PLANNING BOARD
TOWN OF ROCHESTER
ULSTER COUNTY
ACCORD, NEW YORK
(845) 626-2434
MINUTES OF November 25th, 2019 WORKSHOP MEETING OF the Town of Rochester PLANNING BOARD, held at 6:30pm at the Harold Lipton Community Center , Accord, NY.
Acting Chair Rick Jones asked everyone to stand for the Pledge to the Flag.
The Secretary did roll call attendance.
PRESENT: ABSENT:
Rick Jones, Acting Chair Maren Lindstrom, Recused
Sam Zurofsky Brian Buchbinder
Patrick Williams Ann Marie Maloney
Zorian Pinsky
Also Present:
Mary Lou Christiana, Attorney for the Town. Brianna Tetro, Secretary.
APPLICATION REVIEW:
PB 2019-01 SUP/SPA Continued Application
Wayward Ranch Animal Sanctuary, LLC (Applicant)
CWC Loosestrife, LLC (Owner)
Proposes the establishment of a farm animal sanctuary and construction of a 90’x 60’ dog & cat kennel, on the +/- 63.5 acre parcel located at 30 Loosestrife Lane, Kerhonkson, NY, S/B/L 76.1-2-2.111. Parcel is presently used as a farm and equestrian facility with barn, stables, paddocks, etc. also including a single family residence. AR-3 zoned, AG-3 district, ACOE national wetlands on property and within 500 ft of a registered historic property.
SEQRA TBD
Present on behalf of the application were the following: Ms. Eleni Calomiris, Applicant. Mr. Bill Spade and Ms. Keiko Sasaki-Spade, Architects. Ms. Sharon Carpenter, Noise consultant for the applicant. Mr. Patrick Logan, Attorney for applicant. Mr. Jeremy Rainato, storm water/ drainage consultant for the applicant and Ms. Elizabeth Axelson, from the Town’s Planning Consultant firm- CPL.
Chair Jones reminded the Board and the public that the next public hearing for the application would be at the next workshop meeting on December 30th, 2019.
Mr.Bill Spade and Ms. Keiko Saski-Spade went over the site plan updates. He stated that the plans were in compliance with the Town’s Code and in regards to the building height, the Town’s Code definition was to the mid point of the roof, not the peak of the roof, so the proposed new building’s height was 19 ft, where the Code allowed 35 ft.
Chair Jones asked if they were measuring to the top of the copula?
Mr. Spade answered no, it was to the midpoint of the sloped roof and he showed the Board on the site plan and explained it.
Mr. Williams asked what the height of the copula would be.
Mr. Spade answered it was about 34 ft. And he reiterated they were compliant in he matters of height and all other items when it came to an AR3 zoned property.
Mr. Spade moved on to the items that CPL had wanted to address about the fencing.
Ms. Axelson asked Mr. Spade to describe the fence around the perimeter and to help the public understand it wasn’t the perimeter of the property it was going to be the perimeter of the runs.
Ms. Saski-Spade described the fence and said it was 8 ft high plus 2 ft and it was around the perimeter of the runs and there would be chain link fences inside of the runs, so it was basically double secured.
Mr. Spade noted they would also add an acoustic blanket that would only be visible from the inside.
Chair Jones wanted clarification about the runs.
Mr. Spade explained there were individual runs for the dogs, one dog per run.
Mr. Pinsky asked if the sound barriers were only going to be on the fence or would they also be on the building side as well.
Mr. Spade stated they would only be on the fence.
Ms. Axelson asked about the existing fencing on the property that was left over from paddocks or other enclosures and it wasn’t clear to CPL on the plan what type of existing fence there was.
Mr. Spade said it was just paddock fencing.
Ms. Calomiris said it was pvc paddock fencing and it was white in color.
Ms. Axleson said it would be helpful to have that noted on the plans.
Chair Jones asked about the fence in yard area that was adjacent to a neighbor, Mr. Glassman’s property.
Ms. Calomiris explained that fence was used for her personal dogs only. She said they were not kept in there and it was only used for them to get exercise.
Chair Jones stated that Ms. Calomiris had received permits for the fencing and that she had not needed to get a permit for the sheds on the property as they were too small.
Mr. Spade went on to the parking requirements and stated they had 31 parking spaces designated for the kennel building where the code allowed up to 40 if needed.
Mr. Pinsky asked if they really needed 31 parking spaces as the kennel was going to be housing animals, not people, so even if they had 15 people working at one time plus 5 visitors, was 31 parking spaces really necessary?
Chair Jones stated the code said the parking was related to the building size.
Mr. Pinsky said he thought it meant living space by humans, not just the size of the building.
Chair Jones said it went by the structure. He said if the applicant wanted to put less parking spots in, they could apply for a waiver.
Ms. Axelson stated they could do something on the plans that showed what was called “banked parking” and it was a special plan notation and if they had 31 parking spaces all together, they could take 8-10 spaces and mark them as deferred parking spaces with specific plan notation that would allow the CEO to be able to observe that the parking was needed and must be constructed within the year of operation.
Mr. Spade stated he was under the impression there was a need for 40 spaces for open houses.
Ms. Calomiris said they would never exceed 40 spaces and if they didn’t need to have a set number of spaces for that sized building then she didn’t see a reason why they would need 31 spaces.
Chair Jones asked if they did submit a waiver for less parking spaces, and they held an open house, where would they put every body who came to the open houses?
Ms. Calomiris said she would never expect to have 40 cars on the property at one time, even for an open house.
Chair Jones asked how many staff would be on the property?
Ms. Calomiris stated at the moment they had staff that cared for their farm animals and they had 3 staff members that covered the farm. She said she didn’t have the numbers in front of her of what she thought would be needed for the kennel, but she didn’t think it was 15 but she didn’t want to mis-speak. She said there were 3 parking spaces currently in front of the barn.
Mr. Spade said it was his opinion not to request a waiver as the parking lot was all gravel.
Ms. Axelson said they wouldn’t defer the ADA parking anyway.
Mr. Spade there were 2 ADA spaces noted on the plan and explained more about the parking on the plans.
Chair Jones asked about where the purposed well was noted on the site plan there was a hundred foot minimum to septic system and he wanted to know why that was there as that was not the location the septic was going to be.
Mr. Spade said that note should have been eliminated and he would fix it.
Chair Jones asked if the purposed septic was going to adequate for all the uses required of it, every day.
Mr. Spade answered it would be more than adequate and Mr. Jeremy Rainato would explain that in his presentation.
Chair Jones asked for an artist rendering of what the proposed kennel was going to look like, with the colors, etc. To be presented to the Board.
Mr. Spade said they would do that and as a reminder that it would look like the existing barn.
Ms. Saski-Spade showed the Board a photo. She stated the new kennel would be metal but it would look like the existing structure. She also stated they had emailed an updated aerial photo of the property as that had come up in public comment at the last meeting.
Chair Jones asked about the stone patio on the site plan and what would be the use of that.
Mr. Spade stated it would be for the employees.
Mr. Spade went over the site plan further.
Mr. Williams asked about the segregation of the dogs, and what would deem a dog not being able to be in the cohabitation room of the kennel.
Ms. Calomiris said that it was a case by case basis.
Mr. Spade said there was 10 total kennels in the building and there could be up to 5 dogs in the cohabitation room, and then 5 in the individual rooms.
Mr. Spade continued to go through the site plan.
Chair Jones asked about the landscaping plan and if there had been any changes added.
Mr. Spade explained they had added the retention areas for the ponds.
Chair Jones asked if they conformed with the NYS Manual.
Mr. Spade stated they did.
Ms. Saski-Spade explained their landscaping plan included trees for sheltering and shading during the summer time and during the winter when the trees lost their leaves, there would be sun that would warm up the area.
Mr. Spade said it was a moderate amount of landscaping around the berm of the water retention basins.
Chair Jones explained Boice Mill Rd was on the south of the kennel building and he wanted to know would the purposed building be shielded by the items on the purposed landscaping from Boice Mill Rd.
Mr. Spade said no, it wasn’t intended to shield in complete way, but was meant to provide screening.
Chair Jones said the 8 ft fence was stark and needed something to soften it on that side.
Ms. Saski-Spade said they could put ever greens on that side.
Mr. Spade said, respectfully, the existing barn was not shielded and to spend more effort screening a smaller structure did not make sense.
Chair Jones said that the new building was grandfathered in, the new one was not.
Mr. Spade said if the intention was to hide the fence, then it would be a significant amount of landscaping.
Ms. Axelson said would not recommend an evergreen hedge as that would look unnatural and suggested putting natural placement hedge with staggering.
Mr. Zurofsky commented he liked the landscaping as it was. He said he walked along the road and he knew what it looked like from Boice Mill and he thought the landscaping had trees around the buildings and many of them had forsythia hedges.
Chair Jones said he didn’t want forsythia hedges and he wanted the look soften and he could give them suggestions on what to use.
Mr. Zurofsky said the forsythia bushes were in the character of the surrounding areas and that was why he suggested them.
Mr. Pinsky said if they put trees around the kennel runs would help with the noise.
Mr. Spade said his understanding was there needed to be a deep dense development of trees.
Mr. Pinsky said he looked at sites of other kennels, there was green all around.
Ms. Axelson she said she went on Google Earth and had looked at street views of various locations around the area and it was residential and agricultural. She said there were some large buildings and some homes of various sizes, and in that neighborhood where there are woods and some had fields with open views.
Chair Jones said he still wanted the look softened.
Ms. Axelson stated in the review she submitted to the Board on November 21st, 2019, specifically items on page 2, had been addressed.
Mr. Jeremy Rainato went through the storm water and drainage plan.
Chair Jones wanted to know how pollutants of the silt would be dealt with and how would it be cleaned.
Mr. Rainato explained the process and noted everything had to follow specific schedules and stated the waste plan would be in the full SWPP, along with maintenance plans that the applicant would need to keep up with.
Mr. Williams asked if this addressed the run-off from the animals.
Mr. Rainato said it didn’t.
Ms. Calomiris explained that there were dumpsters on site for the animal waste.
Mr. Williams asked for all the animals?
Ms. Calomiris answered yes, for the large animals and the dog and cat waste would be placed in bags before being put into the dumpster.
Ms. Axelson asked if the animal waste dumpsters were shown on the site plan.
Mr. Spade said it was shown but not labeled, but they would edit that on the revisions.
Ms. Axelson asked if there was an enclosure for the muck dumpster.
Ms. Calomiris said no and her understanding that there was no need for an enclosure.
Chair Jones asked if the septic could take the wash down of the kennels, which was about 910 gallons a day, every day?
Mr. Rainato assured him and the Board it would be sufficient and it was based on the state’s parameters.
Mr. Zurofsky wanted more information regarding the bio retention areas.
Mr. Rainato explained that if there was a condition where there were a couple of inches of rain per hour and normally soils of the type on the property, what would happen would most of those inches would run right off and the systems had been designed to replicate that condition and make it less extreme. He said the gravel diaphragm would capture all the overland flow that would come off the proposed gravel road and it would catch what would come off the kennel’s roof and it would lessen the maintenance of the bio retention ponds.
Mr. Williams asked about the cross over onto the disturbed area. He wanted to know what the total acres of disturbed are would be.
Mr. Rainato stated it would 2.64 acres.
Chair Jones noted that the water quality calculations in some of the comments provided in the SWPP report were in square feet but should be in cubic feet.
Mr. Rainato said it was a typo in that comment but it was correct in the report and on the plans.
Chair Jones said he had never seen the use of gravel diaphragms and he wanted to know if this was part of the effort to have green bio retention areas, with plants inside of it, and if it was an advanced way of doing something like this.
Mr. Rainato stated it wasn’t an advanced way of doing anything and it was a practice they used a lot, particularly in sites that didn’t have great soil and primarily infiltration would be what you would want to use and New York State preferred but if the ability to infiltrate wasn’t there, bio retention was typical practice for the specific kind of soil.
Chair Jones asked about the soil levels that were discussed in the end of the SWPP report.
Mr. Rainato explained the soil levels were very poor and at the bottom end of the spectrum as far as infiltration was concerned, but there was not a high water table, and it was just poor drainage of soil.
Chair Jones stated the Board was going to need a copy of the maintenance program Mr. Rainato had referenced earlier in the presentation.
Mr. Rainato said it would be in the SWPP report when it was amended.
The Board discussed the SWPP report with Mr. Rainato further.
Chair Jones asked if Ms. Axelson was satisfied with the presentation and all that had been covered .
Ms. Axelson said she was satisfied with the drainage report and nothing had jumped out at her as being inaccurate and she had called to the engineer at her office and he field the same way she did about the report, and all his comments had been addressed as well. She suggested the Board allow the applicant’s SWPP person to speak with CPL’s SWPP person directly.
Mr. Zurofsky made the motion to allow the applicant’s SWPP representative to speak with CPL’s SWPP representative. Mr. Williams seconded the motion.
All in Favor. Motion Carried.
4 ayes, 0 nays, 3 absent, 0 abstentions.
Mr. Zurofsky asked if the pocket pond needed to have some kind of signage.
Mr. Rainato said there was a specified distance and sign for where the pocket pond would be, along with fencing for added safety.
Chair Jones said the safety matters were really important to have on the site plan.
Mr. Pinsky asked how deep the pocket pond would be.
Mr. Rainato said it was about 3-4 feet deep.
Ms. Axelson commented there would be fencing around the basins that she would suggest wood styled with black mesh.
Chair Jones noted there was no defined maintenance access for pocket pond.
Mr. Rainato said it was there but it had not been defined on the plan, but they would correct that.
Chair Jones asked about snow storage areas.
Mr. Rainato said that was not typically accounted for.
Ms. Axelson said it would be good to see when the snow melted where it was going to end up and it could be a general note.
The Board discussed the drainage plan further with Mr. Rainato.
Chair Jones stated that a letter had come in that afternoon where a member of the public listed several items of concerns they had about the water. He asked if Mr. Rainato could address those in writing.
Mr. Rainato stated he would address the comments, but most of what the public member was inquiring about was in the SWPP report. He also noted that some of the questions being asked were arbitrary and he wasn’t sure why the member of the public needed to know some of the things he was inquiring about in his letter.
Ms. Axelson reminded the Board that they had a consultant would make sure any concerns that they felt needed to be addressed, would be addressed
The Board moved on to Noise.
Ms. Sharon Carpenter, noise consultant for the applicant, was present to speak about the noise report she had submitted to the Board. She presented the Board with the calibrated meter device she used when conducting the noise study at Wayward Ranch. She explained how she conducted the noise study for the site at Wayward Ranch, the noise source being the barking of the dogs.
Chair Jones asked if the noise was measured inside or outside.
Ms. Carpenter said it was outside.
Chair Jones asked what the neighborhood around the site was like.
Ms. Calomiris said on the one side there were several commercial buildings, while in the back it was more residential.
Ms. Carpenter explained that when they first did the noise study, the dogs barking went over the decibels allowed by the Town Code, however, when they added 2 ft of height to the 6 ft fence, making it 8ft total, it mitigated the noise exponentially. She stated noise was very dynamic and changed often due to outside noises (crickets, wind, etc.) and there would be fluctuations.
Chair Jones noted that barking dogs were going to be heard more often than an event that lasted maybe 2 or 3 hours and it would be 7 days a week, not once a month. He said maybe there could some sort of mitigation of sound and suggested the hours be limited.
Ms. Carpenter commented the dogs had been very quiet until they saw people.
Ms. Calomiris said the hours could be changed if needed, she wanted to cooperate, but she reminded the Board that the dogs would only bark with reasons, they wouldn’t bark just to bark.
Chair Jones asked what the hours the dogs would be outside.
Ms. Calomiris gave the Board the time frame of the dogs being outside:
-Morning: Between 8am-10m
-Midday: 1pm-2:30pm
-Evening/Night: 4pm-5pm and added at 5pm dogs would be inside until the next morning.
Ms. Calomiris added that the total numbers the dogs would be outside, maximum, was 6 hours a day.
Mr. Zurofsky read #53-1 (a) for the record:§ 53-1Prohibited activities.
It shall be unlawful for any owner of or any person harboring any dog in the Town of Rochester to permit or allow such dog to:
A. Engage in habitual loud howling or barking or conduct itself in such a manner as to habitually annoy any person other than the owner or person harboring such dog.
He said that the dogs couldn’t bark continuously as that was a violation of the Town’s law, so there needed to be some sort of time limit for when the dogs were outside.
Ms. Axelson noted that the Town’s Code was more specific than other towns she worked in including Poughkeepise and Hyde Park.
Mr. Williams stated the restrictions were defined in the code and covered beyond the Planning Board’s scope.
Mr. Pinsky asked if humans could tell when mitigation was effective.
Ms. Carpenter stated that the fence at 6 ft did have mitigation, and making it an 8 ft fence did cause the decibels to decrease 1 or 2 decibels. She stated sound blankets on the fencing were best for enclosing the noise source.
Mr. Pinsky said the blankets were temporary and would need replacing every 3-5 years.
Ms. Calomiris said they would replaced them as needed, when needed.
Mr. Williams asked if putting the blankets up to the angled portion of the fence would make a difference as well.
Mr. Spade stated that was tricky as the blankets could detach.
Attorney Christiana stated the blankets themselves, even without being on the angled portion, made the noise ordinance.
Mr. Spade noted the dogs would not be able to access the blankets so they would not be damaged by the dogs.
Mr. Pinsky said he didn’t think the mitigation was effective enough and there needed to be blankets on the angled portion of the fence.
Ms. Carpenter said that was not proven to mitigate anything, putting the blankets up on the panels was logical and they would be installed correctly, putting the blankets on the angled pieces could separate.
Chair Jones wanted a note on the plans stating the hours the dogs would be barking.
Mr. Spade said he would add the note to the plans.
The Board moved on to safety.
Ms. Eleni Calomiris was present on behalf of the application and to provide the safety presentation.
Mr. Zurofsky wanted to know what’s the Board’s obligation for reviewing the safety plan.
Attorney Christiana said the concern was external.
Chair Jones stated the code spoke to their responsibility to review the safety plan.
Mr. Zurofsky found in the code where it stated as such and read it for the record:
§ 140-55Special use review criteria.
The Planning Board, in acting upon the special use, shall also be approving, approving with modifications or disapproving the site plan application connected therewith, taking into consideration not only the criteria contained above but also the following special use criteria:
A. Whether the proposed use will have a detrimental or positive impact on adjacent properties or the health, safety and welfare of the residents of the Town of Rochester.
B. If the proposed use is one judged to present detrimental impacts, whether an approval could be conditioned in such a manner as to eliminate or substantially reduce those impacts.
C. Whether the use will have a positive or negative effect on the environment, job creation, the economy, housing availability or open space preservation.
D. Whether the granting of an approval will cause an economic burden on community facilities or services, including but not limited to highways, sewage treatment facilities, water supplies and firefighting capabilities. The applicant shall be responsible for providing such improvements or additional services as may be required to adequately serve the proposed use and any approval shall be so conditioned. The Town shall be authorized to demand fees in support of such services where they cannot be directly provided by the applicant. This shall specifically apply to, but not be limited to, additional fees to support fire-district expenses.
E. Whether the site plan indicates the property will be developed and improved in a way which is consistent with that character which this chapter and the Town’s Comprehensive Plan are intended to produce or protect, including appropriate landscaping and attention to aesthetics and natural feature preservation.
Ms. Calomiris explained to the Board that the safety plan she was going to present to the Board was the same one that was given to the staff at Wayward Ranch as well as the landlord of the property and her insurance company. She stated it was created in 2016. She said it was meant to keep everyone safe as there were children who came and visited the ranch and it was also to help keep the animals safe. Ms. Calomiris stated that her credentials had come into question several times and she listed her experience for the Board:
-10 years in Animal Rescue
– 15 years in Farm
– 2011- Hired for a 5-year internship as a trainer
– Worked in a New York based rescue 2010-2016 as a Kennel worker and Enrichment coordinator, created the enrichment program while employed.
– 2016- Private dog trainer, CPDKA Certified.
She stated that she was extremely skill full and well qualified to run and be head of the sanctuary and kennel.
Ms. Calomiris explained her safety plan in detail. She explained each dog was color coated based on their behaviors. She stated that just because a dog was a “bully breed” did not mean it was aggressive or dangerous. At the previous meeting it had been mentioned that the applicant was going to present the Board with a video of her safety practices but Ms. Calomiris stated it had not worked out and it was not possible to do the video without a kennel building. She stated the dogs were never outside without supervision and the only dogs that would ever be without a leash were her own personal dogs.
Mr. Williams asked if there was a leash law in the Town.
Attorney Christiana said there was not.
Ms. Calomiris said there was not a leash law and even so it did not matter when it was a dog on private property.
Ms. Calomiris went on to further explain her safety plan. She stated there was always the two door method in use and no rescue dogs would ever be off leash. She denied there were ever loose dogs from her property and animal control had not been called for those dogs and in fact those dogs now belonged to her. She said the neighbor’s dogs walked without being on a leash all the time. She said she had reported dogs off leash and there was a major dog control issue in the area and in New York in general. Ms. Calomiris also read a statement from her Farm Manager explained the practices used for the farm animals. Ms. Calomiris explained her safety plan further and noted that she had helped neighbors catch their loose animals. She stated that this was her dream and she was not asking anyone to sacrifice anything.
Chair Jones asked Ms. Calomiris if she would consider not having any dogs with a bite history in the kennel.
Ms. Calomiris said she would not agree to that.
Mr. Zurofsky asked what procedures were in place for the evaluation of the dogs that had behavioral issues.
Ms. Calomiris explained they had a behavioral assessment form.
Attorney Christiana stated that would be something the Board would want to consider to send to an agency like the ASPCA for their comments.
There was a discussion about the issue of adoptions with the kennel.
Ms. Calomiris said she was registered with Ag and Markets as an animal rescue and when it came to adoptions of her animals, there was no fee required but rather a suggested donation price.
Mr. Zurofsky said it was common sense that a kennel would include some sort of adoption.
Mr. Williams asked was there a procedure for safety with the other animals; such as the horses, etc.
Ms. Calomiris said there were horse trainers, a farm animal manager, etc and they all had their own behavioral assessment forms as well.
Attorney Christiana stated it would be good to have something in writing about the training.
Chair Jones commented more was always better when it came to Ms. Calomiris providing statements and documents.
Mr. Zorofsky made the motion to send a letter to Ms. Jill Shufeldt, Dog control officer for Town of Rochester, asking if she had received any complaints or had incidences with the dogs at Wayward Ranch and if so what was the outcome of these incidences and the provide the specific dates of occurrences. Mr. Williams seconded the motion.
All in Favor. Motion Carried.
4 ayes, 0 nays, 3 absent, 0 abstentions.
The Board discussed doing SEQRA that evening.
Mr. Pinsky said he needed more clarification.
Mr. Logan, attorney for Ms. Calomiris said he did not want to rush SEQRA.
The Board discussed the interested and involved agencies. It was noted that an official SEQRA intent letter had not been provided to the involved agencies which were: Ulster County Department of Health, NYS Ag and Markets, NYS DEC, and the Army Corps. Of Engineers.
Mr. Zurofsky made the motion to send out intent to lead agency letters to all involved agencies which were:Ulster County Department of Health, NYS Ag and Markets, NYS DEC, and the Army Corps. Of Engineers. Mr. Williams seconded the motion.
All in Favor. Motion Carried.
4 ayes, 0 nays, 3 absent, 0 abstentions.
Chair Jones made the motion to re-refer the application to the Ulster County Planning Board as amended. Mr. Zurofsky seconded the motion.
All In Favor. Motion Carried.
4 ayes, 0 nays, 3 absent, 0 abstentions.
Chair Jones reminded the Board and the Public that the public hearing would continue at the December 30th, 2019 Workshop meeting.
Mr. Zurofsky made the motion to adjourn the meeting at 10:12pm. Mr. Williams seconded the motion.
All in Favor. Motion Carried.
4 ayes, 0 nays, 3 absent, 0 abstentions.
Respectfully Submitted,
Brianna Tetro, Secretary