The Town of Rochester Town Board held the continuation of the public hearing on proposed local law x of 2023: EEO: Granary Project at 6:30pm at the Harold Lipton Community Center, 15 Tobacco Road Accord, NY 12404.
ToView theMeeting
LivestreamBroadcaston YouTube https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCg7ykop50cWmqPFUpgDjRSQ
PRESENT:
Councilman Michael Coleman Deputy Supervisor Erin Enouen
Councilman Adam Paddock Councilwoman Charlotte Smiseth
Deputy Town Clerk Christina Ferrara Town Attorney Marylou Christiana
ABSENT:
Supervisor Michael Baden Town Clerk Kathleen Gundberg
Deputy Supervisor Enouen opened the continued PublicHearing:
Jay Martin- Has concerns about this project. We’ve had some insight on who this LLC is but on this purposed building table of uses its under egress of Oberon Group. Interesting in the play, Midsummer Night’s Dream, there is a character, Oberon and he is King of the Fairies, I want to know who the king of the fairies is here. This group is smoke and mirrors, no names or faces, I need some clarification on that. At the last meeting, I had the chance to speak with the engineer, one of my concerns was the wellness center that would have been the closest to the sewer system, I see that was removed. Unconditioned event space, I don’t know what this unconditioned means carte blanche, also mentioned was the parking lot at the former Chinese restaurant / Ships Galley is blacktopped, that is incorrect. I have photos from July 7th and with the three inches of rain, it’s a real concern. I can submit photos if you wish. Mr. Rich stated he spoke with the neighbors; however, I am the nearest, he has not reached out to me.
Alana Blum- A private developer, Accord LLC, is proposing a multi-use commercial development on the site
of the old Granary on the corner of Main St and Granite Rd in Accord. We are supportive of the
opportunity that restoring these important and historic buildings presents. We also want to
ensure that the Town Board considers the interests of the entire community when voting on the
proposed EEOD (Economic Enterprise Overlay District) designation, an amendment of the
zoning map.
We have determined that the proposed scope is far larger than the site can accommodate and
that this will negatively impact the amenity and quality of life for residents in the Town of
Rochester. Further, the significant traffic increase and environmental impacts are not being
properly studied and thought out. Issues to be considered include the following:
● The increased occupancy on the site would be many times greater than what currently
exists in the Hamlet – the occupancy load is in excess of 200 people.
● The above occupancy is to be served by less than 50 car parking spaces, fewer than the
code requirement, in order to reduce construction costs.
● The associated traffic represents a significant increase in the number of vehicles on
Main Street, the impact of which has not been studied.
● Noise and light pollution will impact the adjacent residential areas that exist on 3 sides of
the development.
● The effect of noise and pollution on the larger community.
● A proposed new bike trail and public footpath disrupts the existing amenity of adjoining
residential properties when a less disruptive alternative has been identified.
● The expressed desire for the developers to avoid environmental oversight during
construction as required by the EPA.
● The future potential for the site to be used as event space.
● The lack of scrutiny regarding the parking space requirements as there is no allowance
for some uses (Gallery Space) and other uses are underserved (Restaurant, bar,
co-workspace). The code-required number of ADA spaces is not met.
The Town Board is considering waiving code requirements in order to promote development.
These requirements are in place for the protection of the community at large, not just for the
property developers. Other, similar developments in the Town have been held to these
requirements. For example:
● The Board is considering allowing non-conformity with the code-required amount of
on-site parking so that the developers can limit the area of disturbance to under 1 acre
and avoid the cost of environmental oversight during construction as required by the
EPA (SWPPP). The Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is designed to
protect the community’s water resources, including the nearby Rondout Creek.
● Parking spaces as shown on the proposed site plan are under-sized and not to Code.
● The Town Board has said it will accept the developer’s traffic assessment in lieu of an
independent and comprehensive traffic report.
For these reasons we request that the Town Board carries out its due diligence and considers
the interests of the broader community by imposing the following binding conditions as a
requirement for granting the EEOD to this applicant:
● A comprehensive traffic study should be completed by an independent consultant to
determine the estimated increase in automobile, pedestrian, and bicycle traffic.
● Car parking on the site should be as required by the Town of Rochester Code.
● There should be no outdoor sound stage and no amplified music permitted outdoors.
● That the site is not to be used as event space due to the limitations of carparking and
effects of noise and light pollution.
● Lighting Code requirements with regard to Dark Skies to be observed and enforced.
● Proposed bike trail and public footpath to circumnavigate the existing residential
properties.
● Green buffers to be planted between parking areas and along boundaries to adjacent
residential properties as required by Code.
This project needs to be viable in order to exist. However, its operation and the enjoyment of
guests should not be at the expense of the quality of life of Accord residents. We request that
the Board ensures that there is not the potential for that harm.
Furthermore, there is ongoing confusion within the community and even among Town Board
Members regarding the implications of the granting of the EEOD and the designation of the
Town Board as Lead Agency. It has not been stated clearly the degree to which the approved
plan can be amended by the Planning Board in response to further public hearings with regard
to car parking, noise restrictions and overall programming and occupancy. It is also unclear as
to why the applicant requires the change to an EEOD. This plan cannot be voted on until the
Board members and the public fully understand the implications of this zone change.
Continued
Note: We recognize that since the initial writing of this letter the applicant has reduced the scope
by eliminating the Wellness Center and reducing the size of the Co-Workspace. They have also
increased the number of parking spaces. However, these changes do not alter the concerns
regarding the over-development of the site and the parking does not satisfy code
requirements – specifically that the Restaurant parking does not comply, there is no allowance
for parking for the bar, cafe and gallery, and the co-work parking is insufficient. Furthermore, the
water supply and wastewater does not comply with BOH requirements.
Sincerely,
We the undersigned
Name Town of Rochester Residence or Property Address
1. David Roberts 5 Scenic Rd, Accord
2. Alana Blum 5 Scenic Rd, Accord
3. Katie Naplatarski 46 Towpath Rd, Accord
4. Hudson Roditi 42 Granite Rd, Accord
5. Ila Gupta 42 Granite Rd, Accord
6. Rene Schnider 7 Scenic Rd., Accord
7. Gabriel Schnider 7 Scenic Rd., Accord
8. Sheila Finan 42 Granite Rd, Accord
9. Jill Bressler 726 Samsonville Rd., Kerhonkson
10. William Dagher 726 Samsonville Rd., Kerhonkson
11. Marsha Gibney 30 Devou Lane, Accord
12. Rebecca Brainard 77 Old Minnewaska Trail, Kerhonkson
13. Tim Avery 24 Park Lane, Kerhonkson
14. Krista Sickler 24 Park Lane, Kerhonkson
15. Bethany Ides 12 School House Road, Accord
16. Ora Ferdman 12 School House Rd, Accord
17. Marianne Shaneen 3 Church Lane, High Falls
18. Michael Moss 328 Boice Mill Rd, Kerhonkson
19. Faith Moss 328 Boice Mill Rd. Kerhonkson
20. Aria Avery 24 Park Lane, Kerhonkson
21. Francine Egger-Sider 565 Cherry Hill Road, High Falls (ToR)
22. Gerald Sider 565 Cherry Hill Road, High Falls (ToR)
23. Gregory Evans 275 Stony Kill Rd, Accord
24. Nicholas DeStefano 275 Stony Kill Rd, Accord
25. Hannah Roditi 42 Granite Rd., Accord
26. Greta Baker 15 Main Street, Accord
27. Philip Rose 355 Stony Kill Rd., Accord
28. Madeline Russo 343 Upper Cherrytown Rd. Kerhonkson
29. Justin Russo 343 Upper Cherrytown Rd. Kerhonkson
30. Dana Rudikoff 2044 Berme Rd. Kerhonkson
31. Rita D. Shaheen 623 Granite Rd., Kerhonkson
32. Paul D. Shaheen 623 Granite Rd. Kerhonkson
33. RanahnahAfriye (owner) 4 Scenic Rd, Accord
34. Bernadette Ouellette 101 Project 32 Road, Accord
35. Thomas Workman 134 Rock Hill Rd, High Falls NY
36. Rosana Workman 134 Rock Hill Rd., High Falls NY
37. Sue Bruck 8 Main St. Accord
38. Rebecca Collins 2739 Lucas Turnpike, Accord
39. Barton S. Brooks 2739 Lucas Turnpike, Accord
40. Samantha Bruck 28 Sages Loop Rd, Kerhonkson
41. Nikitas Kladakis 44 Cathy Jo Place, Accord
42. John Mocarski 46 Cathy Jo Place, Accord
43. Janice Mocarski 46 Cathy Jo Pl Accord
44. Elaina Mocarski 46 Cathy Jo Pl Accord
45. David Miller (owner) 9 & 11 Main Street, Accord
46. Nikita Miller (owner) 9 & 11 Main Street, Accord
47. June Lewis 9 Main Street, Accord
48. Max Grieshaber 62 Cooper Street, Accord
49. Susan Shaw 62 Cooper Street, Accord
50. Scott Gussin 4643 US 209 Accord
51. Rebecca Gamar 44 Cathy Jo Place, Accord
52. Niki Fade 4643 US 209 Accord
53. Tom Niekrewicz 28 Sages Loop Rd, Kerhonkson
54. name removed
55. Andrew Kladakis 43 North Decter Drive, Kerhonkson
56. Juanita Kladakis 43 North Decter Drive, Kerhonkson
57. Jennifer Birch 17 Victoria Lane, Kerhonkson
58. Harry Birch Sr. 17 Victoria Lane, Kerhonkson
59. Danny Birch 17 Victoria Lane, Kerhonkson
60. Joey Birch 17 Victoria Lane, Kerhonkson
61. Tom Blake 316 Upper Cherrytown Rd., Kerhonkson
62. Scott Field 27 Tow Path Rd., Accord
63. Michael Collins 15 Canyon Lake Rd., Accord
64. Joann Redmond 11 Whitfield Rd., Accord
65. Howard Montanye 218 Lower Whitfield Rd., Accord
66. Steve Wynkoop 2022 Queens Highway, Accord
67. Kanani Schnider 7 Scenic Rd. Accord
68. Antony Crook 15 Granite Rd., Accord
69. Marina Cashdan 15 Granite Rd., Accord
70. Matthew Paley 58 Markle Rd., Kerhonkson
71. Deanna Paley 58 Markle Rd., Kerhonkson
72. Elisabeth Verruto 34 N. Decter Dr., Kerhonkson
73. Liza Jernow 818 Samsonville Road, Kerhonkson NY
74. Mike Burlarley 84 Airport Rd., Accord NY
75. Carmella Burlarley 84 Airport Rd., Accord NY
76. Rosanne Sasso 27 Tow Path Rd., Accord
77. Jay Martin 18 Tow Path Rd., Accord
78. Rosa Lou Novi 18 Tow Path Rd., Accord
79. Lauren Melville 12 Tow Path Rd., Accord
80. Tyler White 12 Tow Path Rd., Accord
81. Irina Linetskaya 59 Markle Rd., Kerhonkson
82. Nancy Harris 16 Sunset Dr., Kerhonkson
83. Dan Feldman 93 Kyserike Rd., Stone Ridge (ToR)
84. Susan Philliber 2772 Lucas Tpke, Accord
85. William Philliber 2772 Lucas Tpke, Accord
86. Michael Redmond 4974 Route 209, Accord
87. Ann Rose 323 Boice Mill Road, Kerhonkson
88. Alan Feinberg 5836 Route 44/55 Kerhonkson
89. LaDonna Feinberg 5836 Route 44/55 Kerhonkson
90. Tina Campt 163 Tow Path Rd., Accord
91. William Nitzberg 163 Tow Path Rd., Accord
92. Julia Turshen 32 Tow Path Rd., Accord
93. Nancy Ostrovsky 134 Rochester Center Rd., Accord
Beckman Rich-This is a thoughtful process, if the project goes forward it would be great for this community.
Regan Kramer – When I moved here a few years ago, I ran into someone that was speaking about the school, shops, and businesses, it sounded like sort of the Twight Zone, the person was describing an Accord that I was having a hard time wrapping my head around. It seems the town used to be a little more bustling, and it was implied there was really no problems. I think it would be nice to have some of those things back. Just the idea of having those buildings revived and preserved and turn them into something functional instead of leaving them abandoned. It would be nice to see the town thrive and continue to move forward with the history that it had.
Katie Naplatarski- Thank you for having this hearing.
Let me start by saying that I do want this Accord Granary Project to go forward.
I believe this project, with its combination of facilities and programming, done responsibly, has the potential to be a vital “community hub” of sorts, for our area and beyond.
I believe that we should all work together towards that goal.
We are all, no doubt, aware of what’s being called an “epidemic of loneliness and social isolation” all around our country, the effect it has on our lives, the lives of children, elders, negatively affecting life expectancy, physical and mental health, as well as our day-to-day happiness.
Now more than ever, as places for in-person connection shut down, we urgently need places where people meet face-to-face, strengthen social connection, enjoy culture and physical activity, and connection with nature. These places can also serve to strengthen the local economy, all around strengthening the fabric of our lives.
The Granary Project, I believe, has the wonderful potential for providing such a space. And I will honestly say, I am more than grateful for that possibility.
Mind you, there can also be negative effects of development; this is why I signed the community letter. We need to be certain that there are no spillover effects imperiling the quality of life of area residents. It is also imperative that it be a place of belonging, for all.
However, I believe that, as we address concerns, we can simultaneously work together to bring this project to fruition, in a way that is economically viable for the applicant as well as responsible and enriching for community and beyond.
We have a responsibility to each other. And especially to our children, all our children. To provide the opportunity for connections that are the essential for our well-being. It would be wonderful if such a dream could happen right here in our little town of Accord.
I believe that it is within our and the Board’s power to help facilitate the creation of this project and the benefits it can provide.
Thank you for listening and for this opportunity to speak.
David Roberts:Below are my comments regarding the proposed Granary project by Accord LLC. I fully support the development of this important historic site. However, it is evident that the proposed scope is greater than the site can accommodate, as not all the necessary utilities and support functions can fit – especially the required parking. The Applicant has acknowledged the over-development by reducing the scope (removing the Wellness Facility and reducing the square footage of the Co-Workspace). However, the revised scope still exceeds what the site can accommodate as evidenced by the following:
1) The parking calculations do not comply with current TOR Code and several of the proposed uses are not accommodated:
– There is no parking allowance for the “Coffee Shop”.
– There is no parking allowance for the “Gallery”.
– There is no parking allowance for the “Bar”.
– There is no parking allowance for the “Event Space”.
– There is no parking allowance for employee housing independent of the employee parking allowance. Long term housing parking should be calculated in addition to employee parking.
If these uses are complementary in their use of parking spaces a schedule of opening hours/ days of operation needs to be provided by the applicant so that the Town Board can fully understand the parking strategy.
2) The parking calculation for the Restaurant is not to Code. An alternative has been proposed (1 space per 3 seats) without supporting documentation. The Restaurant square footage is not provided on the Parking Space Summary, a requirement of the TOR EEOD Code. The Restaurant/ Bar is described as 3,361SF in the Proposed Table of Uses (April 2022) which would require a total of 67 parking spaces for these uses as opposed to the 25 spaces proposed. The increased number would accommodate associated staff for which the current calculation makes no allowance.
3) The parking for the Co-Workspace is calculated on an inappropriate office space model. The code requirement of 1 space per 200SF is based upon the density of workers in a traditional commercial office space. Co-Working space is typified by a greater density of people (one reason why the Co-Work typology is more profitable). Industry standard for Co-Workspace is about 75SF per person, with a range of 50 – 100SF per person being within the norm.
4) The Delivery Truck path indicates trucks having to approach from Granite Road. Will all delivery vehicles be redirected to Scenic Rd and Granite Rd? Is this the best and safest solution having a curb cut at the intersection of Granite and Towpath Roads?
5) The width of the proposed median strip between the parking area adjacent to Towpath Rd should be determined by what is safest for traffic traveling on Towpath Rd. The design solution should not be driven by the applicant’s stated desire to avoid triggering the need for developing a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) as was discussed in the December 2022 Town Board Presentation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxMUsecErIY&list=PLGsiPjgJkESopNtMoRTCpYGoD4o0fDahU&index=9at 42:00 and 59:00 and after.
6) The Site Plan does not show the utilities on adjacent parcels as required by the TOR Code Section 140-18.1 Economic Enterprise Overlay District. For Example:
– The Septic Tank and Leach Field at 18 Towpath Rd is less than 140 feet from the development’s well.
– The Septic Tank and Leach Field at 12 Towpath Rd is less than 150 feet from the development’s well.
– The proposed reserve leach field is less than 60 feet from the well at 15 Granite Rd.
The above conditions do not satisfy the BOH requirements for minimum distances between leach fields and water supply used for Foodservice.
7) The Applicant has stated that activities at The Granary will produce discernable noise up until 10pm Monday through Thursday and up until 11pm on Friday through Sunday every week of the year (Brinnier and Larios letter to Town Supervisor, June 16th, 2023). The TOR Code Economic Enterprise Overlay District requires that the new use be “compatible with adjacent existing land uses”. Does the Board consider generating noise every day of the year to be compatible with the pre-existing residential use that surrounds the proposed development site on all sides?
8) What is the proposed mechanism for enforcing the existing noise restrictions on the site as delineated in the current TOR Code? Without expressed penalties there is no incentive for the applicants to comply.
9) The increase in traffic was described in the December 2022 Town Board Presentation as insubstantial and yet the Engineers representing the Applicant’s interests calculate an increase in traffic increase Main St by 67%. This should warrant an independent traffic study to determine the impact of this increase on the Granite/ Scenic/ Towpath intersections and provide best solutions for handling increased car, pedestrian, bicycle, and delivery truck activity.
10) The size of the parking spaces do not comply with the code and have been reduced in size to accommodate the Applicant’s stated desire to keep the disturbance on the site to less than an acre so as not to trigger the requirement for environmental oversight during construction. (Town Board Meeting December 2022). Other recent developments in the Town of Rochester have been forced to comply with the Code and yet Accord LLC is being granted this dispensation without showing any hardship except that they do not want to incur the additional cost of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan.
11) One of the described uses for the proposed development is an “Event Space”. Has the Board considered the implications of this use as opposed to just a Restaurant and Bar? This use should be struck from the Development’s list as it is a separate and independent use.
12) There is one essential question that has not been answered although it has been asked many times of the Town Board – in the event that the Town Board approves the change to an EEOD, can the Planning Board require substantial changes to the proposed plan as a result of their review?
As I have stated before, the development will have a significant and lasting impact on the Hamlet. The purpose of my writing is to highlight issues that have not yet been addressed by the Applicant and the Town Board and to ensure that the interests of everyone in the community are considered.
Rene Schnider–resident for 30 plus years. Did sign the community letter, I am for development of the granary concerned about the size and scale. The traffic on scenic rd., which is a cut off from Granite to Main St, will increase substantially, there’s no mention or oversight of how dangerous it is near the post office. I’m asking the town board for possibly a traffic study. As it affects not just me, or tow path but all the roads leading here. I’ve had cars crash in to my fence at least once a year, it’s a two way street that’s very dangerous. So, I ask the board to take the traffic into consideration before approving this.
David Stoltz- 60-year resident. Henry Rich is a good neighbor on both sides, and I look forward to passing this project along smoothly. I think it would be great for the town and I’d like to see more life back in the community.
Hudson Roditi: When I spoke recently with Henry Rich about possible noise issues related to the proposed Granary Project, he said that the Town of Rochester does not have a noise ordinance. I’ve also heard other people say the same at the town board meeting, in response to noise concerns expressed by people like me whose properties are adjacent to the Granary. They say there is no ordinance and there’s already a speedway which produces a lot of noise on Friday nights.
I am aware of the Accord Speedway, having lived with it in this community since I was a child, and having been to races there. Using the racetrack in this rhetorical way concerns me as the owner of a property adjacent to the Granary property. It sounds like these advocates of the Granary Proposal think that there is less, or even no, legal basis to protect residential properties adjacent to the Granary from noise.
In fact, the existence and history of the Accord Speedway do mean that the sounds of a speedway on Friday night, during the speedway’s hours of operation, are a reality we live with and accept. But no one should say that the existence of the Speedway limits the extent that neighbors like me can protect themselves from noise produced by the proposed Granary project. This seeming confusion reveals to me how important it is for me as the owner of a property adjacent to the Granary Project to make sure there are binding noise conditions put in place on this project prior to any approvals.
I would speculate, confidently, that if the properties of the supporters of the Granary Proposal were adjacent to the Granary, like mine is, they would agree with me about the importance of putting binding conditions in place to protect themselves and their assets from the effects of noise. It would be absurd to assume otherwise because noise would cause an obvious decrease in the value of their property–both to them as the current occupants, and to the market value if they chose to sell in order to move to a quieter location.
So, it is incumbent on the members of the town board to adopt binding conditions regarding noise from this Proposal. As our elected representatives, you must write the conditions as if you yourselves owned property and lived immediately adjacent to the Granary.
I would be happy to provide examples of language that may be used for conditions that would apply to Accord LLC’s proposal for the Granary project in relation to noise.
Bethany Ides –Spoke on her concerns with the project’s development, the size of the delivery trucks and the type of community growth are we getting.
Sheila Finan-I live along the creek and I am very concerned about the septic and water supply. I hear gunshots going off around me, I’m very concerned.
William Nitzberg/ Campt– I think everyone here would be excited about the redevelopment, at the same time the EEO is a huge precedent. We are also concerned about our Rondout creek. When it comes down to it, it’s about someone’s money making business. I agree entirely with what Ira Stern wrote in his letter. There are a lot of questions and reconsideration.
Antony Crook- My family and I live at the creamery next door to the granary. We are generally excited about what this could be its an inspiring project with a talented team behind it. We know Henry’s restaurants well and creates great social hubs. Scott Dutton, the architect does amazing work, he restored and renovated the Fuller building in Kingston. I don’t know Renn’s work but I just get a good feeling from him. We want this to happen and want it to be successful for everyone’s sake and we think it’s exciting. I don’t know the ins and outs of the EEO, I know there are guidelines the board must consider when reviewing the application. The current application describes what we think could be detrimental to us and our neighbors. I was hoping we could talk about a couple of those to get some reassurance or clarity at some point. The first is the noise, the application talked about no making noise after 10 p.m. on weekdays and 11 p.m. on weekends. Our children go to bed at 8 p.m., we are not far behind them. We don’t think its fair that we’d have to hear music at night or noise that would keep us awake. We’d like to see something more appropriate considering the property is surrounded by full time residential homes. The trail, our home, the creamery was built on the O&W line, there is a loading dock that runs on the side of our building so things could’ve been passed by hand from our house to the trains. This was abandoned seven years ago and our living spaces face where this line used to be. By turning that into a public footpath, which has been mentioned, we feel, would ruin our home. I talked about this the last meeting and again I extend an invite to anyone who would like to see for themselves. The rail line ran in a thin gap between our home and Marsha Gibney’s home, this strip is about 6’- 8’ wide, I was encouraged by the applicant’s response when they discussed our concerns; however, the relocation is out of the applicant’s control. Someone might need to explain to me how it isn’t in the applicant’s decision. It seems they agree with us about the damage it could cause in that they would favor a request to find an alternative route. I think a solution or a kind gesture to the town would be to offer an agreeing buffer between the two residential lots and move forward with an alternative route for the trail. I would urge the applicant to consider their choices they have in this and the town not to degrade the residential nature of the hamlet and damage these two immediate neighboring properties and in the spirit of our community move forward with an alternative route to the trail that don’t do this kind of damage to people’s homes.
Hannah Roditi- I think there are key issues, the ground water issue, we are concerned about the capacity of absorption and the drain on groundwater. This development affects everybody around, it effects our property and ability to live there. Noise- this is huge, I am in a state of outrage and shock when I hear people talk about a development that could spew noise into a residential community until 10 and 11at night. I have three children, I raised them near a golf course that experimented with having parties / music that ran into evening hours. There was no way my children could sleep; it was a quarter mile away and it was disruptive of our entire family. The idea of Accord turning into that, is horrifying to me. On top of that, not knowing the details of the laws, I’ve been hearing there is no noise ordinance, I think there should be one as soon as possible. I’m very concerned about an approval process that enables a development to go ahead, and there’s nothing to enforce anything including the issue about the size of delivery trucks. What are all the enforcement mechanisms involved, the noise issue is just untenable it would destroy what’s beautiful about Accord. Its quiet and peaceful and very family friendly in that way. The precedent of what the board is being asked to do as far as the EEO, the change in traffic flow without any independent study is concerning. Four things: the groundwater, the noise, the precedent, and the traffic.
Jay Martin- We are in an agriculture community, there are growers that apply for deer damage permits. Those permits allow to shoot, in this case, up to 11:59pm. A DEC officer is supposed to be notified of this event and the board and our neighbor, can find out if there’s been deer damage permits in this area, if so, how many. I also heard four shots, the permits are legal, and the DEC is in control of that. Also living here for decades, I’ve seen various degreesof improvement and decay and unless anyone here thinks I’m totally against the proposal, I am not, it’s the scope and size that I am concerned about with my property value. I have three wells that are relatively close to the proposed sewage area. Also, I’d like to see the speed limit lowered especially near the post office.
Ora Ferdman – I work in construction locally, I’ve worked on the Kingsley Hotel in Kingston which reminds me of this project. I appreciate how much goes into paying consultants, going through lots of changes, the design process is super involved. I’m excited to see what comes of this project and I hope it grows into something connecting people and feel like this is an appropriate time.
Ora Ferdman read aloud Ira Stern’s letter submitted to the Board: living on Towpath Rd, within walking distance of the hamlet. My family and I have lived here for 36 years and are very familiar with the parcels in question. I am also a professional environmental planner with decades of experience working in small towns throughout Ulster County and the Catskills and currently serve as a professor in City and Regional Planning at Pratt Institute.
The EEO provision in the Town’s zoning code (140-18.1) is intended to provide flexibility to foster economic opportunities in the Town. However, as written, it can also be abused to the detriment of the residents adjacent to or in proximity to the assembled parcels (in most places in the town). While I may disagree with the provision itself as being too open-ended and potentially political, it is currently part of the law and being tested in the hamlet with these five parcels. It is my understanding this is the first EEO application, therefore the actions and deliberations of the Town Board are precedent-setting. This is a critical aspect of the considerations of this public hearing.
Economic development, by its very nature, will have impacts on natural resources and community character. The zoning code leaves it up to the Town Board and then the Planning Board to determine these impacts. Without technical studies, especially in regard to water demand and wastewater volume, it would be irresponsible for either party to consider and/or approve any application.
Unfortunately, the zoning law section does not include a requirement that EEO’s be serviced by public water and/or sewer or Board of Health approvable alternatives. This should be a basic requirement for any EEO proposal when considered by the Town Board. Although we do not have public water or sewer in the Town, it would leave it to a developer to provide should the Town wish to proceed with an EEO.
In this case, as you know, the hamlet of Accord does not have central water or sewer and invariably will have impacts to groundwater usage (all properties in the hamlet are on individual wells) and, assuming septic systems will be used, input of sewage into the ground (and same groundwater). It has been well documented that most properties in the hamlet rely on substandard septic systems. Without a groundwater analysis for water supply and sustainable yield and a soils analysis and modelling of wastewater flows, it is irresponsible for the Town Board to grant this designation.
The precedent of allowing a developer to acquire parcels anywhere in the Town undermines the protections afforded by zoning district restrictions throughout the Town. The hamlet district is an obvious place for economic activity as history has shown. However, until public water and/or sewer is provided in the hamlet, responsible growth cannot occur. Waiving zoning restrictions and increasing density while relying on wells and septics will harm neighbors and others relying on the soils and groundwater.
As a planner, my suggestion is to be proactive rather than reactive in economic development. If we want development in the hamlet, start with public infrastructure, not with developer- generated proposals that can only harm existing residents and devalue their property. Furthermore, while the mill barns are special and adaptive reuse preferred, the other parcels are simply residential parcels whose use can be accommodated by the underlying hamlet district regulations. In this particular case, more luxury short-term rentals and the low-pay jobs generated are not what this town needs so I don’t see any particular appeal to this proposal enough to waive restrictions and stress out neighbors.
Let’s not encourage people to buy multiple house parcels and apply for EEO zones just to outsmart the underlying zoning in our town. Let’s not approve development proposals, especially those that exceed the underlying restrictions without engineering analyses for water, sewer, and other important impacts. Let’s not encourage the possibility of sweetheart deals between developers and the Town Board – while that might not be the case here, the code sits out there with a huge loophole in it for our collective future.
I encourage the Town Board to reject this EEO application due to the lack of central water and sewer and unmitigable potential impacts.
The Town Board should be thinking hard regarding how we can improve the hamlet. A water system would separate septic effluent from wells (especially shallow wells). A centralized wastewater system (can be a community septic or septic district) will eliminate sewage contamination of the groundwater. Reacting to proposals is poor planning. Conducting a sanitary survey (wells, septic’s, solutions) would be a much better step in the right direction.
Written request:
Katie Naplatarski:I am writing to request that the members of the Town of Rochester Town Board consider holding a Granary Project public forum, with the idea of having an Applicant presentation by the project leaders, followed by a Q and A session in which the board and then the public ask questions of the Applicant, moderated by a board member. Perhaps members of the public could also ask questions of the board for things pertaining to Town Code etc. The regular process of public hearing, without “back and forth”, perhaps could follow during the same meeting or at a later meeting.
I believe that a Q and A with the Applicant might serve the purpose of providing clarification and be as a healthy addition to the current process, for all parties involved. I realize that the Applicant has already presented, but in case any aspects of the project have changed or need to be revisited, this could be valuable.
CLOSURE OF PUBLIC HEARING OPEN:
Resolution # 269 -2023:
Motion: Councilwoman Smiseth
Second: Councilman Coleman
The Town of Rochester Town Board closed the public hearing but held it openfor written comments until 8/10/2023 at 3:00pm.
Aye: 3 nay: 0 abstain: 0 motion carried
Baden, Paddock- Absent
ADJOURNMENT
Motion: Councilwoman Smiseth
Second: Councilman Coleman
The Town of Rochester Town Board adjourned the meeting at 8:27 pm.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
CHRISTINA FERRARA
DEPUTY TOWN CLERK