PLANNING BOARD
TOWN OF ROCHESTER
ULSTER COUNTY
ACCORD, NY
845-626-2434

MEETING MINUTES OF November 13th,2023 REGULAR MEETING OF Town of Rochester PLANNING BOARD held at 6:30PM at the Harold Lipton Community Center and streamed live via YouTube.

Chair Grasso called the meeting to order at 6:30PM and asked everyone to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance.

did roll call attendance.

PRESENT: ABSENT:
Chair Marc Grasso Member Maren Lindstrom
Member Rick Jones Member Zorian Pinsky
Member Zachary Jarvis Member Ann Marie Moloney
Member Cindy Graham
Member Helena Duda

ALSO PRESENT: Attorney Dave Gordon, Planner Dave Church, Megan Stone CPL, Greg Bolner CPL, and Christina Ferrara.

APPLICATION REVIEW:

Application # PB 2023-564 Applicant/Owner: Jon Dogar-Marinesco / Manuela Mihailescu
Type: LLI Representative: Terry Ringler / Ringler Land Surveying
Zoning: B Property Location: 5858 Rte. 209 SBL: 76.2-2-39.110 SEQRA: Type II
Status: New Application DESCRIPTION: The applicant proposes to re-certify an existing Lot
Line Approval from 2010, to create 2-lots sizing 13.7 acres and 3.07 acres.

Chair Marc Grasso explained the reason for the application being presented. Terry Ringler explained that the zoning regulations had changed at the time, and they were unaware that they needed to file with the county at the time. Member Jones made a motion to recertify the lot line. Member Jarvis 2nd the motion. All in favor 5 yes, 0 no, 0 abstain.

Application # PB 2023-618 Applicant/Owner: Accord LLC, The Granary Type: LLI Representative: M. Moriello / R. Hawkey / H. Rich Zoning: H Property Location: Granite Rd and Tow Path Rd SBL: 77.9-1- 25,27,28,29,31 SEQRA: Type II Status: New Application
DESCRIPTION: The applicant proposes to combine 5 existing lots into 1 new lot +/-6.885 acres. This is phase 2 of the 3-phase approved EEO Granary project.

Chair Grasso explained the application. The applicants introduced themselves and explained the application. Member Graham made a motion to certify the lot line deletion. Member Jarvis 2nd the motion. All in favor 5 yes, 0 no, 0 abstain.

Application # PB 2021-516 Applicant/Owner: DeJager Realty LLC
Type: Major SBD Representative: Nadine Carney / Peak Engineering
Zoning: AR-3 Property Location: Lucas Ave / Peninsula Lane SBL: 77.1-2-33.510
SEQRA: Type I (Oct 22) PB lead Agency (Dec 22) Status: Continued Application/ PUBLIC HEARING DESCRIPTION: The applicant proposes a 10 – lot conservation subdivision. The new submission packet includes an updated wetland study, revised maps, SWPPP, revised lot sizes and road structure.

Chair Grasso went over the Ulster County Planning Board Response. The public hearing is still open for this application. Chair Grasso went over the rules for public hearings.
Franny Hertz read her husbands typed up letter, our 22-acre parcel is located across the Rondout Creek from this parcel. I am a professional environmental planner and professor of city and regional planning at Pratt Institute. We have lived here for 37 years and donated a conservation easement to the Rondout-Esopus Land Conservancy (RELC), as has my neighbor. This is because the RELC deemed this section of the Rondout Creek as a priority conservation area, for its significant habitat, and is interested in expanding protection. This section of the Rondout Creek is a migratory flyway and extremely rich in wildlife due to its undeveloped character. Our conservation easements protect about a mile of the Rondout Creek by limiting development and creating a wildlife buffer zone. I understand the landowner’s right to develop the property under the zoning code and that the conservation subdivision provisions (S125-23) create allowances for density bonuses, lot size changes, and other provisions to “preserve open space”. In this case, based on reviewing the documents made available to me under a FOIL request, it is unclear what resources are being targeted for conservation by the planning board and what waivers are incorporated into the conservation subdivision. Please explain that to (or remind) everyone participating in the public hearing. It seems from the mapped conservation areas on the proposed subdivision map that the resources targeted are wetlands and the Rondout Creek frontage. I question any subdivision bonuses granted for “conserving” the wetlands on the property under the conservation subdivision provision since this area is likely undevelopable. The EAF states that “poorly drained” soils are present on 73% of the property and it is safe to assume these are primarily located in the wetland’s conservation area. This is also a DEC-designated wetland which would require a state permit for any disturbance. In the wetland and the 100-foot buffer. While hydric soils are important to protect, and do have habitat value, these soils are also largely undevelopable, so by giving any zoning bonuses for protecting an area that is undevelopable anyway (wet soils and regulated) seems questionable. Perhaps I am misunderstanding the zoning math here. The result of these zoning bonuses, as I understand it, however, is to increase house lots nearer to the true conservation resource – the Rondout Creek. Lots 3, 4, 5, and 6 are all close to the creek riparian zone and will have an impact on habitat and wildlife. The house locations for 4, 5, and 6 are located as close to the Rondout Creek as possible and should be adjusted to be closer to the subdivision road (swap house site with septic location). If these lot configurations were created using conservation subdivision bonuses or waivers, the house locations should either be further away from the Rondout Creek or eliminated. Lot #3, especially, is an encroachment to conservation. Of the two “conservation areas” (wetland and creek) shown on the subdivision map, the buffer zone on the Rondout has a clear ‘carve out’ for the house located on Lot 3 and another ‘carve out’ for the septic system for that lot which is down gradient and closer to the Rondout Creek. The septic area will require extensive tree removal of the riparian forest and the house on Lot 3 will be in plain view of those recreating on the Rondout and will undoubtedly disturb wildlife. The mapped proposed conservation area contains a marginal building lot – there is very little conservation here, if any. Provision 125-23(L2b) provides guidance on the proximity of house sites to conservation areas – here you are allowing an encroachment to the conservation zone and using the locational criteria to justify this. The planning board should uphold the intention of the code (protection of open space) with a meaningful conservation area on the Rondout Creek. Lot #3 should therefore be eliminated, and a true conservation area (no houses, septics, or forest clearings) be adopted along the entire frontage of the Rondout Creek. In addition, it seems that the owner (or planning board) proposes that the conservation easement for the conservation areas be held by the homeowner’s association. While I understand that the zoning code provides for this, this arrangement is no substitute for a local land trust like the Rondout-Esopus Land Conservancy to hold the easement. Most towns do not provide for HOA’s to hold conservation easements based on potential for conflicts of interest and lack of expertise in conservation. The Town of Rochester zoning code provides for conservation easements to be held by the municipality (Town), a land trust, or a HOA. The HOA should be a last resort here; the planning board chairman reported in a previous meeting that RELC had reached out concerning this subdivision. Has the planning board followed up with the RELC on this and, if not, can you please try to have them hold the conservation easement on a meaningful buffer instead? Concerns were voiced over the use of Peninsula Lane by those that share the road. I too am concerned that more traffic and stormwater runoff, especially salt, will further harm the habitat of the Rondout Creek in this area. The connection to Peninsula Lane serves the aforementioned questionable lots (3,4,5,6) and the planning board should reconsider the design if the lots close to the creek were created using zoning bonuses. A cul-de-sac, in this case, would reduce environmental impacts and ameliorate neighbor concerns over road access and maintenance. Any bonus lots should be clustered nearer to Lucas Turnpike, not closer to the Rondout Creek. We residents rely on the planning board to make good decisions and in this case, protecting the Rondout Creek frontage should be your highest priority. Thank you for your consideration. Chair Grasso answers some questions raised at the last meeting during the public hearing, the DeJager property does have the right to use Peninsula Lane and Rondout lane for access as it is part of their deed, the planning board will make the 20 ft width of the road requirement a condition of approval, the board discussed with the applicant regarding the discussion of a cul-de-sac instead of a road through the property and the applicant has declined that. Joel Kaminski I would just like to reiterate the importance of the geese on the Rondout creek and their use of the property as a stopping point. Robert Mansfield I would like to back up on the existing roads that the developer would have to improve the roads so that they are up to code, I also noticed that the county wanted the write lines on Lucas avenue and there is a significant break in the line where this road is proposed so I would just like to ask the planning board if this road will be public which would make the two existing roads public as well. Chair Grasso explained that all three roads will be private, he also spoke with the applicant and the representative and was told that construction vehicles will not be using the two existing private roads they will be using the access off of Lucas Avenue. Member Jones said we may need a workshop meeting to discuss the HOA and the width of the road and the standards and requirements in-depth with the applicant, the attorney, as well as our other representatives. Nadie explained that there are different requirements for road sizes for different agencies. The board discussed with the attorney and the representative who will be the enforcer of the conservation easement as well as the limits of the HOA.
Member Jarvis made a motion to close the public hearing. Member Graham 2nd the motion. All in favor 5 yes, 0 no, 0 abstain.

Application # PB 2022-188 Applicant/Owner: Mtn. Laurel Way / Austin Sweeney
Type: 3 Lot SBD Representative: Matthew Towne / Willingham Engineering PLLC
Zoning: R5 Property Location: TBD Schroon Hill Rd SBL: 60.3-1-55.100 SEQRA: Undecided Status: Continued Application / PUBLIC HEARING
DESCRIPTION: The applicant proposes a 34.27 acre, 3 lot subdivision with a revised sketch plan.

Chair Grasso introduced the application and the public hearing. Member Jones asked Greg about what details he needs. The board discussed with Greg about his findings and what he still needs to review from the applicant. No one in attendance for the public hearing. Member Jones made a motion to open the public hearing. Member Graham 2nd the motion. All in favor 5 yes, 0 no, 0 abstain. Member Graham made a motion to close the public hearing. Member Jones 2nd the motion. All in favor. 5 yes, 0 no, 0 abstain.

Application # PB 2023-478 Applicant/Owner: Hudson Valley Seed Library LLC / Carrie Schapker Type: SPA Representative: Nadine Carney Zoning: AR-3 Property Location: 4938 Rte. 209 SBL: 77-1-8.130 SEQRA: Undecided Status: Continued Application / PUBLIC HEARING DESCRIPTION: The applicant proposes agritourism type uses, including retail and entertainment, which is exempt from the Moratorium.

Chair Grasso introduced the application and explained the information and responses that the board has received. Chair Grasso read the public hearing rules and protocols. Gerald Dewitt I run Domino Farm for Doug and Kay. I don’t believe the driveway will be an issue due to the existing headlight issues due to 209 as well as other traffic on this road. I support this project entirely. Jen Kelly As a resident of Accord for 12 years and an employee of the Hudson Valley Seed Company for 11 years, I am so excited about the proposed project. I’ve been happy to work with the many lovely people here, and proud to help with work toward sustaining open-pollinated, heirloom seed varieties. One of the things that is unique about Hudson Valley Seed is that we work with artists to interpret and tell the vital and compelling stories of the seeds that our farm grows and sells. I love working with our co-founder, K, the artists and the rest of our team to find ways to bring beauty and function together in creating products that strike a balance between joy and practicality, much like gardening itself. I see this new space as a wonderful way to engage the public in a way that we haven’t been able to yet. I am excited for residents and visitors to the area to be able to come and see what’s growing. I think that it will be a very meaningful, fun, and distinctive addition to our community. I can see it attracting more positive attention and more jobs to our area and to the great nearby attractions and restaurants, and more awareness about the importance of local agriculture. I started working for this company shortly before I got married and started a family. It has been very inspiring to see the seed company continue to grow from its humble beginnings, and I can’t wait to see what the new location will bring to the Town of Rochester. Member Graham made a motion to close the public hearing. Member Jones 2nd the motion. All in favor 5 yes, 0 no, 0 abstain. Chair Grasso has a prepared decision. Ms. Carney said that the applicant has looked at possible locations to move the driveway, as well as had a sketch prepared. The applicants have spoke with the neighbor and the neighbor expressed concern to the applicant about the headlights coming out of the driveway. The applicant would like to move the driveway to help their relationship with their neighbor.

Application # PB 2023-523 Applicant/Owner: Patrick Williams / Diane Williams Schoonmaker Type: Minor SBD Representative: Patrick Williams Zoning: AR-3 Property Location: 235 Airport Road SBL: 69.3-1-12.2 SEQRA: Undecided Status: New Application
DESCRIPTION: The applicant proposed a 2-lot subdivision creating 1 lot with 12 acres and another with 10 acres.

Chair Grasso introduced the application. The board request that the following be added to the map, topo, new well location, septic location, and Ap overlay. Chair Grasso informed the applicant that the board will need a $1,000 escrow. Member Jones made a motion to set for public hearing. Member Jarvis 2nd the motion. All in favor 5 yes, 0 no, 0 abstain.

Application # PB 2023-598 Applicant/Owner: Johann Sebald Type: Minor SBD Representative: Bill Eggers, Medenbach and Eggers Zoning: R2 Property Location: 235 Camp Adventure RD SBL: 59.12-1-40.110 SEQRA: Undecided Status: New Application
DESCRIPTION: The applicant proposes a 2-lot subdivision on a private road, creating 1-lot with 2.6 acres and another with 4.2 acres.

Chair Grasso introduced the application. Mr. Eggers went over the application. Chair Grasso explained the need for a road maintenance agreement with all of the houses on the road prior to moving forward with the application due to this being a re-subdivision on a private rd.

Application # PB 2023-618 Applicant/Owner: Rock Mountain Farms (Karen & Howard Osterhoudt) Type: Minor SBD Representative: John Post Zoning: R2 and R-1 Property Location: TBD Roberts Dr SBL: 68.4-6-1.117 SEQRA: Undecided Status: New Application
DESCRIPTION: The applicant proposes to re-approve a previously approved subdivision from 2022 inclusive of a 2- lot subdivision, creating 1-lot with 1.002 acres and another with 5.611 acres.

Chair Grasso introduced the application. Member Jarvis made a motion to set the public hearing. Member Jones 2nd the motion. All in favor 5 yes, 0 no, 0 abstain.

Application # PB 2023-610 Applicant/Owner: Suzanne Cusack – Veritas Villa / Giacomina Faso Type: Minor SBD Representative: Bill Eggers, Medenbach and Eggers Zoning: AR-3 Property Location: Upper Cherrytown Rd / Ridgeview Rd SBL: 68.1-1-27.700 / 68.1-1-60
SEQRA: Undecided Status: New Application DESCRIPTION: The applicant proposes a 2-lot subdivision, conveying +/- .3 acres from Cusack to Faso. This site was a part of a previous subdivision in 2021.

Chair Grasso introduced the application. The board requests the following topo and map notes. The board suggested that Mr. Eggers takes the old map and adjusts the lot line to reflect the new changes. The public hearing waiver was denied. Member Jones made a motion to set public hearing. Member Jarvis 2nd motion. All in favor 5 yes, 0 no, 0 abstain.

OTHER MATTERS:
– October 11th Meeting Minutes

The board decided to wait until the workshop meeting to vote on the minutes.

– Draft Review of Local Law C – Zoning

Chair Grasso has requested that the board get their comments to him by 11-17-2023.

– November Workshop Meeting Discussion

Member Jones made a motion to move the workshop meeting to December 4th, 2023. Member Jarvis 2nd the motion. All in favor 5 yes, 0 no, 0 abstain.

-2024 calendar agenda
Member Jarvis made a motion to adopt the meeting dates. Member Graham 2nd the motion. All in favor 5 yes, 0 no, 0 abstain.

ADJOURNMENT:

Member Jarvis made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:29pm. Member Graham 2nd motion. All in favor 5 yes, 0 no, 0 abstain.

Respectfully submitted,
Jazmyne Wilhelm,
Secretary