PLANNING BOARD
TOWN OF ROCHESTER
ULSTER COUNTY
ACCORD, NEW YORK
(845) 626-2434
MINUTES OF April 13th, 2020 REGULAR MEETING OF the Town of Rochester PLANNING BOARD, held at 7:00pm via Zoom and streamed on YouTube.
Chairperson Lindstrom recited the Pledge to the Flag.
The Secretary did roll call attendance.
PRESENT: ABSENT:
Chair Lindstrom, Chairperson
Patrick Williams, Vice Chairperson
Rick Jones
Brian Buchbinder
Sam Zurofsky
Zorian Pinsky
Ann Marie Maloney
Also present:
Mary Lou Christina, Town Attorney. Brianna Tetro, Secretary. Mike Baden, Town Supervisor and Zoom Host.
ANNOUNCEMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS:
Chair Lindstrom read the following statement:
I have confirmed with the Town’s Counsel that tonight’s meeting has been convened in accordance with the Governor’s March 13, 2020 Executive Order 202.1 which suspends certain provisions of the Open Meetings Law to allow a municipal Board to convene a meeting via videoconferencing. In accordance with the Executive Order, the public has been provided with the ability to view tonight’s work session meeting via YouTube and a transcript will be provided at a later date.
The Planning Board Secretary has completed a roll call of the Board Members and there is a quorum present for this meeting. I have also confirmed with the Secretary that this meeting has been duly noticed.
We have fulfilled our legal notice requirements by posting Notice on the Town Clerk bulletin board and outside door, posting legal notice in the Daily Freeman, and posting notice on the Town’s website.
Chair Lindstrom stated that the secretary had noted to her that the May 31st, 2020 Workshop meeting fell on Memorial Day so it would need to be cancelled.
Chair Lindstrom noted that for the meeting, all motions would be voted on with a “roll call” vote.
Chair Lindstrom made the motion to cancel the May 31st, 2020 Workshop meeting. Mr. Jones seconded he motion.
Roll Call:
Chair Lindstrom- Yes Mr. Zurofsky- Yes
Mr. Williams- Yes Mr. Pinsky- Yes
Mr. Jones- Yes Ms. Maloney- Yes
Mr. Buchbinder- Yes
All in Favor. Motion Carried.
7 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent, 0 abstentions.
Attorney Christiana said that May 31st, 2020 was a Sunday and was Chair Lindstrom thinking of April 30th?
Chair Lindstrom said she didn’t think there was anything on the agenda for the April Workshop meeting either, but that the secretary had pointed out that the May Workshop meeting fell on Memorial Day, so they could cancel both meetings.
Chair Lindstrom rescinded the last vote and amend the motion to cancel both the April 27th, 2020 and Mary 25th, 2020 Workshop meetings. Mr. Jones seconded the motion.
Roll Call:
Chair Lindstrom- Yes Mr. Zurofsky- Yes
Mr. Williams- Yes Mr. Pinsky- Yes
Mr. Jones- Yes Ms. Maloney- Yes
Mr. Buchbinder- Yes
All in Favor. Motion Carried.
7 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent, 0 abstentions.
TRAININGS:
ACTION ON MINUTES
Mr. Jones made the motion to accept the minutes from the March 9th, 2020 Regular Meeting. Ms. Maloney seconded the motion. Chair Lindstrom and Mr. Pinsky abstained as they were not in attendance for that meeting.
Roll Call:
Chair Lindstrom- Abstained Mr. Zurofsky- Yes
Mr. Williams- Yes Mr. Pinsky- Abstained
Mr. Jones- Yes Ms. Maloney- Yes
Mr. Buchbinder- Yes
Motion Carried.
5 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent, 2 abstentions.
APPLICATION REVIEW:
PB 2020-01 SBD Public Hearing/Continued Application
Cindy Graham Applicant & Owner
Minor Subdivision
Proposes the subdivision of a +/- 47.5 acre parcel located at 13 Van Tine Road, Kerhonkson, NY, S/B/L 68.1-2-45 into 4 parcels. The parcel presently contains a single family residence with septic and well. Parcel is in the R-5 zoning district (rural conservation district). The parcel contains Habitat Core Lands of Medium Importance.
SEQRA: TBD
Mr. Jack Dawson and Ms. Cindy Graham were present on behalf of the application.
Chair Lindstrom noted that the application still needed quite a bit more materials. She stated the final plans were going to need the property owners S/B/L and deed information for across the street of Samonsville Rd. And Van Tine Rd. She read 125-12 B (4) and (5):
§ 125-12Procedures and requirements for minor subdivisions.
The following procedures and requirements shall apply to minor subdivisions only (see definitions). All other subdivisions and resubdivisions, regardless of the total number of lots involved, shall be processed as major subdivisions according to the procedures and requirements specified herein.
B. Application. Any person proposing to create a minor subdivision shall submit along with plans required below, an application for minor subdivision approval. This application shall be accompanied by:
(4) The type of water supply proposed.
(5) The type of sewer system proposed.
Chair Lindstrom stated that she couldn’t see where lots 2 and 3 could potentially support houses. She read 125-12 B (10):All rights-of-way, easements, accesses and improvements, both existing and proposed, and any site features or known environmental constraints that could have a bearing on the project including the general topography, floodplain, wetlands, bodies of water, and existing ground cover. Aerial photography may also be required. She said when looking at the aerial view of the driveway, on lot 1 there were ponds and they were going to need to be called out on the final maps to ensure if there was every to be any buildings, they would be far enough away. Chair Lindstrom felt the application should be sent to the DEC to look at the wetlands and noted there was a stream that ran through the driveway of lot 2 and 3. She cited 125-12 (D): Soil tests. Documentation as may be required by the Ulster County Department of Health or the Town of Rochester Planning Board, along with a soils evaluation by the test pit method and/or other required supplemental data relating to sewage disposal shall be submitted. The Town of Rochester Planning Board shall be authorized to require such information for any subdivision where the lot sizes proposed, published soil data or other information suggests testing is warranted as a matter of public health. She stated with the bedrock and slope it needed to be shown that the lots could support well and septic.
Chair Lindstrom stated there were also portions of the SEQRA Part I that needed more information and clarification.
Attorney Christiana stated the Road Maintainence provided by the applicant looked fine, but it would need the name and title of the map in the first paragraph.
The Board had a discussion with the applicant about the map.
Mr. Dawson argued there was no bedrock on the property, it was across the street.
Chair Lindstrom noted they were in a low well area and almost the aquifier district and he would need to provide documentation to the Board that it could sustain well and septic.
Mr. Dawson said it would show up when they did pert tests.
Chair Lindstrom stated that was correct and that needed to be done before it was subdivided.
Mr. Dawson said he didn’t think it had to be done before it was subdivided but he knew it had to be done before anything was built.
Chair Lindstrom said they could request it before it was subdivided, it was in the Code.
There was some more discussion about the driveway.
Mr. Dawson explained the water that was shown on the map by their property was from a drain and culvert pipe that water would run down and into small ponds they had dug.
Chair Lindstrom stated they needed to be called out on the maps.
Mr. Dawson stated he’d do pert tests but it would potentially be years before the lots were built on.
Chair Lindstrom reiterated it still needed to be done.
There was a discussion about all the items needed on the final maps.
The Board discussed keeping the Public Hearing open until the May 11th meeting as there were still items missing from the application.
Attorney Christiana stated the application did need more items to be completed and that the public hearing would need to remain open until the following month however, since the public hearing for the current meeting had been advertised it still needed to be held that evening.
Chair Lindstrom opened the public hearing.
Mr. Edward Gershawn stated he had planned to speak that evening but he would wait until the following month. He asked would the bounding owners be notified again of the next public hearing?
Attorney Christiana answered the date of the next public hearing would be stated before the application review was finished.
There was no further comment.
Chair Lindstrom made the motion to keep the public hearing open until the May 11th, 2020 Regular meeting. Mr. Williams seconded the motion.
Roll Call:
Chair Lindstrom- Yes Mr. Zurofsky- Yes
Mr. Williams- Yes Mr. Pinsky- Yes
Mr. Jones- Yes Ms. Maloney- Yes
Mr. Buchbinder- Yes
All in Favor. Motion Carried.
7 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent, 0 abstentions.
The Board discussed sending the application to the Town’s highway department to review the existing driveway and determine it was safe for fire access.
Chair Lindstrom made the motion to send the application to the Town of Rochester Highway Department for their review and comments on the existing driveway. Mr. Pinsky seconded the motion.
Roll Call:
Chair Lindstrom- Yes Mr. Zurofsky- Yes
Mr. Williams- Yes Mr. Pinsky- Yes
Mr. Jones- Yes Ms. Maloney- Yes
Mr. Buchbinder- Yes
All in Favor. Motion Carried.
7 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent, 0 abstentions.
Mr. Jones wanted to know more about the implications on the habitat areas due to the subdivision.
Chair Lindstrom made the motion to send the application to the DEC and to the Ulster County Planning Department. Mr. Jones seconded the motion.
Roll Call:
Chair Lindstrom- Yes Mr. Zurofsky- Yes
Mr. Williams- Yes Mr. Pinsky- Yes
Mr. Jones- Yes Ms. Maloney- Yes
Mr. Buchbinder- Yes
All in Favor. Motion Carried.
7 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent, 0 abstentions.
PB 2020-03 LLI Continued Application
Miles Pittman & Clarina Bezzola
A lot improvement proposing a lot line deletion to combine parcel S/B/L 59.8-2-13.12 (+/- 8.1 acres, R-2 zoned) and parcel S/B/L 59.8-2-13.11 (+/- 8.1 acres, R-2 zoned) to form one +/- 16.2 acre parcel.
SEQRA: Type II by Code
Mr. Miles Pittman was present on behalf of the application.
The Board looked over and discussed the map and didn’t find anything concerning or needing further addressing.
Mr. Williams made the motion to certify the lot line. Ms. Maloney seconded that motion.
Roll Call:
Chair Lindstrom- Yes Mr. Zurofsky- Yes
Mr. Williams- Yes Mr. Pinsky- Yes
Mr. Jones- Yes Ms. Maloney- Yes
Mr. Buchbinder- Yes
All in Favor. Motion Carried.
7 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent, 0 abstentions.
Decision: PB 2020-03 LLI
Lot Improvement – Certification
*Pursuant to Chapter 125 and Chapter 140 of the Code of the Town of Rochester.
Applicant: Miles Pittman & Clarina Bezzola
Owners: Miles Pittman & Clarina Bezzola
Reason for Request:
A lot improvement proposing a lot line deletion to combine parcel S/B/L 59.8-2-13.12 (+/- 8.1 acres, R-2 zoned) and parcel S/B/L 59.8-2-13.11 (+/- 8.1 acres, R-2 zoned) to form one +/- 16.2 acre parcel.
Location: , NY
S/B/L: S/B/L 59.8-2-13.12 & S/B/L 59.8-2-13.11
Zoning District: R-2
Zoning Permit filed: 02/04/2020 SEQR Type: Type II by definition
Planning Board Application #: 2020-02 LLI PB Application filed: 02/20/2020
* * * *
The Planning Board has reviewed the plat and certifies the lot improvement proposed will meet Town of Rochester lot requirements for the R-2 zoning district and, for recording purposes only, further represents an exempt lot improvement in accordance with Section 125-18 of the Town of Rochester Subdivision Regulations. No subdivision approval is required or given by the Planning Board. The Planning Board further grants the authority to the Chairman to sign the plat certifying the lot improvement for filing purposes without further resolution upon receipt and the Chairman’s determination such plat meets the requirements of the code is in agreement with the sketch plan provided for review.
The owner shall file in the office of the Ulster County Clerk such certified plat bearing the Chairman’s signature within 62 days of this certification. The owner shall have the responsibility to return four (4) Ulster County Clerk certified copies of the plat to the Town of Rochester Planning Board within 30 days of filing.
PB 2019-2 SA Sign Approval New Application
Great Blue Heron Properties, LLC (Owner &Applicant)
Sign Approval
Discretionary Sign Referral from the TOR Code Enforcement Officer as per 140-21. Applicant proposes to replace an existing sign with a new “commercial directory” sign. The parcel is S/B/L 77.1-2- 42.120 located at2919 Lucas Turnpike, Accord, NY. Parcel is located in the AR-3 zoning district.
SEQRA: Type II by code
Mr. Alex Banner was present on behalf of the application.
Chair Lindstrom explained what the application was all about.
Chair Lindstrom asked if the sign was going to be lit up.
Mr. Banner stated it would be and it would be similar to a sign in New Paltz at 1 Epic Place.
Chair Lindstrom asked if the light could be turned off at night.
Mr. Banner said it was a solar LED light.
The Board discussed the landscaping requirements of the sign.
Mr. Zurofsky added it matched the road side environment.
There was no further discussion.
Chair Lindstrom made the motion to write a letter to the Code Enforcment officer and to waive any landscaping requirements. Mr. Williams seconded the motion.
Roll Call:
Chair Lindstrom- Yes Mr. Zurofsky- Yes
Mr. Williams- Yes Mr. Pinsky- Yes
Mr. Jones- Yes Ms. Maloney- Yes
Mr. Buchbinder- Yes
All in Favor. Motion Carried.
7 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent, 0 abstentions.
*Chair Lindstrom recused herself at 7:56pm*
PB 2019-01 SUP/SPA Continued Application
Wayward Ranch Animal Sanctuary, LLC (Applicant) & CWC Loosestrife, LLC (Owner)
Site Plan Approval/Special Use Permit
Proposes the establishment of a farm animal sanctuary and construction of a 90’x 60’ dog & cat kennel on +/- 63.5 acre parcel located at 30 Loosestrife Lane, Kerhonkson, NY, S/B/L 76.1-2-2.111.
SEQRA: Type I, Neg Dec January 27th, 2020
Ms. Victoria Polidoro and Mr. Patrick Logan, Attorneys for the Applicant were present on behalf of the application.
Acting Chair Jones stated they were not going to go through the entire decision again as that had been done at the previous month’s meeting. He stated that they were going to vote on the Findings, Ulster County Planning Board response, and the conditional approvals.
Decision 2019-01 SUP/SPA
Special Use and Site Plan Approval Conditional Approval
Applicant: Wayward Ranch Animal Sanctuary (Applicant),
CWC Loosestrife, LLC (Owner)
Reason for Request: The Applicant proposes the establishment of a farm animal sanctuary and construction of a 90’x 60’ dog & cat kennel, on +/- 63.5 acre parcel located at 30 Loosestrife Lane, Kerhonkson, NY, S/B/L 76.1-2-2.111. Parcel is presently used as a farm and equestrian facility with barn, stables, paddocks, etc. and includes a single family residence. It is AR-3 zoned, within the Ulster County Agricultural District, AG-3, and includes an Army Corps of Engineer regulated national wetlands. Property is within 500 ft. of a property listed on the National Register.
Location: 30 Loosestrife Lane, Kerhonkson, NY
S/B/L: SBL 76.1-2-2.111
Total Acreage: ± 63.538 acre parcel
Zoning District: AR-3 zoning
Code Enforcement Determination: Special Use and Site Plan Approval
Zoning Permit: 028 of 2019, dated January 28, 2019
Planning Board Application: 2019-01 SUP/SPA
PB Application filed: 3/22/2019
EAF filed: Part 1 Full EAF from applicant on 3/22/2019.
Revised Full EAF Part 1 from applicant on 5/17/19.
Draft Full EAF Part 2 & 3 from CPL, consultant for Town, on 11/21/19.
Draft Full EAF Part 2 & 3 discussed on 1/27/20.
Full EAF Part 2 & 3 accepted as amended on 2/10/20.
SEQR Type I: Negative Declaration voted on 2/10/2020.
Referrals: Ulster County Planning Board, Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation (SHPO), Town of Rochester Highway Department, Ulster ASPCA, TOR Historic Preservation Commission, NYSDEC, TOR Dog Control Officer, NYS Ag and Markets.
Review of Findings and Condition:
– First Review of Draft on 2/24/20 at Workshop Meeting
– Second Review of Draft schedule for 3/9/20 at Regular Meeting. Applicant asked for review to be delayed till April 13th meeting and waived any timing restrictions.
– Meeting took place via Video on April 13th and Findings, UCPB Requirements, and Conditions adopted at that meeting.
Documents Considered by the Town of Rochester (TOR) Planning Board (PB) for Review of this Application:
1. Zoning Permit 028 of 2018 determination of Special Use, received 2/08/2019 resubmitted with modifications, on 3/21/19 added notes that SUP was for Animal Sanctuary and Commercial Event Facility as well as Site Plan Approval for Kennel received 3/22/19 (date of Notary Public, Barbara Cuatt).
2. Planning Board Special Use & Site Plan Application 2019-01-SUP/SPA received 3/22/2019, revised 5/17/2019.
3. Letter of representation from Charles W. Calomiris appointing Eleni Calomiris/Wayward Farm Animal Sanctuary and William Spade, of Sasaki & Spade as a representatives received 2/2/2019.
4. Letter of representation from Eleni Calomiris allowing Rodenhausen, Chale & Polidoro, ESQ, LLC to represent Wayward Ranch Animal Sanctuary, dated 7/5/2019.
5. Narrative lletter from Sasaki & Spade, Not dated. Received 2/08/19.
6. Partial Plot plan and Building Floor Plan dated 1/29/19.
7. Survey of Property dates 5/4/01.
8. Wetland Delineation Map dates 1/4/10.
9. Short & Full EAF Part 1, received 3/25/2019 revised 4/29/2019, 5/17/2019.
10. Site Plan, prepared by Sasaki & Spade, dated 3/22/2019, amended 3/25 /2019, 4/29/2019, 5/17/2019, 10/31/2019, and 1/15/2019.
11. Narrative Letter from Sasaki & Spade dated 3/25/19 including:
a. Application check
b. Planning Board Application for SUP/SPA
c. Short Form EAF
d. Full EAF
e. Narrative Description of Projects
f. Updated Survey by Kenneth Keefe, Licensed Surveyor, dated 3/6/19
g. Stormwater Infiltration, Sewage Disposal & new well Preliminary Plans 3/22/2019
h. Wetland Report and Map by Paul Jaehnig, Soil Scientist, dated 1/4/19
i. SP-101 Site Plan overview by Sasaki & Spade Architects dated 3/22/19
j. SP-102 Special Events Plan by Sasaki & Spade dated 3/22/19
k. SP-103 Kennel Site Plan by Sasaki & Spade dated 3/22/19
l. Schematic Design Plans for kennel building by S & S date 3/22/19
m. Cut sheets for site lighting. Signage, screen fencing, etc.
12. Letter from Sasaki & Spade dated 4/29/19 that included:
a. SP – 101 – Cover Sheet and Plot Plan – revised 4/29/19
b. SP – 102 – Special Events Site Plan – revised 4/29/19
c. SP – 103 – Proposed Kennel Site Plan – revised 4/29/19
d. SP – 104 – New Enlarged Special Events Site Plan – 4/29/19
e. LP – 101 – New Kennel Landscaping Plan – 4/28/19
f. Supplemental Soil Survey prepared by Paul J. Jaehnig 4/25/2019
g. Responses to items raised at 3/11/19 Planning Board meeting:
i. Revised Landscaping Plan
ii. Noise Data samples
iii. Enlarged Plan of Special Events Features
iv. Soil Characteristics of Proposed Temporary Parking Fields and Septic Areas
v. Revised Part 1 Short & Full EAF
vi. Emergency Pull-off areas and Fire Dept. review
13. Agricultural Data Statement dated 5/23/19 from Bill Spade of Spade and Sasaki – required when a SPA/SUP occur within a New York State Ag District and within 500 feet of a farm operation in that AG District.
14. Letter dated 4/29/19 from Eleni Calomiris, Executive Director, Wayward Ranch Animal Sanctuary regarding clarification of Adoption Fees and Visitors.
15. NYS Kennel/Pet Dealer Licencing Law/Article 26A Regulations 5/13/2019.
16. Ag & Markets Direct Farm Marketing Activities Guidelines 5/13/2019.
17. Ag & Markets 25-AA Guidelines for review of Local Law that defines “farm Operations” Farm” “Agriculture “Farmland” or any similar term 5/13/2019.
18. Revised SUP/SPA of 5/17/19 for Wayward Ranch removing commercial special events use.
19. Letter from Sasaki & Spade of 5/17/19 with additional information regarding Landscape Plan, Noise Data & EAF changes.
20. Letter from Sasaki & Spade of 5/17/19 entitled Narrative Description of Proposed Uses with updates from the original submission of 3/22/19. Major change was the elimination of Commercial Special Event use and some minor modifications and elaborations on other items.
21. Screen shot from Wayward Ranch Web site, dated 5/15/2019.
22. Ulster County Parcel Viewer Hydric soils overlay 6/10/2019.
23. Letter seeking Lead Agency, dated 5/18/19 from Maren Lindstrom, Chairwoman of Rochester Planning Board to various interested agencies seeking input on the project and indicating Planning Boards’ intent to declare Lead Agency status. Letters sent to:
a. Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (SHPO)
b. Robert Somers, New York State AG and Markets
c. Army Corps of Engineers
d. Tony Spano, TOR Highway Superintendent
e. Dog Control Officer, Town of Rochester
f. Ulster County Planning Board
g. Alice Schoonmaker, Town of Rochester Historic Preservation Commission
24. Letter Dated 5/24/19 from Chair Lindstrom to Jerry Davis, Code Enforcement Officer (CEO) asking for opinion/clarification on definitions within the Town Code Sec. 140-4 as they apply to this application.
25. Response Letter from Code Enforcement Officer regarding #24, dated 6/3/19.
26. Response Letter from SHPO, received 5/24/0219.
27. Response Letter from TOR Historic Preservation Commission, dated 6/24/2019.
28. Email stream between Bill Spade of Sasaki & Spade and Maren Lindstrom, Chair of TOR Planning Board regarding nuances and changes to the Site Plan as well as requesting a copy of the original survey of the parcel.
29. Email stream of 6/4/19 between Chair Lindstrom and Burt Samuelson of Ulster County Planning Department discussing whether animal sanctuaries are farm operations, and another email stream between Chair Lindstrom and Bob Somers of NY Ag and Markets on the same matter.
30. Email streams of 5/31/19 and 6/3/19 between Chair Lindstrom and Eleni Calomiris discussing and clarifying the uses of the Wayward Ranch Animal Sanctuary as a rescue site and a sanctuary as well as public access and educational programs.
31. Letter to Tony Spano, TOR Highway Superintendent dated 6/18/19 asking for his input regarding a comment from Public Hearing concerning safety on roads in the area of this project should the project be approved.
32. Response Letter dated 6/19/19 from Tony Spano regarding safety on the roads around the Project.
33. Response Letter from NYS Ag & Markets dated 6/25/2019 indicating no objection to Town of Rochester accepting lead agency status in compliance with SEQR.
34. Letter to Eleni Calomiris requesting escrow monies for review of the project.
35. (23)Letter from Eleni Calomiris of 7/1/19 regarding decision to drop proposal for Special Events from consideration as part of the SPA/SUP for Wayward Ranch.
36. Letter from Eleni Calomiris of 7/1/19 to TOR Planning Board regarding how they will handle animal waste.
37. Letter from Eleni Calomiris of 7/1/19 to TOR Planning Board regarding discussion of Educational Plans as part of their SUP application for Wayward Ranch.
38. Letter from (CPL), Town of Rochester Planning & Engineering Consultant dated 7/2/19 reviewing documents for the applicant’s proposal:
a. Site plan
b. Full EAF
c. Cut sheets
d. Stormwater filtration system
e. Wetlands study
f. Wayward floor plans and elevations
g. Supplemental Wetlands study
h. Narrative of proposed uses (from Sasaki & Spade letter of 3/22 and 5/17)
i. Landscape proposal
39. Study dated 7/7/19 by Hudsonia of Annandale NY as a submission to TOR Planning Board and in support of certain points made by residents concerning the Biodiversity impacts of the Wayward Ranch project.
40. Letter from Rodenhausen, Chale and Polidoro, LLP, attorneys for the applicant dated 7/8/19 regarding multiple topics including:
a. Permissibility of Uses
b. Covenants, restrictions and Road Agreement
c. SEQR Classification
d. Special Events at the Property
e. Noise
f. Traffic
g. Groundwater/Wetland Impacts
h. Not-For-Profit Status and Impact on Property Values
i. Potential ‘Existing’ Code Violations on the property
41. Noise Study definition of study by Paul Carpenter Associates, submitted 7/25/2019.
42. Series of communications between CPL – TOR Planning Consultant, Potential Wetland/Habitat Specialist Candidate (North Country Ecological Services (NCES), and TOR Planning Board in late July to mid-August.
43. Ulster County Parcel Viewer location viewer w/wetlands view overlay 8/8/2019.
44. Series of communications mid-August and early September between TOR Consultant, TOR Planning Board, AKRF (Noise/Sound consultant for TOR) sound experts, and Paul Carpenter Sound Engineers (Noise/Sound consultant for Applicant).
45. Letter from Paul Jaehnig dated 8/9/19, Wetland and Soil Consultant for Applicant, concerning follow-up questions regarding Wetland habitat, his study methodology employed in results shared in study of January 2019, and questions about Wetlands designation.
46. Letter from applicants’ attorney, Rodenhusen, Chale and Polidoro, LLP, dated 8/12/19, regarding: Consultant Fees for AKRF, and NCES and SEQR review
47. Letter from applicant’s law firm, dated 8/26/19, indicating that they would not be ready with their sound study and other matters and asking for postponement of their presentation from September 9th to October 10th. (NB They did not make the meeting of October 10th).
48. Letter from New York State Department of Environmental Conservation to Paul Jaehnig, Wetland and soil consultant for applicant, dated 8/23/19, indicating that there are no records of rare or state listed animals or plants on the Wayward Ranch Site.
49. Rick Jones email of 9/5/19 referencing agenda items for Wayward Ranch at the PB regular meeting of September 9th, namely:
a. Noise Study Scope comments from Paul Carpenter Noise Associates, consultant for the applicant
b. Update on the complete Noise study progress by Paul Carpenter Associates
c. Commentary from Paul Jaehnig, Wetland and Soil Consultant for applicant on his methodology for doing the original study as well as his commentary on the previously mentioned Hudsonia Study (#35 above)
50. Discussion of letter from applicant’s attorney of July 8th regarding numerous topics (see #36 above).
51. Letter from applicants’ attorney, Rodenhusen, Chale and Polidoro, LLP dated 10/8/19, regarding holding the Public Hearing open through 11/14/2019.
52. Email from Rick Jones dated 10/23/19 indicating that we would not be holding the Workshop meeting of 10/28 since not everything was yet ready from the applicant.
53. Letter from Sasaki & Spade, dated 10/31/19 with attachments as follows:
a. Updated and detailed Site Plans
b. SWPPP (Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan and general Stormwater plans)
c. 70 page Noise Assessment Findings by Paul Carpenter Associates, dated 10/22/2019
d. Aerial map of proposed site 11/1/2019
54. Letter from CPL, TOR Engineers, dated 11/21/19 regarding submission from Sasaki & Spade of 10/31/2019 (see #46 above). Review included but not limited to:
a. Comments on detailed Site Plans
b. Comments of SWPPP (Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan)
c. Stormwater Plan
d. Noise Assessment from Paul Carpenter associates
e. Wayward Ranch Safety Plan
55. Suggested Draft SEQR Parts 2 and 3 submitted to the Planning Board by Town’s Consultant: CPL, dated 11/21/2019.
56. Letter from Eleni Calomiris dates 11/1/19 detailing Safety Plan.
57. Email from Bill Spade dated 11/25/19 to TOR Planning Board in anticipation of 11/25/19 PB Workshop Meeting answering some questions from the Workshop Meeting of 11/25/2019.
58. Letter from TOR Planning Board, dated 11/27/19, seeking Lead Agency status. This was done previously, but was missing appropriate language.
59. Email from Bill Spade, dated 12/4/19 to TOR Planning Board and others regarding multiple questions and the additional items that would be done to their work product delivered at the 11/25/19 meeting which was detailed in their submission of 10/31/19.
60. Email dated 12/6/19, from TOR Planning Board to applicants’ consultant, Sasaki & Spade, and others regarding certain unanswered questions based on letters from residents and landscape comments:
a. Letter from Brown, Drake & Fogel, P.C., attorneys for resident Adam Glassman, regarding certain items he wanted included in the conditions of approval.
b. Answers to letter from residents Mark Goldberg and Isabel Jean Goldberg.
61. Ulster County Planning Board Referral Letter Recommendations dated 12/4/19.
62. Letters from TOR Planning Board to NYS Ag and Markets and the Ulster County SPCA seeking input on Wayward Ranch’s safety plan.
63. Letter to TOR Dog Control Officer on 12/13/19 inquiring as to any complaints about dogs on the existing site.
64. Response Letter from SHPO dated 12/16/19 regarding the impact on archaeological and/or historical resources.
65. Response Letter from DEC dated 12/16/19 regarding lead agency status – indicating no objecting to TOR taking lead agency role.
66. Response Letter from New York State Ag and Markets, dated 12/19/19 indicating no objecting to TOR taking lead agency role.
67. Letter from Wayward Ranch attorney, Victoria Polidoro, dated 12/23/19, in answer to TOR email of 12/6/2019 asking for answers to resident letters including one from Goldberg regarding noise, and another from attorney for Glassman regarding multiple requests to be included in Planning Board Conditions.
68. Email from Wayward Ranch attorney, Victoria Polidoro, dated 12/23/19, indicating that they had not completed the work requested by CPL from the meeting of 11/25 and their letter of 11/21 and requesting that their next appearance be delayed to the January 27th meeting and that the public hearing be continued at that time.
69. Letter from Ulster County SPCA, Dated 12/27/19 regarding Safety Plan, finding it fully satisfactory.
70. Letter Dated 1/7/20 from TOR Dog Control Office stating not having received any complaints or incidents regarding the Wayward Ranch Property.
71. Letter from Sasaki & Spade dated 1/14/20 containing response to CPL letter of 11/21/2019 as well as Workshop meeting of 11/25/2019. This letter of 1/14/20 contained:
a. Response letter
b. Update to SWPPP 12/15/2019
c. Updated Site plans
d. SWPPP review response to CPL comments by John Petroccione PE, PLLC
72. Letters from Eleni Calomiris received 1/21/20:
a. Regarding ‘Click for Quiet’
b. Expected Kennel Hours
c. Curriculum Vitae for Eleni Calomiris
73. Letter from Rain Concepts who produced the SWPPP as well as designed the Septic System and New Well. Letter speaks to daily water consumption requirements and includes a letter regarding water from the previous property owner, Myron Langer. Letter dated 1/30/20.
74. Public comment letters, Brown, Duke & Fogel 6/10/2019, 9/19/2019, 11/14/2019 & 1/13/2020, R Kilpert, 5/24/2019, 6/10/2019, 6/19/2019, 10/2/2019, 10/24/2019, 11/14/2019, 11/22/2019 11/24/2019 & 1/13/2020, A. Ullman 5/20/2019, 5/31/2019 & 6/25/2019 & 7/29/2019, M O’Connell, 5/20/2019, 5/24/2019, 9/8/2019, J Wagner 5/21/2019, F Malloh & A Moreno 5/22/2019, M Owens, 5/22/2019 J Mulee, SPCA 5/22/2019, J Wischhover 5/23/2019, 7/5/2019, 9/2/2019, H & K Krauthamer 5/30/2019 & 7/3/2019, , D Mendez 5/28/2019, R. James 6/6/2019, J Eckart 6/1/2019, A Spencer 6/6/2019, D Linville, 6/7/2019, C Schaeffer 5/7/2019, K Cohen, 6/16/2019, T Drivas 6/10/2019, C Farquar 6/10/2019, S. Hartless 6/10/2019, K Starkley, 6/10/2019, M Beare 6/27/2019, Goldbergs 5/24/2019, 7/8/2019. 7/16/2019, 10/8/2019, 11/26/2019, A Corney 5/27/2019, & 11/19/2019, K LaSpina 7/8/2019, J Cole & D Miller 7/9/2019 & 9/2/2019, Corbally, Gartland Rappleyea LLP 9/4/2019, J Levitt 8/30/2019 & 10/2/2019, G & C Frenza 5/22/2019, J Grasso 5/24/2019,
Notice of Public Hearing:
1. First Public Hearing Date was published in the May 30th. 2019 Shawangunk Journal.
2. Notice by mail to known adjacent landowners.
3. Posted on the Town of Rochester Clerk bulletin board and town website.
4. Public Hearing was held on 6/10/19 and was continued on:
a. July 9th, 2019
b. September 9th, 2019
c. October 10th, 2019
d. November 14th, 2019
e. January 27th, 2020 – at the conclusion of which the public hearing was closed.
Findings of the Planning Board with Regard to the Review of the Application:
General
1. On 2/8/19, The Planning Board received from the Code Enforcement Officer (CEO) a zoning referral for a Special Use Permit (SUP), and Site Plan Approval (SPA), for the establishment of an Animal Sanctuary (a SUP), and the construction of a 5,400 sq. ft. Kennel, as well as a “Commercial Events Facility”, as defined in the Town of Rochester (TOR) zoning code: “The business use of a parcel for conferences, banquets, festivals, weddings, or other similar celebratory or educational activities conducted ancillary to another approved allowed use, subject to the standards of §140-35.”
2. The parcel to be developed is known as S/B/L 76.1-2-2.111. Total size of parcel is 63.538 acres, with the area of proposed disturbance limited to 2.64 acres. Existing site is zoned as AR-3, and in the Ulster County Ag District known as AG-3.
3. Subsequent amendments to the SPA and SUP were received on 3/21/19 and 3/22/19.
4. Amendment to the SPA and SUP application was received on 5/17/19 removing any request for consideration of a “Commercial Events Facility’ as defined in §140-35.
5. In addition, a letter from Eleni Calomiris, Executive Director of Wayward Ranch Animal Sanctuary, dated 7/1/19, confirmed the decision to drop the proposal for Special Events from the existing application.
6. The parcel’s existing use is a farm operation & stables. The existing use employs 2 full time and 3 part time employees.
7. Existing improvements on the parcel consist of a 2,970 sq. ft. single family residence and a 4,750 sq. ft. barn with riding pavilion, outdoor riding ring, horse paddocks, and enclosed animal turn-outs. Contiguous parcels to the subject parcel are used for farming, or are residential. Contiguous parcels are also zoned AR-3.
8. In addition to the Planning Board receiving the Site Plan and Special Use application, the Board also received numerous other documents for its review, including but not limited to, Full and Amended EAF’s, technical SWPPP and drainage plans, site plans and amended site plans, from the applicants’ consultants (S&S), commentary from the Planning Boards’ own consultants (CPL), letters from concerned citizens, documents from various consultants regarding Sound, Wetlands, Flora and Fauna, along with a study from a consultant (Hudsonia) hired by the residents regarding the Wetlands and Flora and Fauna, various e-mail exchanges, and other miscellaneous communication from regulatory bodies, etc. All of these are cited in the previous section of this document entitled, ‘Documents Considered by the Planning Board for Review of the Application’. These docs form the basis for the Planning Boards Findings and Conditions of Approval.
Uses within this Zone
9. The parcel is located in Ulster County Ag District #3. An Agricultural Data Statement dated 5/23/19, was prepared and presented. Form is required when a SPA/SUP occurs within a New York State Ag District and within 500 feet of an existing farm operation in that AG District. Wayward Farm Animal Sanctuary is within 500 feet of two such farm operations.
10. Question was raised during discussions by the Planning Board as to whether an Animal Sanctuary is a farm operation. In e-mail threads of 6/4/19 between Chair Lindstrom, and Burt Samuelson of Ulster County Planning Department, and another of the same date between Chair Lindstrom and Bob Somers of NY Ag and Markets this question was discussed. Both Mr. Samuelson and Mr. Somers confirmed that an Animal Sanctuary is not a farm operation.
11. The Town’s Code Enforcement Officer (CEO) determined on 2/4/19 that a Kennel is permitted in this District with a Site Plan approval, and that an Animal Sanctuary is also permitted with a Special Use Permit. He further found that these uses as defined by the applicant at the time of application are consistent with the definition of those terms contained in §140-4 ‘Specific Definitions’ of the Zoning Code of the Town of Rochester. The Planning Board proceeded to examine both the Kennel and Animal Sanctuary under the SPA and SUP. The definitions of each use are as follows from the Town Code:
a. “Kennel – A commercial or non-profit establishment in which dogs or similar domesticated animals are housed on a temporary or permanent basis.”
b. “Animal Sanctuary – A facility operated as a place of refuge where abused, neglected, unwanted, impounded, abandoned, orphaned or displaced domestic, farm or wild animals are provided care for their lifetime or rehabilitated and released back to their natural habitat, and which does not engage in animal breeding, animal research, or the commercial sale, trade or barter of the animal or animal’s body parts and which allows only supervised public access by means of a structured educational visitor program”
12. In a series of two letters between Chair Lindstrom and CEO Davis, the matter of adoption fees, structured educational visitor programs, and the nature of animals allowed under either or both uses was discussed. The Board finds the following in this regard:
a. The first letter, dated 5/24/19 from Chair Lindstrom, asked for guidance as to how to handle the adoption fee proposed and public access to the Animal Sanctuary since the definition of Animal Sanctuary includes the line ‘….and which (use) does not engage in ……the commercial sale, trade or barter of the animal….and which allows only supervised public access by means of a structured educational visitor program’
b. This first letter further asks what animals would be allowed under a kennel since the definition suggests ‘….dogs or similar domesticated animals are housed on a temporary or permanent basis’
c. The second letter, a reply from CEO Albert E. Davis, essentially responds that these are questions for the Town Attorney, or for the Planning Board to determine as to whether and how the use and manner of operation is compliant with these provisions in the Code.
13. The applicant intends to operate the Kennel and the Animal Sanctuary as not-for-profit entities. They will allow for the adoption of the animals housed under either use. They may or may not request an adoption fee under these uses in order to defray the cost of caring for, or rehabilitating the animals contained therein. Such fees would not be mandatory and purely voluntary and the Board finds that they are not the same as a commercial fee paid for an animal. A letter from Executive Director, Eleni Calomiris, of 4/29/19 confirms that they ‘…would be operating both the Animal Sanctuary and the Kennel as not-for-profit organizations, any payments made to Wayward Ranch Animal Sanctuary for the adoption of any animals would be made as suggested donations.’
14. The Planning Board finds as to 12(a) above, the voluntary adoption fee is not a commercial purchase fee pursuant to TOR Code §140-4, which says that an Animal Sanctuary cannot ‘… engage in [….] the commercial sale, trade or barter of the animal…’
15. As to the other part of 12(a) above, namely the conditions for public access to an Animal Sanctuary, TOR Zoning Code provides that any access to the Animal Sanctuary by the public is that which is a ‘supervised public access by means of a structured educational visitor program”. The Planning Board finds that the applicant has complied with that portion of the definition as well. The applicant delivered to the Planning Board on 7/1/19 a detailed educational program plan that they would use to be in compliance with this provision of the Town Definition for Animal Sanctuary. The applicant delivered additional details dated 7/5/19, regarding this plan that included sections on ‘Volunteer Programs’, and ‘Property Visitor Tour Program’; as well as other components as to how they will be able to support and encourage public visitors to the animal sanctuary for educational and adoption purposes.
16. As to 12 (b) above, the Planning Board finds that the manner of operation of this project suggests that both dogs or similar domesticated animals may, as a matter of right, be housed in the Kennel building on this site on a temporary or permanent basis as per §140-4, Kennel Definition of TOR Code.
17. The board finds that the definition of domesticated animals for purposes of the Kennel definition as discussed in the letters of Chair Lindstrom and CEO Davis, is a matter of plain language. Dogs are permitted by definition and ‘similar domesticated animals’ would be any animals that have been raised and domesticated in the home.
18. The Board finds that the language of the Animal Sanctuary definition, permits both domestic, farm and wild animals as this is the plain language in the Town Code definition of Animal Sanctuary.
19. The Board finds that the ‘release back to their natural habitat’ in the Animal Sanctuary Definition for dogs and other domesticated animals would be to a suitable domestic home, or other kennel or animal sanctuary.
20. The Board finds that the Projects’ proposed rehabilitation function comes under the plain language of an Animal Sanctuary as defined in §140-4, Definitions, namely: “A facility operated as a place of refuge where abused, neglected, unwanted, impounded, abandoned, orphaned or displaced domestic, farm or wild animals are provided care for their lifetime or rehabilitated and released back to their natural habitat.”
21. The TOR Planning Board finds that the functions of the Kennel and Animal Sanctuary as proposed for this site are inextricably intertwined. While both uses have separate definitions, handling them as a single use is possible and desirable in this case. The Board finds this webbed connection to be acceptable as it is an artful combination and construct and together they form two uses under one physical umbrella.
22. The Planning Board finds that the requirements of §140-55 of the Town Code for reviewing the Animal Sanctuary as a Special Use in the AR-3 Zone have been met, namely it,
a. Will not have a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the residents of the Town of Rochester.
b. Ensures that those items of the project which may create a nuisance or perceived detrimental effect on surrounding properties have been conditioned in a manner as to eliminate or substantially reduce those impacts.
c. Will not have a negative effect on the environment, job creation, the economy, housing availability or open space preservation.
d. Will not create an economic burden on community facilities or services.
e. Has been developed and improved in a way consistent with that character which this law and the Town’s Comprehensive Plan are intended to produce or protect, including appropriate landscaping and attention to aesthetics and natural feature preservation.
23. The Planning Board finds that the application meets the use definitions in the Town Zoning Code.
24. The Planning Board finds that the applicant has complied with all of the applicable Site Plan and SUP schedule of district regulations.
SEQR
25. The PB conducted its SEQR review in compliance with relevant NYSDEC regulations as well as in compliance with its own §140-61 of the TOR Zoning Code.
26. First letter of intent to seek Lead Agency status was sent on 5/18/19 by Chair Maren Lindstrom. Some technical errors were contained and a second request of intent to seek Lead Agency status was sent out on 11/27/19, by Acting Chair, Rick Jones, with corrections. No involved agency sought Lead Agency status.
27. Full Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) Part 1 was delivered by applicants’ consultant, Sasaki and Spade, on 3/22/19. Short and Long Form EAF Part 1 was completed by the applicants’ consultant S&S and delivered to the board on 5/17/19 absent any mention of Commercial Event Space.
28. The Project was typed as a Type 1 action for purposes of SEQR. This is due to Section 617.4(b) (8) of the SEQR rules indicating that when ‘,,, a nonagricultural use occurring wholly or partially within an agricultural district (certified pursuant to Agriculture and Markets Law article 25-AA, sections 303 and 304), and exceeds 25 percent of any threshold established in this section’, the action is a Type 1. The threshold under SEQR is 10 acres and so the threshold would be 25% or 2.5 acres. The Board used the area of disturbance for this project which is 2.64 acres. Therefore the threshold of 2.5 acres is exceeded by .14 acres and this is a Type 1 action. If the action is in the agricultural district as certified in the Ag and Markets Law, it is a Type 1 action’.
29. The Boards’ consultant CPL, delivered a Draft Full EAF Parts 2 and 3 to the Board on 11/21/19.
30. The Board reviewed Part 1 of SEQR EAF from the applicant as well as CPL’s Parts 2 & 3 at the January 27th PB Public Workshop Meeting. Since portions of Part 2 were amended from what had been done by CPL consultants, action was deferred to the Regular Planning Board Meeting of February 10th. Changes at the 27th meeting included changing ‘No’ Impacts to some of the summary Questions 1- 18 to ‘Yes’ Impacts. Specifically, the following Questions were changed from No to Yes:
a. Impact on Groundwater
b. Impact on Plants and Animals
c. Impact on Agricultural Resources
d. Impact on Energy
31. Part 3 was amended by the Town’s Attorney subsequent to the 1/27 meeting in accordance with specific changes made to Parts 2 & 3 by the PB at the 27th meeting. Both the amended Parts 2 and 3 were discussed at the regular TOR PB meeting of 2/10/19. At this time the TOR Planning Board determined that the proposed action would not have a significant adverse environmental impact. A Negative Declaration was adopted with both Parts 2 and 3, as amended, reflecting the decision of that Board for SEQR purposes. Mitigation methods were included in Part 3 and will form a portion of the Conditions later in this document.
Traffic and Road Considerations
32. The parcel has road frontage on Loosestrife Lane, a private road off a Town road known as Krum Road. A road maintenance agreement dated 10/18/96, regarding this private roadway, was entered into by a prior applicant and the Town and was recorded in Ulster County Clerk’s Office on 12/6/96. This road maintenance agreement remains in full force and effect.
33. Town Highway Superintendent, Tony Spano was contacted and the Deputy Highway Superintendent, Jeffrey Frey, responded on 6/19/19, indicating that “…there are no maintenance and/or safety concerns with any of the surrounding town roads that lead to Loosestrife Lane”.
34. The applicant has provided two emergency pull-offs on the Site Plan where required to comply with NYS Building and Fire Code.
35. TOR PB finds that the gravel/dirt driveway is not conducive to allowing parking, and is to remain free of vehicles except those arriving and departing.
36. TOR PB finds the project to be consistent with Town Code with regard to Traffic and Road Considerations and there are no concerns with traffic and traffic safety.
Wetland and Impact on Flora and Fauna Findings
37. A Wetland Investigation was completed on behalf of the applicant by Paul Jaehnig, a Certified Professional Geologist, Soil Scientist, and Wetland Scientist. Work was performed in the area closest to the area of disturbance in the northeast corner of the site.
38. His original findings were contained in a study dated 1/4/19 along with supplemental documentation dates 4/25/19 and 8/9/19 which presented additional soil samples, additional consideration of the presence of endangered flora and fauna (specifically bog turtles and endangered plants) as well as further explanation of his methodology.
39. Mr. Jaehnig’s indicated his study used a three parameter approach which included identification of hydric soils, identification of wetland or hydrophytic vegetation, and observation and recording of any water-table encountered.
40. The Board finds that there are wetlands on the 63.538 acres site. They are not covered by New York State DEC Regulations since they fall under the required area size. They are, however, considered to be Army Corps of Engineer (ACOE) or Federal Wetlands. His work further confirms that there are no wetlands in the area of disturbance of 2.64 acres.
41. The Board also received a study from Hudsonia that was commissioned by the adjoining neighbors. The study did not investigate the actual 63.538 acre site. It has no conclusive data to contradict any of the work by the applicants’ consultant. There were observations by Hudsonia that some of the plants that were ‘observed at the borders of the site (squarrose sedge, drooping bulrush, southern agrimony, halberd-leaved tearthumb) indicate calcareous….wetland habitat.’ Note is made of the comment, ’borders of the site’, not the site itself. Of the four plants mentioned as found at the borders of the site, only one, southern agrimony, is listed as ‘rare’ in 6 CRR-NY 193.3 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations of the State of New York. There are four ‘listing’ types. The ‘Rare’ listing is the third ‘listing’ term in a range from most ‘important’ to lesser important with ‘Endangered’ and ‘Threatened’ coming before ‘Rare’.
42. There was also some suggestion that the site could support the bog turtle. There was no specific finding by Hudsonia of bog turtles on the site. Moreover, the area where there could be bog turtles is the wetland area which is not being disturbed and will have a voluntary 100 foot buffer. The area of disturbance, 2.64 acres, has been determined by Jaehnig not to be included in this wetland area.
43. In a letter from NY DEC to Paul Jaehnig, dated 8/23/19, the former indicated that there are no records of rare or state listed animals or plants on the Wayward Ranch Site.
44. The Site Plan indicates that the applicant will create a voluntary100 ft. buffer around the marked wetlands in the area to the east and northeast of the area of disturbance. They have also provided extensive storm water protection and retention to ensure controlled release of any water as a result of new impervious surfaces, further protecting the wetlands as well as providing for the treatment of the runoff to ensure water quality under appropriate NYS DEC regulations.
45. The Planning Board concludes and finds that given the above studies, as well as the past long historical use of the site as a farm with extensive farm activities on the site, that the likelihood of impact on the wetlands or to rare species of flora or fauna is severely limited to non-existent.
Findings Regarding Historical Structures and Archaeological Resources
46. The PB considered the impact of the project upon the Dupuy Stone House, listed on the National Register in 1997 since the distance to the property line of the house was found to be within 500 feet (threshold for review) of the applicants’ property line.
47. The distance from parcel boundary to parcel boundary is 280 feet. The closest proposed physical improvement on the Project site to the Dupuy House is a turnout along the Wayward Ranch Driveway, which is about 700 feet from the Dupuy House. The distance from the proposed kennel building to the Dupuy House is approximately 1100 feet.
48. Board received comments from the Town of Rochester Historic Preservation Commission dated 6/24/19. The TOR PB found nothing inconsistent between the applicable Town Code and facts on the ground as pointed out by TOR Historic Preservation Commission and the manner in which the Wayward Ranch Site will be developed. Specifically, the TOR Historic Commission comments were:
a. About the existing Kentucky Derby style steel horse barn. (Board finds comment not germane to current application since it is a comment about existing building).
b. Remarks regarding a clump of thick foliage between the barn building and the Dupuy House which was hypothesized as having been planted by residents of the Dupuy House to block the view of the horse barn. (Board finds this to be a good thing in terms of buffering views).
c. Comments regarding the interior of the new building (Board finds that interior schematics and compliance to building codes are the purview of the CEO).
d. Comments about the height and bulk size of the kennel building (Board finds that both height and bulk requirements meet Town Code and is the purview of the CEO).
e. Mentions that since there are 30 parking spaces this is clearly a commercial enterprise within an agricultural zone. (Board finds that the parking spaces are determined by the permitted use bulk size and is compliant with what is required/permitted).
49. The board also received a response from State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (SHPO), dated 5/24/19 that stated the project will have no impact on archaeological and/or historic resources listed in or eligible for the New York State and National Register of Historic Places.
50. The PB concurs with the SHPO finding above. PB further finds nothing in violation of the Town’s Codes with respect to building height or bulk requirements. It notes the distances from building to building of some 1100 feet as well as the landscaping that will shield the kennel building on the north side where the Dupuy House and other residential houses can be found – the latter at much closer proximity to the Dupuy House.
Noise and Safety Findings
51. There was considerable concern expressed by the surrounding neighbors regarding the noise from barking dogs to be housed in the kennel. Many of the letters received, as well as comments during Public Hearings, were regarding noise from barking dogs and/or safety concerns regarding the dogs housed at the Kennel building.
52. There are two applicable TOR ordinances regarding Noise:
a. The first is §140-20(F), “All proposed new land uses shall not generate cumulative sound levels, at or beyond any lot line that exceeds the ambient noise level by 10 or more decibels (dBA). Any sound of 5 to 10 decibels above the ambient noise level shall be attenuated or mitigated to the maximum degree practical, as shall be determined by the Planning Board during Site Plan Review. 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 proposed use”. This section of the Zoning Code is within the Planning Boards’ purview to regulate.
b. And the second is Chapter 53, ‘Animals’. It contains a section §53-1 ‘Prohibited activities’ regarding dogs. This particular Code is not part of the Zoning Code and out of the purview of the Planning Board and is mentioned here only for information purposes.
53. The applicants’ consultant, S&S, initially conducted a sound study and submitted findings regarding sound levels at the periphery of the parcel and whether those levels were compliant with Town Code. The Board decided that more data was needed and requested another study. The second and more elaborate study mentioned above used the services of Paul Carpenter Associates, a firm dealing with Air Emissions and Noise/Vibration matters. That study established ambient sound levels at multiple points along the borders of the property; simulated dogs barking in the kennel by measuring barking dogs at a similar facility in Westchester, and then ran this data through a series of simulations to establish what the noise level would be at the subject property boundaries. It was found that at a number of points the sound was in excess of that permitted by the Town Code. The applicant’s consultant ran simulations using a variety of mitigation methods. The mitigation method chosen reduced the noise at the boundaries to below the maximum level required by Town Code.
54. The Planning Board engaged a separate firm, AKRF, an acoustic and engineering firm, to assess the scope of work to be done by Paul Carpenter Associates and make whatever recommendations as to the methods employed. This assessment occurred, along with discussions between these two firms, the Town’s Engineer (CPL), Town and Applicant Attorneys and the Planning Board. The parties’ satisfactorily concluded, with some modifications to locations for sampling, that the study scope and methodology were appropriate.
55. Paul Carpenter’s study of 10/22/19 indicates that for each sample point the noise level, with mitigation, will be between 2 to 8 decibels over the ambient noise level. The mitigation proposed would be accomplished by “…an eight-foot wood fence with a two-foot cantilever top, lined with acoustic material…” around the entire dog run portion of the proposed kennel building.
56. The Board finds that the level of noise at all sample points along the border of the property with the mitigation will not exceed the recorded ambient levels at those locations by more than 10 dBA, as required by TOR Code requirements in §140-20(F).
57. In addition, and to further mitigate the sound of barking dogs, the applicant has agreed to limit the time in the outdoor runs to a total of 6 hours a day. Hours will be 9AM to 12PM and 2PM to 5PM. There is a separate document from the Executive Director, Eleni Calomiris, dated 1/21/20 detailing these hours of operation.
58. The Board finds that the applicant has agreed to a number of additional items that will further limit noise from barking dogs. To wit:
a. The kennel building has been designed to actively decrease noise pollution as detailed in the ‘Executive Directors’ memo of 1/21/20. For example, the building is designed so that no single kennel run will be occupied by more than one dog and no run will be able to be seen from its next door neighbors’ run.
b. The Board also finds that the applicant will employ various methods to minimize the dogs’ motivation to bark as also documented in the letter of 1/21/20.
59. The Board finds that there is a safety plan presented in a letter of 11/1/19 from Eleni Calomiris. The Board submitted this plan for comment to the Ulster ASPCA, and the ASPCA found, and stated in a letter dated 12/27/19, that the safety document was acceptable
60. Board finds that this 6 hours of time in the runs does not include time outside the kennel. Where the dogs are outside they will be leashed and the handlers will follow the procedures contained in the safety plan presented in the safety document dated 11/1/19.
61. Board further finds that the applicant has identified that the maximum number of dogs lodged in the Kennel will be 10 adult dogs housed individually within outdoor runs and 5 dogs in the cohabitation room. The puppy room will have an additional 5 puppies. There will be up to 10 cats in the cat room and up to 10 small animals in the small animal room.
62. Claims were raised during the public comment period and in letters from the public that dogs from the Executive Directors’ residence were seen to be running wild in the adjacent neighborhoods. The Board finds that there is no documented or verified proof of dogs running wild in the surrounding area from the Wayward Ranch Site. The basis for this finding is a letter, dated 1/7/20, from the TOR Dog Control Officer, asserting that no complaints have been received regarding the Wayward Ranch Property and any problems with loose dogs.
63. The TOR Planning Board finds the project consistent with applicable Town Code, 140-20(F) for Noise.
Findings Regarding Odor and Animal Waste
64. The applicant delivered a detailed plan on handling Animal Waste on 7/1/19. General Garbage, as well as animal waste from Small Animals, such as hamsters, rabbits and guinea pigs; waste from Dogs and Pigs will be bagged daily, placed in dumpster which will be emptied weekly by the waste disposal company or when full, whichever comes first.
65. Waste from Horses and Goats will be handle by a manure removal company. A manure box will be provided, and it will be emptied every three months or sooner if full and carted to a composting site by an outside firm to be used as fertilizer. Existing compost pile is being removed in its entirety.
66. The Board finds that no increase in Odors have been identified and that the plan for handling Animal Waste is appropriate.
Findings Regarding, Lighting and Signage
67. With regard to light, the project complies with code with respect to light emissions that will ‘….be shielded and focused downward to prevent glare and spillover of light onto adjoining properties’. The project also notably complies in that there will be ‘No direct or sky-reflected glare, whether from floodlights or otherwise…’
68. The applicant provided all the necessary lighting contours as required in the lighting section of 140-20. The need for this was pointed out by UCPB in their first letter to TOR PB. The former noted in their second letter that the applicant had complied with the requirement for lighting contours.
69. Outdoor lighting will be provided on the kennel building, walkways, drives, paths and parking areas in accordance with Code and as noted on the Site Plans.
70. Exterior signage, around the water retention areas will be provided as per the amended and updated site plans.
71. The Board finds that the project complies with the lighting and signage components of the Town Code, namely, §140-20(H) (1-9) for lighting and §140-22 for signs.
Landscaping and Plantings Findings
72. The applicant has submitted extensive Landscape plans in compliance with Town Code §140-15. Landscaping plans are contained on the latest Plan, LP-101 dated 12/30/19. In addition the Board takes note of ‘plantings’ contained in the latest Grading and Drainage Plan, SW-101 through SW-104 dated 12/15/19, and specifically SW-104, where detailed plantings for the bio-retention and remediation areas are diagramed and detailed. These are both part of the Board’s findings regarding ‘Landscaping’ and ‘Plantings’
73. The Town Code §140-15(A) suggests buffering of the project from adjoining landowners or the view from public highways. “Such a (landscape) plan shall also be required whenever any non-residential use is proposed in any district so as to buffer parking areas and buildings from the highway, each other and other uses. Where it is determined a proposed use is naturally buffered or would not have a significant impact on the natural environment, adjoining landowners or the view from a public highway, these requirements may be modified by the Planning Board to fit the circumstances”
74. The Board finds that the roads in the area, Krum and Boice Mill are local roads and do not constitute major public highways. In addition, the distance from the new building to these local roads are of a nature to suggest that ‘buffering’ should be against the buildings and structures close to the kennel as opposed to trying to landscape parts of, or the entire and extensive 63.5 acre property line.
75. The board finds the following with regard to landscaping:
a. That the distance from the building to Krum Road is considerable and the landscaping that has been added at this north side is sufficient along with what already exists.
b. That there should be three (3) more Green Giant Arborvitae at the west end of the parking area, to shield the parking lot so that the expanse and density of these trees is closer to the 15 ft. on center mentioned in the Code for areas to be buffered.
c. The south end is sufficiently landscaped and buffered as to Boice Mill Road.
d. There is sufficient buffering and shielding around and in the stormwater retention and bioremediation areas.
e. The east end is sufficiently landscaped as to number of plants noting that the distance to the next residence at the east end is considerable.
f. Board finds that the projects’ landscaping plan is more than adequate.
Findings Regarding Parking
76. The Board finds that the applicant’s project complies with TOR requirements in terms of parking, providing 31 regular spots along with 2 accessible spots. Appropriate ramps to the building are provided for accessible access.
77. There is also added parking of 7 spots in the vicinity of the existing barn structure.
Findings Regarding Water Supply and Septic
78. The Board finds that the Septic Design and availability of water appear sufficient. Applicant will have to comply with, and obtain permits from the Ulster County Health Department with respect to both of these items.
79. The applicant proposes a septic system adequate for the estimated usage in the kennel building. The plan also has identified an expansion area should that be necessary.
80. The Board notes and finds a sufficient amount of information presented to the board regarding water supply and further finds that the water demand number of 910 gallons per day appear adequate and reasonable, subject to further review by Ulster County Health Department. The Board finds that the 910 gallons equals the water requirements of three, three-bedroom single family homes.
81. In support of the above finding the Board notes multiple studies by Rain Concepts, the applicants’ Septic, Well Design and Drainage Plan Consultant. In particular, the Board notes the letter from Rain Concepts of 1/30/20 in which they summarize and substantiate the gallons required for day to day operations, as well as a letter from the prior landowner, Myron Langer, regarding water supply.
Findings regarding Surface Water, Stormwater Retention and Treatment
82. There are wetlands on the property. They have been found to be regulated by the Army Corps of Engineers and are not of the size that would cause them to be within the regulatory purview of New York State DEC.
83. The applicant engaged the services of consultants to conduct both Grading and Drainage Design Studies as well as Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPP). These were done by Rain Concepts/Petroccione, P.E. They were presented in a series of plans and documents dated 10/28/19, with final and revised updates dated 12/15/19. The Board finds these to be adequate and consistent with Town Code and New York State DEC applicable regulations in that,
a. They ensured no negative impact on areas downslope of the site due to stormwater runoff, providing zero net increase in the peak rate of runoff for each of 1, 10 and 100 year design storms.
b. They provided water quality treatment methods consistent with the NYS DEC Stormwater Management Design Manual.
84. The Board notes there will be three rip-rap outlets from the stormwater retention and bio-remediation areas. Two of these are at the southwest section of the disturbance and one at the northeast. These outlets will direct water from the impermeable surfaces to the wetlands. Care must be taken to be sure that during construction no sedimentation finds its way into the wetlands over and through these structures. Timing of construction and sedimentation controls are necessary.
85. The Board also notes that there is an existing man-made pond to the far northeast end of the property that will need to be protected from turbidity and run-off during construction since this pond feeds a brook that travels in a southeasterly fashion into the Mill Brook Creek. The latter then flows easterly in to the Rochester Creek, near Mill Hook, which in turn flows east to southeast into the Rondout Creek all of which are important water features in the Town of Rochester.
86. The Board finds that there will be land disturbance on the site contained only within 2.64 acres and not intruding into the wetlands. It finds that there will be no to small impact on these wetlands during construction and that the plans for temporary sedimentation control during build-out as contained in the site plans to be adequate.
87. It further finds that the permanent methods of controlling stormwater and sedimentation to be adequate and within applicable codes.
88. It further finds that the consultants for the applicant have prepared and delivered an adequate Maintenance Program and Review logs (contained in Appendix VIII of the document entitled SWPPP for Wayward Ranch Animal Sanctuary prepared 10/28/19 and Revised 12/15/19) to ensure that the SWPPP structures will be maintained properly.
89. Board further finds that the applicant will need to follow the maintenance program referred to above.
Fire Protection Findings
90. The parcel is located in the Accord Fire District. The existing access is compliant with existing regulations with noted changes to width and provision for two emergency vehicle turnouts.
91. In addition the appropriate building fire code compliance is a function of the approvals by the TOR CEO (Code Enforcement Officer).
92. The Board finds that the applicant is in compliance with matters pertaining to fire protection and access for fire and emergency services.
Whereas,
Draft findings were prepared by the Acting Chair and were read, discussed and amended in a public meeting of the Planning Board on 2/24/20.
Therefore,
The Planning Board adopts these statements as written findings of the Special Use and Site Plan proposal.
Adopted: April 13, 2020
Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Absent (Recused) 1 Abstentions: 1
Motion to adopt findings by: Mr Zurofsky
Second by: Mr. Williams
Recused: Chair Lindstrom
Abstained: Mr. Buchbinder
* * * *
Ulster County Planning Board
The application was referred to the Ulster County Planning Board pursuant to NYS GML §239 twice during the review of the application from Wayward Ranch. The first time was on 5/18/19 and the second was 11/27/19. The second referral was necessitated due to the additional and more complete information submitted in October/November 2019 including but not limited to detailed Noise Study, detailed Site Plans, and SWPPP Plan along with information regarding the Wetlands and studies pertaining to this.
Whereas, the Town of Rochester Planning Board submitted the application for review to the UCPB on 5/18/19 and,
Whereas, the UCPB reviewed the proposal and returned written comments on 6/5/19 stating Required Modifications as follows:
1. First Comment
Comment: While it is noted that the entrance road is being modified to expand from 18’ to 24’ in width, no materials have been received that the local fire district has reviewed the plans and verified they have adequate access to serve the property.
Required Modification: Local fire district review of the proposal to verify their ability to serve the facility should be completed as a condition of approval of the special permit and site plan.
Response: The Planning Board agrees with UCPB’s comment and modification and will make the ability of the fire district to serve the facility a condition of approval.
2. Second Comment
Comment: Regarding Health Department approval.
Required Modification: Review and approval of the proposed wastewater facilities and proposed well by the Ulster County Health Department will be required as a condition of both site plan and special use permit approval.
Response: The Planning Board agrees with UCPB’s comment and required modification and will make the review of the wastewater facilities and proposed well by the Ulster County Health Department a condition of both site plan and special use permit approval.
3. Third Comment
Comment: Lighting fixture cut sheets have been provided for review and it appears the applicant will use, as consistent with Ulster County Planning Board policy, full cut-off, and glare-shielded fixtures. However, details regarding the placement and overall lighting levels do not appear to have been provided for review.
Required Modification: Lighting levels will need to be calculated for the plan with levels not to exceed the Illuminating Engineering Society (IES) Outdoor Site/International Dark Sky Association (IDSA) Area Recommended Illuminance Levels as per the attached sheets for your information
Response: The Planning Board agrees with the required Modification and in subsequent submittals to the Board and to UCPB, an entire lighting level plan was provided in Site Plans.
Whereas, the Town of Rochester Planning Board submitted the application for a second review by providing added materials to the UCPB on 11/27/19 and,
Whereas, the UCPB reviewed the additional material provided and returned written comments on 12/4/19 stating Required Modifications as follows:
1. First Comment:
Comment: ‘Our other previous concerns (in first submittal) have been since addressed’
Response: We acknowledge this note from UCPB.
2. Second Comment:
Comment: Review and approval of the proposed wastewater facilities and proposed well by the Ulster County health Department will be required as a condition of both site plan and special permit approval.
Response: Approval by Health Department of both wastewater facilities and proposed well by Ulster County Health Department will be a condition of approval for both Site Plan and Special Use Exception.
UCPB Required Modifications accepted and adopted April 13, 2020 by the following vote:
Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Absent (Recused) 1 Abstentions: 1
Motion by, Mr. Williams
Second by, Mr. Pinsky
Recused: Chair Lindstrom
Abstained: Mr. Buchbinder
* * * *
RESOLVED,
Pursuant to the standards of Town of Rochester code §140, Zoning, the Town of Rochester Planning Board has reviewed the application presented and grants Special Use–Conditional Approval to Wayward Farms Animal Sanctuary (applicant) and CWC Loosestrife, LLC (Owner) permitting the new use of ‘Animal Sanctuary’, for the lands situate at 30 Loosestrife Lane, Kerhonkson, NY known as S/B/L 76.1-2-2.111, and located in the ‘AR-3’ zoning districts, subject to the conditions expressed below:
The Town of Rochester Planning Board grants Site Plan–Conditional Approval to, Wayward Farms Animal Sanctuary (applicant) and CWC Loosestrife, LLC (Owner) permitting the new use ‘Kennel’, for the lands situated at 30 Loosestrife Lane , Kerhonkson, NY, known as S/B/L 76.1-2-2.111, and located in the ‘AR-3’ zoning districts, subject to the conditions expressed below:
These conditions apply to both uses except if noted otherwise.
Conditions of the Approval:
1 Any and all fees due to the Town of Rochester involving this SPA and SUP application shall be paid in full prior to the Acting Chair’s signature on the Site and SUP Plans
2 All Local, County, State, and Federal Laws or Codes shall be complied with for the current or future use of these lands.
3 Any deviation from or amending of the approved and signed Site Plan and Special Use Permit shall require resubmission to the Planning Board, except as may be permitted as determined by the Code Enforcement Officer.
4 Any and all other agencies’ permits or approvals which are currently required or any which may be determined in the future to be required in conjunction with the construction and/or operation of this use shall be secured or renewed as applicable. Should any conditions imposed by other agency permits cause conditions to be in conflict, the more restrictive condition shall prevail.
5 Should any permit approvals necessitate a change to the approved Site Plan or Special Use Permit, the matter shall be referred to the Planning Board for consideration.
6 Project will follow the prohibition against the commercial sale, trade or barter of the animals from Wayward Ranch, as contained in the Town’s definition of Animal Sanctuary in §140-4 whether under the Kennel or Animal Sanctuary Use. Animals can only be adopted. No ‘sales fee’ for animals shall be charged or accepted which is consistent with Town’s definition of Animal Sanctuary in §140-4.A a voluntary adoption fee may or may not transpire between the parties.
7 Access by the public (defined here as non-volunteers and non-employees) for purposes of the Animal Sanctuary is only by means of and under the aegis of a structured educational visitor program. The project will follow its own structured educational program as defined in a letter dated 7/1/19 and 7/5/19 where the applicant defines Volunteer Program and Property Visitor Tours.
8 Project shall not exceed the number of cars as permitted by the number of parking spaces allowed by code and noted on the Site Plan.
9 Project will adhere to all applicable provision of Town Code §140-17, Parking, Loading, Access and Traffic Standards as shown on revised Site Plan of 1/9/20. Further,
a. Provide emergency turn-offs on their road as indicated on the revised site plan dated 1/9/20.
b. There will be no parking on the existing paved road that leads from Loosestrife Lane to the existing cul-de-sac; nor on the ‘to be widened’ road that leads to the parking area. Both are to be maintained in a fashion to allow for the ingress and egress of emergency vehicles. Appropriate ‘no parking’ signs and ‘fire emergency pull-off’ signs are to be posted along the length of both roads as noted on the Site Plan dated 1/9/20.
10 Project will adhere to the voluntary 100 foot buffer around the designated Wetlands as shown on the revised Site Plan of 1/9/20.
11 Project will protect the delineated Wetlands by all the means enumerated in the SWPPP, including but not limited to,
a. Construction of two stormwater Drainage and Pollution Control Pocket Ponds/Dry Ponds in addition to one area known as a Bio-Retention Area along with Gravel Diaphragms as shown on the Grading and Drainage Plan by Rain Concepts/John Petroccione, P.C. dated 12/15/19, and the site plan of 1/9/20.
b. Construction of three rip-rap outlet structures from these ponds to the wetlands to ensure proper maintenance of Wetland viability and sustainability.
c. Maintenance of all the Stormwater Drainage and Pollution Control Structures in a manner consistent with the Site Plans and the Maintenance Plan provided in the SWPPP ensuring no pollution from stormwater during and after construction and to ensure that the wetlands receive the same amount of water flow after construction as before as indicated in the SWPPP documentation.
12 Project will be guided by the Town Code §140-15, Landscaping Standards, and will adhere to the planned landscape plan, LP-101, of 12/30/19 showing landscaping as well as the Grading and Drainage Plan by Rain Concepts/John Petroccione, P.C. dated 12/15/19 which includes some items not detailed in LP101, namely those plantings in and around the Stormwater Facilities. Both of these plans include but are not limited to,
a. General plantings around the kennel facility on all sides.
b. Specific plantings to shield the 8 foot dog run fence on the south side of the kennel so as to soften the view from Boice Mill Road to the south.
c. Specific plantings around the proposed parking area, increasing the number of Arborvitaes’ from 5 to 8.
d. Specific plantings provided in the two proposed Retention Basins as well as any required by the plan in the dry pond and bioremediation area using plants approved by the NYSDEC for these kind of structures.
13 Project agrees that they will adhere to the Town of Rochester Zoning Code §140-20 General Commercial and Industrial Standards at all times, specifically:
a. §140-20(A) Building Design
i. Match the exterior colors of the new Kennel building to that of the existing barn structure.
ii. Follow the rendered floor plan and building elevations of the proposed Kennel, indicating proposed materials and colors dated 11/25/19.
b. §140-20 (F) Noise.
i. Construct an 8 foot barrier fence around the dog runs along with a 2 foot cantilever top portion, and further insulate the inside of the 8 foot section of this fence with acoustic material in a fashion provided for in the sound study conducted by Paul Carpenter Associates and dated 7/25/19.
ii. Limit the outdoor time in the outdoor runs for dogs to a total of 6 hours. Hours will be 9 AM to 12 PM and 2 PM to 5 PM.
iii. Ensure that the kennel building is constructed with the design considerations implemented as detailed in applicants’ memo of 1/21/20 and construction building plans.
iv. Ensure that the project employs various methods detailed in the memo of 1/21/20 to minimize the dogs’ motivation to bark.
v. The applicant will have a maximum number of 20 dogs in the Kennel at any one point in time along with a maximum of 10 cats and 10 small animals. There will be no more than 10 adult dogs in the Dog Runs, 5 dogs in the Cohabitation area, and 5 puppies in the Puppy Room.
c. Project will adhere to all elements §140-20(H) Lighting as well as §140-22 Signage, including but not limited to,
i. Lighting shall be installed as per the specifications indicated on the Site Plan dated 1/9/20 and shall be compliant with §140-20(H) at all times.
ii. In particular light emissions will ‘….be shielded and focused downward to prevent glare and spillover of light onto adjoining properties’.
iii. Outdoor lighting affixed to buildings will similarly comply with applicable standards in Town Code.
iv. Wayfaring and restricted area signage will be provided as per the amended and updated site plans of 1/9/20. Particular attention will be taken around restricted signage around the water retention and treatment facilities/ponds.
14 Project will adhere to all elements of Town Code §140-20 (J) and §140-22 Stormwater Management including but not limited to,
i. Applicant will implement all of the requirements and measures detailed in the Stormwater Pollution Plan Report and Stormwater Pollution Site Plans prepared by Rain Concepts/Petroccione, P.E. dated 10/28/19 and revised 12/15/19.
ii. The Applicant will file a quarterly report with the TOR CEO attesting that all maintenance required has been done to all of the Stormwater Protection Structures, Facilities and Ponds. Said Maintenance Program Report and Logs are detailed in Appendix VIII of the plan presented by Rain Concepts/Petroccione, P.E. Entitled ‘SWPPP for Wayward Ranch Animal Sanctuary’ prepared 10/28/19 and Revised 12/15/19) to ensure that the SWPPP structures will be maintained properly.
15 Water Supply and Septic
a. The Board conditions final approval on receipt of appropriate approvals from Ulster Board of Health for both Water and Septic as additionally requested by UCPB in their two responses to TOR PB dated 6/5/19 and 12/4/19.
16 Project will adhere to Animal and General Waste Removal conditions. These are detailed in the projects’ plan on Animal Waste Handling dated 7/1/19:
a. General Garbage, as well as animal waste from Small Animals, such as hamsters, rabbits and guinea pigs; waste from Dogs and Pigs will be bagged daily, placed in dumpster which will be emptied weekly by the waste disposal company or when full, whichever comes first.
b. Waste from Horses and Goats will be handle by a manure removal company. A manure box will be provided, and it will be emptied every three months or sooner if full and carted to a composting site by an outside firm to be used as fertilizer. Existing compost pile is being removed in its entirety.
c. Dog Runs will be washed as required, and the water waste will be handled by the facility septic system.
d. The existing animal Waste pile must be removed from the site in its entirety prior to the issuance of Building Permits.
17 Safety
a. Project further agrees that as a condition of approval that they will adhere to all elements of the safety plan presented in a letter of 11/1/19 by Eleni Calomiris. Board notes that this plan has the notation by the Ulster County ASPCA that such plan is acceptable.
18 Revise the plans to address the remaining comments of the Planning Board’s Consulting Engineer, CPL, as follows:
a. Create a coordinated plan set by adding a plan list to sheet SP-101 listing all Sasaki & Spade site plan sheets (SP-101 to SP-103; and LP-101); all Rain Concepts Stormwater plan sheets (SW 101-104); and Sasaki & Spade Architectural drawings (A-1 A-4). All plan sheets in the coordinated plan set must have the same revision date.
b. Provide a detail for the proposed ramp noted on SP 103 by the handicap spaces and add a label to clarify that the proposed walk is concrete.
c. Revise the architectural plans to indicate the specific colors and materials of the proposed kennel building as stated in the January 14, 2020 response letter, top of page 2.
d. Add the construction sequencing text from section VIII of the SWPPP (Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan) as construction sequence notation on engineering plan sheet SW-101.
e. Correspondence from OPRHP per Part I.F.8 of the General Permit shall be included within the SWPPP.
f. On engineering plan sheet SW-101, revise the labeling and pointers to an item, which appears to be a gravel diaphragm, where the proposed roof drains are shown to discharge.
g. Revise engineering plan sheet SW-101 to include a note referring to the landscape plan sheet, LP-101, for “recommended native plant species for retention basin”.
h. Revised engineering plan sheet SW-101A, to specify how the portion of the existing gravel road to be removed will be reclaimed after the gravel is removed. Native grass and flowering perennial species are recommended to be consistent with nearby grass areas.
i. Revise landscaping plan sheet LP-101 to specify for the bioretention area and dry pond to indicate required plant spacing.
19 Applicant will ensure that all appropriate notations are contained on construction site plans to enable the CEO to appropriately review and certify that all conditions of approval are met.
The Town of Rochester Planning Board further grants the authority to the Acting Chair to certify that the above condition(s) have been completed without further resolution and to sign and date the plat at such time.
EFFECT of APPROVAL:
1. This Special Use and Site Plan approval and associated conditions shall be binding upon the applicant and all successive owners of the land so long as such use(s) shall occur.
2. This approval shall remain effective as an authorization to secure the required permits and establish the use(s) for a maximum of one year from this date of approval unless the applicant shall have submitted written request and the Planning Board shall have adopted such resolution granting an extension and provided the applicant has submitted proof of having diligently pursued the implementation of the plans.
Draft resolution was prepared by the Acting Chair and was read, discussed and amended by the Planning Board in public meeting of 2/24/20.
Adopted by the following vote on April 13th, 2020:
Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Absent (Recused) 1 Abstentions: 1
Motion made by, Mr. Williams
Seconded by, Mr. Zurofsky
Recused: Chair Lindstrom
Abstained: Mr. Buchbinder
Mr. Jones explained the items that needed to be on the final sets of site plans.
The Board had no further discussion.
ADJOURNMENT:
Mr. Pinsky made the motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:15pm. Mr. Zurofsky seconded the motion.
All in Favor. Motion Carried.
6 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent, 0 abstentions, 1 recused.
Respectfully Submitted,
Brianna Tetro, Secretary
Adopted and Accepted, May 11th, 2020