The Town of Rochester Town Board held a Public Hearing on Walnut Brook LLC EEO zoning request at 6:30pm via zoom meeting https://us02web.zoom.us/j/81862333610?pwd=YTlLSkEwRWgwbUlkenREN2tBZ1pGdz09
Meeting ID: 818 6233 3610 Passcode: 799021

PRESENT:
Councilwoman Erin Enouen Councilwoman Bea Haugen-Depuy
Councilman Chris Hewitt Councilman Adam Paddock
Supervisor Michael Baden Town Clerk Kathleen Gundberg
Town Attorney Marylou Christiana

ALSO PRESENT:

Kenan Gunduz- Rep. Walnut Brook LLC
James Bacon- Attorney and partner in Walnut Brook LLC

Supervisor Baden opened the public hearing and led in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.

The public will be heard on the matter of request by Walnut Brook LLC for Adaptive Re-use of an Existing Facility grant a zoning district overlay designation of Economic Enterprise Overlay (EEO) for the parcel located at 5688 Route 209, Accord NY [SBL 76.2-2-10]. Walnut Brook LLC proposes adaptive reuse of the former Maybrook Lodge facility to construct a multifamily housing community with a mix of one family, two family and multifamily rental housing units totaling 24 units and 40 bedrooms. A Zoning Change and Zoning Map Amendment are collectively being pursued by the Applicant. An Economic Enterprise Overlay (EEO) zoning district designation is requested by the applicant. If granted, the applicant will be directed to present application to the Town of Rochester Planning Board for Site Plan review.

Kenan gave an overview presentation of the proposed development project:
Create high quality and needed housing, rehabilitate a derelict site on a scenic stretch of 209, keep land disturbance to a minimum, reuse salvageable existing structures and keep materials out of the landfill, provide housing opportunities for workers in the community, perform development with the lowest possible environmental impact, committed to working in partnership with the Town to make a feasible project that is also a win -win for the community.
Project overview:
High quality, efficient apartments to serve the needs outlined in the Ulster County 2021 Housing action plan.
Rehabilitate derelict site and structures through adaptive reuse
Market rate housing with a percentage dedicated to workforce housing
Designed with consideration toward neighboring lands and properties
Responsible land use: full cooperation and compliance with NYSDEC, NYDOT, UCDOH and comprehensive plan, staying out of flood zone, minimizing disturbance, lands set aside for recreation.
2021 Ulster County housing action plan:
– Housing market in crisis
– Untenable for all but highest earners
– Recommends to encourage” scatted site development, redevelopment, and/or adaptive reuse housing opportunities.
We want to be part of the solution.
High quality apartments:
1, 2 and 3 bedroom units with all new energy efficient fixtures and applancies
Low density 1,2 and 3 family dwellings, plus reducing the density of the former lodge building by half
Long term rentals, as opposed to seasonal or transient
Outdoor private and common recreation areas among exist in and additional plantings and landscaping.
Market rate & workforce Housing:
The bulk of the housing will be market rate, average estimated to range from $ 1200-1500 per month based on market analysis
20 % of units to be dedicated as workforce housing to provide housing specifically for workers in the community who may otherwise be priced out
Workforce housing: Police, fire fighters, health care workers, etc.
Septic will meet NYS and Ulster County DOH regulations under review by these same agencies
Water: preliminary review – high volume. Testing by licenseed 3rd party hydrogeologist, quality and quantity studies, flow and drawdown, must meet requirements of DOH and DEC.
We will be in full compliance regarding the environment:
Full compliance with SEQR
NYDEC, NYDOT, UCDOH regulations must be met for water, sewer and traffic
Studies done by third party licensed professionals with a history of work in Ulster County
If over an acre of disturbance, a full storm water pollution prevention plan will be completed in accordance with EPA guidelines
Committed to full transparency and compliance with regulations of appropriate agencies
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Gloria Mirsky: I wanted to see what the project looked like and I am in full support for affordable workforce housing.
Charlotte Knapp: I wanted to see the outlay and in full support. I would love to see this project move forward.
WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS/ COMMENTS FROM AGENCIES:

Claire Wasser:
I am writing to express my support to grant the Economic Enterprise Overlay (EEO) to the proposal for the adaptive re-use of the former Maybrook Lodge into a multifamily housing community. There is a housing crisis in Ulster County as well as an affordable rental housing shortage in the Town of Rochester. The County’s recently issued Housing Action Plan (HAP) documents the severity of the current situation, proposes a range of steps that can help to remedy the situation, and encourages all the towns in the county to take action on this urgent issue. The HAP advocates for a balanced mix of low-income housing, workforce housing, and luxury housing, a combination which “fosters an inclusive community where people can live and meaningfully contribute to the local economy regardless of their socioeconomic status.” The HAP provides data showing the benefit in jobs and economic spending that come from providing affordable housing. By including the Maybrook project in the EEO, the Town Board would have the power to ensure that the housing created would contain that balance of low-income, workforce, and luxury housing. Specific percentages could be mandated foreach of these categories. Although the terms “affordable,” “workforce,” and “luxury” are often used loosely, there are clear, accepted ways to define categories of affordability. Every year New York State provides a statistic called the Area Median Income (AMI) for all counties. HUD (Department of Housing and Urban Development) identifies incomes below 30%of AMI as “extremely low income;” incomes below 50%of AMI as “very low income;” and incomes below 80% of AMI as “low incomes.” HUD gives priority in administering housing vouchers to extremely low income, then to very low income. If you decide to move forward with EEO for this project and become the lead reviewer, I would encourage you to work with County experts to determine the best mix of affordable units with those that would be rented at fair market value. These requirements could then be presented to the developer as a Term Sheet as described in the HAP. In addition, it should be noted that New York State has a middle Income Housing Program that provides supplemental funding to developments that include a component of units that will be occupied by households earning up to 130% of AMI. This project has the potential not only to benefit the housing situation in the town, but also to serve as a model for other towns in the county.
Andrew Pekarik:
I am writing to encourage you to grant the Economic Enterprise Overlay (EEO) to the proposal for the adaptive reuse of the former Maybrook lodge into a multifamily housing community.
There is a dire need for affordable housing, especially affordable rental housing, in the Town of Rochester. The County’s recently issued Housing Action Plan (HAP) documents the severity of the current situation, proposes a range of steps that can help to remedy the situation, and encourages all the towns in the county to take action on this urgent issue.
The HAP advocates for a balanced mix of low-income housing, workforce housing, and luxury housing, a combination which “fosters an inclusive community where people can live and meaningfully contribute to the local economy regardless of their socioeconomic status.” The HAP provides data showing the benefit in jobs and economic spending that come from providing affordable housing.
By including the Maybrook project in the EEO, the Town Board would have the power to ensure that the housing created would contain that balance of low-income, workforce, and luxury housing. Specific percentages could be mandated for each of these categories. Although the terms “affordable,” “workforce,” and “luxury” are often used loosely, there are clear, accepted ways to define categories of affordability.
Every year New York State provides a statistic called the Area Median Income (AMI) for all counties. HUD (Department of Housing and Urban Development) identifies incomes below 30% of AMI as “extremely low income;” incomes below 50% of AMI as “very low income;” and incomes below 80% of AMI as “low incomes.” HUD gives priority in administering housing vouchers to extremely low income, then to very low income.
If you decide to move forward with EEO for this project and become the lead reviewer, I would encourage you to work with County experts to determine the best mix of affordable units with those that would be rented at fair market value. These requirements could then be presented to the developer as a Term Sheet as described in the HAP. In addition, it should be noted that New York State has a Middle Income Housing Program that provides supplemental funding to developments that include a component of units that will be occupied by households earning up to 130% of AMI.
This project has the potential not only to benefit the housing situation in the town, but also to serve as a model for other towns in the county.

RE: Request for comments and/or recommendations regarding Walnut Brook LLC application for the parcel located at 5688 Rt 209 Kerhonkson, NY.

Environmental Conservation Commission:

The Town of Rochester Environmental Conservation Commission (TORECC) thanks the Town Board for requesting the commission’s comments and/or recommendations regarding the request for SEQRA interested agency information for the application of Walnut Brook LLC for Adaptive are-use of an existing facility grant, a zoning district overlay designation of Economic Overlay, and zoning change for the parcel located at 5688 Rt 209 Kerhonkson, NY.

The Commission commends the applicant for the proposed re-use of existing facilities over pursuing new construction for the entirety of their project. Preserving our town’s open space and encouraging redevelopment of existing facilities is of great importance to the TORECC. After reviewing the documents provided by the applicant and with our knowledge of the area the TORECC’s chief concern is for the environmental integrity of the Millbrook Creek.

It is the TORECC’s hope that there are no negative effects to the creek from construction activities on the site or effects from day-today operations. It would be the recommendation of the TORECC that if this project is to move forward the applicant be willing to both establish and maintain a riparian buffer along the length of the creek that flows through the 5688 parcel.

Riparian buffers are the natural vegetation buffer that extends from the edge of the stream bank. A riparian zone helps to decrease erosion, reduce flooding damage, improve wildlife and stream habitat, and protects water quality. It is generally considered acceptable to have a buffer that is two times the width of a creek. Planting native grasses, shrubs and trees is the first step in the recovery of the stream back to a more natural condition. The DEC initiative, Trees for Tribs, would be a resource for the applicant. The initiative provides free plant material for property owners to enhance riparian buffers on their property.

This buffer would generate environmental good-will and could be viewed as a trade-off for allowing the applicant to keep Unit 1 inside the 100’ Flood Zone. Establishing this buffer would provide great environmental value to the stream, the property and has the potential to be a natural amenity to future renters.

Thank you for taking the TORECC’s comments and recommendations into consideration.

Historic Preservation Commission:

Four members of the Rochester Historic Preservation Commission walked the former Maybrook Lodge Site on Route 209 at 3 p.m. April 9 and make the following findings:

The buildings and additions that Walnut Brook LLC intend to demolish are in very poor shape and interfere with the flow of the property’s intended use. We support their decision to remove them.

The structures they chose to save and re-purpose have many of the historical features of the buildings that are being lost, but are in better condition.

Of the new family townhouses that will be built 50′ from the highway (Item #10 on the site map), the Historic Preservation Commission requests that they be architecturally harmonious with the other structures that are being saved to continue the unified sense of the place. There are no renderings of those buildings.

There is a large old millstone at the top of the drive that should continue to be incorporated into the property since it is a historic artifact from the past millstone enterprises in Accord.

The Town of Rochester Planning Board:

RE: The Town of Rochester proposed Lead Agency Request for Economic Enterprise Overlay District for Walnut Brook, LLC S/B/L 76.2-2-10

Per your request and as required by general Municipal Law and under the chapter §140-18.1, attached is the Planning Board consent to the Town of Rochester Town Board assuming lead agency for the proposed EEO for Walnut Brook. LLC.
In response to question #2 of your SEQRA Lead Agency Consent Form “Issues that your agency believes should be addressed”, please also reference our required comment letter of 4/28/2021.
1.The paramount issue to be addressed is the legality of EEO for this parcel. The Planning Board feels that an EEO is not legal for this parcel. Secondary concerns are listed in our comment letter.
2.The following is a partial list of the health, safety, and welfare elements of our zoning code that we believe should be considered in an EEO for this project: the provisions of §140-26 and §140-27 and §125, Major Subdivisions, that might also be germane to the SEQRA process:
Mandatory recreational space (140-26 C (3) & H)
Mandatory open space( 140-26 C (3) & H)
Underground utilities
Safe distancing of structures for fire protection
O Property Maintenance agreement
o Compliance with NYS statutes governing the sale of real property used for multifamily occupancy
o Provision for school bus stop
o Water and Septic (certified operator on site to manage the waste water treatment system? Could need a DEC “Takings Permit”? Irrigation and landscaping water usage? Currently estimated H2O usage @ 4,000 gallons/day for 24 units whereby
TOR code states need a hydrological study, etc. see notes from Gateway Meeting that mention these details)
O Environmental Impact on Mill Run Creek
O FD (FEMA Floodplain) and AP Overlay Zoning Protections
O Prime Farmland and Ulster County Ag District Protections
O All criteria of major subdivisions (multifamily residential use is treated as a major subdivision in our code)
3.3-3-2021 EAF Part One should be reviewed by the Town’s Planning Consultant CPL. Some EAF Part One answers by the applicant for CPL review that were unclear to the Planning Board:
O C-3.a needs a written explanation—the uses are allowed as per the CEO determination and should be stated?
oD-1. question. Conversion from seasonal to full time residential is an expansion of use (more square feet/acres of disturbance if build new units and use 365 days a year vs “in season”)?
oD-2 a. the proposed action does include excavation for new units and potentially for septic, unless there is an implied hurdle rate for excavation?
oD-2 c I and vi. New water demand is not listed and well water maximum pumping capacity not listed?
oD-2 3 iii stormwater direction not indicated?
oD-2 J increased traffic should be a yes. DOT at the Gateway Meeting specifically asked for a traffic study and a more robust level of driveway permitting with the expanded # of units. Hypothetical 40 bedrooms and conceivably 2 people per bedroom that could be 80 cars in and out. And if there are kids school bus stop as per code. Delivery traffic to 24 units?
oD-2 k does this need to be checked yes?
oD-2 e i. doesn’t calculate the same as E.1 b (e I leaves out duplexes)?
oE-2 e doesn’t seem to jibe with the perc tests?
oE-3 b needs to fill out prime soils rating and acreage of land of prime soil?
oE-3 h need to check yes? Answer i, ii and iii?

4.In the course of the Town Board’s analysis at a public Town Board meeting, it was asked of the applicant to update their narrative to more robustly respond. The Planning Board has not seen an updated document and believes that this should be done before SEQRA so as to be a part of the decision basis for SEQRA.As this will be a coordinated SEQRA review we look forward to collaborating closely with the Board on all aspects of the review.

RE: The Town of Rochester proposed Economic Enterprise Overlay District for Walnut Brook, LLC S/B/L 76.2-2-10
Per your request and as required by general Municipal Law and under the chapter §140-18.1 C (1),at our April 26th, 2021 Workshop Meeting, the TOR Planning Board discussed and reviewed the proposed EEO for Walnut Brook. LLC.
First and paramount: the Planning Board does not believe that an EEO is legal for this parcel:
The Code states: All parcels located in the AR-3, AB-3, H, I, NR, and B Zoning Districts shall be eligible, except as listed below:

1.Properties located in a designated county agricultural district with existing structures utilized in a farm operation, as defined in this Code, shall not be eligible.

2.Vacant properties located in a designated county agricultural district with soil areas of prime farmland or farmland of statewide importance, as designated by the United States Department of Agriculture, shall not be eligible.

The Planning Board’s interpretation of the above is: if a parcel is both in the Ag District, AND used for farming, -OR -if a property is vacant AND in the Ag District AND contains either Prime Soils OR Farmland of Statewide Importance, then the property is not eligible for an EEO.
1.It is in the County Ag District #3.
2.It contains Prime Farmland (Mr Middlebury Silt Loam).
3.It is vacant.
4.It was housing agricultural workers and being farmed pre-sale and was owned by a farm trust, ostensively a farm-operation.

“Vacant” is not defined in town code. We interpret the plain language of both the definition and the law as considering this property “vacant”. This calls into question whether or not this property is even eligible for an EEO. The opinion of the Planning Board is that because it is in the Ag District, AND is vacant, AND contains Prime Soils, the property is specifically not eligible for the EEO designation. We argue that this type of situation (Ag District, disuse, prime soils) is exactly why the Town Board originally created this exclusion from eligibility.

Second: If the proposed EEO is legal, the Planning Board is concerned that there is a lack of clarity in the law as to the ranking of Overlay Districts. Shall all overlays be applied in concert, are they equal? Is there case law on this issue that the Town should reference or seek a written determination by the Town Attorney? The Planning Board interprets the law as all Overlay Districts are in effect at all times. Application of all Overlays in equally could have influence on density, uses and elements of the review process.

Third: Again, if the EEO is legal, “The purpose of the Economic Enterprise Overlay (EEO) zone is to foster economic development, diversification of land uses and employment generation through the reuse and/or redevelopment of underutilized properties, “and “an EEO permits a broad range of uses that work in harmony. ”In October of 2020 the Code Enforcement Office zoned the proposed project as multifamily dwelling and seasonal conversion. The Planning Board feels that an EEO for this project is not necessary, as existing code allows for the proposed uses. Retaining the property in the B (Business) Zoning District (where it is presently) does not prevent “fostering” nor “uses that work in harmony” as specified in § 140-18.1 C (1). Retaining the property in the B Zoning District allows development; assures that the well-constructed health, safety, and welfare elements of our zoning code are retained for the community; respects the Comprehensive Plan; and follows general Municipal Law. The Planning Board further discussed environmental and design constraints of the potential project at our meeting, but these constraint are secondary to the legality of the EEO. We conceptually support the redevelopment of the parcel, but our determination is that the existing zoning code fully allows for this redevelopment and that an Economic Enterprise Overlay District is neither legally feasible nor preferred. We are available to explain our logic and reasoning
The Town of Rochester Planning Board

Ulster County Planning Board:

Re: Walnut Brook, LLC – Zoning Amendment Summary
The applicant is requesting to be added to the Town’s Economic Enterprise Overlay District (EEO) for the purpose of the rehabilitation of the former Maybrook Lodge for residential development.
The project is located at 5688 Route 209 in the “B” zoning district.
The following materials were received for review:

•Referral Form •WalnutBrookresponse.03_12_21 •ZoningPermit.01_15_21 •2021_walnut_brook_county_gateway.03_05_21 •Ag Data Statement.03_2021 •Consent-Lead Agency •Cover Letter-Interested Agency •Cover Letter-Lead Agency •EAF Walnutbrook.03_2021 •EngineerLetter.03_12_21 •referral form •request for comment •Request for SEQRA agency •Rochester Zoning Code Applicable Sections •UCPB Referral.04_06_21

Recommendations The eligibility requirements of the EEO requires that “all properties shall adaptively reuse structures and associated lands to protect against abandonment and general vacancy of structures or allow for the reuse and/or redevelopment of the underutilized properties.”

The Maybrook Lodge site proposal fits those purposes and eligibility requirements precisely. The proposal also, as a housing development, creates an opportunity to establish a greater variety of housing types for a Town that predominately consists of single-family homes.

Additionally, the County’s recently released Housing Action Plan, which includes a 2020 Housing Snapshot for the Town of Rochester, clearly indicates the demand for this type of housing. (See attached) The UCPB favors this proposal as it not only aligns with purpose of the Town’s EEO but helps to serve a critical need with respect to increasing housing supply in the Town and the region.

However, before the EEO can be applied to this project, certain processes and steps must be completed first. SEQRA/Site Plan Review/UCPB Referral – Required Modifications. While the EEO overlay is indeed applicable to the proposed project and supported as far as its conceptual plan now by the UCPB, the SEQRA process, as well as the site plan review process (including the referral of the site plan to the UCPB for review), must be completed as first steps. Then, once these steps are complete, the project can be added to the EEO zoning district.

KEEP PUBLIC HEARING OPEN:
Resolution # 185-2021:
A Motion was made by Councilman Paddock to hold the Public hearing open with a date to be determined at another time.
Second: Councilwoman Enouen
Attorney Christiana suggested having CPL at the next meeting.
Councilwoman Haugen-Depuy asked if we should wait to do SEQR until we get water and septic findings?
ROLL CALL:
Councilwoman Enouen aye
Councilwoman Haugen-Depuy aye
Councilman Hewitt aye
Councilman Paddock aye
Supervisor Baden aye
ADJOURNMENT:
A Motion was made by Councilwoman Enouen to adjourn the meeting at 7:20pm.
Second: Councilman Hewitt motion carried

Respectfully submitted,

Kathleen A. Gundberg
Town Clerk