Planning Board Minutes September 9th, 2019

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

MINUTES OF September 9th, 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.

PRESENT: ABSENT:
Maren Lindstrom, Chairperson Patrick Williams
Rick Jones, Vice Chairperson
Brian Buchbinder
Sam Zurofsky- 7:02pm
Zorian Pinsky
Ann Marie Maloney-7:36pm

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

ANNOUNCEMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS
September 30th Workshop Meeting Decision
TRAININGS
Chair Lindstrom provide the Board with information regarding the following upcoming training opportunities:
-NY Planning Federation 2019 Planning and Zoning School Courses
-Recognizing Habitats Field Workshop, Friday, Sept. 20th 2:00-5:00PM Hudson Highlands Nature Museum, Cornwall, NY

ACTION ON MINUTES

Chair Lindstrom made the motion to table the August 12th, 2019 Regular Meeting minutes until the October 10th, 2019 regular Meeting as she and others had not had time to properly review them. Mr. Pinsky seconded the motion.
All in Favor. Motion Carried.
5 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, 0 abstentions
*Ms. Maloney was not present at the time of this motion.

APPLICATION REVIEW:
PB 2019-12 LLI New Application
Glenn Dymond (Applicant & Owner)
Lot Line Improvement
A lot improvement proposing the combination of two contiguous lots: S/B/L 68.3-1-57.100 (+/- 3.3 acres) and S/B/L 68.3-1-58 (+/- 1.7 acres) into a single 5 acre parcel. Both parcels are R-1 zoned and located on Leghorn Road, Kerhonkson, NY

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

Chair Lindstrom noted that the Board had seen the application at the prior month’s meeting and that they had not seen anything odd or concerning, Mr. Dymond had just needed to have proper maps made showing the lot line improvement.

The Board did not have any comments or concerns.

Chair Lindstrom said the application was a Type II SEQRA by Code.

Mr. Jones made the motion to certify the Lot Line Improvement. Mr. Buchbinder seconded the motion.
All in Favor. Motion Carried.
5 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, 0 abstentions.
*Ms. Maloney was not present at the time of this application review and motion.

Decision: PB 2019-12 LLI

Lot Improvement – Certification
*Pursuant to Chapter 125 and Chapter 140 of the Code of the Town of Rochester.

Applicant: Glenn Dymond
Owner: Glenn Dymond

Reason for Request:
A lot improvement proposing the combination of two contiguous lots: S/B/L 68.3-1-57.1 (+/- 3.3 acres) and S/B/L 68.3-1-58 (+/- 1.7 acres) into a single 5 acre parcel. Both properties R-1 zoned and located on Leghorn Road, Kerhonkson, NY

Location, 60 & 48 Leghorn Road, Kerhonkson NY
S/B/L: S/B/L 68.3-1-57.1 and S/B/L 68.3-1-58
Zoning District: R-1

Zoning Permit filed: 08/8/2019 SEQR Type: Type II by definition
Planning Board Application #: 2019-12 LLI PB Application filed: 07/08/2019

* * * *
The Planning Board has reviewed the plat and certifies the lot improvement proposed will meet Town of Rochester lot requirements for the R-1 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 2019-11 LLI New Application
Ronnie Sue Jaffee & Geoffrey Gibson (Applicants)
Ronnie Sue Jaffee & Geoffrey Gibson and Jillian Hallas (Owners)
Lot Line Improvement
Applicants propose the transfer of +/- 0.38 acres from S/B/L 59.15-1-9 (owners Jaffe/Gibson) to S/B/L 59.15-1-8 (owner Hallas) and the transfer of +/- 0.31 acres from S/B/L 59.15-1-8 to S/B/L 59.15-1-9 (for a net zero change in acreage for each parcel). Parcels are located at 11 and 13 Lakeview Terrace, Kerhonkson, NY. Both parcels are located in the R-5 zoning district.

Mr. Geoffrey Gibson and Ms. Ronnie Sue Jaffee was present on behalf of the application.

Chair Lindstrom explained what the application was all about.

Mr. Zurofsky asked why they were doing the lot line improvement.

Ms. Jaffee explained they had never had their property re-surveyed but their neighbor, Ms. Hallas, had her property surveyed and her property line was in their driveway, garden, and stone wall but Ms. Hallas had stated it was not a problem and they could continue to use their driveway, etc. Ms. Jaffee said they wanted to fix it just in case should they ever sell their home so there would not be any problem or Ms. Hallas could sell her home and whomever moved in after her could potentially be not so accommodating.

Chair Lindstrom stated the entire area was now R5 zoned but the parcel was part of a grandfathered subdivision that had been done quite some time ago.

There were no other questions or comments.

Chair Lindstrom noted it was a Type II SEQRA under code.

Mr. Buchbinder made the motion to certify the Lot Line improvement. Mr. Jones seconded the motion.
All in Favor. Motion carried.
5 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, 0 abstentions.
*Ms. Maloney was not present for this application review or motion.

Decision: PB 2019-11 LLI

Lot Improvement – Certification
*Pursuant to Chapter 125 and Chapter 140 of the Code of the Town of Rochester.

Applicant: Ronnie Sue Jaffee & Geoffrey Gibson
Owner: Ronnie Sue Jaffee & Geoffrey Gibson and Jillian Hallas

Reason for Request:
A lot improvement proposing the transfer of +/- 0.38 acres from S/B/L 59.15-1-9 (owners Jaffe/Gibson) to S/B/L 59.15-1-8 (owner Hallas) and the transfer of +/- 0.31 acres from S/B/L 59.15-1-8 to S/B/L 59.15-1-9 (for a net zero change in acreage for each parcel). Parcels are located at 11 and 13 Lakeview Terrace, Kerhonkson, NY. Both parcels are located in the R-5 zoning district.

Location: 11 and 13 Lakeview Terrace, Kerhonkson, NY
S/B/L: S/B/L 59.15-1-9 and S/B/L 59.15-1-8
Zoning District: R-5

Zoning Permit filed: 08/15/2019 SEQR Type: Type II by definition
Planning Board Application #: 2019-11 LLI PB Application filed: 08/15/2019

* * * *
The Planning Board has reviewed the plat and certifies the lot improvement proposed will meet Town of Rochester lot requirements for the R-5 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 2019-04 SPA Public Hearing/Continued Application
Town of Rochester (Applicant), Accord Fire District (Owner)
Site Plan Approval
Applicant proposes the redevelopment (addition to) of the Alligerville Fire House, (S/B/L 77.2-2-17). Located at 4 Creek Road, High Falls, NY. Parcel is R-1 zoned and adjacent to Ulster County Ag District #3.
SEQRA: Unlisted Action (‘GOSR’ Lead Agency) Negative Declaration 7/31/2019

Mr. Mike Baden, Town Supervisor and Mr. Sam Dillehay, architect, were present on behalf of the application.

Chair Lindstrom explained they had kept the public hearing open as they had been waiting on comments from the Ulster County Planning Board (UCPB). She said the UCPB had come back and said before the application could be approved the transfer of the property from the County to the Town had to be completed and then the Town had to transfer that property to the Accord Fire District and all applicable permits needed to be taken care of.

Chair Lindstrom stated that at the last meeting there had been a discussion about getting a more official statement from the Rondout-Esopus Land Conservancy about the use of their gravel parking lot. She explained to the Board that they had received a letter from the Rondout-Esopus Land Conservancy that had stated there could be use of their parking lot during the construction period but not during meetings or events.

Mr. Pisnky asked for clarification on where exactly there was a gravel parking lot as he had been by the land conservancy and stated it had looked like the parking lot was mostly grass.

Mr. Dillehay said there was a small portion toward the end of Creek Rd that was gravel and could fit around 10-15 cars.

Attorney Christiana asked if it was only going to be allowed during construction.

Chair Lindstrom explained that the letter had not say anything about them allowing it after the construction period.

Mr. Dillehay said his understanding was that it was a perpetual agreement and not just for when construction was taking place.

Chair Lindstrom said he could go back to speak with the land conservancy to have the agreement changed but at the moment it was just for the construction phase.

Mr. Zurofsky stated they had limited it pretty strictly.

Chair Lindstrom explained that there had also been a discussion the prior month about a waiver request being submitted allowing parking, in case of an emergency or during events, on Creek Road. She said the Board had a request for waiver and they needed to decide if they were going to grant it. She noted they had reached out to the Highway Department and they had no problem with parking on Creek Road should it be needed.

Mr. Zurofsky said his thoughts were on the one hand, it was an existing use and they were making improvements and he thought it was great but on the other hand, if it was a new use and a new application he would have a lot of reservations about granting the waiver.

Chair Lindstrom reminded the Board that Attorney Christiana always told them was there was no precedence when it came to land law.

Mr. Zurofsky asked so in this case that due to the specific characteristics of the property, such as the historic factor, it was existing, and it had received State grant funding and it was a road that did not have a lot of traffic, etc., they weren’t setting any standards for themselves that when it came to other parcels whose situation would be different, then there would not be a precedence.

Attorney Christiana said the specific characteristics needed to be clear in the decision, but if there was a situation exactly as the present one then they would be bound by it but if it was a different situation then no, they wouldn’t be.

There was a Board discussion regarding the different situations.

Mr. Jones stated if the Board was going to grant the waiver would be for the use of the building if there was ever a dire need as in the event of a flood or another emergency event, the waiver would be specific to if something like that occurred not for when there were meetings, etc. held.

Supervisor Baden explained part of the reason the parking was being pushed out onto the road was because the historical structure was very important and if they were starting brand new and just knocking down the old firehouse, they could have the building far enough back and provide a more adequate parking situation.

Mr. Dillehay stated that the current structure was inadequate for not only an emergency shelter but as a fire station as well. He said there was balance between it becoming a shelter and having a less than ideal parking situation.

Mr. Jones asked if the applicant was seeking a specific waiver for emergency situations only, or a general waiver.

Attorney Christiana stated it was for a general waiver and that nothing was changing as they currently did not have the parking.

Supervisor Baden stated the width of Creek Road being acquired from the County was significantly wider than the pavement and there would be right of ways on the side that could be used for parking if needed.

Mr. Zurofsky said it seemed the waiver seemed reasonable but he worried if the situation came up again there would be precedence.

Attorney Christiana commented that this was an extremely unique situation.

Mr. Jones asked if there needed to be specific language in the decision.

Mr. Buchbinder answered it would be in the findings.

Supervisor Baden stated he could update the Board on the status of the land transfer from the County to the Town. He said the land transfer was approved in August and he expected to hear from the County legislature in the next week.

Chair Lindstrom opened the public hearing.

No one from the public spoke.

Mr. Buchbinder made the motion to close the public hearing. Mr. Jones seconded the motion.
All in Favor. Motion carried.
6 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, 0 abstentions.

Chair Lindstrom read the decision:

Decision 2019-04 SPA
Site Plan Approval Conditional Approval

Applicant: Town of Rochester (Applicant) Accord Fire District (Owner)
Reason for Request: The application proposes the redevelopment (addition to) of the Alligerville Fire House, (S/B/L 77.2-2-17). Located at 4 Creek Road, High Falls, NY. Parcel is R-1 zoned and adjacent to Ulster County Ag District #3.

Location: 4 Creek Road, High Falls, NY
S/B/L: S/B/L 77.2-2-17
Total Acreage: ± 0.69 acre parcel
Zoning District: R-1 zoning

Code Enforcement Determination: Site Plan Approval
Zoning Permit: 143 of 2019

Planning Board Application: 2019-04 SPA
PB Application filed: 5/28/2019
EAF filed: 5/28/2019
SEQR Type: SEQRA: Unlisted Action (‘GOSR’ Lead Agency) Negative Declaration 7/31/2019

Other Referrals: Ulster County Planning Board, Town of Rochester Highway Department, Town of Rochester Historical Commission

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

1. Zoning Permit 143 of 2019 received 5/28/2019
2. Lead Agency Designation Letter from Governor’s Office of Storm Recovery (GOSR) and list of involved and interested agencies received May 6, 2019
3. Architectural Schematic received 5/6/2019
4. Planning Board Site Plan Approval Application, 2019-04 SPA received 5/28/2019
5. Short Form EAF Part 1, received 5/6/2019
6. Project Narrative from Alf Andre Architecture, received 5/28/2019
7. Site Plan, prepared by Alf Andre Architects and Milone & Macrom Engineering, received 5/28/2019 amended
8. UC Department of Public Works and Accord Fire District Letters of Agency Authorization received 5/28/2019
9. Aerial view of lots/lands to be combined (existing fire station and Ulster County owned parcel) and vicinity maps received 5/28/2019
10. Basic SWPPP received 5/28/2019
11. Lighting Parking and Landscaping Plans received 5/28/2019
12. Vicinity map and aerial view of site received 5/6/2019
13. Architectural renderings and building elevations received 5/28/2019, amended 7/8/2019 amended 9/3/2019
14. Parking Narrative for project received 7/5/2019
15. Parking Waiver Request, received 8/6/2019
16. Response Letter from Town of Rochester Highway Department received 8/8/2019
17. Response Letter from Town of Rochester Historic Preservation Commission received 8/8/2019
18. Letter from Rondout-Esopus Land Conservancy permitting use of RELC parking area during construction/renovation, received 9/3/2019
19. SEQRA Negative Declaration Letter from GOSR dated 7/31/2019 including response letters from SHPO, DEC, soil and topological studies,
20. UCPB referral response memo, received 8/19/2019

Notice of Public Hearing:

1. Published in the Shawngunk Journal August 1st, 2019
2. Notice by mail to known adjacent landowners
3. Posted on the T/ Rochester Clerk bulletin board and town website.

Date of Public Hearing: August 12th, 2019 & September 9th, 2019
Place: Community Center, Accord, NY
Public Comment: (see Minutes of Town of Rochester Planning Board, 8/12/2019 & 9/9/2019)
* * * *
Findings of the Planning Board with review of the updated application:

1. The Planning Board received a zoning referral for the expansion of the existing Alligerville fire house to include an emergency shelter and larger fire truck parking bay(s).
2. The parcel’s existing use is a fire house. The existing use does not include a formal designated parking area (spaces).
3. Contiguous parcels are used for farming, are conservation lands, and are residential or undeveloped woodlands. The Rondout Creek is located 300 feet from the proposed project. Contiguous parcels are zoned AR-3 and R-1.
4. The Planning Board further received a Site Plan application, EAF, and related documentation from the applicant, cited above.
5. The parcel to be developed is known as S/B/L 77.2-2-17. The parcel shall be a combination of the existing tax parcel and a portion of Creek Road right-of-way which is to be conveyed to the Town of Rochester by Ulster County. Upon conveyance, the Town of Rochester shall grant the aforementioned Creek Road right-of-way lands to the Accord Fire District. This shall be a condition of approval.
6. The parcel has road frontage onto Creek Road
7. The parcel is located in the ‘R-1’ zoning district and the use complies with the standards of such districts and no further review is required.
8. SEQRA was conducted by lead agency GOSR and a Negative Declaration was adopted and filed on July 31st, 2019.
9. The Planning Board discussed and reviewed the site plan. The applicant proposes the renovation and expansion of the existing 2545 sq. ft. Alligerville Fire house to incorporate larger fire equipment bays/modern fire firefighting equipment and gear and a transitional ADA compliant emergency shelter (with showers, charging areas, improved food preparation area, and sleeping area). Exterior renovation work shall include repairs to the existing facility (repointing, repair and replacement of roof, soffits and fascia’s, window repair and upgrade, energy efficiency upgrades). New septic, well, drainage, and connection to community stormwater system shall be constructed. An auxiliary emergency generator and (buried) fuel tank shall be installed, and ADA accessible parking shall be added. The proposed renovated Firehouse shall be approximately 3980 sq. ft. in size. The addition shall be compliant with all articles of §140-20 General Commercial and Industrial Standards.
a. The proposed addition meets the height and lot coverage requirements of §140-20. The building style is to be in harmony with the existing fire station complex which is in the Alligerville Historic District. Existing blocked windows shall be repaired as shall the existing cupola and an antenna removed, thus returning the façade presentation to its original configuration, with four-over-four double –hung arched, window units. The application was referred to the Town of Rochester Historic Commission as the structure is in the Alligerville Historic District and is attached to the former Union Free School building which was constructed in 1878 and is a part of the historic district. The TOR Historic Commission responded with a favourable letter and solely requested consultation on roofing materials.
b. Existing parking will be expanded to include ADA compliant space. This shall be a condition of approval.
c. Space is not available on the parcel for the TOR Parking Code §140-17 required 13 parking spaces related to use of the firehouse for meetings/events or transitional emergency shelter (‘Places of Public Assembly’ use). The applicant presented a parking narrative suggesting temporary parking in the occurrence of these events along Creek Road (as is presently done) and/or in the parking area of the Rondout-Esopus Land Conservancy (RELC). The RELC provided a letter authorizing use of their parking area during construction and renovation. A waiver from the TOR zoning §140-17 parking requirements was requested at the September 9th meeting. The application was referred to the Town of Rochester Highway department which responded August 5th, 2019 with a letter stating “no further concerns or suggestions in regard to the parking area at this time”.
d. Outdoor lighting will be minimal. New lighting shall be dark sky compliant and comply with all TOR Zoning Code lighting regulations. This will be a condition of approval.
e. Sound/Noise: the use is exempt from the standards of §140-20(F).
f. Proposed Landscaping meets the requirements of §140-15.
10. Public hearing was held on August 12th, 2019 & September 9th, 2019.
11. The application was required to be referred to the Ulster County Planning Board which returned the comments addressed in the following section.

Whereas,
Draft findings were prepared by the Chairman and were read, discussed and amended in public meeting by the Planning Board.

Therefore,
The Planning Board adopts these statements as written findings of the Site Plan Approval

Adopted September 9th, 2019
Ayes: 6 Nays: 0 Absent: 1

Motion to adopt findings by: Mr. Buchbinder
Second by: Mr. Jones

* * * *

Ulster County Planning Board (UCPB) NYS General Municipal Law §239 Referral

Whereas,
The T/ Rochester Planning Board submitted the application for review to the UCPB pursuant to NYS GML §239.

Whereas,
The UCPB reviewed the proposal 8/7/2019 and returned written comment stating Required Modifications.

1. Health Department
Comment
The applicant is proposing to upgrade its existing wastewater facilities as well as making improvements to the kitchen to serve as an emergency shelter
Required Modification
The applicant will need to coordinate with the Ulster County Health Department to obtain all of the necessary permits (wastewater, food service, etc.) as a condition of site plan approval
Response
Securing all Ulster County Health Department approvals shall be a condition of approval.

2. Ulster County
Comment
As, stated and known by the community and applicant, the Ulster County Legislature must convey property to the Town [of Rochester] in order to facilitate the project’s development
Required Modification
As a condition of approval, the Ulster County Legislature will need to formally convey the land to the Town prior to the granting of any site plan approval.
Response
The Town Planning Board shall make this a condition of approval.

UCPB Required Modifications accepted and adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: 6 Nays: 0 Absent: 1

Motion by: Mr. Buchbinder
Second by: Mr. Pinsky
* * * *
RESOLVED,
Pursuant to the standards of Town of Rochester code §140, Zoning, the Town of Rochester Planning Board has reviewed the application presented and grants Site Plan Conditional Approval to the Accord Fire District and the Town of Rochester permitting the construction of an extension/addition on the lands situate at 5 Creek Road, known as S/B/L77.2-2-17, and located in the ‘R-1’ zoning districts subject to the conditions expressed below:
Conditions of the Approval:
1. Any and all fees due to the Town of Rochester involving this application shall be paid in full prior to the Chairman’s signature on the Site Plan.
2. All Local, County, State, and Federal Laws or Codes shall be complied with for the current or future use of these lands.
3. Any deviation from or amending of the approved and signed Site Plan shall require resubmission to the Planning Board, except as may be permitted as determined by the Code Enforcement Officer.
4. Any and all other agencies’ permits or approvals which are currently required or any which may be determined in the future to be required in conjunction with the construction and/or operation of this use shall be secured or renewed as applicable. Should any conditions imposed by other agency permits cause conditions to be in conflict, the more restrictive condition shall prevail. The facility owner shall specifically secure all necessary Ulster County Health Dept. permit(s) and adhere to the Basic SWPPP as presented with the Site Plan.
5. Should any permit approvals necessitate a change to the approved Site Plan, the matter shall be referred to the Planning Board for consideration.
6. The parcel shall be a combination of the existing tax parcel and a portion of Creek Road right-of-way which is to be conveyed to the Town of Rochester by Ulster County. The Ulster County Legislature shall formally convey the additional right-of-way lands to the Town of Rochester. Upon conveyance, the Town of Rochester shall grant the aforementioned Creek Road right-of-way lands to the Accord Fire District. Both shall occur before Site Plan Approval shall be granted.
7. The Planning Board grants the applicant a waiver for the Site Plan approval regarding the required number of parking spaces for a Place of Public Assembly as allowed per §140-17, (A) (2). Temporary parking along Creek Road shall be permitted. The Planning Board grants the applicant a parking waiver, taking into consideration the following site conditions:
a. The use is providing needed and expanded emergency services.
b. The site [parcel] contains a historic structure that would have to be altered if the applicant were to meet the parking standards of §140-17, (A) (2). The Planning Board determined, referencing the input of SHPO and the TOR Historic Commission, that the preservation of the historic structure shall take precedence over the parking space regulations of §140-17.
c. The TOR Highway Department stated no concerns or suggestions regarding the parking spaces and alternative solution(s).
d. The site [parcel] lacks the appropriate size for the required parking spaces.
e. The use is an existing use presently with no designated parking area [spaces].
f. The renovation/new site plan as approved shall create ADA complaint parking, which presently is not existent.
8. The applicant shall enter into and sign an agreement allowing parking to be permitted in the Rondout-Esopus Land Conservancy Parking Area during construction and renovation as per the agreement dated August 12th, 2019.
9. The driveway shall be maintained to NYS Fire Code regulation and standards. The use shall comply with all other standards of §140-17.
10. The use shall adhere to the standards of §140-20 at all times:
a. Lighting shall be installed as per the specifications indicated on the Site Plan and shall be compliant with §140-20(H) at all times.
b. Sound: Town of Rochester zoning code §140-20 (F) (3) exempts emergency alarms as could occur in the operation of a firehouse/emergency shelter from maximum permissible sound levels.
11. All refuse shall be deposited and maintained in appropriate containers and removed from the facility.
12. All kitchen cooking grease shall be contained in holding containers and removed from the facility. There shall be no dumping allowed on the parcel.
13. Landscaping shall adhere to the Landscaping Plan as specified on the Site Plan and shall be compliant with §140-15, Landscaping Requirements, at all times.
14. Exterior signage shall be compliant with §140-21 at all times. Should changes be sought at a future time, the code standards at the time of application shall be applicable.
The Town of Rochester Planning Board further grants the authority to the Chairman to certify condition 1, 6 and 8 has been completed without further resolution and to sign and date the plat at such time.

EFFECT of APPROVAL:

1. This Special Use and Site Plan approval and associated conditions shall be binding upon the applicant and all successive owners of the land so long as such use(s) shall occur.
2. This approval shall remain effective as an authorization to secure the required permits and establish the use(s) for a maximum of one year from this date of approval unless the applicant shall have submitted written request and the Planning Board shall have adopted such resolution granting an extension and provided the applicant has submitted proof of having diligently pursued the implementation of the plans.

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

Adopted September 9th, 2019 by the following vote:
Ayes: 6 Nays: 0 Absent: 1

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

PB 2019-08 SPA Public Hearing/Continued Application
Let Lee (Qwner) c/o Blake Arrowood/Arrowood Farms (Applicant)
Amend Existing Site Plan Approval
Applicant proposes the amendment of existing SUP/SPA 2016-01&2018-03 with a production facility expansion connecting current facility (brewery) to a larger to-be-constructed 5,000 sq. foot production facility on a +/- 48.5 acre parcel located at 236 Lower Whitfield Road, Accord, NY (S/B/L 68.4-4-23.110). Parcel is in the AR-3 and ‘AP Overlay’ zoning districts and located in Ulster County Ag District #3
SEQRA: Unlisted/Uncoordinated
*Ms. Maloney recused herself at 7:56pm
Mr. Barry Medenbach: Engineer, Mr. Jacob Meglio and Mr. Blake Arrowood, were present on behalf of the application.
Chair Lindstrom stated they had received comment from the UCPB and they had said there needed to be Health Department approval. She said the Board had also heard from the Highway Department regarding the weight limit of the bridge on Mettacahonts Road, which a member from the public had brought up at the prior meeting as being concerned about. Chair Lindstrom said the Highway Department had responded that the bridge was a County bridge but that it could take up to 15 tons and that meant it could take class 7 trucks and that was anything up to a tractor trailer and they would not be having those types of vehicles deliver to their property so the bridge would be able to still handle their deliveries.
Mr. Pinsky asked about lighting around the portable toilets that were listed on the site plan.
Chair Lindstrom stated that was not part of the current application as they only had the portable toilets during special events.
Mr. Pinsky asked if the proposed septic was going to be clearly marked for when it was dark outside.
Mr. Meglio said it was in their intention to do that.
Chair Lindstrom stated they needed to do SEQRA before they opened the public hearing.
Mr. Jones made the motion to type the application as a negative declaration. Mr.Buchbinder seconded the motion.
ROLL CALL:
Chair Lindstrom: Yes Mr. Jones: Yes
Mr. Buchbinder: Yes Mr. Zurofsky: Yes
Mr. Pinsky: Yes
All in Favor. Motion Carried.
5 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, 0 abstentions, 1 recused.
Chair Lindstrom opened the public hearing.
Ms. Amy Barley stated she just wanted to commend the guys on what they were doing and in the brief time they have been there that they were able to move into an expansion project and it was a testament to what great of a job they were doing. She said she was all for the expansion and thought it was a great idea and with everybody being into this idea of organic food and drinks, they were just going with the flow and now was the time to get into it and our community was really pushing for it on that project of organic and getting away from the chemical and that kind of stuff and because they were a farm brewery, most of their items were purchased from New York State, and on a state level they were helping the State and they were helping the County and they were helping the community. She said she would also like to commend them on providing such a beautiful area and atmosphere and she also was at one of their events where there were a lot of cars there and everyone pulling in and leaving was ran very smoothly and it was very appreciative of them being able to maintain everything and she wanted them to go for it.
No one else from the public spoke.
Mr. Jones made the motion to close the public hearing. Chair Lindstrom seconded the motion.
All in Favor. Motion carried.
5 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, 0 abstentions, 1 recused.
There were no more discussion.
Chair Lindstrom read the decision.
Decision 2019-08 SPA
Site Plan Approval Conditional Approval

Applicant: Blake Arrowood & Jacob Meglio (Applicant) Let W. Lee (Owner) dba Arrowwood Farms, LLC

Reason for Request: The application proposes the expansion of an existing farm operation, brewery and tasting room (Agritourism Business) with additional brewing space of approximately 5,000 square feet with commensurate expansion of parking, and related supporting utilities and amenities.

Location: 236 Lower Whitfield Road, Accord, NY
S/B/L: SBL 68.4-4-23.111
Total Acreage: ± 48.5 acre parcel
Zoning District: AR-3 zoning, AP Overlay

Code Enforcement Determination: Site Plan Approval (amend existing approval(s) 2016-01 & 2018-03 SUP/SPA)
Zoning Permit: 197 of 2019, dated 6/10/2019

Planning Board Application: 2019-09 SPA
PB Application filed: 7/3/2019
EAF filed: 6/24/2019
SEQR Type: Unlisted/Uncoordinated Negative Declaration 9/9/2019

Other Referrals: Ulster County Planning Board, TOR Highway Department
Documents considered by the Planning Board for review for amended application:

21. Zoning Permit 197 of 2019 determination of Site Plan Approval, received 6/10/2019
22. Planning Board Site Plan Approval application, 2019-08 SPA received 7/3/2019
23. Short Form EAF Part 1, received 6/24/2019
24. Site Plan, prepared by Medenbach & Eggers, received 6/10/2019, revised 8/27/2019
25. Ag Data Statement, received 6/24/2019
26. Aerial view of site plan received 6/10/2019
27. Architectural renderings and building elevations received 6/10/2019
28. Narrative of project received 6/24/2019
29. Lighting, Parking & Access, Signage and Landscaping details, received 6/24/2019
30. Additional Lighting Schedule received 7/30/2019, revised 8/27/2019
31. Letter from TOR Highway Department dated 8/21/2019 and truck classification chart, reviewed September 9th 2019
32. UCPB review memo, dated 9/4/2019

Notice of Public Hearing:

4. Published in the Shawngunk Journal August 1st, 2019
5. Notice by mail to known adjacent landowners
6. Posted on the T/ Rochester Clerk bulletin board and town website.

Date of Public Hearing: August 12th & September 9th, 2019
Place: Accord Highway Department Garage & Accord Fire Department, Accord, NY
Public Comment: (see Minutes of Town of Rochester Planning Board, 8/12/2019 & 9/9/2019)
* * * * * * *
Findings of the Planning Board with review of the updated application:

12. The Planning Board received a zoning referral for an update/amendment of PB Site Plan Approval 2018-03 for the expansion of existing brewing facilities by the addition of an approximately 5,000 square foot new brewing facility.
13. The original Site Plan Approval was granted April 11th, 2016 by the Town of Rochester Planning Board with decision PB 2016-01 SPA for the use “Agricultural Tourism Enterprise for the operation of a farm brewery tasting room as defined by NY State Ag & Markets and NYS Alcohol and Beverage Control”. An amendment to PB SPA 2016-01 with 2018-03 SUP/SPA was granted July 9th, 2018 for the addition of commercial events facility, as defined in the T/ Rochester zoning code §140-35, with commensurate expansion of parking, and related supporting amenities.
14. The 48.5 acre parcel’s existing use is a farm brewery and brewery tasting room of approximately 2,400 sq. ft. Additionally, the farm grows certified organic hops and grains; and raises pigs, ducks, chickens, bees, fruits and vegetables and hosts up to 12 commercial special events per year. The existing use employs 9 full time and 5 part time employees.
15. Existing improvements to the parcel consist of a 2,400 sq. ft. tasting room and brewing facility, a 480 sq. ft. barn and a 1,800 sq. ft. pavilion and a low wooden stage. Contiguous parcels are used for farming, are residential or currently undeveloped woodlands. Contiguous parcels are zoned AR-3 and R-1.
16. The Planning Board further received a Site Plan application, EAF, and related documentation from the applicant, cited above.
17. The parcel to be developed is known as S/B/L 68.4-4-23.111.
18. The parcel has road frontage onto Lower Whitfield Road, a Town of Rochester maintained highway. No changes are to be made to the access drive with the proposed additional brewery space.
19. The parcel is located in the ‘AR-3’ and ‘AP Overlay’ zoning district and the use complies with the standards of such districts and no further review is required.
20. The parcel is located in Ulster County Ag District #3. An Agricultural Data Statement was prepared and presented. The Planning Board finds this use complies with the standards of such district.
21. The Board determined the action to be a SEQRA Unlisted/Uncoordinated Action. The Board reviewed Part 1 and discussed and completed Part 2 of the EAF. A Part 3 was completed and the Board determined the proposed action will not have a significant adverse environmental impact. A Negative Declaration was adopted and filed.
22. The Planning Board discussed and reviewed the site plan. The applicant proposes the expansion of brewing space with a 5,000 sq. foot addition to the existing brewing area. The additional facility will not be accessible to the general public but will serve as additional brew space and offices and be connected to the existing brewery space and tasting room via a fully enclosed walkway with fire doors. The brewing facility addition shall be compliant with all articles of § 140-20 General Commercial and Industrial Standards as a condition of approval.
a. The proposed brewery addition meets the height and lot coverage requirements of §140-20. The building style is to be the same as the existing brewery/tasting room—barn style wood clad.
b. Existing brewery parking will be expanded from 19 to 24 spaces with 2 ADA compliant spaces and rack parking for 9 bicycles. This will be a condition of approval
c. Proposed additional outdoor lighting will be minimal and largely consists of fully-shielded gooseneck lamps mounted to the new structure. A lighting contour map was provided and lighting as proposed was determined to be compliant with 140-20((H). All lights on the new brewing facility will be dark sky compliant and comply with all TOR Zoning Code lighting regulations. This will be a condition of approval.
d. Interior wayfaring and restricted area signage will be provided for the additional brewing facility. New gravel footpath access (from the field event parking and from the new brewery parking) is detailed on the site plan.
e. The proposed loading dock and dumpsters are screened and detailed on the site plan. The proposed building location is incorporated in the existing topography, buildings and vegetation. No existing treed/vegetative borders are proposed to be altered, as the new structure is to be largely constructed within the existing parking and loading area.
f. Sound/Noise: The Board found the sound associated with the proposal will meet the standards of §140-20(F).
23. The parcel is located in the Accord Fire District. The existing brewery driveway access is compliant with the Town of Rochester Fire code, with a letter stating such dated March 9, 2016 on file. The proposed new construction will not alter the existing driveway access/use.
24. The proposed new wastewater system and well are detailed on the site plan. Well water will not be used for the brewing of beer, water for brewing shall be brought in as is the current practice. The new wastewater treatment shall meet NYS DEC/Ulster County Health Department standards for the expanded use and shall requite UCDOH permitting and SPDES permit from the DEC. A soil erosion and sediment plan shall need to be provided. This shall be a condition of approval.
25. Public hearing was held on August 12th, 2019 and September 9th, 2019
26. At the August 12th public hearing the public expressed generalized concern over truck traffic and truck loads over the Mettacahonts Road Bridge. The proposed expansion should not increase truck traffic/driveway usage, but will potentially increase the load(s) of existing delivery truck traffic. The Planning Board contacted the TOR Highway Department regarding the weight tolerance of the Mettacahonts Road Bridge. The Highway Department responded that the bridge was a county maintained bridge, but is marked for 15 ton loads. A 15 ton load rating is sufficient for vehicles up to and including Class 7 trucks (26,001 – 33,000 lb single unit 4 axles or greater). The current and proposed use does not require trucks over Class 7 (beverage delivery vans are typically Class 6).
27. The application was required to be referred to the Ulster County Planning Board which returned the comments addressed in the following section.

Whereas,
Draft findings were prepared by the Chairman and were read, discussed and amended in public meeting by the Planning Board.

Therefore,
The Planning Board adopts these statements as written findings of the Site Plan Approval

Adopted September 9th, 2019
Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Absent: 1

Motion to adopt findings by: Mr. Buchbinder
Second by: Mr. Zurofsky

* * * *

Ulster County Planning Board (UCPB) NYS General Municipal Law §239 Referral

Whereas,
The T/ Rochester Planning Board submitted the application for review to the UCPB pursuant to NYS GML §239.

Whereas,
The UCPB reviewed the proposal 9/4/2019 and returned written comment stating Required Modifications.

3. Health Department Approval
Comment
The applicant is proposing a new septic system to support the brewery expansion
Required Modification
Approval of the wastewater facilities from the County Health Department will be required
Response
Securing all Ulster County Health Department approvals shall be a condition of approval.

UCPB Required Modifications accepted and adopted September 9th, 2019 by the following vote:
Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Absent: 1

Motion by: Mr. Jones
Second by: Mr. Zurofsky

* * * *
RESOLVED,
Pursuant to the standards of Town of Rochester code §140, Zoning, the Town of Rochester Planning Board has reviewed the application presented and grants Site Plan Conditional Approval to Blake Arrowood, Jake Meglio and Let Lee (aka Arrowood Farms), permitting the construction of an 5,000 sq. ft. brewing facility addition on the lands situate at 236 Lower Whitfield Rd., known as S/B/L 68.4-4-23.111, and located in the ‘AR-3’ and ‘AP Overlay’ zoning districts, subject to the conditions expressed below:
Conditions of the Approval:
15. Any and all fees due to the Town of Rochester involving this application shall be paid in full prior to the Chairman’s signature on the Site Plan.
16. Conditions of PB Decision 2016-01 SPA and 2018-03 SUP/SPA remain fully in effect, except where specifically superseded by this conditional decision PB SPA 2019-08
17. All Local, County, State, and Federal Laws or Codes shall be complied with for the current or future use of these lands.
18. Any deviation from or amending of the approved and signed Site Plan shall require resubmission to the Planning Board, except as may be permitted as determined by the Code Enforcement Officer.
19. Any and all other agencies’ permits or approvals which are currently required or any which may be determined in the future to be required in conjunction with the construction and/or operation of this use shall be secured or renewed as applicable. Should any conditions imposed by other agency permits cause conditions to be in conflict, the more restrictive condition shall prevail. The facility owner shall specifically secure Ulster County Health Dept. permit(s) and NYSDEC SPDES permit.
20. The applicant shall provide the Planning Board with a soil sediment and erosion plan before approval and signature of the site plan.
21. Should any permit approvals necessitate a change to the approved Site Plan, the matter shall be referred to the Planning Board for consideration.
22. The driveway shall be maintained to NYS Fire Code regulation and standards.
23. The use shall comply at all times with all provisions of Town of Rochester code §140-18, Overlay Districts.
24. Parking, Access and Traffic shall be in compliance with municipal code §140-17 at all times. Parking shall only be allowed in the spaces designated on the approved and signed Site Plan. Parking shall not be allowed within the public road right-of-way or within the brewery access driveway or designated Site Plan traffic aisles at any time. Parking shall not interfere with the movement of emergency vehicles, including but not limited to Fire, Police and Emergency Medical Transport. Designated Brewery parking spaces shall be increased to 24 spaces from 19 spaces, with 2 ADA compliant spaces and the addition of bicycle parking as detailed on the site plan. This supersedes the conditions of PB Decision 2016-01 SPA.
25. The use shall comply at all times with all provisions of Town of Rochester code §140-20 General and Commercial Industrial Standards and shall adhere to the approved and signed site plan:
a. Lighting shall be installed as per the specifications indicated on the Site Plan and shall be compliant with §140-20(H) at all times.
b. Sound shall comply with Town of Rochester zoning code §140-20(F) at all times, excepting any sound which may be generated by the normal and customary agricultural use of the property.
26. All refuse shall be deposited and maintained in appropriate containers and removed from the facility. There shall be no dumping allowed on the parcel.
27. Interior site directional signage and building attached signage shall be permitted as detailed on the site plan.
28. There shall be no changes in exterior roadway signage allowed from existing site conditions, except that which may be determined by the Code Enforcement office to not require Planning Board review and approval. Should changes be sought at a future time, the code standards at the time of application shall be applicable.

The Town of Rochester Planning Board further grants the authority to the Chairman to certify condition 1 & 6 have been completed without further resolution and to sign and date the plat at such time.

EFFECT of APPROVAL:

3. This Special Use and Site Plan approval and associated conditions shall be binding upon the applicant and all successive owners of the land so long as such use(s) shall occur.
4. This approval shall remain effective as an authorization to secure the required permits and establish the use(s) for a maximum of one year from this date of approval unless the applicant shall have submitted written request and the Planning Board shall have adopted such resolution granting an extension and provided the applicant has submitted proof of having diligently pursued the implementation of the plans.

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

Adopted September 9th, 2019, by the following vote:
Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Absent: 1

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

*Ms. Maloney returned to the meeting at 8:24pm.
PB 2019-07 SUP/SPA Public Hearing/Continued Application
PB 2019-10 SBD Public Hearing/Continued Application
Lorraine Nicholson (Owner)
Colony House NY, LLC d.b.a Stonehill’s Farmhouse
Applicant proposes conversion of existing structures into bed and breakfast style inn/lodging, and use of the existing barn and grounds for commercial special events. Vacant land is proposed to be converted into farming and additional paring. Parcel is +/- 19.75 acres (S/B/L 68.4-4-22.116) located at 77 Mill Hook Road, Accord, NY. The parcel presently has two existing single family residences, 4 vacant bungalows, and a 2,500 sq. ft. detached barn and accessory structures. The parcel further contains woodlands/vacant land and lawn/landscaped area. Parcel is AR-3 zoned (agricultural residential).
SEQRA: Type II

*Mr. Pinsky recused himself from the application at 8:26pm
Ms. Lorraine Nicholson and Ms. Alicia Gauither were present on behalf of the application.
Chair Lindstrom explained that the application was for three items: A special use permit and site plan approval for the Inn/B&B and a Subdivision. She stated that the Board would review the subdivision portion of the application to begin and that they needed to review SEQRA before opening the public hearing for the subdivision.
Chair Lindstrom read for the record the applicant’s description in their EAF of the project as it had been edited after the August Regular meeting:
“Colony House, LLC dba Stonehill’s Farmhouse has been making improvements to the existing buildings located at 77 Mill Hook Rd. In the Town of Accord, New York in order to prepare the buildings for use as an inn and event facility. No new buildings are proposed to build, however, we are purposing to make improvements to the sewage and potable water systems to meet requirements of the Ulster County Department of Health. We will also be adding an adequate amount of parking as required by the Town of Rochester to enable us to host events. Proposing subdivision of existing 19.73 acres, APN 68.4-4-22.116 into 2 parcels to satisfy Rondout Savings requirements that each of the 2 existing mortgage notes has its own identifiable APN to properly secure the mortgage rate notes.”
The Board went through the SEQRA for the entire project.
Mr. Jones made the motion to type the application as a Negative Declaration for SEQRA. Mr. Buchbinder seconded the motion.
ROLL CALL:
Chair Lindstrom- Yes Ms. Maloney- Yes
Mr. Buchbinder- Yes Mr. Zurofsky- Yes
Mr. Jones- Yes
All in Favor. Motion Carried.
5 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, 0 abstentions, 1 recused
The Board reviewed the maps and information for the subdivision.
Chair Lindstrom opened the public hearing for the subdivision portion of the application.
Ms. Cheryl H stated she didn’t see why they couldn’t do the subdivision to fulfil their mortgage requirements.
No one else from the public spoke.
Chair Lindstrom made the motion to close the public hearing for the subdivision. Mr. Buchbinder seconded the motion.
All in favor. Motion carried.
5 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, 0 abstentions, 1 recused.
Chair Lindstrom read the decision for the subdivision:
Decision: PB 2019-10 SBD
Minor Subdivision Conditional Final Approval

Applicant: Lorraine Nicholson

Reason for Request: Applicant proposes the subdivision of S/B/L 68.4-4-22.116 (+/- 19.74 acres) into 2 lots: lot 1 +- 13.55 acres and lot 2 6.584 acres

Location: 77 Mill Hook Road, Accord, NY
Total Acreage: ±19.745 acres
S/B/L: S/B/L 68.4-4-22.116 Zoning District: AR-3 (Residential Agricultural)
Parcel is in the ‘FP Overlay’ zoning district and contains ACOE Wetlands

Code Enforcement Determination: Minor Subdivision
Zoning Permit: 240 of 2019

Planning Board Application: 2019-10 SBD
PB Application filed: 6/24/2019 EAF filed: 7/3/2019

SEQR Type: Unlisted, Uncoordinated – 8/12/2019
SEQR Determination: Negative Declaration – 9/9/2019
Other Agency Referrals: N/A

Documents considered by the Planning Board for review

1. Zoning Permit 240 of 2019 determination of Minor Subdivision received 7/3/2019
2. Planning Board Subdivision application 2019-10 SBD received 7/3/2019
3. Notarized letter of Representative powers from MS Nicholson to Alicia Gauthier received 6/24/2019
4. Short Form EAF Part 1 received 7/3/2019
5. Zoning specification sheet for subdivision received 7/15/2019
6. Site Plan and proposed subdivision survey, received 8/27/2019
7. Ulster County Parcel Viewer Aerial View 8/12/2019

Notice of Public Hearing:

7. Published in the August 29th, 2019 edition of the Shawangunk Journal.
8. Notice by mail to known landowners within 500’.
9. Posted on the T/ Rochester Clerk bulletin board and Town of Rochester website.

Date of Public Hearing: 9/9/2019 Place: Accord Fire House, Accord, NY
Public Comment: (see Minutes of Town of Rochester Planning Board, September 9th, 2019)
* * * *
Findings of the Planning Board
1. The Planning Board received zoning referral for a minor subdivision from the Code Enforcement Officer.
2. The applicant met with the Planning Board and presented the subdivision map for review.
3. The parcel is in the AR-3 zoning district. Town of Rochester AR-3 zoned districts is a Residential Agricultural District. The applicant proposes the subdivision of S/B/L 68.4-4-22.116 (+/- 19.74 acres) into 2 lots: lot 1 +- 13.55 acres and lot 2 +/- 6.584 acres, respectively.
4. The existing plat is filed with the Ulster County Clerk.
5. The current use of the parcel is farm/woodlands, several residences, barn and an old summer camp. Existing site conditions includes various single-family dwellings with water and septic and accessory structures. Both of the proposed lots will retain single family dwellings with water and septic. The applicant is in the process of renovating the existing structures on the parcel and converting the parcel into an inn/lodging and special events facility. New lots are to be created to meet the collateral requirements for existing mortgages. Use of the proposed two (new) lots shall remain the same as before the proposed subdivision.
6. ACOE wetlands and ‘FD Overlay’ zoning is found on the parcel. No development is to occur within 100 feet of the wetland area(s). No development shall be permitted within the ‘FD Overlay’ designated lands that does not comply with §140-18 B. (FD). This will be a condition of approval.
7. The application was determined to meet the requirements of an Unlisted SEQRA action.
• A Negative Declaration was determined upon review.
8. A Public Hearing was held.
9. The Board reviewed if the proposed lot has safe and legal access.
• The Board concludes that both proposed lots will have adequate>/ 50 foot frontage on the Town Highway Mill Hook Road.
10. The parcel is in the AR-3 zoning district. Upon review, the Board concludes that the 2 proposed parcels meet or exceed the bulk standards requirements for the AR-3 zoning district.
• The Board reviewed if the proposed lots could support water and septic. The parcels have existing water and septic.

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

Adopted September 9th, 2019 by the following vote:
Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Absent: 1

Motion to adopt findings by: Mr. Zurofsky
Second by: Ms. Maloney
* * * *
RESOLVED,
The Town of Rochester Planning Board grants Minor Subdivision- Conditional Final Approval to permitting the subdivision of lands situated at: 77 Mill Hook Road, Accord, NY

The subdivision plan dated July 3rd, 2019 is approved with the following conditions.

CONDITIONS of APPROVAL:

1. All fees due to the Town of Rochester involving this application shall be paid in full prior to the Chair’s signature on the Final Plat.
2. The applicant shall present a Final Plat for signature. The following plat note shall be included:
a. “The plat is not capable of being subdivided further or is so restricted”.
b. “This property contains lands within the 100-year floodplain as depicted by FEMA on plate 36111C0595E effective 9/25/2009. Any construction or disturbance within the FEMA designated 100 year flood plain shall adhere to the Town of Rochester Chapter 81 Flood Damage Prevention, or it’s successors”
3. No development shall occur within 100 feet of defined wetland areas.
4. Any and all development shall comply with §140-18 B. (FD) and §125-21 and §125-22;
5. All required Local, County, State or Federal permits shall be secured for the current and future use of these lands.

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

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

EFFECT of APPROVAL:
1. The owner shall file in the office of the Ulster County Clerk such approved plat bearing the Chairman’s signature and any other related documents within 62 days from the date of signature or such approval shall be deemed to expire without further notice in accordance with NYS Town Law §276.
2. The owner shall have the responsibility to return three (3) Ulster County Clerk certified copies of the filed plat and any other related documents to the T/ Rochester Planning Board within 30 days of such filing.

Adopted September 9th, 2019, by the following vote:
Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Absent: 1

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

The Board moved on to the site plan approval and special events portion of the application.
Chair Lindstrom read the comments from the Ulster County Planning Board. She said they stated the applicant needed to get Ulster County Department of Health permits and a SPDES permit through the NYS DEC in regards to the water and septic. She stated the UCPB had noted the applicant needed to coordinate with the Town regarding a pedestrian crossing on Mill Hook Rd and they were recommending the use of warning lights to notify drivers, particularly for nighttime events. She noted her own personal suggestion was to have a parking attendant for special events as well as the signage.
Chair Lindstrom stated they had reached out to both the Fire Department and the Town Highway Department and that they had received a response from the Highway Department only. She said the Highway Department stated the applicant needed to obtain a driveway permit and to contact them before any installations of signs.
Ms. Lorraine Nicholson stated the SPDES was in process.
Chair Lindstrom explained they needed to add a soil sediment and erosion control plan to their site plan. She asked the Town Attorney if they needed one for the septic.
Attorney Christiana answered no, they did not.
Ms. Nicholson explained that for the leech field they were pulling up black top from an old tennis court and putting it there.
Ms. Gauither stated it was not disturbed land.
Chair Lindstrom noted they needed a lighting contour map. She asked if they would be having tents at their special events.
Ms. Gauither answered no, they would just use the barn but caterers may have their own tents.
Chair Lindstrom suggested they also call out their internal wayfare parking on the site plan. She stated she had been confused in regards to parking because on the site plan it showed there were 14 parking spaces where the inn would be, but there needed to be 17, so they needed to make their parking spots more defined on their maps.
Ms. Nicholson showed the Board on the map where all the parking was for clarification and stated there were 3 parking spots on the other side of the barn that were not shown on the map.
The Board discussed that Ms. Nicholson needed to show the 3 extra parking spots on the site plan so it would equal the required 17.
Ms. Gauither added that they had spoken to the Highway Department who suggested the parking would be set up that people would go in one entrance and then out an exit that was not the same as where the entrance was.
Chair Lindstrom said it would be a good idea for them to consider having some temporary lighting in the parking area for when they did special events as it would be dark.
Mr. Jones asked why they wouldn’t have the lights in that area at all times.
Chair Lindstrom said they wouldn’t be doing special events all the time, so they did not need to have permanent lighting.
Ms. Gauither stated they were looking into doing solar powered motion lights for the special events parking area.
Chair Lindstrom said that should be added to the lighting schedule.
Chair Lindstrom asked if there was going to be fencing that separates the special events parking from the road.
Ms. Nicholson stated they had planned on putting some kind of wood fencing up in that area.
Chair Lindstrom commented that was a very good idea and that should be called out on the site plan as well.
Mr. Buchbinder stated it would be good to have temporary signage up during special events that had blinking lights to further ensure the pedestrians got across safely and the drivers on the road were aware something was going on.
Ms. Gauither stated they had observed other local business that did special events to get an idea of what they would need to do.
Chair Lindstrom suggested that a conference call with their engineer could be set up to make sure the design of their signs were done properly.
Mr. Jones asked where the buffer zones for the wetlands were on the plans.
Chair Lindstrom said the wetland buffer zones needed to be called out on the site plan.
There was no other questions or comments from the Board.
Chair Lindstrom opened the public hearing.
Ms. Amy Barley said that everyone wanted a barn wedding now a days and she thought that what they were doing was fantastic as the barn was in awful shape before they began the restoration process and it had been given new life and it was incredible and she really loved what they were doing. She stated she appreciated how they were staying with the historical aspects of the original structures and just thought it was a great idea and wanted to wish them all the success in the world and was so happy that they were doing the project without having to tear any trees down or changing any of the historical buildings on the property.
Mr. Ken Stephans said he lived on Mill Hook Rd and lived about 25 ft. From the property and had been a resident for 33 years and it used to be a dirt road. He stated he worked on the bungalows on the property in the past and knew there would be some impact with the project however it was not entirely inconsistent with the evolution of the area nor the historic use of the facility. He said there had been events in the barn in the past, he recalled going to a play that was held there in the past, there were meetings there as well, and he supported the project. He concluded that there would be impact but that was life and they were making improvements.
Ms. Joann DeCours said she had photos that she wanted to present to the Board. She stated she did not think the event space on Mill Hook Rd. was a good idea and that the road was very narrow and winding and it had two big curves. She said the pictures showed a curve that was blind and was dangerous and with three camps in the area there were often people walking on the road either alone or in groups or with baby carriages, dogs, or large ride on mowers, etc. And this was a safety hazard. She stated the first thing was Mill Hook Rd measured 16 ft. by 8 in wide at the bind curve and one side of the shoulder was about 4 ft. wide and it dropped steeply. Ms. DeCours explained on the other side measured 4-6 ft. At its widest and it had a ditch and a stone wall so if someone was walking and had to get out of the way of a car, there would be nowhere for them to go. She said people often drove in the middle of the road and when you hit a blind curve and there are two cars on the road it gets a little hairy. She went on the state the average car or SUV, and she used her vehicle as an example which was a small Ford Escape and was 6ft bumper to bumper and 7ft with one mirror and 8 ft. with two mirrors, and the road measured around 17ft and if there were 2 SUVs that were small like hers was, that would leave the vehicles only 2 feet of space to pass and they could do it now, it was okay, but if someone was walking there would be no way for them to go. Ms. Decours further stated the average school bus, large pickup truck, ambulance, UPS Truck, etc. they measured more, at least 7-9ft without mirrors, and it was a sharp curve and the speed limit was 35mph and what she could tell most people considered that a suggestion, and you would not want to be caught as a pedestrian when these large vehicles were speeding down the road and at that curve and that didn’t include the busses, drunk drivers, or beginning drivers or people trying to avoid deer on the road and this was all during daylight hours in good condition and not at night or when it rains. She stated that she was at the last meeting but some of her information might not be as accurate as she thought it was but an event space would require more trucks, because at the last meeting they had mentioned using port-a-potties, using food tents, food trucks, and other supplies and there was no room on the road at the moment for these vehicles should they meet at the curve and people attending the events their vehicles, their bikes, their pets would add more traffic to the curve. She also mentioned if you got stuck on the curve as a pedestrian it was not only dangerous but really unpleasant, and she had an experience herself where one of the busses coming down the road and it came so close to her she could actually reach out her hand and touch it and the road floods. She said the camp on Mill Hook Rd, (n the other side of the bridge) would connect with the bed and breakfast to the camp, they use large charter busses and an empty charter bus weighs 25,000 lbs. and a fully loaded one weighed 40,000 lbs. but the sign on the bridge said it could hold up to 16,000 lbs. and she wasn’t sure if a bus was different from a truck but there were 5 of them two weeks ago picking up and dropping off people and 2 of them literally had to back down Mill Hook Rd and barely made the sharp curve. She concluded with that she knew there was a path that went through the woods that connects Arrowood with the proposed project and it was her understanding that the path was going to be used by the public to get from event to event, from the bed and breakfast to Arrowood and her family owned the field that was adjacent to the property and for the last 20 years or more she had been trying to keep people off that field and she had put up posted signs and the people would tear down the signs, she put a fence up and they stole the fence, she and her neighbors put vehicles up to prevent them from going through the field and 2 of the vehicles had been stolen. She asked how her family’s land would be protected? She also mentioned there were bears and fishers in the area.
Ms. Cheryl Hecht stated she first wanted to thank the Planning Board for all the time they had spent diligently going through all the community business and she wanted to thank Ms. Decours for bringing up the somewhat unrelated concerns about the camps which bordered the property. She said when it came to the concerns about the busses and things like that she felt there should be some attention paid to those items, in terms of the dimensions of the road, Mill Hook Rd. was used as a detour for 209 when it was needed and although it was a narrow road and it was not designed for that kind of traffic, but it had been done for years and she did not anticipate the same happening with the new event space, it was a curvy country road and she drove on it all the time. She lived at the other end of Mill Hook Road, since 1986 when it was a dirt road and when there were bungalows and she walked and road her bike on the road and when busses were there for the camp it was not very pleasant but other than that she did not feel it was that dangerous and could accommodate what the event space would be bringing in. She stated the work being done was beautiful and it was being done respectfully and it was an asset and she had attended events in the past and was looking forward to attend future ones when the work was complete.
A gentleman from the public spoke about how he was concerned with the flooding of the road. He stated if they were putting in blacktop it would be destroyed and he was very concerned about the road conditions with the proposed project.
Supervisor Mike Baden commented that it would be a good idea to have lights when people were crossing the road at night during special events such as street lights.
Chair Lindstrom stated that was what the blinking lights would be used for.
Supervisor Baden said that was okay as long as there was some type of permanent lighting that could be used as needed.
Then Board discussed leaving the public hearing open until the next month as there needed to be changes made to the site plan by the applicant.
Mr. Jones made the motion to keep the public hearing open until the October 10th, 2019 Regular Meeting. Mr. Zurofsky seconded the motion.
All in Favor. Motion carried.
5 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, 0 abstentions, 1 recused.
There was no further discussion.
PB 2019-06 SUP/SPA Continued Application
Acorn Waldorf School c/o Motria Shuhan (Applicant), George Schoonmaker (Owner)
Special Use Permit & Site Plan Approval
Applicant proposes the construction of a one level 2,400 sq. ft. private pre-school/kindergarten, on a +/- 23 acre parcel (S/B/L 69.3-1-20). Parcel is located on Canyon Road, Accord, NY. Parcel is AR-3 zoned, adjacent to Ulster County Ag District #3 lands and contains limited habitat core lands.
SEQRA: TBD

*9:26pm Mr. Pinsky returned to the meeting.
Ms. Motria Shuhan and Mr. Barry Medenbach were present on behalf of the application.
Chair Lindstrom explained that Mr. Medenbach had reached out to SHPO in regards to the archaeological site on lands of the proposed project and that SHPO had responded that the proposed project had no impact on the archaeological site.
Mr. Pinsky wanted clarification on the depth of the pond on the site.
Mr. Medenbach asked if Mr.Pinsky was asking about the existing pond was essentially not on their property.
Mr. Pinsky said he was speaking about the retention ponds on the site plan.
Mr. Medenbach stated those were proposed retention ponds and they were landscaping features so when there was run off from the roof there would be a shallow area that had vegetation in it that could withstand saturation.
Mr. Jones expressed his concern over the width of the road being able to accommodate the increase traffic as Canyon Lake Rd was narrow, he asked if Airport Rd could be used as the road they exited on.
Mr. Medenbach stated Airport Rd was too steep and that Canyon Lake Rd was wide enough for 2-way traffic. He also stated this had been mentioned at their initial presentation.
Chair Lindstrom asked if there was a way they could move the driveway to Airport Rd.
Mr. Medenbach said that where Chair Lindstrom had indicated the driveway to be moved was the collection point of the onsite run off.
Chair Lindstrom asked if the driveway could be moved at all.
There was a discussion between Mr. Jones and Mr. Medenbach about the road being able to accommodate additional traffic.
Mr. Jones stated there would be an incident eventually on the road given the width and the amount of cars during the morning drop off times and the afternoon pick up times.
Mr. Medenbach said it would be quite an expense to have to move the exit onto Airport Rd.
Mr. Zurofsky said his thoughts were to reach out to the Highway Department since it was a Town road and get their thoughts on the potential traffic issues. He said if the Highway Okayed the proposal then he would be okay with it as the traffic concerns had already been addressed at the initial meeting.
Mr. Jones asked if they [the Board] wasn’t concern about the road.
Mr. Zurofsky stated it wasn’t that he wasn’t concerned but he felt the issue had already been discussed and nothing further had been mentioned at the applicant’s initial meeting.
Mr. Buchbinder stated one thing to note with putting the driveway on Airport Rd there would be more disrupted wooded areas if they had to move the driveway and exit.
Mr. Jones said trees didn’t matter as much as a human life.
Chair Lindstrom noted the use was being given to the land so whether the school only had 50 students and they all come in one car or they walk it was about the structure and the parking and the driveway being there so if someone else bought the land down the road the use would go with it. She stated it was about the parking and site being able to sustain the number of cars and traffic, so that was what it a letter to the highway would be about.
Mr. Zurofsky asked if the Highway Department could make the road wider, would that be helpful?
Attorney Christiana answered that the letter should ask if the current road width was a problem and if so, ask for a recommendation on how to fix the issue.
Mr. Zurofsky made the motion to send a letter to the Town of Rochester Highway Department and the Accord Fire District for their comments. Ms. Maloney seconded the motion.
All in Favor. Motion Carried.
6 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, 0 abstentions.
The Board discussed sending the application to the Ulster County Planning Board.
Chair Lindstrom made the motion to send the application to the Ulster County Planning Board. Mr. Zurofsky seconded the motion.
All in Favor. Motion Carried.
6 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, 0 abstentions.
The Board discussed if there was enough information to send the application for public hearing.
Chair Lindstrom made the motion to set the application for public hearing at the October 10th, 2019 Regular Meeting. Mr. Jones seconded the motion.
All in Favor. Motion Carried.
6 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, 0 abstentions.

Before the Board moved on to the next application, it was stated by Chair Lindstrom that the October Regular Planning Board meeting needed to be changed as it fell on the same day as the ZBA meeting, October 17th, due to the Columbus Day Holiday and suggested it be changed to October 10th.
Mr. Pinsky made the motion to change the meeting date to October 10th, 2019 and have the secretary advertise the change to the appropriate outlets. Mr. Buchbinder seconded the motion.
All in Favor. Motion Carried.
6 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, 0 abstentions.

PB 2019-11 SBD New Application
Woodstock Farm Animal Sanctuary (Owner and Applicant)
Minor Subdivision
Applicant proposes the subdivision of a +/- 149.3 acre parcel (S/B/L 69.4-2-11.2) by the separation of +/- 15.373 acres into a second parcel to be transferred to 641 Berme Road, Accord, NY. Existing parcel is accessible by Lucas Turnpike, High Falls, NY and located at 2 Rescue Lane, High Falls, NY. The existing parcel contains a lodge and educational center, animal sanctuary, pasture lands, waterway and undeveloped woodlands. Parcel is AR-3 zoned (agricultural residential), adjacent to Ulster County Ag District #3, within 500’ of the Town of Marbletown, is in the ‘FP’ and ‘AP overlay zoning districts and the DOH Aquifer district and contains ACOE Wetlands.
SEQRA: TBD

Mr. Jeff Lydon was present on behalf of the application.

Chair Lindstrom explained that although the application was present at the previous month’s meeting, the CEO had confirmed that it was subdivision and so it was under review again. She stated to Mr. Lydon that the final maps needed to get the wording off for the other parcels as it was confusing.

The Board discussed the application and noted the parcel in question was land locked.

Attorney Christiana stated she would speak to Mr. Lydon’s surveyor in order to make sure every correction needed would be done to the maps and she would also look into how to proceed with the land locked parcel.

PB 2019-12 SBD New Application
Gerald Rusolo (Owner & Applicant)
Minor Subdivision
Applicant proposes the subdivision of a +/- 15.58 acre parcel (S/B/L 76.4-2-11.300) into two lots by the separation of +/- 3.25 acres into a second parcel. Proposed parcels are to be separated by Berme Road. Existing parcel is parcel #3 of an existing subdivision and is vacant woodlands. Parcel is located at 2021/2022 Berme Road, Accord, NY and is in the R-2 zoning district. No construction is planned at this time.
SEQRA: TBD

No one was present on behalf of the application.
Mr. Zurofsky made the motion to table the application until the October 10th, 2019 meeting. Ms. Maloney seconded the motion.
All in Favor. Motion Carried.
6 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, 0 abstentions.

PB 2019-13 SBD New Application
Michael O’Sullivan (Owner & Applicant)
Minor Subdivision
Applicant proposes the subdivision of a +/- 7.46 acre parcel (S/B/L 68.2-1-64.110) into two lots. Lot one of +/- 3.18 acres and lot 2, a flag lot, of +/- 4.28 acres. Parcel is located at 161 Dug Road, Accord, NY and is in the R-2 zoning district and contains lands partially in the DOH Aquifer. Parcel presently contains woodlands and a single family residence. Lot one will maintain the single family residence, Lot two is to remain undeveloped at this time.
SEQRA: TBD

Mr. Michael O’Sullivan was present on behalf of the application.
The Board looked at and discussed the map.
Chair Lindstrom stated Mr. O’Sullivan needed to have Medenbach and Eggers fix the map in the upper corner of the site plan as it was missing some information.
There was no other discussion.
Chair Lindstrom made the motion to set the application for public hearing at the October 10th, 2019 Regular Meeting. Mr. Buchbinder seconded the motion.
All in Favor. Motion Carried.
6 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, 0 abstentions.
Mr. Zurofsky made the motion to type the application as an unlisted/uncoordinated action for SEQRA. Ms. Maloney seconded the motion.
All in Favor. Motion Carried.
6 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, 0 abstentions.

PB 2019-01 SUP/SPA Continued Application
Wayward Ranch Animal Sanctuary, LLC (Applicant)
CWC Loosestrife, LLC (Owner)
Applicant 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, Ulster County Ag District #3, ACOE national wetlands on property and within 500 ft. of a registered historic property.
SEQRA: TBD
*Chair Lindstrom recused herself from the application on June 10th, 2019. Vice Chair Jones would chair the application for the remainder of the review.

Ms. Eleni Calomiris, Ms. Victoria Polidoro-Attorney for Ms. Calomiris, Mr. Bill Spade & Ms. Keiko Saski-Spade-Architects, Mr. Paul Janheig and Ms. Sharon Carpenter were present on behalf of the application. Ms. Elizabeth Axelson of CPL-The Town’s Consultant’s Firm, was also present on behalf of the application.

Chair Jones gave a packet to the Board members in which the Hudsonia Report submitted from a group of citizens was included. He stated that the Hudsonia Report was not specific to the property in question and that he had asked Mr. Paul Janheig, the wetlands consultant for the applicant, to give a presentation to address the concerns raised in the Hudsonia report.

Mr. Jaehnig gave a presentation in which he discussed the wetlands on the property of Wayward Ranch, and broke down his wetlands survey from the applicant’s original March 22nd, 2019 application submission. He explained the procedure that happens when he did the wetlands study, which also included soil boring. He stated he had emailed Josh Fischer from the local DEC office and stated Mr. Fischer informed him there were no state wetlands on the property.
Ms. Axelson stated the 100 ft. buffer from the wetlands was put there voluntarily by the applicant.
Mr. Jaehnig stated that for the ACOE, there was not a setback regulation when it came to wetlands, only the DEC required a 100 ft buffer and the wetlands on the site were not DEC wetlands.
Ms. Polidoro noted the new facility would be built outside of the voluntary 100 ft buffer.
Mr. Jaehnig said there was a discussion or a comment made about threatened or endangered species in the area of the site’s wetlands and that he had done an inquiry to the Natural Heritage Project and he did not feel the land outside of the wetlands could be prioritized as a significant wildlife habitat area.
Ms. Calomiris commented the field was hayed just that morning and had been for the past 10 years.
Mr. Jaehnig stated the wetlands was very valuable as ground water recharge.
Chair Jones asked if Mr. Jaehnig had seen evidence that the wetlands were in connection with any of the surrounding parcels.
Mr. Jaehnig said he knew the specific pond on the site drained out into a stream.
Chair Jones asked Mr. Jaehnig about endangered, threatened or rare plants that had been brought up in the Hudsonia study.
Mr. Jaehnig said had not seen any plants that were threatened or endangered.
Chair Jones mentioned to the Board that he had gone through all the plant life that had been mentioned in the Hudsonia report and there had been four categories of concern; rare, endangered, almost endangered, and might be endangered and some of the items mentioned were not on the list and were not specific to the property.
Mr. Jaehnig stated the usage of the site, as agricultural and used that way for decades, changed everything in regards to what types of plants and animals would remain on the site.
Chair Jones asked Mr. Jaehnig to comment on what type of habitat bog turtles would be found in, and if the site would be an area they would be found.
Mr. Jaehnig stated bog turltes liked wet meadows and wooded areas and a site like the property of Wayward Ranch would not be an area that bog turtles would be found in and although he did not do a bog turtle survey he did not see any red flags that he would even consider doing one on the site as it was not an area one would find bog turtles, the conditions of the soil in the area did not fall into the category of soils they would like.
Ms. Axelson said Mr. Jaehnig’s report had answered all the questions the Board needed answers to.
The Board moved on the noise scope for the application.
Chair Jones informed the Board and public that he and another Board member had a meeting with the applicant to discuss an item that the Board member had said he wanted included in the noise scope and they met on August 19th, 2019 and what they did in the meeting that lasted about 2 hours, was go through the scope that the applicant’s consultant had provided and the additional concerns of the Board member. He stated at that meeting was himself, Ms. Sharon Carpenter, Ms. Eleni Calomiris, Ms. Victoria Polidoro, and Mr. Bill Spade and Ms. Keiko Saski-Spade, Ms. Elizabeth Axelson (via the phone), the Board member who had the concern and the Town’s Attorney. He said they did not vote or make any decisions but they had given the applicant and her representation their concerns to consider and address. Chair Jones stated the Board needed to vote on the proposed noise scope from the applicant’s noise consultant.
Ms. Carpenter gave a presentation went through what she did, set by set, when she had done her noise study and each of the comments that AKRF made that were addressed in her study.
Ms. Polidoro stated they were requesting that they acknowledge AKRF’s comments but that it was not made a requirement in the scope.
Ms. Axelson read the response from AKRF in regards to the reponses they were given from Ms. Carpenter and stated they had found the responses satisfactory.
Ms. Carpenter noted when they did the study an employee was walking the site which excited the dogs and there was a mix of dog breeds, which AKRF had asked for as well.
Chair Jones asked how long the noise study lasted.
Ms. Carpenter stated they were there for just about 2 hours and they had video, audio, and data but they honed in on the 30 seconds of the highest noise levels that the dogs barked at and that was what they had focused on and it didn’t matter the duration, they measured at the worse case scenario.
Chair Jones mentioned there was a comment about topography and noise versus nuisance.
Ms. Carpenter stated they did take topography and the architect’s plans had some grading which they had pulled in and they also pulled into the 3D model and the gradiant wasn’t the best but it did include the entire property. She said they had 4 monitoring points in 4 locations that had been chosen by the Board but they had modeling as well to the 2 closest locations so even though the monitoring location was further away from the closest property line they would be modeling to the 2 closest locations.
Ms. Polidoro clarified that Ms. Carpenter was referring to the points on the Wayward Ranch property where they had taken the existing noise levels.
Ms. Carpenter said the existing noise levels were taken along the property boundary in the locations that had been requested by the Board.
Ms. Polidoro reminded the Board that the locations they had selected were based on actual noise receptors, so there were houses and other activities and the 2 closest points didn’t necessarily have people next to them.
Chair Jones stated they were just property lines.
The Board discussed topography with Ms. Carpenter and what it meant.
Ms. Axelson said she wanted to share with the Board that she spoke to AKRF and explained the Board’s stance on things after the conference call on August 19th, 2019 and that they had found the comments and responses satisfactory.
Ms. Polidoro asked when the noise study was done what meteorologic factors were included and if that was standard practice.
Ms. Carpenter explained that standard practice was a neutral atmosphere but that was not reality but it happened sometimes.
Chair Jones stated the Board needed to approve the scope.
Mr. Buchbinder made the motion to approve the scope with the modified comments and responses. Mr. Zurofsky seconded the motion.
All in Favor. Motion Carried.
5 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, 0 abstentions, 1 recused.
Mr. Zurofsky asked if Ms. Carpenter could explain nuisance noise as it came up in public comment a few times, especially from one person in particular who made the comment that noises such as dogs barking, could be a detriment to the environment.
Ms. Carpenter explained every individual was different and that’s why it was difficult when dealing with the public because it was hard to determine a nuisance noise. She said to some people high frequencies are annoying and to some people it was low frequencies, it really depended on the person and their sensitivity, exposure, and she worked in a high noise environment so she had to have complete silence when she went to bed because she worked out in very loud environments but if someone was very passionate about something or against something then that sound may annoy them and it may not be duration, it may just be the presence of it. She said for example to some a water tower may be a nuisance because they don’t want it but it actually sounds like a waterfall.
Chair Jones asked Ms. Carpenter if in her experience, a nuisance noise had ever been mitigated.
Ms. Carpenter said there were ways to control the issue of nuisance noise that some other towns had done and put durations on barking, some towns had noise levels on barking, etc.
Mr. Zurofsky asked how Ms. Carpenter would define a nuisance sound.
Ms. Carpenter responded it would be something that effected her quality of life, but it depended on someone’s definition of quality of life.
Ms. Polidoro said there was no objective way to measure a nuisance noise.
Ms. Carpenter said it was really up to the resident to prove that the noise is effecting their quality of life.
Chair Jones opened the public hearing.
Ms. Julie Harris stated she had been teaching horseback riding and doing animal rescues for both horses and dogs in Accord for 23 years. She said she was there to basically support what Wayward Ranch was trying to do and she certainly understood the neighbors concerns about disturbances but the fact was there was a huge issue of unwanted, unhomed, and un-rehabilitated animals and she felt Wayward did an excellent job on addressing these issues and she had been up there independently, several times and she had been impressed with the care of the animals and the care of facilities and in talking to Ms. Calomiris, the care of going about making this work for everyone and still take care of the animals. She stated she knew for a fact that if they did not have facilities like this, the animal situation would certainly deteriorate and would be worse and for people like herself who do it as a for profit business, there were horses she had taken in that needed extensive rehabilitation and care it would be very costly and she couldn’t afford to do too much and the same with the dogs she had taken in from the Town of Rochester and fostered them or placed them in another home to try to make it so the Town could help other dogs , so the only way to make it work was to have facilities like Wayward. She said she had seen a lot of rescue facilities come and go in the last 23 years and they hadn’t been as well run, maintained, and thought out as Wayward Ranch.
Ms. Jill Cole thanked the Board for the time and attention they had given to the current matter and everything this evening. She said she was a homeowner and her backyard bordered Wayward Ranch and she had written to the Board twice, once in July and once a few weeks prior expressing her primary concern which was safety and she was surprised it had not been discussed at any of the meetings despite knowing the Board had been notified that 1) Numerous animals had escaped from Wayward Ranch over the past few months and 2) A number of families around the property have small children and 3) The organization’s statement to house dogs too dangerous to live with people. She said she was feeling really repetitive with her concerns but she felt as though they were really important. She said as she had written to the Board she had 2 children a 4-year-old and a 5-month-old and a small dog who also plays in the backyard and they regularly hosted gatherings and play dates at their home where 5 or 6 toddlers were running around their yard which looks out directly to Wayward Ranch. She stated there had been testimonials sent to the Board by the neighbors that they had encountered escaped animals on a number of occasions and a pack of dogs had run loose in one of the neighbors backyards towards her yard and the applicant lied when confronted about it, they said the dogs were not theirs but there were pictures on their website of the dogs that were loose. Ms. Cole stated the sanctuary was easy to find as it was all over the internet and it had been said at the meetings that it was a sanctuary for animals as a self-evident fact that it could only be good and that was due to the magic of the word sanctuary, but she was definitely sure all the households surrounding the ranch define their homes as sanctuaries as she did. She added the quality of her home was directly compromised by the project as they were operating without permits, adequately trained staff, or adequately handling or containment policies around seriously dangerous dogs, and it wasn’t just a farm sanctuary as if that were the case she would not be there speaking to the Board. She said it appeared they had been advised to change the appearance of things so it would look as though it was a farm sanctuary but the mission was without a doubt to provide homes for dogs that were determined to be unsuitable for adoption to their aggression or dangerous behavior and they were wayward by definition. She said the one comment she wanted to add was that she had heard said that they lived in an area that had a population of wild animals there were coyotes, etc. and it had been said that there wasn’t much of a difference between those wild animals and the dogs but she felt the biggest difference was that the wild animals do all they can to avoid contact with people whereas the dogs at Wayward Ranch could be trained to attack people, specifically. She concluded that her concerns were that there was no one on the staff, not even the founder, were adequately trained and there were photos on the website of an un-adoptable pit bull off leash and not in an enclosure while there was a person in the grass just lounging in the background, and the grounds themselves were not adequately suitable for a project such as the one in review and she was sure there would be a response about what the future plans would be, who the staff would be one day and the kennel would look like one day, and this was all happening in the present where dogs that were dangerous by any definition were off leash, not in enclosures, etc. and she felt her family was in danger every day. She asked that the Board take safety really into consideration as they consider the application.
Chair Jones stated he did want to acknowledge that he did get the two letters from Ms. Cole and one from a Mr. Jeff Wischover and it was dated August 27th, 2019 that expressed similar concerns and that was a second letter from his initial letter from July 2019 and he didn’t believe those were the only letters dealing with the concern of safety so the Board would need a response to those from the applicant.
Mr. George Duke, attorney representing Mr. Adam Glassman who lived at 6 Loosestrife Ln and the first thing he wanted to address was procedurally he was confused as to what was going on that evening as there was vote taken on a scope document that hadn’t been made available to the public, and the public hearing was still open so he thought what should have occurred was a decision or motion should have been made after the public hearing had closed and notwithstanding the whole point of the scope was admirable and was exactly what should have been happening, the scoping document wasn’t available to the public nor had anyone had a chance to review it so he was just throwing that out there as the whole point of the public comment was to receive comments on a proposed scope, and it was helpful but additional information should have been made available to the public and a typical SEQRA process.
Attorney Christiana commented that the Board had not done a SEQRA process they had just come up with the scope that evening which would now be available.
Ms. Axelson clarified it was a scope for a study, not a scoping document.
Attorney Christiana said it was a scope of what they wanted their study to show.
Mr. Duke said it had been discussed at the meeting at length so it was helpful but it would be helpful to the public who clearly, as the same people had been there for four meetings, to have access to it. He stated he had a recurring FOIL request so they should have received any documents.
Attorney Christiana stated there was no such thing as a recurring FOIL request.
Chair Jones stated the documents were available on the website.
The Board clarified to Chair Jones they were not on the website they were on Google Drive which was only accessible to the Board members, and then may be made available through a FOIL.
Ms. Axleson noted it was not a scoping document, it was a scope of a study, and there was no document.
Mr. Duke said it was a public process.
Attorney Christiana stated that was why they were not going to close the public hearing.
Mr. Duke said they had to constantly update their FOIL request where the alternative was just make it available to the public. He moved on stating there was a private issue between the applicant and Mr.Glassman regarding the restrictive covenants that he believed the Planning Board had been copied on a letter, but he knew it wasn’t a Planning Board issue, he totally agreed with that, it was a private issue but he believed everything in regards to the application review on the subsequent application should be stated until the private issues were resolved and they reserved the right to bring it to declaratory judgment to enforce the restrictive covenants against the applicant and he would leave it at that, and with that said that applicants and himself had started communication and he was hopeful that it came to a good resolution for his client, but there was another reason the Board may have wanted to stay the application, which was the ZBA appeal.
Chair Jones said that had been addressed at the last meeting and on the advice of Attorney Christiana there was no reason to stay the Planning Board application review and the applicant had agreed to proceed at her own risk.
Mr. Duke said he had sent a letter to the CEO and the CEO had responded with respect to a couple of permits for some fences that were in the dog run area and were directly downhill from his client’s property, and those two dog runs did not have permits. He stated the Town’s CEO sent a letter to the applicant and stated they needed to fill out a zoning permit application and another application that he couldn’t recall at the moment, and it was his understanding that the applicant had received the appropriate permits but he was just thinking that was great however, in the context of the overall site plan application, that was textbook segmentation and the point was they opened the issue without having permits. He said they had a pending site plan application and the whole point was the Board was considering everything at the same time, and if there was something that was not permitted, the most expedient thing would to be take those proposed structures away and fold them into the site plan application so they could be considered along with all the other project considerations and there could be a more expedient way to express those rather than post approving un-permitted structures and he felt it was relevant because his client went up to the Board and showed pictures of the fences that objectively did not fit in with the overall character to the applicant’s property, regardless of what they were requesting, and it was relevant to be considered.
Mr. Robert Kilpert thanked the Board members for their time on the matter. He stated he recently had FOILed for Paul Jaehing’s January 2019 wetlands survey and it said “at the request of client and client’s attorney, I was only told to investigate 4-5 acres in the North West corner” and he assumed then whole study just had to do with that very small piece. He said it was something that had come from the Planning Board’s office so he was sure the Board was familiar with all the text on the document and he said Mr. Jaehing had stated the same thing on the August 2019 document he had provided to the Board as well. He said he didn’t go through his report but that alone told him it was an incomplete survey as it did not apply to the entire property. He stated that also at the August 12th meeting there had been a submittal from North Country which was the alternative wetlands survey company with CPL, and he wanted to know if that was happening.
Chair Jones asked if Mr. Kilpert was at the meeting on August 12th.
Mr. Kilpert said he was there and from a FOIL request he saw documentation of North Country’s proposal.
Chair Jones said it was not happening and the Board had voted that night not to engage North Country and the reason for that was the sum total information, from the Board’s experience and the Town’s consultant’s experience that since the area had been hayed many times for many decades and trampled on by horses and dogs in the past the Board was unwilling to hire that firm to do another wetlands study on top of the Paul Jahehing study, so it was not being done.
Ms. Axelson added that they had received a report that was in response to some of the concerns that had been expressed by the Hudsonia report.
Mr. Kilpert then asked if the Board was willing to go forward on Mr. Jaehing’s report which stated that he had only surveyed 4-5 acres of the property out of the entire 63 acre parcel.
Chair Jones said at that point in time the Board was receiving information from the public and if they feel it was necessary while considering all the information to go forward with another study, they would consider it.
Mr. Kilpert said that with concern to his subsequent communication with the author of the Hudsonia report his report was titled “Preliminary Biodiversity Assessment of Loosestrife Farm, Town of Rochester, Ulster County, NY submitted to the Town of Rochester Planning Board on July 7th, 2019. I have learned that Mr. Paul Jahenig’s wetlands survey is valid for soil types only in area sampled and has no biodiversity assessment.” Mr. Kilpert stated Mr. Jahenig had stated that at the meeting that evening and for an accurate biodiversity to take place, certain work was needed in the month of September and late spring throughout the entire 63 acres. He stated a wetlands boundary delineation, a complete floral survey, and a reptile and amphibian survey needed to be completed as the entire site was going to be changed. He said those were his concerns and that he had seen submittals that there was something going forward with the North Country company and now he was learning it wasn’t happening.
Chair Jones said it was never the intention of the Board to go forward with anything to do with North Country, as stated at the August 12th, 2019 meeting and they voted specifically on it. As far as the Hudsonia Study was concerned, Mr. Jones stated, they didn’t do a study on the particular site in question so everything the Hudsonia Study said could be the same for any number of other sites, and it was more speculation of what can be on that site.
Mr. Mark Goldberg asked if they would be able to make comments about the noise survey in the future because he felt there was more to say about frequency and nuisance was not just “you like it, I don’t like it.” sort of thing as there had been many population studies on it that he felt should be brought up.
Chair Jones stated they would be able to make comments at the October 10th, 2019 meeting.
Mr. Jay India stated he wanted to add to Mr. Kilpert’s comments and he understood that the Board looked at the Hudsonia Study and thought “well we know some things too, we know the area, and we aren’t idiots and Hudsonia was speculative.” but that it had been pointed out in the decision to not follow up was based on Mr. Jahenig’s study and now he found out that study was done on the request of the applicant only 4 out of 63 acres, that didn’t seem to him to be a significant reason to not follow up, that should not be a heavily weighted factor.
Mr. Jahenig addressed the concerns of the public and stated that area was chosen because the area of the proposed disturbance was in that vicinity and it was not uncommon when projects have many acres land and something was focused on one part of the site, to not look at the rest of the site and he had seen it at Planning Boards all over New York and in Connecticut. He stated something as simple as putting up a garage and there are 1,000 acres behind them, they wouldn’t make someone survey all 1,000 acres, it was out of practicality, and it was out of a practical reason.
Chair Jones asked since Mr. Jahenig surveyed 4 out of the 63 acres he delineated the wetlands?
Mr. Jahenig answered where the focus of the project was.
Mr. Buchbinder noted if there were wetlands they would only have to be 100 ft. away from them.
Mr. Zurofsky stated they wouldn’t even have to be 100 ft. away from them, they voluntarily put that buffer up.
Mr. Buchbinder said they weren’t even in the footprint of the building and so if one were to draw a 100 ft. circle around that there still would be wetlands.
Chair Jones stated he understood that but he was trying to get the total wetland area acreage.
Mr. Buchbinder noted that was why they shouldn’t be taking questions and answers, as for the public hearing it was for the public to speak and make comments, not for the Board to address all concerns right then and there, it was about gathering information that then they would discuss.
Chair Jones stated he would like the applicant to get a response to the Board on the matter of the safety concerns brought up from the public and he wanted the total acreage of the wetlands.
Ms. Axelson said she’d like an update on the site plans.
Ms. Polidoro stated the noise modeling and the site plan went hand in hand.
Mr. Buchbinder made the motion to continue the public hearing until the October 10th, 2019 meeting. Ms. Maloney seconded the motion.
All in Favor. Motion Carried.
5 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, 0 abstentions, 1 recused.
Chair Jones stated to the Board and to the public that he found it useful to answer some of the comments from the public that evening and he may do it again from time to time if it was in response to something he could answer quickly.
There was no more discussion.
ADJOURNMENT:
Mr. Buchbinder made the motion to adjourn the meeting at 12:02am. Mr. Zurofsky seconded the motion.
All in Favor. Motion Carried.
5 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, 0 abstentions, 1 recused.
Respectfully Submitted,
Brianna Tetro, Secretary
Adopted and Accepted: October 10th, 2019