The Town of Rochester Town Board held the workshop meeting on August 10, 2023, at 6:30pm at the Harold Lipton Community Center, 15 Tobacco Road Accord, NY 12404.
PRESENT:
Councilman Michael Coleman Councilwoman Erin Enouen
Councilwoman Charlotte Smiseth Supervisor Michael Baden
Town Clerk Kathleen Gundberg
ABSENT:
Councilman Adam Paddock
Supervisor Baden opened the meeting and led in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
RESOLUTIONS:
ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA:
Resolution # 275 -2023:
Motion: Councilwoman Enouen
Second: Councilman Coleman
The Town of Rochester Town Board accepts the agenda as prepared by the Town Supervisor.
Aye: 4 nay: 0 abstain: 0 motion carried
Paddock-Absent
JULY FINANCIAL REPORTS-
JULY 2023 FINANCIALS-filed with the Town Clerk
REVENUE JULY 2023:
Revenue July 2023
General Fund $ 238,411.65
Highway Fund $ 5,442.04
Expenditures
Abstract 7-2023
General Fund $ 62,808.79
Highway Fund $ 206,492.25
Capital Fund $ 54,750.00
Street Lighting Fund $ 334.68
Ambulance Fund $ 3875.00
Escrow Fund $ 2743.11
Total Expenditures July 2023
General Fund $ 335,434.10
Highway Fund $ 261,672.35
Capital Fund $ 54,750.00
Street Lighting Fund $ 334.68
Ambulance Fund $ 3875.00
Escrow Fund $ 2743.11
UPCOMING EVENTS REMINDER:
8/17: ECC: Nature series: Gardening from beekeepers’ perspective
Public Hearing: 9/7/2023: extension of the moratorium
GRANARY PROPOSAL EEO ZONING DESIGNATION:
The Board discussed with the applicants the most current application plans for the Granary Project. They discussed entrances, ADA parking spaces, delivery trucks, traffic on the roads and traffic studies.
PEAK ENGINEERING TO REVIEW TRAFFIC:
Resolution # 276-2023:
Motion: Councilwoman Enouen
Second: Councilman Coleman
The Town of Rochester Town Board request Peak Engineering to the review traffic counts that were submitted with the currentsite planand to identify any possible mitigation measures for traffic flow given the firehouse and Route 209 intersection.
Aye: 4 nay: 0 abstain: 0 motion carried
Paddock-Absent
Final written comments submitted to the Board regarding the EEO public hearing:
Antony and Marina Crook-We are in support of the Granary being renovated and developed in some form – we feel that a renovation of the site would represent a positive change for the town, and we want to help as much as we can, in making it happen.
They are beautiful buildings, which deserve to be restored and enjoyed. There is a very talented team behind the proposed project, who could together create something very special there.
However, we feel strongly that this should not be at the detriment of people who live in the town.
Like many people in the town, we feel the current plans are lead by commerce – they are lead by what would generate the most income for the developer, at the expense of the community.
We are reassured by the diligence shown by the town in interrogating the plans, and we urge them to continue this and remind them of the criteria for an EEO.
Chapter 140. Zoning. Article IV. General supplementary regulations. 140-18.1
(8)
In determining whether to approve the application for an EEO District, the Town Board shall consider the public health and welfare of the surrounding area, together with following criteria, and the intent and objectives of this section:
(a)
Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to the nearby properties will be created by the creation of a district on the property
The Granary has residential homes on 3 sides – sofull-time homes as very close neighbors.
The current application describes a plan for a noise curfew at 11pm on weekends and 10pm and weekdays.
Our children go to bed at 8pm, we go at 9.30pm. Amplified sound beyond this would be a huge determent to us, and those that live in the hamlet.
When noise regulation is raised in meetings, we’ve seen the applicants name drop the Speedway and Arrowood – like somehow it makes it okay to disturb people at night because others do it – making life miserable for your neighbors is fine, because it happens in other places.
The ‘character of the neighborhood’ is a quiet hamlet, and the reason that we decided to raise a family here. Disturbing people at night, essentially for commerce, is not in the spirit of the town, or in harmony with it.
We urge the town to consider this and build in appropriate measures to protect the “nearby properties” and the “character of the neighborhood”.
Before it was abandoned and removed 70 years ago, the OandW rail line ran downside of the Creamery. The Creamery is now our home and all of living spaces face this direction. Attached are some photographs showing Marina standing where the line was.
The current application talks about a desire to create a public footpath here. This would ruin both our home and Marsha Gibney’s home at 30 Devou Ln, and if this is not considered a “detriment to the nearby properties” we don’t what is.
We appreciate and are reassured by the applicant’s response-
“my client favors the request for partial rail trail relocation by Antony Creek and the project team, will work cooperatively with all parties to see if this can occur”
but confused as to how this could be somebody else’s decision.
“However, for SEQRA purposes, the relocation is outside of my client’s aegis of control”
As the owners of the land, 100% of that decision is with them. So this doesn’t feel as sincere as we would hope for.
We urge the town to consider the damage that this would do to our home, and consider options that create less damage – we would offer an easement for the trail to run down the side of our fence along Granite.
This application has motivated a lot of Accord residents, who have voiced varying concerns – but we are all untied by common goals and a desire to protect this special place, for the community as a whole, and future generations.
We hope the town board considers all of this is their work.
Nicholas DeStefano-I’m very grateful to Bethany for keeping me (and others) up to date on the progress of the development of this proposed Granary project.
I work full-time and have a long commute so it’s a bit harder for me to keep up on the developments in the town that concern local residents – so again, I’m grateful for Bethany’s information, concerns and updates.
As a resident of Accord I want to let you all know that I completely agree with Bethany in her sentiment and all of the concerns she had detailed in the referenced email below, especially:
“Please vote “NO” on granting Accord LLC an EEO for the Granary project unless or until the developers prove that this project will provide “well-configured public spaces … dedicated to social interaction, recreation and the visual enjoyment of all residents” … operating “in harmony with the surrounding neighborhood” (emphasis mine).”
I’d also like to note just how much more an impact this will have on residents of Accord who live literally feet from the proposed project (like Bethany and her wife), and what that means for the quality of their lives, and so please give those residents voices extra consideration as they will have to live with “it” on a daily basis. Because, as you know, others of us (including myself and partner) are much more insulated from the immediate effects of a proposed project like this being that much farther in proximity from Main Street.
Bethany Ides-As most of you know, I co-own 12 School House Rd and live full-time at this property which has been situated in the middle of civic life in Accord for at least as long as settler-colonialists’ records would reflect (though likely much, much longer than that, according to local native/indigenous historians). I appreciate this rich legacy–it was truly what drew us to the property! Before moving here, my wife and I watched slide shows of the cafe and jazz/world music venue which had formerly occupied the train depot behind our house; we listened to stories from locals at the pub about going to school across the street and learned that people knew our house as being “across from the Agway”; and, we got a tour from Maria Reidelbach of the hamlet, including the communal pizza oven behind the Community Center.
We have never found Accord to be dismal, lacking or lonely! That kind of assessment is only possible through a very cynical and superficial viewpoint, perhaps one that only recognizes amenities advertised by purveyors of “lifestyle” marketing. Unfortunately, it seems that the developers of the Granary project are only attuned to this very image-conscious way of thinking which is entirely cut off from the reality of life in Accord. They have been claiming that the best way to improve our community is to attract people who will stay for a few days, insulated from whatever does not fit into a stylized fantasy by a wall of constant sound, surrounded by other people wealthy enough to afford this rarified “boutique”-version of #Accord. Meanwhile, residents of the hamlet will deal with increasingly dangerous intersections (populated by drivers more likely to be intoxicated), parking overflow from a business that refuses to add adequate space for vehicles (purportedly because it ruins the “vibe”), and noise on a constant basis. Will guests of the “inn” (a clever zoning workaround designation made possible only by the magic of internet-based short-term real estate rental platforms) who are in town for an event be capable of exercising sober judgment when considering the boundaries of residents’ properties or mindful of the wellbeing of the people living there? Will infrastructure improvement of the hamlet be guided by the demands of fickle private developers whose business plans are consistently inconsistent (to put it mildly)? Will civic life be improved by the insertion of a handful of high-stress jobs with low pay and no benefits into the local economy? It doesn’t take an advanced degree in architecture or planning to be skeptical of the project as it is currently laid out, yet luckily several members of our community with this kind of specialized understanding have provided their insights for the public record and the Town Board’s benefit.
The developers have been frank in conversations with residents (including with me, personally) that they are motivated by profit rather than benefit to the community. This is why, as they themselves have explained, they decided against more community-centered ideas for how the property might be developed. Initially, this project was touted as providing the sorts of businesses that are welcoming to people with lower incomes as well as higher ones. They promised the sorts of spaces where people might linger, learn about each other, share ideas, organize, etc. — a bookstore, a cafe, an art gallery. These are not the most lucrative businesses, typically, but they are often the most meaningful to communities for some of the reasons I have outlined. Accord LLC is applying for a special zoning designation (the EEO) which is defined in terms of community improvement, wellness and sustainability. At public hearings, the developers suggest that we should be depressed living where and how we do, but I would argue that their version of “revitalization” is anemic, inequitable, disruptive, and arguably destructive to the social fabric of Accord.
I encourage you to consider these, more “big-picture” concerns as you also consider the important and immediately practical concerns brought to light by my neighbors. I encourage you to consider the incredible investment of energy and expertise given by local residents in pouring through documents and attending meetings. We are doing this because we care about the community we are a part of, NOT because we are “scared of change!” In fact, my wife’s design and build firm based in Accord is working on two major commercial projects in Accord right now (Skate Time/Bjorn Qorn and Harana Market). Please do not over-value the developers’ dollars or be swayed by their suggestions that the community’s concerns are merely silly anxieties or romantic clingings to the past. Please vote “NO” on granting Accord LLC an EEO for the Granary project unless or until the developers prove that this project will provide “well-configured public spaces … dedicated to social interaction, recreation and the visual enjoyment of all residents” … operating “in harmony with the surrounding neighborhood” (emphasis mine).
I am writing to supplement my past letters and spoken comments because, likely more than any other issue, electrical amplification of outdoor music has the potential to break my family’s experience of Accord as we have known it for the 49 years we have lived here (48 of those years at 42 Granite Road, 1 year above the post office). I am MOST concerned about this issue.
Hudson Roditi- As the co-owner adjacent to the proposed Granary project, it is essential to me that the Board put in place binding noise conditions on this project—above and beyond the standard event space designation language of 10db above ambient noise at the lot line, with curfews of 10 pm on weekdays and 11 pm weekends—prior to any approvals.
I have major concerns about ANY outdoor amplified music being allowed so close to main street and so close to my property. It presents a clear and present danger to me, and I know to other property owners adjacent to the proposed Granary site.
I request that the Board be cognizant of my deep and serious concern about this issue, and that all decisions you make as Board members will reflect a deep sensitivity to this urgent issue for adjacent property owners.
Katie Naplatarski-It has been on my mind to emphasize that the outdoor amplified sound could really be a problem for bordering neighbors of the Granary Project. Who knows what 10db above ambient noise at the lot line (if I got that that is the town code for new commercial businesses) sounds like? But can you imagine living next to music playing all day every day until 10pm? Of course, all aspects of the project must be addressed parking (I feel that the accessory, municipal parking is fine for overflow btw), sewer/water, traffic, delivery, etc. and I trust that they will be. However, I feel that the noise issue is one thing that has the potential to “fall through the cracks.”I am not opposed to all amplified sound, as long as residents are not able to hear it at their houses. Please consider and examine this issue with care.
Rene Schnider-I am submitting a follow-up response to the meeting of July 27, 2023, regarding the application by Accord LLC for the Granary development. It was stated in the Audit meeting on July 27, 2023, that any traffic related studies would be handled in the SEQR process after the EEOD is granted. However, I would like to again stress the concern I have about the substantially increased traffic volume that the scope of the proposed Granary development will have on all the local roads. I would like to specifically address Scenic Road. Scenic Road is already a busy, small, dangerous, two-way, unmarked road which will undoubtedly receive substantially more traffic should the Accord LLC project move forward as proposed. Scenic Road cannot safely support the current traffic and traffic pattern (two-way road), and I would like to suggest that the following changes be considered in order to rectify this situation:
• Change Scenic Road to one-way only in the direction of Main Street to Granite Road;
• Install several speed bumps to prevent speeding;
• Reduce the speed limit to 25 mph and post speed limit signs; and
• Add a shoulder to the Rondout Creek side of the road.
Another concern was raised by a community member about the ability of the Planning Board to make changes to the proposed plans once it is approved for EEOD zoning change. The Town’s Attorney’s response at the Audit meeting was that the Planning Board will not be able to make substantial changes to the plans once they are approved by the Board. It therefore seems logical and prudent for the Planning Board, which has the experience required to carefully review a project of this scale, to do so and to provide their insight and recommendations to the Board, prior to approving the plans.There seems to be a lack of scrutiny of the proposed plans by the Town’s engineer consultant and therefore it is left to the public to provide data which does not correspond with the data presented by the applicant’s engineer, i.e. the way that the co-working space is being calculated the same as traditional office space and the discrepancy in the number of parking spaces required for the restaurant, staff, hotel guests, etc.I would like to support a point raised by another community member, Alana Blum, regarding the issue of this development including an event space component: …mention or use of the word “event” anywhere in the application materials should be struck or removed from all materials before approval is granted. This was a source of confusion because it is WRITTEN in the application in several instances, not because residents were conflating a narrative pulled out of thin air. No mention of this is made in the review by the Town’s engineer consultant, so being solely reliant on that review has the potential to be to the detriment of adjacent properties.
According to the EEOD legislation (Section C-8-a), the board must take into consideration the potential for a detriment to the nearby properties. Any suggestion of event functions in writing for that reason must be struck from all application documents.
Thank you for allowing me to submit this letter and for your attention to the concerns being raised.
Alana Blum-I am writing with regard to the clarification provided by the Town of Rochester Attorney at the Audit meeting on 7/27 that the Planning Board will not have agency to make substantial changes to the Granary application once approval of the EEOD zone change is granted.
It is incumbent on the Town Board to exercise due diligence and fully scrutinize the application site plans, occupancy tables, stated uses and parking calculations and not just defer to the applicant’s consultants and the Town’s engineering consultant. The Applicant’s Engineering Site Plans are incomplete and the Engineer’s responses in the meetings are at times nebulous and obfuscating. The review by the Town’s engineer has also been deficient by its lack of comment on important details.
Just one example is as follows: Co-working space is NOT calculated the same as traditional office space. The Applicant’s Engineer said he could not find a calculation for that use, so he substituted the SF per occupant formula used for traditional office space. This is not an acceptable solution because the result is that the number of vehicles needing accommodation for the stated Co-workspace use in the already undersized parking lot would exceed the number that will be provided based on the Applicant’s Engineers reduced calculation. Yet the Planning Board only “maybe…can add a parking spot” per the Attorney’s response to councilperson Enouen’s question about what the Planning Board has power to do after the EEOD is granted (57:35 mark in 7/27 audit meeting). Parking MUST be carefully reviewed as there is no street parking adjacent to the site. The municipal lot is 400 yards away with a sidewalk that does not accommodate 2 people walking side-by-side, Additionally, the Town Board is there to protect the interests of the entire town, the neighboring properties of the development and not just the enterprise aspirations of the developer. Therefore, mention or use of the word “event” anywhere in the application materials should be struck or removed from all materials before approval is granted. This was a source of confusion because it is WRITTEN in the application in several instances, not because residents were conflating a narrative pulled out of thin air. No mention of this is made in the review by the Town’s engineer consultant, so being solely reliant on that review has the potential to be to the detriment of adjacent properties. If the Town Board is not equipped to execute the needed detailed review, then the Planning Board should be given an opportunity to review and provide comment BEFORE the zone change is granted. The Planning Board has the necessary experience with reviewing projects to offer insight and advice to the Town Board as part of the latter’s review. This zone change should not be granted in haste. If the applicant must further reduce scope, occupancy, programs because they do not wish to trigger the SWPP or wish to maintain a certain “vibe” that does not include abundant parking that should be recognized as the necessary compromise to keep the project commensurate with the scale of the Hamlet and the infrastructure that this enterprise requires in order to be in compliance with code. This is crucial since the Planning Board must remain in “substantial compliance” with the approved plan in their review and there is no turning back.
Jeff Davis- In 2006-07, I was nominated for and served on Rochester’s Zoning
Committee with Mike Baden and others. Through a very long and thoughtful process, our aim
was to allow for modest business growth in certain areas while also protecting the welfare of
the general community and the area’s exceptional natural resources.
Like many other neighbors, I am both excited by as well as cautious if not skeptical of the
granary project. I offer this perspective for you to consider as your decisions influence the
collectively desired Accord that many of us want.
My excitement mirrors the excitement of many other neighbors – the chance to have small local
businesses and most of all the opportunity to have a true community hub where neighbors can
congregate, get to know one another, run into one another, attend events, and exchange
commerce with local proprietors.
I would sum my enthusiasm as this:
Local Commerce * Local Community * Local Connections
Henry Rich and the other investors have the potential to co-create this.
However, my concerns, fears, and skepticism fall under the following categories – in ascending
order of concern:
#4 Strain on natural resources, septic, and traffic – I leave it to the experts in these areas to
advise you, but I trust you will heed their advice and direct the applicants accordingly. I am
very concerned about this, but I just don’t know enough about it to rank it higher.
#3 Noise for neighbors – Neighbors who live next to the Granary have expressed this
concern. The concern could be legitimate. For years and years, neighbors on the other side of
209 complained about the roaring noise of Accord Speedway. No one seems to complain
about that anymore because the Speedway has complied (I think). We live 2.2 miles from the
Speedway, and we have barely noticed noise from the Speedway during the past several years.
Instead, nearly weekly music booms across meadows to our house mostly from venues on
Lower Whitfield Rd. where we live 1.4 miles away. I do love these venues and the owners, and I
appreciate the opportunity to hear live music a bicycle ride away (or just stepping onto our
screened porch). But on certain weekends, this music goes on until 10 pm or even 11 pm. I’m
sort of used to it – but if I lived closer, I would not be.
(Oddly, the same people who probably complained about the Speedway don’t seem to
complain about this music.)
My concern here is not personal since we wouldn’t hear any late-night music from the Granary.
Instead, my concern is for the neighbors and community members who have lived here for a
long time, and their well-being and quality of life should be of utmost priority for the Town
Board’s decisions and direction.
#2 Commerce Local or Not – The promise of 18 minimum wage jobs is not a boon.
Historically, across the country when a developer promises jobs, it’s short-term. The model as
presented seems to be for businesses operated by Accord LLC and the Oberon Group.
When I first heard about the Granary Project, I was elated and had envisioned something along
the lines of Water Street Market in New Paltz that opened in 2000 co-founded by Harry Tabak.
It’s still thriving, and local proprietors sometimes combine creative talents.
Tabak envisioned Water Street Market loosely after European villages. This is a model that
generates foot traffic, local commerce, and connection.
The proposed businesses – the hotel, bike shop, children’s art supplies, the co-working space –
all seem to be operated by Accord LLC / The Oberon Group.
I do appreciate that the business model must be profitable, I do wonder if this model is short-
sighted and not the long-term outcome that many neighbors are hoping for.
#1 – Local Community or Not – This is my single greatest concern. The new owners of
SkateTime, Stephanie Bauman and Bjorn Quenemoen, have successfully kept the roller rink
attractive to numerous locals and visitors alike. Mr. Rich and co-owners of the Accord Market
also have done a tremendous job in creating a business that genuinely creates community as
much as a grocery store can through partnering with local proprietors and having pop-up
events.
Yet, many similar new business ventures in Accord during the past decade have become a
mega-destination for people who don’t live here. A part of me is thrilled by these businesses
and their innovation. I love having people visit Accord and that Accord has become well known
as a place to visit and live. Some of them support local farms, which is an indirect boon to local
commerce and exchange.
However, they attract throngs of weekenders and visitors that I never feel a part of the local
community.
Innes is another example of an entrepreneur whose success was in opening restaurants in
NYC. I’ve visited Innes a few times. On one hand, it’s quite a wonderland, but its business
model does not create a sense of local community. It’s a stylized gated community – expressly
what our family did not want when we moved here. It also offers members co-working spaces,
and I’m curious how much that’s used.
I could be wrong, but The Granary Project’s emphasis on a B & B and hotel suggests that the
target market is not people who live here. I love the idea of a local bike shop, and I would love
for Accord to have bike lanes and become a bike-friendly town, but it sounds as if this is a way
to support tourists and visitors (the way some cities have used scooters). As a father of two
art-making daughters, I personally love the idea of a children’s art supply store, but not if the
target market is a certain demographic of tourists and visitors. I personally like the idea of a co-
working space and have visited one in Kingston to get a feel for any “community vibe,” but I
fear that this also appeals to a certain demographic and to more visitors than local residents.
So, you can see where I’m coming from, which was my perspective when on the Zoning
Committee: I could personally benefit from this enterprise, but I’m more interested in the long-
term health of the local community and its economically diverse residents. I’m elated by the
prospect of a place where I can go a few minutes away to drop by, bump into people, and
support local commerce.
So, the questions for the Town Board to ask (in my view) are,
• “How much homework have the venturers done with the local community to see what their
pain points, wants, and needs are as far as shops and commerce? (e.g., What % of curved
residents want and will benefit from the bike shop and art supply store – even though my
family would benefit from both)?”
• “Who does the Granary aim to attract and serve (beyond providing jobs)?”
• “What is the vision for this endeavor to generate and support true local community in
otherwise divisive, post-pandemic times – while still being financially sustainable?”
In sum, like most other neighbors who’ve written or commented, I am thrilled that Rich and
friends are even taking on this project. I also really appreciate his sensibility toward natural
sustainability. I just idealistically want equal consideration for local community sustainability. He
and colleagues seem sensitive to and attuned to neighbors. Perhaps you can direct them with
more such questions.
Thanks for your tireless often thankless work, and thanks for your consideration.
PRELIMINARY REVIEW OF SEQRA PART 2:
The Board reviewed SEQRA part 2 of the Granary EEO application. Attorney Christiana will put together a final version of the SEQRA for the Board to review.
2024 HEALTH INSURANCE PROPOSALS:
Supervisor Baden asked the Board to review the two proposals, our current plan shows an increase in 7 % for the 2024 year.
SHORT-TERM RENTAL CAP:
The Board was asked to review the paperwork received and be prepared to discuss it at the next meeting.
WAWARSING CAMP CODE: – TABLED
PHYSICAL SITE SECURITY CONSULTANT PROPOSALS:
Will be discussed at the September workshop meeting.
SETTING SPECIAL MEETING:
Resolution # 277-2023:
Motion: Councilwoman Enouen
Second: Councilwoman Smiseth
The Town of Rochester Town Board cancels the special workshop meeting set for August 19, 2023, at 9:00am and reschedules the workshop meeting for August 26, 2023 at 9:00am at the Harold Lipton Community Center, 15 Tobacco Road, Accord NY and requests the Town Clerk circulate notice.
Aye: 4 nay: 0 abstain: 0 motion carried
Paddock-Absent
EXECUTIVE SESSION:
Motion: Supervisor Baden
Second: Councilwoman Smiseth
The Town of Rochester Town Board motions to enter into Executive Session at 9:08 pm for the purposes of discussions of matters leading to the appointment, employment, promotion, demotion, discipline, suspension, dismissal or removal of a particular persons.
Aye: 4 nay: 0 abstain: 0 motion carried
Paddock-Absent
Motion: Councilwoman Enouen
Second: Councilman Coleman
The Town of Rochester Town Board motions to exit Executive Session at 9:29pm with no action taken nor monies expended.
ADJOURNMENT:
Motion: Councilwoman Enouen
Second: Councilman Coleman
The Town of Rochester Town Board adjourned the meeting at 9:30pm.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
KATHLEEN A. GUNDBERG
TOWN CLERK