MINUTES OF May 14, 2013 the Town of Rochester PLANNING BOARD, held at the Town Hall, Accord, NY.
Chairman Baden asked that everyone stand to say the Pledge to the Flag.
The Secretary did roll call attendance.
PRESENT: ABSENT: Michael Baden, Chairman Baden Fred O’Donnell
Robert Rominger, Vice Chairman
Adam Paddock
Shane Ricks
Melvyn Tapper-7:05PM
Anthony Ullman
Also present:
Rebecca Paddock Stange, Secretary. Robert Case, Alternate. Mary Lou Christiana, Town Attorney.
ANNOUNCEMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS
Chairman Baden noted that this month’s communications were mostly having to do with applications that we have in front of the Board. He did send a letter to the Wawarsing Planning Board after the TORPB’s discussion on the Dollar General at the April Meeting based on the Board’s comments. From what he has heard, Wawarsing has a lot of the same issues. This was a referral that the TORPB had received because the Dollar General is proposing a building that is mostly in Wawarsing, but the property goes into Rochester by about 10’ and they don’t yet have an application in front of our Board. We believe that eventually they will have to apply to us because the property is also in our Town. Right now they are discussing it with Wawarsing and Wawarsing has referred it to the TORPB and the letter written to them is the result of the TORPB discussion at the last meeting.
TRAININGS
- Mon. May 20 – Cluster and Conservation Subdivisions, Overlay Zoning Districts – 7-9pm – Goshen – $15 – Orange County Municipal Planning Federation
- Wed. May 22nd: Cairo, NY (Greene County) – No. Charge.~ Registration by May 17th
Session I: Case Law Update – 4:00 to 5:00p.m.
Session II: Enforcement of Zoning and Other Laws – 5:15 to 6:45 p.m.
Session III: Record Keeping~- 7:00 to 8:30 p.m.
Chairman Baden apologized that there were no files delivered via email this month. The internet to the Community Center had the wires ripped out of the building by a tractor trailer on Friday and the building just had the internet hooked back up about 20 minutes to 4pm today.
ACTION ON MINUTES
Mr. Baden motioned to approve the May 14, 2013 Minutes with corrections on Page 5- clarification and Page 9 in the first paragraph- typo. Seconded by Mr. Ullman. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden: Yes Tapper: Not yet present
O’Donnell: Absent Rominger: Yes
Ullman: Yes Ricks: Yes
Paddock: Yes
Motion carried. 5 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, 0 abstentions
Continued Application Review, SEQRA, Public Hearing
Site Plan Review
Elm Rock Inn LLC, for Site Plan Review. An expansion of a residential use Bed & Breakfast to hold onsite events pursuant to Section 140-35 of the Town of Rochester Zoning Code, 4496 Route 209, S/B/L #69.4-2-1.32, ‘B’ and ‘FD Overlay’ zoning districts. The parcel also includes land located in the Town of Marbletown, 4494 Route 209, Tax Map #69.4-1-1.2.
Mrs. Carney from Peak Engineering, Kim Weeks and Mark Suszczynski of the Elm Rock Inn along with their Attorney, Michael Moriello, were present on behalf of the application.
Chairman Baden noted that there has been a lot of communication back and forth this month. The County Planning Board responded with required modifications, but their required modifications were that Health Dept. Approval was required, which they already knew and had all agreed to, so as the Town Attorney pointed out it wasn’t really a required modification because it was already required. We just received a letter from the Town of Marbletown Planning Office today. They informed the Board that the parking in Marbletown is a by right use, so there were no requirements for that. They do have two requests that the TORPB add into their decision—that they require no less than the most restrictive number of spaces for the Town of Rochester calculation which was 63, and the second is a condition placed on the approval that the structure in Marbletown continue as a single family residence. At the Board’s request last month we sent a letter to the Accord Fire District and the Kripplebush Fire District. We did not get a reply from Kripplebush. Accord did reply and the requested that the middle driveway be chained off from any access and they requested that the service entrance be a minimum of 20’ wide. They say it would make it easier for fire equipment in case of emergency. They also say as far as water source there is a pond across NYS Route 209 that they would use if needed. The Board also received from the applicant’s attorney a suggested Part 2 of the EAF; however the Chairman has prepared a draft for the Board as is the Board’s practice. There is a noise report from the applicant’s engineer that they can discuss further. They also submitted to the NYSDEC and conducted a Threatened and Endangered Species Evaluation of the property. It was appreciated, but not necessary. The Board takes the DEC’s website’s word for it. They also submitted a letter to the DEC regarding the property. The Board also received an email from the NYS DOT with two points that they had- 1– There are two existing access points to the north of the Inn that currently serve the guests.~ The Southerly of the two shall be removed completely.~ The Northerly access shall be shifted as far to the north of the property as possible and be reconstructed as per the attached minor commercial driveway detail attached. And 2–The existing service access to the south of the Inn shall remain as is since it is not feasible with the configuration of the property to access the south side through the northern access.Chairman Baden pointed out that here we had an issue because the Accord Fire Dept. was asking for it to be widened and the DOT was asking for it to remain as is. Also the middle entrance the DOT is asking for it to be removed completely and the Fire District is asking for it to be chained off. There is a discrepancy there. His own feeling is that the DOT has the permitting authority for access and it’s actually on their property because Route 209 is actually owned by NYS.
Town Attorney, Mary Lou Christiana noted that the DOT definitely trumps the Fire Dept. unless the applicant wanted to do things differently.
Mrs. Carney noted that the Accord Fire District memo was forwarded to the DOT, and there response is dated after they received it. This response is basically to address the recommendations.
Chairman Baden noted that because this was a Type I Action, all correspondence received did get circulated to all the involved agencies. They did see that. And he was present at the meeting with Dave Corrigan from the DOT and he was pretty insistent on the complete closing of the middle access. His concern was that a chained off entrance would appear to be a driveway and people would pull in and realize that it was chained and they couldn’t get in and it would cause more harm than good. In terms of the fire access, they do have access another 25’ or 50’ up the road. In a real emergency the Fire Dept. has complete authority to shut down Route 209 if they have to and they can park their truck right in front of the house. His own personal feeling is that they have to abide by the DOT requirements for the permit.
Mr. Rominger questioned if DOT had any other comments about the service entrance.
Chairman Baden noted that they did not. They said they were treating it as a non- public access.
Mrs. Carney stated that when she spoke with Mr. Corrigan that if that entrance did get widened that it would confuse people coming out to the site as to what was the main entrance and more people might tend to use that, so they didn’t want that to be widened either.
Chairman Baden noted that the request for widening it did come after the DOT had reviewed it. In his opinion there is a site distance problem there if it is widened. He knew there was a concern with delivery trucks going in and out of there and he thought that they could address that in their decision. As far as the noise issue—they submitted a noise review of the situation.
Mrs. Carney noted that basically it was an assessment of what the impact from noise levels could be. Some events will have music that is amplified, some will not. In the case of amplified music, it could exceed the current noise level in the area; however the applicant does propose some ways to mitigate that as far as shielding the back of the tent area that is close to the residences and facing the music out toward the street so the sound goes away from the closest residence. And the events are limited based on the Town of Rochester Zoning. So, the number of events that will be held here where the noise levels might be elevated are minimal.
Chairman Baden questioned if the events would always be held in a tent?
Mr. Suszczynski noted that they always had to provide a tent because the weather couldn’t be guaranteed.
Mr. Ricks noted that in the second to last paragraph they talked about acoustic absorption boards- could they explain that?
Mrs. Carney noted that they almost looked like office cubicle dividers that they could put up behind where the music was also to use as a shield if needed.
Mr. Ricks wanted to know if that was something that they would be doing every time. Or was that something that they could put up?
Mr. Moriello noted it was more if there were complaints to the Code Enforcement Office.
Mrs. Weeks noted that 200’ from the sound source would be perceived at a level. So, the closest neighboring property could potentially at amplified level reach 58 decibels, which is a normal conversational speech. That’s amplified music. So if you look at the decrease in sound level it’s the inverse square law- so if you read this further you will see that every doubling of the distance produces a 6 db reduction in the sound. So if you were looking at a sound level of 70db at 50’- its 64 decibels at 100’. At 200’ its now down to 58 decibels- and that is amplified music. Of course every situation is different, but if you were looking at the worse case scenario the neighbor would hear it at about 58 decibels which is normal conversational speech.
Mr. Suszczynski noted that if you look at the survey, they have two layers of fir trees that are all year round and the back of the tent and that house behind them is about 400’ behind them.
Mr. Ricks noted that was fine with him, but if there were complaints, he liked seeing this as a back up plan.
Chairman Baden noted that they could address it in their approval that they require a tent and that it always be walled on that side of the property.
Mr. Ricks sees that as being the only issues with the neighbors.
Chairman Baden noted that when he was there for the meeting with the DOT he did take a look over there—it’s a very dense group of trees. They weren’t the type of trees that didn’t have the bows until way high up.
Mr. Ullman noted that the one thing he didn’t understand was what was the increase in the ambient noise going to be? It doesn’t seem to say. It just had a lot of information on hypotheticals.
Mrs. Carney noted that without actually going to the site with a monitor and monitoring what it is on the site- probably at their site its pretty high because its right on Route 209 and the trucks and cars and their radios are very loud, but as you move back further it does get quieter. They don’t know what the exact levels were because they didn’t do the testing at the site. This was just to assess the difference between different noises and where you are is going to impact that.
Mr. Ullman noted that it doesn’t really tell them anything then of what is to be expected.
Mrs. Carney noted that amplified music can be quite loud.
Mr. Ullman noted in terms of relative to the actual current noise levels.
Mr. Moriello noted that the chart shows amplified music, truck traffic- there is a comparison.
Mrs. Weeks noted that at about 50’ it would be about 84 decibels because they had diesel trucks and tractor trailers going by every day. And it was about 50’ maybe a little more to where the tent area would be. 120 decibels is standing next to a jet engine.
Mr. Ullman understood that, but what he was pointing out was that they haven’t really gone back out to where the music would be and measured what the ambient noise was currently and then said okay- let me put amplified music into that area and see what the results were.
Mr. Moriello noted that they did not do testing. That was a very expensive test. The only time he ever sees that kind of a test done when he represents people is when they do large commercial projects because it is really expensive to do that kind of test and do it correctly.
Mr. Suszczynski stated that the loudest rock band is the Who and they were at 112 decibels and that’s the highest. That’s like a live rock band, so the average music DJ is much less than that and with the back of the tent, the trees, and the house is probably 400’ away. He is friends with Randy Hornbeck- the bounding owner and he has no problems with it.
Chairman Baden noted that they also have to remember that this is not a year round use—its 12 days a year use according to our code. And even if it would change in the future, his guess is that it would have to come back for a new review, so he thought that we had to keep that in mind that we are only talking about 12 dates a year. He understood what Mr. Ullman was saying, but this was more of just a review of noise in general and not specifics.
Mr. Paddock noted that he ran a DJ company for 10 years, locally and had some of the biggest speakers – amplified music that you could have. He noted that the direction of the speakers is the biggest thing. If you have 2,000 watt speakers blasting a crowd you can stand behind them having a normal conversation. His personal feeling is as long as they are willing to do the shielding and the direction of the music facing away from the neighbors, he thinks it would be more than adequate.
Mr. Ricks agreed and noted that the only reason he brought this up was because he had exact personal experience with this. He had a B & B on Route 209 and his home sits about 1,000’ away but it still felt like it was in his backyard. He couldn’t even hear the TV over it that’s how loud it was. He just feels a little protection for the neighbors is his main thing and he agrees with Mr. Paddock that pointing the speakers in the correct direction and having something behind them whether a tent wall or acoustic boards would be fine. He was sure the neighbor would let them know if it was loud.
Chairman Baden questioned if anyone had any comments on the endangered species report?
No one did.
Chairman Baden noted that as far as the lighting, the lighting code section is referenced on the site plan and that gives the Code Enforcement Officer the ability to enforce it. He also noted that the Board had heard back from OPRHP and the Town’s HPC because it was a property on the national register and neither agency had any issues.
At this time the Board reviewed Part 2 of the Long EAF in order to make a SEQRA determination.
1. Will the Proposed Action result in a physical change to the project site? Yes was checked as a small to moderate impact. Under other impacts: Removal of the South parking entrance and relocation/reconstruction of the North parking entrance.
6. Will Proposed Action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface water runoff? Yes was checked. Small to moderate impact. Under other impacts: May be a minor change in drainage patterns due to new locations of culverts.
12. Will Proposed Action impact any site or structure of historic, prehistoric or paleontological importance? Yes was checked. Small to moderate impact. Under Proposed Action occurring wholly or partially within or substantially contiguous to any facility or site listed on the State or National Register of historic places.
15. Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems? Yes was checked. Small to moderate impact. Under other impacts:
Project will increase traffic use for short durations of time on the days of use. As the location is a US highway designed to support large traffic volumes the impact will be minimal.
17. Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of the Proposed Action? Yes was checked. Small to moderate impact. Under other impacts: There will be an increase in the ambient noise levels during the days of use however the facility is only permitted use less than 4% of the year.
19. Will Proposed Action affect the character of the existing community? Yes was checked. Small to moderate impact. Under Other impacts: Additional traffic and noise. Change in use from a residential use to a part-time commercial use; however the property is in the “Business” zoning district.
Mr. Ricks motioned for a Negative Declaration. Seconded by Mr. Paddock. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden: Yes Tapper: Yes
O’Donnell: Absent Rominger: Yes
Ullman: Yes Ricks: Yes
Paddock: Yes
Motion carried. 6 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, 0 abstentions
Chairman Baden noted that because this was a Type 1 Action it would be published in the DEC’s Environmental Notice Bulletin.
Mr. Ullman was still troubled by the noise topic. The noise regulation very clearly states that all “proposed new land usage shall not generate cumulative sound levels at or beyond any lot line that exceeds the ambient noise level by 10 or more decibels (dBA)”. That’s flat out between 5 and 10 dBA could be mitigated to the maximum extent possible. And then it clearly says that the determination of noise levels shall be made using New York State Department of Environmental Conservation guidelines and they are supposed to be measured at the lot. He is concerned that there is a specific directive. He agrees for SEQRA purposes that it’s relatively small, but he didn’t want to be doing anything that was in flat contradiction to what the Code says. Mr. Ullman noted that if this was still a B & B, it may not be applicable.
Chairman Baden noted that there was nothing in 140-35 about noise in regards to the special events. The noise section of the code is for new uses. It was still a B & B and that was residential. This is essentially an accessory use.
Mr. Tapper noted that #19 in their Part 2 that they just went over states that “Change in use from a residential use to a part-time commercial use; however the property is in the “Business” zoning district.”
Town Attorney, Mary Lou Christiana noted that was for SEQRA purposes. Not for Zoning. For Zoning this was a residential use under the Code. And also, it’s not a new use, it was a continuing use.
Chairman Baden would make sure they would address that in the decision. Normally he would write a draft decision, but as there were so many things on this application up in the air, he didn’t feel it was ready and he didn’t prepare one. The decision will be put off until next month. There were just too many communications that came in last minute that the Board hadn’t discussed.
At 7:35 Chairman Baden opened the Public Hearing.
Mrs. Carney gave a brief overview of the property for the public. She noted that this property was located at 4494 Route 209, owned by the Elm Rock Inn, operating as a B & B. The proposal is to expand the use for temporary onsite events- reception type events. The plan shows the position of the proposed tent area and expansion for parking for the events. The parking area won’t be developed, but it shows area for a level parking area. As per the Code it allows 12 events per year for this type of use which is very limited.
Tom Edwards was recognized to speak. He was in support of new business in the area. He noted that by this nature of business they are set up to please the public and they are employing people in the area. He appreciated what the Board does to protect the public, but passing this was the right thing to do. These were stand up people and were generous to a fault.
Richard Travers was recognized to speak. He was a resident and the president of the Rondout Valley Business Association. He appreciated the Board’s job, but at the same time the Town needs new business. It’s a wonderful project and we needed more business like this in the valley. He attested to the fact that the applicant’s were fabulous people and ran a very fine establishment and we should welcome this kind of business here.
Tecia Poulas was the applicant’s real estate broker. She noted that when they purchased the Sparrow Hawk it was in a deteriorating state. The applicants came along and rescued the owners out of foreclosure. They are great community members and she was in support of the project.
Mr. Ricks motioned to close the Public Hearing at 7:45PM. Seconded by Mr. Rominger. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden: Yes Tapper: Yes
O’Donnell: Absent Rominger: Yes
Ullman: Yes Ricks: Yes
Paddock: Yes
Motion carried. 6 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, 0 abstentions
As the Chairman said earlier- because there were so many things up in the air, the Chairman didn’t feel comfortable writing a draft decision, so the Board will take it up at the next meeting. He just wanted to get a feel of input from the Board about requirements- DOT access requirements will be followed, HD approval will be sought, he will address the parking in terms of TOR specifications should be followed and in terms of the lighting as well. In terms of the noise he will require that there will always be a tent, they can say there will always be a noise block and that the speakers always face Route 209.
Mr. Ullman wondered what a noise block was—was that acoustic tiles?
Mr. Ricks noted that they said if there was a complaint they would add those.
Mr. Moriello noted that they didn’t have any neighbors come to the public hearing and say that they were worried about the noise. If there was a complaint and that complaint came from someone who was germane to the process, they weren’t just like 4 miles down the road, but if they were close to the site he thinks it would mean something.
Chairman Baden noted that this property was unique in that every surrounding owner is Hornbeck.
Mrs. Christiana noted that they could make it at the discretion of the CEO.
Mr. Ricks knows that the Board decided not to do it a couple meetings ago (and he was the person that was the applicant at the time), but he would be all for having a meeting in 2 weeks to try helping the applicants out because the business that they were in is a summer business and there were only so many dates that they could have this and they were already in May and this could help them out if they could get the approval in 2 weeks instead of a month.
Mr. Moriello noted that they did have an event coming up in June- June 15th.
Chairman Baden noted that they weren’t going to get the C/O from the Code Enforcement Office until the driveway was done, but they could start working on that now.
Mr. Moriello agreed noting that they could start working on the driveway now that the SEQRA was complete.
Chairman Baden noted that the Board’s next meeting was on June 11th. They could get their approval on June 11th, but they would have to complete the conditions prior to getting their Certificate of Occupancy to hold their events until the driveway was completed and the other was closed. That’s going to be required by the DOT. They aren’t going to give that approval to the Code Enforcement Office until it’s done.
Mr. Moriello questioned about the driveway if they could get Dave Corrigan from the DOT to write a letter to inspect the driveway once it is complete?
Chairman Baden noted that was between Dave Corrigan and the CEO. Once the Board writes their approval it will state that the applicants have to get the DOT permit and approval from the DOT. There was nothing stopping them from working on the driveway now.
Chairman Baden noted that he wouldn’t be available the last week of May, but he would write the decision.
Mrs. Christiana noted it would have to be advertised as a Special Meeting.
Mr. Ricks was all for helping new businesses in the Town.
Chairman Baden noted that he was getting a feeling that they would get their approval on the 11th, so he didn’t know if a Special meeting would change anything. They could still start on the driveway now that SEQRA was done.
The applicants felt that this might move things along and not wait till the last minute.
Mr. Ullman noted that from the Board’s perspective it doesn’t change anything.
Mrs. Christiana left the meeting after this application.
PB 2013-03 LLA New Application Review
Lot Improvement
Wayne Kelder and Chris Kelder, for Lot Improvement of 1.1 acres between lots of 15.3 and 23.43 acres , Lower Whitfield Rd., S/B/L #68.4-4-29 and S/B/L #68.4-4-31.12, ‘AR-3’ zoning district.
Mr. Wayne Kelder was present on behalf of the application. Mr. Kelder noted that he had sold his farm to his son and now he wants to include the pond across the road with the farm. Currently the lot line is the center of the road.
Chairman Baden noted that both lots have road frontage and the dividing line is the stream, so it is not an arbitrary line that they are just putting in there. It’s located in the AR-3 District and both lots still meet zoning specifications and the Board is only giving acknowledgement and not approval. They are just ensuring that both lots still meet zoning standards and they do. This was a Type II action as per the Code.
Mr. Rominger motioned to accept the lot line revision. Seconded by Mr. Ullman. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden: Yes Tapper: Yes
O’Donnell: Absent Rominger: Yes
Ullman: Yes Ricks: Yes
Paddock: Yes
Motion carried. 6 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, 0 abstentions
PB 2013-02 SUP Review of Site Plan for Approval
Special Use Permit Review (Conditional Approval granted 4/9/2013
Brenda C. Reiss, for Special Use Permit Review. An expansion of an existing mixed use to allow apartment, office, or low impact retail on the first floor. Existing use is U.S. Post Office and 6 apartments, 30 Main Street S/B/L #77.9-1-50.1, ‘H’ zoning district.
Mrs. Reiss was present on behalf of the application.
Chairman Baden noted that this application was given Conditional Final Approval and part of the conditions were that a site plan to scale was needed to make sure that the parking areas that were proposed did work. The applicant had a site plan by Medenbach & Eggers done and the parking that they had proposed previously did not all fit. They were able to fit 24 spaces and the Board had required 31 spaces. The applicant submitted a letter stating that the municipal parking that was located behind the fire house would be used for any additional parking that might be needed. They were offering to put a sign up that said that extra parking would be located in the rear. It is up to the Board whether or not they would accept this and if they did they could amend the decision to reflect this.
Mr. Paddock felt that this was one of the reasons that municipal parking was designated in towns and especially in this area.
Mr. Ricks questioned if there were 6 out front of the post office proposed?
Chairman Baden noted that 6 spaces do fit now that it is drawn to scale. They would have to modify condition #3 to say the signage shall limit the Post Office Parking to “6 spaces and 60’ and no parking for the remaining 23’”. They can also add a condition that a sign shall be posted to say additional parking was in the municipal parking lot. We also heard back from the DPW about the parking off of Main Street and they had no problems with it.
Condition #3 will be changed as earlier stated and they will add a condition noting that signage directing additional parking in the municipal parking area will be left to the approval of the Code Enforcement Officer.
Mr. Ricks didn’t see this as a problem.
Mr. Ullman questioned if those numbers for parking were hard numbers?
Chairman Baden noted that our parking guidelines were based on a case by case scenario.
Mr. Rominger thought it made sense for the municipal parking.
Board members discussed whether employees or customers should be mandated to park in the municipal parking.
The Board discussed this and agreed that it should be left up to the individual businesses where their employees parked.
Mr. Ricks left the meeting at 8:05pm to take a phone call.
Mr. Paddock motioned to amend the decision as discussed and to grant authority to the Chairman to sign the site plan. Seconded by Mr. Ullman. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden: Yes Tapper: Yes
O’Donnell: Absent Rominger: Yes
Ullman: Yes Ricks: Not present for vote
Paddock: Yes
Motion carried. 5 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, 0 abstentions
OTHER MATTERS:
Mr. Ricks returned to the meeting.
Chairman attended the New York Planning Federation conference at the end of April in Saratoga Springs. They had some very good training sessions. He did receive the Edward Levine Award for Community Service. It’s not a very expensive process- it can be done in a day trip and their courses are very thorough and he recommended attending if anyone got the chance.
- New SEQRA Forms– forms are going into effect on October 7, 3013. The State is working on the work book right now. Its going to be online interactive. When they are finalized he will come up with a standard for which applications get a long form and which get the short form. The short form will be longer and more useful.
- LGRMIF Grant update- the chairman noted that the grant is running along very well. The money runs out at the end of June. He and Ms. Terwilliger have been going along and entering all the files into the program and they are currently up to the letter ‘F’ in applications.
- Zoning and Subdivision update- the Chairman didn’t have too much to report. The committee that the Town Board has appointed has been meeting. He took part in the first 2 meetings, but he is no longer participating. He wouldn’t go into too much detail, but the discussion got to be about him personally and not about the Code. It is in the Town Board’s hands if anyone has any questions.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Ullman motioned to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Mr. Rominger. No discussion.
All members present in favor.
Chairman Baden adjourned the meeting at 8:15PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Rebecca Paddock Stange, Secretary
Approved 6/11/2013