PLANNING BOARD
TOWN OF ROCHESTER
ULSTER COUNTY
ACCORD, NEW YORK
(845) 626-2434
torpbzba@hvc.rr.com

MINUTES OF AUGUST 31, 2015 Workshop Meeting of the Town of Rochester PLANNING BOARD, held at the Town of Rochester Community Center, Accord, NY.

Chairman Baden asked that everyone stand to say the Pledge to the Flag.

The Secretary did roll call attendance.

PRESENT: ABSENT: Michael Baden, Chairman Fred O’Donnell, Vice Chair Adam Paddock-7:10pm
Melvyn Tapper-7:15pm
Maren Lindstrom
Shane Ricks
John Dawson

Also present:
Patrick Williams, Alternate. Rebecca Paddock Stange, Secretary. Mary Lou Christiana, Town Attorney.

Chairman Baden noted that as there were absent members at this meeting, Mr. Williams would be seated as a regular member for this meeting.
PB 2015-02 SUP SEQRA Review

Special Use
Frank Macagnone and Keith Eddleman aka Crested Hen Farms
Proposes new use of an existing barn on a +/- 32 acre residential parcel for the use ‘Commercial Events Facility’ with parking and related supporting amenities
607 County Route 6, S/B/L #77.002-2-12.1, ‘AR-3’, ‘AP Overlay’ and ‘FD Overlay’ zoning districts, Located in Ulster County Ag District #3, Located within Alligerville Historic District recommended listed on the National Register, Located within the 100 year flood plain

Mr. Moriello and Mr. Medenbach were present on behalf of the application.

Chairman Baden noted that the purpose of this meeting was to work on Part 2 of SEQRA. No determination would be made until the September Meeting and he would also draft a part 3 based on Part 2. There will be no Public Hearing or public comment at this meeting. He continued to note that the most up to date information was recirculated to all interested and involved agencies and the only agency that the Board has received a response from is the Town of Rochester Historic Preservation Commission dated 8/20/15 as attached:
At this time the Board reviewed Part 1 of the EAF as submitted as follows:

 

Chairman Baden stated that the road is not seasonal; it’s the access for the event facility and not an access for the residence.

Mr. Dawson wanted to know what they meant by “vegetated” in question D1(b)?

Mr. Moriello explained that it will be compacted. Mr. Medenbach is going to put a note to that effect on the map.

Chairman Baden asked to have that put in a memo to the Planning Board as well.

Mr. Williams questioned page 4, item D2(b). Wouldn’t that include the flood plain?

Chairman Baden noted that the flood plain is addressed in another question. This was about actual bodies of water or wetlands.

Mr. Ricks didn’t see the addition of gravel as disturbance (in response to item D(e). It was different if they were building a road and tearing out the top foot and filling that with gravel. That would be disturbance. Here they were rolling it and putting it over top of existing.

Ms. Lindstrom agreed noting that the biggest stormwater runoff problem is with impervious surfaces.

Chairman Baden agreed. There were no impervious surfaces being created. The stormwater runoff would occur because they are clearing vegetation at the access to create that road. Even when they roll it, it will still be pervious. Even the Dollar General application that they just reviewed had impervious pavement. They still disturbed, but it continued to be permeable, so it didn’t count towards stormwater runoff.

Ms. Lindstrom noted that item D(j) regarding an increase in traffic was a bit contentious.

Chairman Baden noted that they did get the traffic count from the highway study that the County did showing approximately 1,000 vehicles a day. That was a weekday.

Ms. Lindstrom noted that “substantial” is the key word.

The Board agreed.

Chairman Baden noted that if it increased 100 cars it would be 10%. It was 1,000 in each direction and the applicant is proposing 50 vehicles.

Ms. Lindstrom noted that even with the added catering and event vehicles it was not substantial. If you checked ‘yes’ on that, when you look at the other tests that follow, it doesn’t cause any problems. These actions are more for a bigger project. She didn’t know how much that changed it if they said ‘yes’ and the rest of it was relatively minor.

Chairman Baden noted that when they went over the part 2 is when they would really be handling it. This was more of just reading through Part 1 so they could have a discussion about the topics, but he agreed that when you look at the tests below that question, you wouldn’t be answering ‘yes’ in any of them.

Ms. Lindstrom questioned how the caterers would handle their cooking or warming of the food?

Mr. Macagnone’s associate noted that they will provide electrical outlets for the caterers, but they would mostly be using portable propane.

In regards to item D(l)ii, Mr. Moriello noted they include the answer for all days noted- Monday-Friday, Saturday, Sunday, and Holidays.

In regards to D(m), Noise, Chairman Baden noted that this was a contentious issue and they would discuss this in Part 2. The applicant answered this item as ‘no’ and the Board felt that this should be answered as ‘yes’.

Mrs. Christiana noted that the Board could ask the applicant to change this on Part 1, but this is their form. Part 2 is the Board’s form and they can disagree with this in that section.

In regards to item E.2(j) and (k), Mr. Ricks questioned if you were in a 100 year flood plain, wouldn’t you be in the 500 as well?

Chairman Baden answered that it was a different designation.

Mr. Moriello noted that the DEC actually fills out portions of part 1 based on your property information and this is one of those questions.

Chairman Baden noted that the DEC did identify the Northern Long Eared Bat on the property and the guidelines that they have should be followed during construction.

Mr. Paddock noted that the auto generated web answers say that there are no endangered species on the property.

Chairman Baden noted that they were out of date.

At this time the Board reviewed the draft of Part 2 as prepared by the Chairman as attached.
[Please see discussions pertaining to Part 2 after the attached draft.]

 
In
In regards to #3 Mr. Ricks didn’t agree with this being answered ‘yes’ as they weren’t doing anything near the water.

Chairman Baden noted that if the potential exists, they needed to check off ‘yes’.

Mr. Ricks noted that the potential existed at any place anywhere.

Chairman Baden thought this was a small or no impact.

Mr. Paddock questioned if this question was in reference to if someone threw beer cans in the creek?

Mr. Dawson noted that a car could roll into the creek.

Chairman Baden noted that something could blow into the creek on a windy day. The potential was there.

Mr. Dawson agreed that it was “No, or small impact may occur”.

Mr. Tapper noted that under ‘h.’ in this question was the tent location on level ground?

Chairman Baden noted that it was all level and there was no clearing.

Mr. Ricks noted that this could be said about any parcel on the Rondout.

Chairman Baden noted that he answered ‘yes’ to #4 because the County said that a car could leak oil, so he identified this as ‘No or small impact may occur’ under ‘h.’ and stated as much in that section.

Chairman Baden noted that #7 was checked as ‘yes’ because the State identified the Northern Long Eared Bat on the property. So, ‘b.’ was checked as ‘No or small impact may occur’.

Mr. Ricks questioned if they would have to check ‘yes’ even though the applicant isn’t going to touch any trees?

Chairman Baden would still say ‘no or small impact’ because the State identified it.

In regards to #10, Mr. Dawson noted that he would say ‘No or small impact may occur’ as long as what the applicant says will be done is done.

Chairman Baden noted that the applicant has already made modifications to the renovations to the barn based on comments from the Town’s Historic Preservation Commission.

Mr. Ricks noted that the only thing that is going to be altered on the property is that there are some cars parking in the field.

Chairman Baden agreed and noted that the tents were temporary and would come down after every event.

In regards to #13, Mr. Paddock felt that the impact would be small as there were only 12 events out of 365 days per year.

Ms. Lindstrom agreed and noted that maybe they say that there can’t be any great big busses. That could create a problem. The Board could condition only allowing executive busses.

In regards to #15 Chairman Baden noted that they had the sound study done at the Town’s request and the gentleman who conducted the study tested the ambient noise level that day.

Mr. Ricks stated that it would seem if the Board hired a legally licensed sound engineer that they’d have to go by what his report says.

Mr. Dawson noted that the last letter received from the sound engineer states that it is up to the applicant to manage.

Chairman Baden noted that the two large doors would be closed at opposite sides and the one that will be allowed to be opened up is just a simple regular doorway. They would require that to be the access in and out during the events. The large doors would have to remain closed and not only that, they would be difficult to open and shut.

Mr. Dawson stated that with no air-conditioning those doors will be opened.

Mr. Ricks agreed that with no air-conditioning people would most likely open doors.

Chairman Baden noted that the sound engineer also recommended limiting the noise to 90db and no subwoofers. That bottom bass was the sound that carried the furthest, so they would eliminate it.

Mr. Paddock questioned what would happen if the Board checked “Moderate to large impact may occur”?

Chairman Baden noted that they would have to complete a Part 3. He noted that they were going to do a Part 3 anyway to explain their reasoning in regards to any questions answered as ‘yes’.

In regards to #18 being checked off as ‘no’, Ms. Lindstrom noted that the changes were mainly traffic and noise, and those were directly related to the events. She believed this should be checked off as ‘yes’, ‘No or small impact may occur’.

Everyone agreed.

Chairman Baden questioned whether everyone wanted to change noise and traffic to moderate to large impacts?

The Board agreed that increases in these items existed, but noted that they were mitigated through different measures and they could explain that in Part 3.

Mr. Ricks noted that in regard to traffic, the Board asked the applicant to relocate the access. They did and they moved it further away from the bridge and homes, and the events are limited to only 12 calendar days out of 365 days in a year.

Chairman Baden also noted that this is on a County roadway, which is designed for greater usage.

Mr. Williams noted that there are days when things are going on in New Paltz that increase the traffic already.

Mr. Ricks noted that the road will be used in the morning and afternoon is mainly community traffic.

Chairman Baden noted that they will also need to receive a permit from the County in regards to the new proposed access onto County Route 6.

Mr. Moriello noted that they submitted plans to the County Highway Dept, but they haven’t filed a formal application at this point with the County. They can’t issue a permit until the Planning Board issues a Negative Declaration.

Mr. Dawson wanted to know how the Board would know that the alternate access would even be used.

Chairman Baden noted that the Board could require signage, plus he thinks the new access will be much easier for the public to use.

Ms. Lindstrom noted that the residential entrance would be difficult for them to use, so people would just naturally use the new one as it will be more accessible.

Chairman Baden noted that the Board can also make it a requirement that all event traffic uses the new road that that the old road is for residential traffic.

Mr. Macagnone’s event planner also noted that they will have parking attendants.

In regards to the question of noise, Chairman Baden noted that the Board does have the noise report. Letters that have been submitted refer to the noise study as the applicant’s study, but this is the Planning Board’s study. The only study submitted from the applicant was the initial report from their noise consultant back in the spring. He also noted that the PB’s noise consultant did say that there were a couple small holes that should be filled in the barn.

Mr. Dawson stated that he wasn’t happy with the noise study.

Mr. Macagnone’s event planner noted that the large doors would never be used for access. They would follow the guidelines they were given by the Board.

Mr. Ricks noted that more importantly, the guy playing the music needs to be aware of the limits with the base and the volume. He attended a barn wedding not too long ago. It was a large wedding and a large barn. When he was 50’ from the building it was quiet and then when he went in it was loud. That barn was air-conditioned.

Chairman Baden noted that the upper limit is 90db. That is what the recommendation is from the Board’s consultant.

Mrs. Christiana, Attorney for the Town, noted that by law, the Board needed to assume that the applicants were going to do the right thing and follow the conditions.

Mr. Ricks agreed, but everyone knows that DJ’s like to show off what their equipment can do.

Mrs. Christiana noted that it was the applicant’s responsibility to be in charge of the DJ’s and to follow the rules of the Decision.

Ms. Lindstrom agreed and reminded everyone that they also would not be allowed to use the subwoofer.

Chairman Baden noted that he works in this industry and 90dbs is loud, although you could still have a conversation with the person next to you and it would be loud enough for the dancers.
Mr. Williams questioned if the Chairman felt that it would still be loud enough to create the event like atmosphere they’d be looking for?

Chairman Baden thinks so and he also noted that there were ways to mitigate it. The sound study thinks they are realistic to be achieved and it’s up to enforcement to follow up on them. If the events are on a weekend, it would be up to the Town Board to hire someone to be there.

The Board noted that the following were the mitigation measures for noise that would be imposed:
*large side doors would remain closed
*limit amplified music to 90db
*no subwoofers allowed
*the door facing Kyserike Road will never be opened.
*the other door will be required to be closed when music is playing.
*little door is the one that will be used.

Mr. Moriello noted that his clients would agree to those conditions.

Chairman Baden noted that the Board would require them.

Chairman Baden questioned the Board if they felt that the mitigations were enough to change #15 to ‘no, or small to moderate impact may occur’? An informal vote was held and 2 members said no. 5 members said yes.

Chairman Baden questioned if he should include Board Member’s opinions in the decision?

Mrs. Christiana noted that he could state that a majority of the Board felt ‘X’ and some members felt ‘Y’.

Ms. Lindstrom questioned what the rules were for the special events.

Chairman Baden read excerpts from 140-35 in the Zoning Code as follows:
F. The number of events shall be limited to a maximum of 12 events per calendar year, each day of activities open to persons other than lodging guests counting as a separate event. The facility operator shall be required to notify the Code Enforcement Office of any event scheduled a minimum of 3 business days prior to the event by either e-mail or written letter.
G. Event hours shall be limited to between 9:00 am and 11:00 pm. Setup and dismantling hours shall be limited to between 8:00 am and 12:00 midnight.
J. All temporary structures and equipment must be removed within four days after each event and shall remain in place a maximum of seven days altogether, except by Code Enforcement Officer approval when the next event is scheduled within seven days of the preceding event.

Ms. Lindstrom questioned if they could make it more restrictive?

Chairman Baden noted that they would have to have reasoning.

Mr. Ricks noted that on this application he always thinks to himself that this is an agricultural property. The applicant could have hundreds of pigs and corn and that would make more noise and they wouldn’t even have to get Planning Board approval for that. It could be 10 times worse. Farming can be extremely intrusive to neighbors. Potential impacts could be ten times worse.

Chairman Baden noted that he will draft SEQRA based on the comments made tonight and the Board will come to a SEQRQ Determination, and then re-refer the application to the Ulster County Planning Board. He continued to note that the Board’s October meeting fell on Columbus Day, so he asked Board Members to think about an alternate date that would work- maybe October 19th?
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Dawson motioned to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Mr. Ricks. No discussion. All members present in favor.

Chairman Baden adjourned the meeting at 8:45PM.

Respectfully submitted,

Rebecca Paddock Stange, Secretary