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

MEETING MINUTES OF June 10th, 2024, 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 6:30 PM and asked everyone to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance.

Secretary Wilhelm did roll call attendance.

PRESENT: ABSENT:
Chair Marc Grasso Member Rick Jones
Member Zachary Jarvis
Member Cindy Graham
Member Ann Marie Maloney
Member Zorian Pinsky
Member Peter Nelson
Alternate Halina Duda

ALSO PRESENT: Secretary Jazmyne Wilhelm, Dave Gordon Attorney for PB , Dave Church Planner for PB, Greg Bolner CPL, Christian Moore CPL

APPLICATION REVIEW:
Application # PB 2024-10 Applicant/Owner: Ridgeview Realty, LLC / David Braun & Giacomina Faso Type: Minor SBD Representative: Bill Eggers, Medenbach & Eggers PC
Zoning: AR-3 Property Location: 5 Ridgeview Rd SBL: 68.1-1-27.700 /68.1-1-60 SEQRA: Undecided Status: Continued Application / Decision DESCRIPTION: The applicant proposes to convey +/- 0.3 acres from lot 27.70 and grant it to lot 1-60.

Chair Grasso introduced the application. The board did EAF short form PT 2.

Member Jarvis made a motion to certify as a negative declaration. Member Graham 2nd
the motion. All in favor 6 yes, 0 no, 0 abstain.

The board read through the draft resolution and made corrections.

Member Nelson made a motion to approve the draft resolution with corrections. Member Jarvis 2nd the motion. All in favor 6 yes, 0 no, 0 abstain.

Application # PB 2024-14 Applicant/Owner: Wild Land Holding Co. LLC / Michael Fink
Type: Minor SBD Representative: Bob James / A. Diachishin & Associates P.C.
Zoning: R-5 Property Location: 64 Rock Hill Rd (Lot 3 and 4) SBL: 77.2-4-18.112/18.111
SEQRA: Undecided Status: Continued Application /Decision DESCRIPTION: The applicant proposes to convey a portion of the already approved Subdivision Lot 3 to Lot 4. The applicant has provided a PH waiver in writing which will need to be discussed by the board.

Chair Grasso introduced the application. The board did EAF short form PT 2.

Member Jarvis made a motion to certify as a negative declaration. Member Graham 2nd the motion. All in favor 6 yes, 0 no, 0 abstain.

The board read through the draft decision and made corrections.

Member Moloney made a motion to approve the draft resolution with corrections. Member Jarvis 2nd the motion. All in favor 6 yes, 0 no, 0 abstain.

Application # PB 2024-08 Applicant/Owner: The Granary, Renn Hawkey/Henry Rich
Type: SPA Representative: Allan Dumais, Brinnier & Larios PC Zoning: H Property Location: 2 Tow Path Rd SBL: 77.9-1-25 SEQRA: Completed by Town Board
Status: Continued Application/ PUBLIC HEARING DESCRIPTION: The applicant proposes a site plan approval of the former Anderson Feed mill, and the use of an already approved EEO site for the use of a restaurant, café, co-working space, etc.

Chair Grasso introduced the application. The Mr. Rich read an article from the Blue Stone Press in 2016 and explained their idea to bring business back to the town. Mr. Rich also explained that they have worked through traffic and water concerns with the county, he also explained the process they went through regarding noise concerns and how they decided against having loud outdoor music like other businesses, he explained how they were advised to copy the language from the code and put it into their proposal regarding noise. Mr. Rich explained how they would like to be part of the mission of preserving the town. Mr. Dumais explained the submitted plans. Member Pinsky expressed concern for the need for more lighting along walkways to ensure safety. The board advised the applicant to add more ground level lighting to ensure safety. The board discussed with the applicant the concern of noise and advised that it will be a condition of approval that after construction ambient noise will need to be set and submitted to the town clerk to ensure they stay within the 10 db town code limit. Mr. Church read the noise requirement in the EEO approved by the town board. Member Pinsky asked why we can’t do a noise study now. Chair Grasso explained that the buildings need to be built and insulated before a noise study is done. Chair Grosso went around the board and asked each member if they believe a noise study should be done before or after construction. Member Pinsky voted it be done before. Chair Grasso, Member Jarvis, Member Graham, Member Maloney, and Member Nelson voted the study be done after construction. Mr. Church read the EEO section 73.C and changed db level from 10 to 5.
Chair Grasso made a motion to increase the EEO approval from the town to reflect db level up to 5 instead of a 10 db limit. Member Moloney 2nd the motion. All in favor 6 yes, 0 no, 0abstain.
Member Jarvis made a motion to do the noise study after construction is completed. Member Graham 2nd the motion. All in favor 5 yes, 1 no from Member Pinsky, 0 abstain.

Mr. Dumais explained the hours of operation are going to be, the inn will be open 24 hours a day 7 days a week, retail hours will be 8:00AM-7:00PM 7 days a week, and food service will be open 8:00 AM-11:00PM 7 days a week. Mr. Dumais also explained that outdoor amplified music will end at 9:00 PM Sunday-Thursday and 10:00PM Friday and Saturday. Chair Grasso went over the new parking proposal. Mr. Dumais explained that their will be a reduction of parking in the sense of not using the 6 municipal parking spaces, and the slope of the driveways and parking lot have been changed to reflect a slop between 2-4%.

Member Jarvis made a motion to accept the plan as presented to reflect 57 spaces. Member Pinsky 2nd the motion. All in favor 6 yes, 0 no, 0 abstain.

Chair Grasso opened the public hearing.
Jay Martin- “What will this do for the town? This will increase traffic, noise, will their be a water storage tank? This will be at an expense to neighboring properties, this will decrease the values of our properties, this will change our quiet lifestyle, theirs little traffic and people traffic now. There has been 4 near collisions on Scenic Road. This will be 24/7 365 days a year of noise, this will be a tremendous impact.”
Susan Sprachman- “A lot of people are questioning Henrys motives, theirs a lot of other projects he could be doing to make quick money, he is doing this to better the area. He noticed the lack of stores in the area and opened Accord Market and now has many local suppliers. He is trying to improve and bring life back to the area.”
Alana Blum- “No outdoor amplified music, I do not understand the entitlement. All of this could be accommodated indoors. Why is the board voting on things if the public hearing is still open?”
David Roberts- “I have stated previously that I am in support of the redevelopment of the site known as The Granary. I am concerned that the scope of the project far exceeds the size and character of the site, and that the application is lacking, imprecise and erroneous in the information it presents. My comments are not intended to be directed at the applicant per se, but at the need for restrictions to be placed on the forever use of this site. I have reviewed the applicant’s updated Master Plan dated 5/24/24 and the correspondence from the applicant’s engineers and these comments relate to those documents. PROCEDURE: The Planning Board’s specific skills and knowledge is a necessary part of the review of this proposal which is separate and supplementary to the Town Board’s process. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the Planning Board to do a full and thorough review of all aspects of this application. I raise this issue because in their letter dated 5/24/24, Brinnier and Larios, again, on behalf of the Applicant, posit that “regarding outdoor amplified noise, this has been addressed via the Town of Rochester Town Board’s Accord LLC Zoning Designation Petition. They omit to reference Section 74 c. from the same document that states ” The Town Board encourages the Planning Board in Site Plan review to review the potential noise impacts according to the standards of 140-20(F)(1) stating: “The Planning Board may, as a condition of site plan review and approval, require additional setbacks, buffers and fencing, or reasonably limit the hours of operation to attenuate or mitigate any potential noise impacts of any proposed use”. So-noise and its impact on the community is up for discussion and the restrictions are open to change in this forum, per the Town Board’s direction. The applicant’s attorney, Mike Moriello made a similar suggestion prior to the last Public Hearing, contrary to the Town Code. NOISE: Imagine for a moment that you have new neighbors. They move in and the first night they have 75 people over and they play amplified music outside. Then they do it the next night, the following night and every night until you go and have a neighborly chat. And they say, oh no – we’re going to do this every day and night of the year. Weekends. Weekdays. Memorial Day. Christmas Day and so on. That’s what we’re up against here. And there is a perverse entitlement when its wrapped in the narrative of wanting to contribute to the community. This is a campus-style hospitality development. The buildings are spread out and separate from one another. In this style of development there is a desire to create a total resort atmosphere. That often means turning on music to create an immersive experience. In many meetings regarding the development there has been an honest endeavor by Board members, both at the Planning and Town Board level, to try and define what might be reasonably expected. Here’s an example – there’s a feeling that outdoor music won’t be an issue in winter. Last winter my partner and I went to Arrowood, after dark, it was probably 20 degrees. As we were walking up to the door there was music blaring outside and remained on until we left around 9:30pm. No one sitting outside and probably wouldn’t be for some months. But there it was – creating a vibe. It is difficult to anticipate what will happen, and that’s why it is so important to put in place the necessary restrictions. This is especially important because of the widespread community dissatisfaction with the noise generated and not policed at many recent developments within the town and the combined effect these are having on the resident’s quality of life. We have a clear precedent in the Town relating to the generation of amplified music immediately adjacent to a Hamlet. In the case of the Crested Hen, it was determined that it was to the benefit, health and wellbeing of the greater community that there be no outside amplified noise allowed at any time. This precedent in the Hamlet of Alligerville should apply to the Hamlet of Accord. The restriction was placed on the Crested Hen even though it would be only 12 times a year. As it stands, the Town would be allowing amplified noise 365 days a year. My question to the Planning Board is this: why the amenity and quality of life of the residents in Alligerville is valued more highly than our quality of life here in Accord. And my question to the Applicants – is your business model so entirely dependent upon having outdoor amplified music every day of the year, at the detriment of the immediate community. These are not rhetorical questions; they need to be answered. PARKING: The primary issue with parking is the alternate parking metric utilized by the applicant resulting in inadequate parking for the scale of the development. No supporting documentation as to why this metric should be utilized has been provided by the applicant. The metric may apply in different circumstances where there exists street parking, public transport and adjacent municipal lots with safe pedestrian thoroughfares. But in Accord we have none of those supporting amenities. The reason for applying a “1 space per 3 seats” metric was that the applicant had not developed plans sufficiently to know the area of the restaurant/bar/café use – so in reviewing the plans for the EEOD the Town Board had insufficient information about the area of spaces and their allocation of uses. That was over 18 months ago. In order to make a fully informed decision regarding the car- parking the Planning Board should be presented with schematic plans to evaluate the ACTUAL area of these uses, as would be customary at this stage of a development. The TOR Code Section 140-46 L. requires “Preliminary architectural plans for the proposed buildings or structures, indicating typical floor plans, elevations, height and general design…” At issue is a glaring discrepancy between the project description and the engineering calculations. The Applicant’s Site Plan describes the First Floor uses as being Restaurant/ Bar/ Café. The Gross Floor Area of this space is almost 4,000SF, which would require 78 car spaces in stark contrast to the 25 proposed by the applicant. The reason for the metric utilized in the code is that it allows for all uses – Restaurant/ Café/ Bar, accommodates staff and customer turnover (people waiting for tables or parking briefly to buy a coffee) and all associated users. Reminder – the code requirement is based upon Gross Floor Area. Another way to evaluate the Applicant’s proposed parking count is to reverse-engineer their proposed 25 parking spaces @ 50SF per space. That equates to a 1250SF restaurant/bar/café. Allow space for a kitchen and you end up with the three uses having only 750SF! It simply does not fit. And in this version – what use fills the other 2700SF on the ground floor? So, the Planning Board and the community deserves the level of documentation that allows it to fully evaluate the use of the spaces and the associated parking. It will also assist with understanding the functioning of the facility: how do hotel patrons arrive – do they park in the carpark and schlep their bags to the reception? Where is the reception area? If the 75 seats the total count for the café/bar/restaurant, does that mean if someone sits at the café, they remove a seat from the restaurant? If 10 people stand at the bar, does that take 10 seats out of the restaurant? We have no understanding of the basic layout and workings of the facility at the present time – and certainly not enough to adequately assess the demand on the limited parking provided. Other issues with the applicant’s parking calculations are: The residential and employee parking was not counted separately. This is only valid if the employees who live in the apartments work 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The office space metric in the code is for regular commercial office space whereas co-workspace seats people at a much higher density. Why does parking matter? The net result of inadequate parking associated with this development will be increased traffic congestion within and outside the site as well as illegal parking alongside Towpath and County Rd 27. All this within 100 yards of the existing Fire House. There is no street parking on the streets bordering the property and the municipal parking lot is not accessed by safe sidewalk or crossings. WATER SUPPLY: The Site Plan does not show the utilities (in particular, existing wells and septic systems) on adjacent parcels as required by the TOR Code Section 140-18.1(B)(2)(f)(3)(g) Economic Enterprise Overlay District. State regulations require there be a 200′ separation between adjacent Septic Tank and Leach Fields and wells used for Food Service Establishments. What is the applicant’s strategy for supplying water/septic to the project given this existing condition? 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 BOH application is only as good as the information supplied by the applicant – and in this case the site plans are deficient and not in compliance with the Town Code. INACCURACIES IN APPLICANT’S DOCUMENTATION: The Applicant’s Site Plan list “Events” as a use which was not approved under the EEOD – in fact the Town of Rochester Town Board’s Accord LLC Zoning Designation Petition Local Law 10 Of 2023 Item 73 specifically states: “a. The application is not requesting consideration of the use “Commercial Events Facility”, as defined in the Town zoning code. B. The Town Board does not consider this use having been included in the application, as it has not been specifically included in any petitions or Conceptual Development Plans presented. C. Should the applicant desire to hold “Commercial Events”, as defined in the Town zoning Code, they would be required to apply with a zoning permit seeking a determination of use from the Code Enforcement Officer”. On that account “Events” should not be a stated use on the application. The Applicant’s Site Plan lists the Coal Barn as a Gallery Space when it should be designated as a retail space. A Gallery would be considered a Public Assembly space and would require 35 additional parking spaces. Hence the Coal Barn use should be labeled “retail” to be in line with the applicant’s own parking calculations. The Site Plan does not adequately represent “all known natural resource restrictions … extending beyond the project boundaries a distance of 200 feet.” TOR Code Section 140-46 B. (Specifically adjacent septic and leach fields). Thank you for your consideration of these issues. The development will have a significant and lasting impact on the Hamlet. The buildings on this site are handsome, and historically significant to our Town. The site deserves a sympathetic and restrained treatment in its proposed re-use. The purpose of my writing is to bring my knowledge and experience to highlight issues that have not yet been addressed by the Applicant and the Planning Board and to ensure that the interests of everyone in the community are considered.”
Katie Napatarski- “Its a good idea for enforcement to be revisited be the town board.”

Member Nelson made a motion to close the public hearing. Member Jarvis 2nd the motion. All in favor 6 yes, 0 no, 0 abstain.

Application # PB 2023-725 Applicant/Owner: Dignified Dwellings LLC Type: Major SBD Representative: Nadine Carney / Peak Engineering Zoning: R-5 Property Location: TBD Rose Hill Rd SBL: 60.4-1-4,31 SEQRA: Undecided Status: Continued Application DESCRIPTION: The applicant proposes a 4-lot subdivision off Rose Hill Rd, which includes the formation of a private road.

Ms. Carney emailed in requesting the application be removed for the agenda.

Application # PB 2024-16 Applicant/Owner: Heirloom Farm – Jason Hutchins /Carilon Koskins Type: SPA Representative: Patricia Brooks – Control Point Zoning: AR-3 Property Location: 2921 Lucas Tpke SBL: 77.1-2-43 SEQRA: Undecided
Status: Continued Application DESCRIPTION: The applicant proposes Agricultural Retal Sales at their existing farm located off Lucas Tpke.

Chair Grasso introduced the application. Mr. Gordon advised that this is a type 2 action due to it being an existing structure. Member Pinsky asked if the road could handle 2 lane traffic. The applicant said it can and has at times. Member Pinsky asked if they are ADA compliant. The applicant said they are. The applicant also explained that the hours of operation will be 9:00 AM-8:00 PM or dusk if earlier 7 days a week.
Member Jarvis made a motion to set public hearing for the next meeting. Member Nelson 2nd the motion. All in favor 6 yes, 0 no, 0 abstain.
Chair Grasso set ESCROW for $1,000.

Application # PB 2024-03 Applicant/Owner: Big Net LLC Type: SUP Representative: James O’Shea, Bjorn Quenomoen Zoning: B Property Location: 5164 Rte. 209 SBL: 76.2-2-20.200 SEQRA: Undecided Status: Continued Application DESCRIPTION: The applicant proposes a Light Manufacturing expansion of 10,000 sq. ft. located inside the existing vacant storage portion of SkateTime 209.

Chair Grasso introduced the application. The application explained the updates. Chair Grasso set ESCROW for $2,000.
Member Jarvis made a motion to close the public hearing. Member Maloney 2nd the motion. All in favor 6 yes, 0 no, 0 abstain.

Application # PB 2024-19 Applicant/Owner: William Danford Type: Minor SBD Representative: Matthew Towne, Willingham Engineering Zoning: AR-3 Property Location: 120 Upper Whitfield Road SBL: 68.4-3-34 SEQRA: Undecided Status: New Application DESCRIPTION: The applicant proposes a 4-lot subdivision with all lots having ample road frontage, and the creation of 1 flag lot.

Chair Grasso introduced the application. Mr. Towne went over the proposal. Chair Grasso requested the following, outline neighboring properties on the map, label wetlands on the map, 100ft high water mark on the map, and have the applicant review a possible conservation subdivision. Member Nelson asked if this would impact the statewide performance farmland. Chair Grasso stated that the farmland could still be farmed. Member Nelson stated that the proposed lots are located in the farmland, as well as state and national wetlands. Chair Grasso requested Mr. Church review this impact. Member Pinsky requested that the wetlands be shown in color on the map as well as core forest be shown. Mr. Towne asked if they need DOH approval before planning board approval. Chair Grasso explained that they will. Member Nelson asked if lot 4 will disturb the core forest. Mr. Towne explained that it will, but the septic location can be changed to minimize the impact. Chair Grasso set ESCROW for $2,500.

Application # PB 2024-20 Applicant/Owner: Peter Sutherland Type: Minor SBD Representative: Bill Eggers, Medenbach, Eggers & Carr PC Zoning: R2 Property Location: 304 Stony Kill Road SBL: 76.4-3-21.200 SEQRA: Undecided Status: New Application DESCRIPTION: The applicant proposes a 3-lot subdivision, which includes frontage on the Stony Kill and an existing dwelling.

Chair Grasso introduced the application. Mr. Eggers went over the proposal. The board requested that the following be added to the map, proposed home sites, well and septic locations, wetlands, high water mark for Stony Kill river, slopes, and new driveway layout for lots 1 and 2.Chair Grasso set ESCROW for $1,000.

Application # PB 2024-21 Applicant/Owner: Gladkoborodov Inc. Type: Minor SBD Representative: Alex Potts, Taconic Engineering Zoning: R5 Property Location: Deer Haven Road SBL: 68.2-2-42 SEQRA: Undecided Status: New Application DESCRIPTION: The applicant proposes a 2-lot subdivision on the above-named private road.

Chair Grasso introduced the application and explained that a RMA is needed for the project to move forward. Mr. Potts explained the proposal. Member Nelson is concerned about the slope of the driveway. Mr. Potts explained that this property is pretty level. Member Jarvis asked if the driveway has two separate entrances. Mr. Potts explained that it does not. Member Pinsky explained that the following is missing from the map, topography grades, lot numbers, property address and owner names. Chair Grasso set ESCROW of $1,500.

OTHER MATTERS:
Member Jarvis made a motion to cancel the June workshop meeting. Member Pinsky 2nd the motion. All in favor 6 yes, 0 no, 0abstain.

ACTION ON MINUTES:

– Approval of May 13th, 2024, Meeting Minutes
Member Moloney made a motion to approve the minutes. Member Pinsky 2nd the motion. All in favor 6 yes, 0 no, 0 abstain.

ADJOURNMENT:
Member Jarvis made a motion to adjourn at 9:13PM. Member Graham 2nd the motion. All in favor 6 yes, 0 no, 0 abstain.

Respectfully submitted,
Jazmyne Wilhelm,
Secretary