The Town of Rochester Town Board held the public hearing on addendums to the Comprehensive Plan on May 25, 2022 at 7:00pm at the Harold Lipton Community Center, 15 Tobacco Road Accord, NY 12404

PRESENT:

Councilman Michael Coleman Councilwoman Erin Enouen
Councilman Adam Paddock Supervisor Michael Baden
Deputy Town Clerk Christina Ferrara Town Attorney Marylou Christiana

ABSENT:
Councilwoman Charlotte Smiseth Town Clerk Kathleen Gundberg

PUBLIC COMMENT:
TROY DUNN: The Town of Rochester Open Space Inventory (dated January 2016) and Town of Rochester Natural Heritage Plan (Dated April 2, 2018), should not be adopted into the town comprehensive plan. The Open Space Inventory (OSI) and Natural Heritage Plan (NHP) are both incomplete as they fail to consider the cost of the recommended actions. There is a direct monetary cost incurred for the report’s authors recommended actions. Cost to taxpayers and cost to landowners in potential revenue loss due to additional restrictions. These proposals in their present form lack fiscal transparency and committing to their adoption is akin to committing to purchase a new vehicle without ever knowing the price. No one would do that and no one should support doing the same with public tax dollars while impacting privately held lands. Furthermore, the boundaries of the referenced Critical Environmental Area (CEA) as referenced in NHP map, pg. 70, is arbitrary and lacks peer reviewed scientific data supporting the authors recommendations.
At present there are conservation and forestry programs in place with the state that meet the objective of preserving open space and forest management. These programs are voluntary to the landowner. The recommendations of the OSI and NHP as presented strip effected landowners of that voluntary option in an attempt to force compliance to the present town board land use philosophy through regulation. This is a very dangerous precedent to set and one that sets the stage for expensive litigation that shall further burden town taxpayers. As proof of this, I refer to NHP, pg. 23, Focus on Rochester Resources-Forests, “urge us to err in favor of proactive and conservative approaches to protection”. NHP, pg. 33, Catskill-Shawangunk Greenway Corridor, “Preserve the integrity of the lands falling within the corridor that lie outside of already protected land”. OSI, “steer development away from parcels within and adjacent to this connectivity feature can contribute enormously to regional ecological resilience”. Since there is no follow-up, an educated reader must deduce this to mean more regulatory oversight is required and recommended by these proposals. This reinforces my main point of lack of fiscal transparency of these documents; what is the fiscal cost to the taxpayer and more important, the net effect on the landowner. Typically, the largest personal financial investment is land. These proposed amendments to our comprehensive plan are an attempt to change the rules on landowners who hold tracts of land resulting in loss of value to privately held lands.
In reference to the proposed CEA (NHP map. Pg. 70) there is no scientific justification supporting the authors views. If this area were indeed “critical”, the entire Town of Rochester as well as the bulk of Ulster County should be identified as “critical” if scientifically proven and warranted. The small size and boundaries of the proposed CEA makes it both arbitrary and ecologically insignificant.
In addition to the aforementioned flaws and omissions in these proposals, they both fail to address human population densities. If it were scientifically justified that we truly have “critical environmental areas”, it is proven through research that the greatest threat to biodiversity is human presence. Any complete report requires impacts and density limit study’s on not only human habitation in such designated areas but human visitation as well. There must be density limits placed on human recreational activity in designated areas. One only has to visit the Shawangunk’ s to be reminded of the effects of human overcrowding on both wildlife and fauna.
The irony should be apparent that as the town celebrates the Mohonk Mountain House (a structure which drastically disrupts the natural ridge view), the Cliff House, and building at Minnewaska, the chances of the Smiley and Phillips families of successfully embarking on those endeavors today would most likely never get out of committee under the regulation that is sure to arise from adopting these incomplete proposals. The result is the possibility of irreparable financial harm to large tract landowners due to unreasonable regulatory restrictions. By definition, if these proposals were complete, we would know what regulatory oversight shall be enacted with cost analysis.
These proposals to amend the town comprehensive plan are incomplete due to the authors lack of supporting scientific data and financial transparency. The documents are replete with unsubstantiated opinion masquerading as scientific fact due to their lack of supporting research data. The very foundation of science is fact supported by peer reviewed research data. The lack of this information in the NHP and OSI in present form renders them merely expensive opinion pieces that have no place in public policy. For these reasons and many more not addressed here for brevity, these proposals in their present form should not be adopted into the Town of Rochester Comprehensive Plan.

I appreciate the time and stand behind the merits of the two plans. What is the objective behind it? OSI and NHP? It better have a purpose.
BEA HAUGEN-DEPUY: if the comprehensive plan is adopted and we follow the guide to base planning and zoning on, it should become a law on its own not just a guide. The purpose of the study was for inventory only. It will help with zoning codes in the future. The Town Board held public hearings on the NHP and adopted it as a Town document. Somewhere in the area is an Indian burial ground and that needs to be left alone.
RUTH BENDELIUS: The natural heritage Plan needs much more transparency. Property owners in so called heritage area really don’t know what the Town Board has in mind in the future.
*Questions regarding the draft map of critical assessment area were asked and answered by Supervisor Baden and Councilman Coleman
ROBERT LESNOW: asked if the Comprehensive plan is an actual law. In one view it seems that there are major flaws in the Heritage plan and ways that studies were conducted. Doesn’t seem like landowners would be affected by this plan.
SHIRLEY AVERY: as a member of the HPC we received updates of homes and farms so the NHP would be worthless with no updates, maybe this is not the time for this.
HOLD PUBLIC HEARING OPEN FOR WRITTEN COMMENTS ONLY:
Resolution # -2022:
A Motion was made by Councilwoman Enouen to hold the public hearing open for written comments only until 3:00pm June 2, 2022.
Second: Councilman Coleman
Aye: 4 nay: 0 abstain: 0 motion carried

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

CHRISTINA FERRARA
DEPUTY TOWN CLERK