer would tell them what size they needed. He said the pond from the wetlands report emptied out into Mill Creek, which then went to the Mombaccus Creek, and then went into the Rondout eventually. He said they needed assurances that as a result of building and/or the new drainage routines would not pollute the creeks and the Rondout.
Mr. Zurofsky said it would part of their SWPP.
Mr. Spade said they would submit a SWPP.
Chair Jones said he wanted to make sure during construction that the project would not add more silt to the creeks and Rondout. He asked where would the down spouts be going?
Mr. Spade said it would go into the storm water detention system.
Chair Jones asked if that was below the parking.
Mr. Spade stated possibly but they were still working on the final engineered solution and there could be detention tanks under ground, or rain garden, they were talking about how best to address that issue.
Chair Jones said they needed to address what was coming off of the roof.
Mr. Spade that would all be in the SWPP.
Chair Jones asked when the SWPP would be complete.
Mr. Spade said in about 2 weeks.
Mr. Zurofsky said there were some concerns from the public hearing about medications, run off feces from the animals, and where that was being stored. He said the public commentor seemed pretty certain there would be some medications in the waste storage piles. Mr. Zurofsky asked how would the Board address that?
Chair Jones asked where the manure pile was located and how were they handling the waste from the animals.
Ms. Calomiris said they had a dumpster that the feces from their smaller animals was put into.
Mr. Zurofsky asked if if the manure was just from the horses.
Ms. Calomiris said it was from the horses and goats. She said right now it was in the buffer of the wetlands but their plan was to relocate it and they were working on renting a bigger tractor in order to move it. She said that was where the pile had always been, even when the previous owner had a property as he had horses, so that was where they continued to put it but once they got the wetlands study and saw that it was in the buffer location, that was when they started the plan to move it.
Chair Jones asked if there was containment when it came to the manure pile.
Ms. Calomiris stated they turned it into fertilizer.
Chair Jones asked when it rains wouldn’t it fall out?
Ms. Calomiris said it wasn’t just manure it had hay and a lot of absorbent materials. She stated she didn’t know exactly how it worked except when they turned it, then it became fertilizer.
Mr. Zurofksy said there was a specific concerned raised in the public comment and in a letter and it was alleged in that letter that there were piles near the stream.
Mr. Williams said he had horses so he understood the horse manure but he wanted to know if they separated the waste from the pigs and the smaller animals from the big manure pile.
Ms. Calomiris stated the waste from the pigs and the smaller animals went into bags and were placed in the dumpster.
Mr. Williams said if there were medications in the smaller animals, then basically it was being carted off so that wasn’t an issue. He asked that since the only medication issue would be coming out of the horse manure, so did they had any medicated horses?
Ms. Calomiris said yes, if they had medical issues such as fungal infections and they currently had a horse who was on SMDs but she couldn’t predict anything beyond that.
Chair Jones asked if they had any horses on adder-all.
Ms. Calomiris said no.
Mr. Zurofsky said the concern was waste piles in close proximity to the person’s property line and a stream that was shared between the properties and the waste piles being close to established wetlands.
Ms. Calomiris said they would be moving the pile out of the wetlands buffer.
Mr. Zurofsky stated that would move it to the person’s property line but it would take it out of the wetland buffer, so there would be no expectation of contamination since it would be several hundred feet from the person’s property line.
Ms. Axelson stated that when they pulled a full EAF mapper in regards to the wetlands that the wetlands appeared to be federal and she didn’t know if they were going through the process of becoming NYS DEC and the reason she mentioned it was because usually for federal wetlands there is no required buffer. She stated some Planning Boards request buffers as they looked into it and didn’t see that this Board had requirements for wetland buffers.
Attorney Christiana stated the applicants did that on their own.
Mr. Logan stated that NYS DEC regulations only apply to wetlands over 12.5 acres.
Mr. Spade asked if CPL would review everything and should they find in their review that they needed additional information wetlands wise, that it would be in some kind of review letter.
Ms. Axelson said there would be a review and a letter if necessary. She said that when the Board receives a review letter it get forwards to the applicant.
Chair Jones requested that Mr. Spade put together something with a table of contents about what he was submitting and all the items would be listed.
Chair Jones asked if Mr. Spade had done anything in regards to traffic.
Mr. Spade said they had nothing on traffic as of yet.
Chair Jones stated the Board had a letter from the Highway Department in which the Deputy Highway Superintendent had stated there was nothing by way of maintenance or safety issues that had to be done to any of the contiguous roads.
Mr. Zurfosky stated he was always comfortable deferring to the Highway Department as it was their area of expertise.
Chair Jones noted that what he kept hearing at the public hearing was the public commented there were lots of near misses over the years. He asked would it be appropriate for the Board to send a letter to the State Police asking had there ever been any accidents on any of the contiguous roads in the last five years?
Ms. Axelson said it might be possible for the applicant’s representatives to get the ITE and try to come up with a maximum number of trips at certain times.
A Board member asked what was an ITE.
Ms. Axelson responsed an ITE was Institution of Transportation Engineers and they published traffic counts for various uses for their peak hours and that was what typically was used when doing a traffic impact study and any accident information the applicant could get would be good as well.
Mr. Zurofsky said when the Board had the Inness Golf Course in front of them, the Board had concerns about peak hours on Friday and Saturday nights, specifically with the overlap of the Accord Speed Way, and the Board had requested sight line visibility studies. He asked how the Board would consider something similar for this application.
Attorney Christiana stated the Board could ask the applicant to provide studies.
Mr. Zurofsky asked if the applicant wanted to open hours, where would the people be coming from? Kingston, New Paltz, what routes would they take?
Ms. Calomiris said she had never had anyone come to the property who took Boice Mill, the only way people had come was from Queens Highway and Krum. She stated they didn’t list their address publicly but they would have to if they had open hours however, when she made appointments she stated the directions she gave people was to come off of 209 to Queens Highway, turn on to Krum Road, and then turn on the Loosestrife Lane. She said she tells people to drive to the end of the road and meet her at the barn. She stated she was very particular about making sure whoever was coming to the property that she knew when. She said her assumption was off peak hours would be between 10 am and 3 pm because that was when most people would be at work and that was when she tried to schedule any appointments.
Chair Jones said he thought the Board should look at the ITE information but as far as asking the applicant to do a traffic study that would include for example Boice Mill and Route 209, his opinion was that those roads were too far away from the applicant’s property.
Mr. Zurofsky stated he did a quick Google search for directions to the property from various locations and none of the routes had him take Boice Mill.
Chair Jones asked what the speed limit was on the road?
Ms. Calomiris said she believed it was 30 or 35 mph.
Chair Jones stated the Board could ask the Town Board to change the speed limit. He stated the Board couldn’t require that the speed limit be changed and the Town Board still would have to get the state Highway Department to do a study.
Ms. Axelson said she wouldn’t suggest a traffic study but what she was suggesting was something along the lines of some narrative that would address the route in discussion and sometimes there was enough information to give an estimate to the Board.
Mr. Pinsky said forty cars was the worse case scenario involving open hours but just because there could be forty cars parked didn’t mean there would always be forty cars at one time.
Chair Jones wanted to move on to the area regarding the noise study of the application.
Mr. Spade stated he had put together some noise data. He said the noise sources on the property he focused on the dogs inside the kennel buildings, dogs outside of the kennel building in the pen areas, and during the special events stage he measured around the stage area. He stated for the dog source noise he gave the decibel number. Mr. Spade said he used the noise source of multiple dogs and compared that to the ambient noise level that was at the property lines as the Code required that the source noise not be 10 decibels above the ambient noise level around the property. He stated he used two different devices to record the ambient noise and it was very consistent around the entire property in terms of the ambient noise level and it did not exceed 10 decibels. Mr. Spade said he felt they were compliant when it came to the Town’s code. He noted the source noise inside of the building, they were planning on using materials that would reduce the source noise of the inside buildings and from the outside they were purposing a six foot high solid fence and that had a sound reduction characteristic to it. He stated he wasn;’t a noise expert engineer but he felt confident they had done an efficient analysis what the resulting noise levels were.
Mr. Williams asked how Mr. Spade was able to discern the ambient noise with the source noise.
Mr. Spade stated the source noise from the dogs outside of the kennels was about 105 decibels through the six foot high wood fence, over the distance to property line, resulted in a 23 decibel noise level at the property line so It was the combination of both. He said you’d hear the noise less at the property line but you’d be able to distinguish a dog noise but the study was saying it wasn’t above and beyond the ambient noise that was at that line.
Ms. Calomiris stated currently she had five personal dogs and she fostered a fluctuating number of dogs for the rescue. She stated they were currently housing dogs closer to the property line so there was more noise impact but the dogs that were close to the neighbors’ property lines would be housed in the middle of the property in the proposed kennel and therefore there would be a lot less outside noise.
Mr. Pinsky said he was a mechanical engineer and not a sound expert but he had looked at Mr. Spade’s calculation and didn’t agree with it. He stated Mr. Spade was confusing sound pressure with sound intensity and the wooden fence they were purposing for around the property would be bringing the noise up and spreading it around. He stated the sound study needed to be done by a professional sound engineer.
Ms. Calomiris said a big part of what they did was enrichment to quiet the kennel. She stated if that was a concern, that was something she didn’t know would be a possibility, and said she wanted a sound study done because she wanted to know that. She said her concern was polluting the noise of the neighborhood and she had farm animals that she didn’t want to be affected by the kennel environment as well. She stated enrichment could do a lot but if the wooden fence would amplify the noise there were things they could do to change the plan.
Ms. Axelson stated she would have the engineers look at the noise study done by Mr. Spade and they had someone on staff who specializes in noise.
Mr. Zurofsky said there were pretty concerns that were raised in a public comment both in written and verbal form and he asked if it was appropriate to ask the applicant to address the concerns raised by that person who had provided the public comment.
Attorney Christiana stated that would be fine to suggest.
Ms. Axelson said if there was to be a noise study to be done that the applicant and her representatives should come up with a scope and then have CPL look at it, instead of them having to go through the trouble of doing the entire study.
Mr. Zurofsky stated what he was mostly referring to was the section of the Town’s Code that had to do with noise causing a detrimental impact on public health, safety, and welfare which was a different thing than decibel limits so he would have liked the applicant to do anything that would speak to that issue. He said another person from the public had raised specific points about indoor and outdoor numbers and referenced specific literature where that was coming from, and it was different from the initial numbers that the applicant had presented. He noted that the person from the comment pointed out in their letter to the Board some detail in terms of the reference data such as was that detail coming from what type of dogs, what are the construction materials, and there were concerns similar to what Mr. Pinsky had raised about how sound moved across distance and how that was a difficult thing to predict, and what was the appropriate way to calculate ambient levels. He said that since it was raised in the letter from the public, he would like those issues and concerns addressed.
Chair Jones told the applicant to quickly find a competent noise engineer and then speak with CPL about the scope of the work that would be necessary.
Ms. Axelson said they would advise the Board when items were presented to them.
Mr. Zurofsky stated there should be some sort of information about who would hear the noise.
Attorney Christiana explained what Mr. Zurofsky meant was who was in the neighboorhood that might hear it; would it be homes, churches, schools.
Chair Jones said it was all single family homes.
Mr. Zurofsky stated it would be helpful to address anything in regards to nuisance sounds since it was referenced in the public commentator letter.
Chair Jones told Ms. Calomiris that who ever she did hire, that they be provided the letter Mr. Zurofksy referenced to, and have them go through it and come back to the Board with the scope of work and that it covered all the points raised at the public hearing.
There were no other comments or questions from the Board on the subject of noise.
Chair Jones moved on to historic preservation.
Chair Jones stated the Board had received a letter from SHPO that stated there were no problems or concerns with the project. He also noted to the Board there were two letters from Mr. Burt Samuelson from the Ulster County Planning Board and Mr. Bob Somers from NYS Ag and Markets, respectively, that stated this application did not fall under Ag and Markets because it was not a farm operation in terms of events, which the applicant stated she would not be doing anyway.
Mr. Zurofsky said that was important to note in regards to the Town Code which had a Right to Farm section in the Code . He said if they were a farm operation there would be less restrictions on things such as manure piles and where they could be and what they could look like, but since it was not a farm there was a different situation.
Mr. Williams noted that there was clear documentation on best practices from another application the Board had reviewed.
Attorney Christiana said it may be from Woodstock Farm Animal Sanctuary.
Chair Jones wanted to address SEQRA.
Attorney Christiana stated the Board was suppose to SEQRA as early in the process as possible but the Board had asked for more information to do the SEQRA and when CPL had time to review and report back to the Board, then they could go through SEQRA.
Ms. Calomiris asked that since they had to get so much information, could they push the public hearing back and do that at the August 8th, Regular Planning Board Meeting.
The Board discussed it and decided that they wanted to keep the public hearing open for the July 8th, 2019 Regular Meeting but there would be no new information provided and it would be continued again into the August 8th, 2019 meeting.
Mr. Zurofsky said there were questions raised at the June 10th, 2019 Regular Planning Board meeting that he still didn’t fully understand. He said the first was the permitted use of sanctuaries and kennels and he was still a bit confused about that.
Chair Jones said the site plan approval was for the kennel and a kennel was a permitted use in the AR-3 district. He said the special use permit was allowed but required an extra level of review of the Planning Board because of the nature, that was what the animal sanctuary fell under, and needs more work.
Mr. Zurofsky stated the attorneys who represented a number of people from the public seemed to be saying it wasn’t allowed or at least the version the applicant wanted wasn’t allowed and he was still a little confused.
Attorney Christiana said Mr. Zurofsky could get in touch with her with his specific questions and concerns, but she saw these as allowed under the Town’s Code and didn’t feel there was question about that.
Ms. Calomiris said she had provided a letter that she was never going to have this become commercial use and put in specific definitions for the Code in her letter where she referenced why what she wanted to do was allowed.
Mr. Spade wanted to ask about the covenants and restrictions but the Board stated it was out of their purview as mentioned earlier and they weren’t going to discuss it.
Chair Jones said if the applicant needed anything from the Planning Board then they could FOIL for it.
Ms. Saski-Spade asked if they still planned on doing the July 29th, 2019 Workshop meeting.
The Board discussed about changing the date of the Workshop meeting as there were some scheduling issues, but since there were three members of the Board missing at this discussion they agreed to discuss it at the July 8th, 2019 Regular Planning Board Meeting.
There were no other matters.
Mr. Zurofsky made the motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:47pm. Mr. Williams seconded the motion.
All In Favor. Motion Carried.
4 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, 0 abstentions, 1 recused.
Brianna Tetro, Secretary
Accepted and Adopted August 12th, 2019