PLANNING BOARD
TOWN OF ROCHESTER
ULSTER COUNTY
ACCORD, NY
845-626-2434
MEETING MINUTES OF July 8th, 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, Christian Moore CPL
APPLICATION REVIEW:
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/ DECISION 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. Mr. Morello went over the new information that was submitted. Chair Grasso asked the board members if they have any comments. They agreed they do not have any at the moment. Chair Grasso read the draft resolution. Member Jones discussed with Mr. Gordon the change in parking and the math that is used to come to the current number. Mr. Gordon read directly from Local Law 10 the numbers allocated for each section of the property. Mr. Rich explained the process they went through with the town board to get to this number of spaces. Chair Grasso asked about EV charging stations. Mr. Dumas explained that they plan to do the further down the line. Mr. Rich explained that they are going to make every effort to put them in if it is possible.
Member Jones made a motion to approve the draft resolution as amended. Member Jarvis 2nd the motion. All in favor, 6 yes, 0 no, 0 abstain (Member Nelson is late).
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/ PUBLIC HEARING DESCRIPTION: The applicant proposes Agricultural Retal Sales at their existing farm located off Lucas Tpke.
Chair Grasso introduced the application. Ms. Brooks explained the application. Chair Grasso opened the public hearing.
Peter Sullivan- “I just have questions.”
Hank Hejink – “I am in support of this application. My family has volunteered at this farm.”
Jolle Greenleaf- “I am here to express my hope that the board accept this proposal, our family helps their family on Sundays when they do door pickup. I am concerned about their neighbor Alex Banner, he stops customers from accessing the right of way, photographs and recorded people on the property.”
Chair Grasso asked the public to stop discussing Mr. Banner.
Thomas Geelan- “I know Jason, he helped me with my chickens and offered to take my coop. They are good and honest people.”
David Wilt- “I’ve just recently met them, it is nice to have an organic farm that is easy to access, the town needs this.”
Ruby Hutchins- “We moved here 16 years ago, I convinced my parents to get a few chickens and our garden and chickens flourished, we bought our farm in 2016. We sell our produce at local markets; we love what we do. I’ve been working the stand the last few years and have grown to know many of our customers.”
Elbert DeJager- “I owned the land from 1977-1996, I am glad that Jason is using the farm land, I used the right of way many times and never had an issue.”
Lisa Scicchitano- “I go every Sunday to get my eggs, produce, and baked goods and to see the animals. I hope the board will approve this.”
Alex Banner- “My name is Alex Banner, and I am the owner of 2919 Lucas Turnpike, which is the property that Hudson Valley Heirloom Farm (“HVHF”) has erroneously represented is the access point in its application before you. I write to formally oppose this application, not because I have a problem with their farm or their business, but because it improperly and illegally relies on my driveway to operate it. HVHF’s claim to have a deeded right of way through my property is false. In fact, their attorney filed a letter with the Supreme Court of Ulster County, where I commenced a lawsuit against HVHF and its owners for trespassing on my property, and the attorney confirmed that no such deeded right of way exists in the public record. A true and accurate copy of that letter is attached hereto as Exhibit A. The only way to validly grant an easement in New York is through a written instrument signed by the owner of the property affected by the easement. I hired an expert title searcher and an expert surveyor both who confirmed no such document exists. Exhibit B is an affidavit from the title searcher and the chain of title for both my property and the HVHF property. Exhibit C is the survey of my property. You cannot grant an easement through someone else’s property without permission, and no owner of my property has ever granted an easement to theirs. Because no easement exists and HVHF has no justification or permission to enter my property or to invite others to do the same, I have sued and sought a preliminary injunction enjoining it and its customers from trespassing on my property. I expect the Ulster County Supreme Court to rule on the application for a preliminary injunction shortly. Historically, my property and the property owned by HVHF have been neighborly. Use of my driveway was periodically permitted for private use, with notice, for many years before I bought it. When I purchased my property in 2019, I continued this neighborly arrangement and HVHF would let me know when they were going to have a vehicle come through. Since purchasing my property, the farm property has gone from a vacant field to a construction site with daily heavy machinery use, to having a full-blown commercial building open to the public at the foot of my driveway with my address used on advertisements as the access point. The owners of HVHF initially presented the project to me as a storage space for animal feed and water – not a full-scale farmer’s market that would use my property for a driveway. But their real intentions for the barn were kept from me while their encroachments on my property grew over time. Over the past few years occasional access with notice has changed into continuous daily use without permission and despite my objections and has culminated in HVHF inviting the public through my property and misrepresenting their access to my property in attempt to be granted a Certificate of Occupancy using my driveway as a public road. For example, many times they have informed public and private officials that they have a deeded right of way over our property, only to have their attorney retract that just last month. That is true here where HVHF is erroneously representing that they have a valid and legally enforceable right to use my property by submitting the language in their deed that says, ‘right of way from said lowlands lot to the Lucas Turnpike over the lands now or formerly of Augustus Weeks.’ That is simply contrary to their own attorney’s admission in the lawsuit I have against them. Even if an easement had been granted (it was not) Augustus Weeks owned my property, the property next door to me where Acorn Waldorf School resides as well as the residential property owned and occupied by the owners of HVHF. All three of these properties have access to Lucas Turnpike and border the HVHF property. HVHF has the ability to access their farm from their own property, and do so on a daily basis, however they choose to run the public through my property to ease the burden of having hundreds of people run roughshod over their own residence. While they could easily access the business from their own property, they have forced the unnecessary burden on my property, which I have sued to stop. Exhibit D is a map which shows “land formerly of Augustus Weeks,” the farm property owned by HVHF, and the properties also owned by the owners of HVHF. Exhibit E includes aerial images from the Ulster County Parcel Viewer of the HVHF property from 2016 and 2021 showing the development of their property, you can also see the paths used from their residence to their farm property. HVHF have provided a letter from the previous owner of their property saying they have an easement, but that’s not how property law works. Because an easement does not exist, they hope to prove that they obtained an easement by prescription. I can prove that they do not have the right, however they have the affirmative obligation of proving that as a matter of law. They carry the burden of proof for such a claim. Moreover, regardless of the end results of our current legal battle, HVHF has no legal access to our property at the time of this application. You will see that HVHF has opted not to request additional signage for their project, this is because they are legally prevented from doing so. While I await relief from the court, the judge has issued an order restraining HVHF from posting or installing anything on my property or the area immediately surrounding it that suggests that their property can be accessed through my property. This restraining order is attached as Exhibit F. I ask that the planning board reject this application which violates my property rights and will cause additional harm to my property. The precedence the town would set by allowing someone to grant themselves an easement through another person’s property is morally wrong and legally dubious. Please do not allow HVHF to access my property without making them provide legal proof demonstrating they have any right to use my property for the benefit of theirs. At the very minimum, the application approval should be tabled until our due process with the court system comes to fruition, or until HVHF applies using access from their own property, not mine.”
Tina Banner- “I work for small local businesses, the success of small businesses matters to me, despite their rights to our property being revoked they have not stopped, no easement exists, the town should not approve an application without a legal ingress and egress.”
Sullivan- “Jason is greatly concerned about the health and welfare of the community I support this application.”
Rose Esposito- “Prior to the banners buying the property my family owned it, they always used our property to access the farm periodically, we were glad when the Hutchins bought the farm for the promise of organic produce, and even happier that they had their own driveway.”
Harley Davis- “I have been on this property; I originally went in on their driveway and due to the size of some of my equipment I needed to use the driveway in question because that was the only way my equipment would fit. There is a better line of sight from the driveway that is on Mr. Banners property than the driveway on Mr. Hutchins property.”
Elbert DeJager- “In my deed for that property I had a right of way through that part of the property.”
Dillon Karis- “Everyone is in support of an organic farm, why not use your own driveway instead of use a driveway on a property that doesn’t belong to you.”
Ken Walsh- “There are many roads that aren’t on maps or recoded in our area, this is normal, this right of way has been established for years weather there is documentation or not. This should be established now being it has been used for years. If there was an emergency the right of way has better access than Mr. Hutchins driveway. This is not doing harm. We are an agriculture community. The pattern of behavior is horrible. What the applicant is doing is benefiting the area.”
Carol Jordan- “I am sad to hear this character attack on Mr. Banner, it is sad, please wait for the decision from the Ulster County Supreme Court before making a decision.”
Alex Chou- “I am a direct neighbor. We move here to experience community, what harm is it doing allowing him to use the right of way. Jason has a hard job, and he loves it, it is benefiting the community. If I need help as a neighbor, I can guarantee that he would help me. I can rely on him as a good neighbor. It is important that we support each other.”
Marco Swuhan- “I decided to start my own business 5 years ago milling wood, I tried to rent land from Mr. Banner, it was approved for me to mill the wood between the shop and the farm, somehow even though it was approved Mr. Hutchins found a way to stop my business.”
Chair Grasso stopped the public comment for this meeting. Mr. Gordon stated that “the site plan relies on the access through Mr. Banners property, I have looked at the documents submitted to the court as well as to us regarding this right of way. The fact that it is in court is a strong reason for this board to wait for the court decision due to the primary access being what is being disputed. We do not have solid access rights at this time.” Chair Grasso stated that he believes it is best that we wait to decide. The applicant’s attorney stated that this board should still move forward with the decision due to as things stand the applicant has that access currently. Chair Grasso stated that it is a requirement that the applicant provide information regarding a right of way and our attorney be able to review and confirm the provided information.
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: Continued 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 changes made to the map. Member Nelson asked about the shared driveway apron as well as the wetlands for the stream in the back. Mr. Eggers explained that the applicant is not interested in a shared driveway apron and explained the reason it will not work. Chair Grasso asked the board for any comments, and they all agreed they are satisfied. Member Jarvis made a motion to set public hearing. Member Moloney 2nd the motion. All in favor, 6 yes, 0 no, 0 abstain.
Application # PB 2024-15 Applicant/Owner: R.V Associates Inc. Shane Ricks / Gas Land Petroleum, Inc. Type: SUP Representative: Jarrod Rizzi, LaBella Associates PC Zoning: B Property Location: Rte. 209 and Mettacahonts Rd SBL: 76.2-5-3.119 SEQRA: Undecided
Status: Continued Application DESCRIPTION: The applicant proposes a 3,000 sq ft gas station and 1,400 sq ft apartment above it. This is in a FEMA Flood location
Chair Grasso introduced the application. The applicant explained the new provided information. Chair Grasso explained that we are still waiting on NYS DOT response as well as SHPO, Fuel storage specs as well as requirements, AP overlay, and the church response. Chair Grasso read code 140-54. The board went over the requirements in the code to determine if this proposal meets the criteria. Member Moloney is concerned about the traffic on Mettacahonts road, and her belief that the parking lot would be used as a cut through, she does not see this as an improvement to our area. Member Jarvis agrees with Member Moloney, 24-hour access should be taken off the table, no other business in our town is open for 24 hours. Member Jones stated that this does not belong in this location. Member Pinsky stated “This will be the 3rd gas station in 3.6 miles. We do not need a gas station here. The traffic study was not conducted between 5-10 pm which is when a lot of traffic comes through that area. We need the EV charging stations as well as a sign showing it.” Member Graham stated that this needs to meet all 5 of the special use criteria, this does not meet a few of the criteria. Member Nelson stated that this could impact the water tremendously, the many factors on that road don’t make this a good fit. Chair Grasso made a recommendation of options that would fit, a hardware store or a liquor/ wine store would fit better.
Application # PB 2024-25 Applicant/Owner: Blue Fairy Farm LLC / Molly Suggs Type: SUP Representative: Alessandro Ronfini / DEMO Architecture PLLC Zoning: R2 Property Location: 104 Bakertown Rd SBL: 68.4-3-29.200 SEQRA: Undecided Status: NEW APPLICATION DESCRIPTION: The applicant proposes a Commercial Events Facility Special Use Permit located at an existing Single-Family Dwelling Site with a proposed expansion for farm related activities and learning events. This location is not currently a farm operation.
Chair Grasso introduced the application. The applicant explained the proposed use. Chair Grasso stated the concern about the wetlands on this property as well as the current home on the property. The applicant explained that the home will remain the same that the garage will be the only thing proposed to change. Chair Grasso brought up his concerns about parking, waterflow mitigation, traffic, sightlines, and CPL review of traffic studies and farm operations being conducted in a residential district. Member Nelson stated that there is a lot going on this property. The applicant explained that they are currently working with Medenbach and Eggers for the well and septic locations. Member Pinsky asked how this will affect the neighborhood. Member Jones stated “This does not fit; this isn’t going to be farmed by the owner. This will increase the ground coverage by 50%. The increase of cars parked in a residential area will not look good. I don’t think we need another commercial events facility.” Member Jarvise stated he agrees that this does not belong in a residential district. Member Moloney stated that the neighbors will not want this. Chair Grasso stated that to move forward we will need an ESCROW check of $5,000.00, an updated map, answers on how the proposed use will fit, also that review will need to be done by Mr. Church and CPL.
OTHER MATTERS:
– Local Law F Town Board comments
Chair Grasso explained the proposal and will write a response to the town board.
– Annual Training Hours Requirement
We will have a training with Mr. Gordon.
Member Jarvis made a motion to cancel the workshop meeting. Member Pinsky 2nd the motion. All in favor, 7 yes, 0 no, 0 abstain.
DeJager Bond-
CPL accepted the proposed price received by Ms. Carney. Member Jones made a motion to accept the bond price. Member Graham 2nd the motion. All in favor, 6 yes, 0 no, Member Nelson abstain.
ACTION ON MINUTES:
– Approval of June 10th, 2024, Meeting Minutes
Member Maloney made a motion to accept the meeting minutes. Member Jarvis 2nd the motion. All in favor 6 yes, 0 no, Member Jones abstain.
ADJOURNMENT:
Member Jarvis made a motion to adjourn at 10:00 pm. Member Graham 2nd the motion. All in favor, 7 yes, 0 no, 0 abstain.
Respectfully submitted,
Jazmyne Wilhelm,
Secretary