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

MEETING MINUTES OF May 13th,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 Cindy Graham
Member Rick Jones
Member Zachary Jarvis
Member Ann Marie Maloney
Member Zorian Pinsky
Member Peter Nelson
Alternate Halina Duda

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

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/ PUBLIC HEARING DESCRIPTION: The applicant proposes a site plan approval of the former Anderson Feed mill, and the use of an already approved EEO site for the use of a restaurant, café, co-working space, etc.

Chair Grasso introduced the application as well as current updates to the application, also addressed the difference in hours of operation from EEO approval versus the hours of operation proposed to the planning board. Chair Grasso opened the public hearing.

Jay Martin- “Music until 9pm or 11pm is unacceptable, I would like to see no amplified music, I am inches from where this will take place. I am concerned of lighting; will trees be planted to create a sound and noise barrier? I am against this; it will be a carnival in my back yard. I am also concerned about my water supply and wastewater; this was previously referred to as a quarry. We should not be worried about the rail trail due to the short distance that is on the property. I hope you will consider this and the amplified noise that this will have.”

David Stoltz- “I am for this project, 18 new jobs will be created, if you look at the history of this property their used to always be loud noise there. This will give people many opportunities.”

Alana Blum- “ The rehab and adaptive re-use of the forlorn, historically significant structures on the Granary property is a compelling venture. However, this board must take into consideration the community surrounding this unprecedented and hugely impactful project. The Hamlet is a small, mixed use zone, with residences interwoven with commercial and municipal properties that ALL operate with non-hospitality business hours. So far, your consideration for emergency egress and potential light pollution impacts has been helpful and appreciated. However, the tax-paying residents of the Hamlet will be negatively affected by the proposed amplified music inclusion of the application. Our quality of life, and subsequent property values, will be directly, adversely impacted. The allowance of outdoor amplified music perpetuates the poor precedent set by other venues in other parts of the town, and this is in your control to mitigate. There is a reason this is a recurring theme in applications before this board, and it is not simply because our town has yet to institute a noise ordinance. The Comprehensive Plan, is “intended to ensure the Town of Rochester has policies in place so that the property rights of landowners and the community are protected by a balanced set of standards that preserve the rights to use land as desired and address the impacts of such development on adjacent landowners and their property rights. In theory the proposed project conforms with the Town Comp Plan objective of promoting tourism, however, the comprehensive plan contains many other critically important objectives including: (Plan Element Economic Development: pg 18) Ensuring that existing tourism enterprises are able to operate in a manner that minimizes conflicts with other existing land uses in Town AND (Plan element Community Character Page 20) (The objective to) Prevent intrusion of incompatible uses in residential areas. For starters, with the EEOD zone change legislation for the Granary project, the waffling on lead agency and oversight notwithstanding, this board should not assume that further adjustments cannot and should not be made. Local Law 10 of 2023, amending the zoning map for this EEO states in item # 8f on page 21 that “the planning board may impose more restrictive conditions in accordance with 140-20(F)(1) of the Town Zoning code”. And according to section 140-20, the Planning board can “reasonably limit the hours of operation to attenuate or mitigate any potential noise impacts of any proposed use.” So, what is reasonable? While the town code section 140 states that up to 10 db increase above ambient is permissible, it should be noted that the DEC outlines 5-10 decibel increase to be “intrusive”. To impose this increase 12x per year as SUP’s typically allow in order to facilitate commercial events is one thing. To ask residents to endure this increase as much as 365 days a year for the duration of hours of operation, which may be as much as a 12–14-hour window based on the various complementary uses proposed, is not just unreasonable, it is egregious. The 10db above ambient model seems simple but is problematic because it appears to allow for exponential noise increases over time. Exponential is not an exaggeration here; it is fundamental calculus. You are setting a precedent for all existing commercial properties in the Hamlet, as well as any new ventures in the future. This is going to have a significant adverse impact on the residents of the Hamlet, and this cannot be ignored. In reviewing the site plan, this Board can and must clarify the conditions and restrictions imposed on this applicant, balancing the interests of the applicant and the community as a whole, and setting forth a procedure that is not only reasonable, but does not impose an undue or unworkable burden on the enforcement officer charged with insuring compliance.
1
The applicant is stating that the restaurant portion of the application will have hours of operation until 10 or 11 pm on any given night. Why would the outdoor amplified sound restrictions imposed on Crested Hen, whose events share the common objective of social congregation, convivial dining and drinking in a bucolic visual setting and also located in a Hamlet district, not be applicable here? Instead, outdoor amplified sound has the potential to impose on neighbors every day and evening of the year? There are 15 residential properties within 500 ft. of the lot line of this project and another 10 give or take. Lest anyone forget that a Hamlet may not only be an epicenter of commerce but is a mixed-use zone and the Hamlet of Accord in particular hosts twice as many residences than it does businesses. The reasonable ask here is that the Planning Board apply the same standard set forth for the Crested Hen Project and prohibit outdoor amplified noise for business operations. Most importantly, for nearly all applications that have come before this board in the recent past the onus of sound regulation has been placed on the applicant. Self-regulation presents a glaring conflict of interest. The fox in charge of the henhouse as they say. The code enforcement office is understaffed, and ensuring compliance on the part of the applicant is no less important than this Board imposing reasonable conditions and restrictions in approving the application. Accordingly, I respectfully request that a condition of approval be that members of the Planning Board shall be timely notified of, permitted, and authorized to witness and monitor all baseline ambient decibel readings relating to this project, including amplified bass and percussion. This is not an unreasonable request, given that the precedent has been set in previous applications. This is the best way to assure the community that these metrics are accurate, and that the process is reliable, consistent, and trustworthy.
Development and commercial activity of any kind naturally generates noise. The emergence of more such activity will inevitably lead to higher ambient noise levels over time as described. It can be and is often argued that noise generated by commercial activity is a price worth paying for the benefits that come along with economic growth. However, there are limits to that argument especially when said business operations can be accommodated unimpeded indoors without infringing on the nearest neighbors. Dining al-fresco without amplified music can and will generate plenty of business especially in a setting as spatially unique as the Granary.
That said, the approval of this project and the consideration of further restraints or conditions on the development are meant to be a decision based on application data, facts and code and the protection of the community affected, not just the financial interests or constraints of the applicant or other parties with vested interests. So, we would like to close with this:
No outdoor amplified sound. Commerce can still be sustained. Hospitality can still be hospitable, in fact more so, because the development would be hospitable to patrons and residential neighbors alike while being compliant with the Town Comprehensive Plan. Be a good neighbor and the surrounding neighborhood, in which you are situated, will be more welcoming. The operation and the enjoyment of guests should not be at the expense of the quality of life and amenity of those that already reside here. Your responsibility as a board is not solely to the applicant: it is to the residents before you now, who seek protections for our lifestyles, property values, and our rights to quiet enjoyment of our homes.”

David Roberts- “I am in support of the redevelopment of the site known as The Granary. However, I am concerned that the scope of the project far exceeds the size and character of the site, and about the negative impact on the immediate homeowners as well as the greater community. My comments are not intended to be directed at the applicant per se, but at the need for restrictions to be placed on the forever use of this site. I have reviewed the applicant’s updated Master Plan and there have been some improvements. The original application included elements that were dangerous and sub- standard, for example the proposed parking on Towpath and the Loading area off Granite Rd. The scope has also been reduced because the site is not large enough to accommodate the proposed uses and supporting amenities. These improvements have been as a result of public comments and the community involvement at the Town Board meetings. It is for this reason that it is so important that the Planning Board further consider the public comments and review all aspects of the site plan so that the project can further benefit from public input. 1) The applicant’s land use attorney, Mike Moriello, in his letter to the Planning Board dated 4/23/24 appears to suggest that the details of the project that have been discussed during the EEOD assessment by the Town Board should not be evaluated further by the Planning Board. However, this would deny the Planning Board the ability to do their job as required by the Town Code. The Planning Board still has to do its job, and what is clear in the Town Code is if the Planning Board deems there to be a substantial change to the application (Town Code sections 140 – 18.1 (A)(6), (D) & (F)), the matter needs to be referred back to the Town Board as the Lead Agency. This procedure was confirmed by the Town Supervisor in Public Hearings during the EEOD evaluation process. Furthermore, the Planning Board’s specific skills and knowledge is a necessary part of the review which is separate and supplementary to the Town Board’s process. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the Planning Board to do a full and thorough review of this project. 2) The use “Events” is listed on the Applicant’s drawings and should be struck for the following reason: “Events” is not a use under the Town Code. Listing Events as a use will allow an opening for the operator/ owner in the future to utilize the facility as an events space, which is not an intended use allowable under the EEOD. The Town Board explicitly stated that events are not allowed under the EEOD and a separate application would be required for that use. The Square Footage chart submitted by the applicant describes Events as including “weddings, reunions, retreats, etc.” This terminology should be struck from the applicant’s submitted documentation. 3) The proposed lease agreement for the use of 6 public carparking spaces places a burden on the Town to maintain the entire parking lot to a higher standard than it has ever been maintained, thereby requiring the Town of Rochester taxpayers subsidize the private developers’ car spaces that they did not want to build on their own land – and the proposed consideration offered to the Town is nominal, being a mere $100.00 annually with a 25% annual increase. There is sufficient space for the 6 car spaces on the development site. It needs to be asked – should the TOR taxpayers have to foot the bill for upgrading and maintaining the entire municipal parking lot to a standard set by the applicants, just because the applicant does not want to allocate the required additional space within their project or pay for 6 car spaces on their own or someone else’s land? 4) New information has been provided by the Applicant which constitutes a substantial change. This additional information, setting out the square footage for each use, confirms the need for a three-fold increase in the parking requirement for the Restaurant/ Bar/ Café use. On this issue, and as I explain below, I refer you to my first and second comments above, which are all intertwined – (Town Code sections 140-18.1 (A)(6), (D) & (F)). The over-development of this small site is exemplified by the inadequate parking proposed to support all the uses. This new information demands the scrutiny of the Planning Board because it increases the amount of parking required by the Restaurant, Bar and Café uses from 25 to 78 as calculated in compliance with the Town of Rochester Code.
This information was not available to the Town Board as part of their review for the EEOD. Furthermore, it is clearly within the Planning Board’s purview to review proposed uses and square footage at this stage of the Applicant’s process. Normally the Planning Board may review Schematic Designs outlining preliminary floorplans to ensure that the development is as described. The Applicant previously asserted that the areas for each of the uses was unknown so as to provide an alternative, much reduced, calculation for restaurant car spaces. This calculation did not take into account the café and bar uses or for staff car-parking. By the TOR Code the 3,914SF area requires 78 car parking spaces. The net result of inadequate parking associated with this development will be increased traffic congestion within and outside the site as well as illegal parking alongside Towpath and County Rd 27. All this within 100 yards of the existing Fire House. 5) The Site Plan does not show the utilities (in particular, existing wells and septic
systems) on adjacent parcels as required by the TOR Code Section 140-
18.1(B)(2)(f)(3)(g) Economic Enterprise Overlay District. State regulations require there be a 200′ separation between adjacent Septic Tank and Leach Fields and wells used for Food Service Establishments. What is the applicant’s strategy for supplying water/septic to the project given this existing condition? The Septic Tank and Leach Field at 18 Towpath Rd is less than 140 feet from the development’s well. The Septic Tank and Leach Field at 12 Towpath Rd is less than 150 feet from the development’s well. 6) The Town Board explicitly determined that the Planning Board should make decisions with regard to noise. There is a fundamental problem with the way noise is regulated by the TOR Code. There is no baseline, but instead a mechanism whereby the noise by adjacent uses can exponentially increase the allowable amount of noise. For Example: One use can increase an areas ambient noise by 10dB, an adjacent use adds 10dB to that established baseline and so on. We have a clear precedent in the Town relating to the generation of amplified music immediately adjacent to a Hamlet. In the case of the Crested Hen it was determined that it was to the benefit, health and wellbeing of the greater community that there be no outside amplified noise allowed at any time. This precedent in the Hamlet of Alligerville should apply to the Hamlet of Accord. The restriction was placed on the Crested Hen even though it would be only 12 times a year. As it stands, the Town would be allowing amplified noise 365 days a year. Thank you for your consideration of these issues. The development will have a significant and lasting impact on the Hamlet. The buildings on this site are handsome, and historically significant to our Town. The site demands a sympathetic and restrained treatment in its proposed re-use. The purpose of my writing is to highlight issues that have not yet been addressed by the Applicant and the Planning Board and to ensure that the interests of everyone in the community are considered.”

Rebecca Brainard- “This is an opportunity for this board to protect the uniqueness of this area, and for this applicant to come up with solutions to respect the neighbors, the wildlife, to hire locally. Cars effect areas, the traffic, the parking, cars idling outside of the business, this is going to be a big issue that is going to impact our beautiful area. I ask that any project brought before you all, it is your responsibility to come up with creative solutions that respect all of these different things I just mentioned.”

Hudson Brainard- “I am the co-owner of 42 Granite Road, which is adjacent to the proposed Granary development. I began living at 42 Granite Road in 1973, 51 years ago, when I was a child.
Because my property is adjacent to the proposed development, I am very concerned about how it will impact my family and my land, especially regarding utility plans and noise. If The Town rushes the Planning of this development-if concerns related to wastewater, traffic and parking, and noise, are not addressed with the appropriate precautions-then my family and my property may be negatively impacted. As an immediate neighbor, I am especially concerned about noise.
When public hearings were held by the Town Board a year ago, some residents expressed support while others expressed concerns, and some expressed mixed views. Responses were diverse. However, those who expressed support overwhelmingly recognized the validity of the concerns voiced by residents with adjacent properties. This neighborliness really stood out to me at those meetings. Everyone-regardless of the side they took on the Granary Proposal-recognized that a project on this scale, and at this location in the Hamlet, with this number of immediate neighbors-had the potential to be very disruptive to adjacent neighbors. Speakers who supported the Granary Proposal made it their point to say that safeguarding immediate neighbors was of the utmost importance. The Town should not lose sight of this. Nobody should be thrown under the bus. And—a year ago—that meant proceeding with conditions and safeguards in place to provide guarantees to the immediate neighbors. That should translate, today, into protections against these concerns, including noise. The current noise code is not sustainable or viable. A quick analysis indicates that background noise could increase by 10 decibels at adjacent property lines without a code violation. Another source of noise in the near future could then legally produce noise 10 decibels louder than the new background level without a code violation. The result of these 2 changes would be an increase of 20 decibels, which is 100 times louder than the original background level because the decibel scale is logarithmic. Neighbors immediately adjacent of the Granary Proposal need something real in the department of a noise code that will protect them from what could well be chronic noise disruption. I urge the Planning Board today to go back to the spirit of empathy and good neighborliness that animated this room a year ago, and act in the spirit of those good town values to protect me and my immediate neighbors.”

Anthony Crook- “My family and I live at 15 Granite Rd, Accord, the “Old Creamery.” We are the closest neighbors to the proposed Granary project in Accord. We’ve lived in the house since January 2015 and share it with our two young children. In general, we are in support of the Granary project and excited and inspired by the applicants’ plans. They have assembled a great team, and we feel the applicants have been considerate and thoughtful in their approach.
Any concerns that we have are more related to those who may own the property in the future.
We have 3 main concerns that I was hoping to share: 1. Request by the planning board for a public access easement on strip of land between our and our neighbor (Marsha Gibney)’s property The creamery (our home) was built on the O&W rail line. The line ran directly down the side of our building until the line was abandoned in 1957. The trains would pull up and load directly from the building; the gap between the building (our home) and the abandoned line is about 15 feet, and this forms the edge of our property line. I’m attaching a PDF (PDF “15 granite rd accord V2”) containing photographs that demonstrate where the property line is in relation to our home. Marina, my wife, is standing on the site of the old line. We have windows that run along this side of the building, looking into our living room, kitchen, and kids’ rooms. The suggestion of turning the abandoned line into a public footpath, has been a huge anxiety to us. Over the last 2 years, we have had many discussions and site visits with the town board, as well as the applicants and their architects. The ex-town supervisor, Mike Baden, as well as the new supervisor, Erin Enouen, have both visited, and both drew the same conclusion–that the damage done and loss of privacy to us would be such that an alternative should be found.
One option would be to run it along Granite Road (for which we would grant an easement along our property). This is the reason that the town board wrote the following resolution into the EEOD document-found on page 15 in DOC050224 (attached): Page Consideration of a Petition Requesting Economic Enterprise Overlay zoning designation “80 The Town Board finds the O&W Rail bed lies on this property, however, the Town Board is not seeking to continue the rail trail through this parcel at this time and notes any future consideration of such would require amendment to the Site Plan. The current Town Board is exploring options along Granite Road with Ulster County. The Town Board further notes the applicant is not proposing a continuation of the trail through this property with this application.” This is also one of the reasons that the applicant does not want to grant the easement and what they instructed their attorney to push back on the request of the planning board. Attached letter from the applicants’ attorney, Mike Morrielo, addressing this in 20240423 Memorandum in Consideration of April 9, 2024 (1)
Lastly, a petition was created and signed by 94 town residents, where a list of concerns were outlined, including the rail trail-found in PDF “Granary Petition 20230702_FINAL_signed marked up”: “A proposed new bike trail and public footpath disrupts the existing amenity of adjoining residential properties when a less disruptive alternative has been identified.” The results of many conversations and site visits have resulted in: the town board, the applicant, as well as the town residents all aligning on the subject of the rail trail location. 1/3
Another important and practical concern, in order to access the old rail line, it would require crossing Granite Road on a bend with very little line of sight. This is a county road and it would require adding a stop sign and changing the speed limit, even with this, it would feel very dangerous. We are huge fans of the rail trail system and the work that OSI does. We want to see and help connect the line, as we appreciate all the benefits that come with it. But not at the expense of ruining a family home, especially when there are viable and less disruptive alternatives available. I hope you understand our concern when now seeing an easement being requested from the applicant. 2. Septic The current application plans do not indicate the location of our well. We are concerned that our well has not been considered fully in the wastewater plans. Attaching the applicant’s plans amended by us showing where our well is in RED.
Our well is very close to 100 feet ( could be less) from their proposed leach field and it may also be downgraded from this field. Also between our well and the proposed leach field is the old O&W Canal, this old canal fills with three feet of water after heavy rain, where it will remain for days. NY state dept of health department requires: No component of any sewage system shall be constructed within 100 feet of a well, spring, reservoir, brook or mash or any other permeant body of water. When system is located in coarse gravel or upgrade and in general drain path to a well, that system should be at least 200 feet from well. In light of this we would like further reassurances that their system meets the NY state dept of health requirements. 3. Noise
At the town board workshop meeting October 12, 2024, Supervisor Baden said in discussion that the board would limit the hours of outdoor amplified music to up to 10pm on Fri and Saturdays and 9pm on Sunday through Thursday. This is what we understood to be the condition that was voted on and approved regarding outdoor amplified noise in the EEO zone change. The town debated this for nearly 1 hour, and these hours were indicated numerous times before they voted on it. We are now seeing outdoor amplified music will cease by 11:00 pm on the weekends (Friday through Sunday) and by 10:00 pm on weekdays Monday through Thursday. We have 2 small children who go to bed at 8pm, amplified noise at this time would have a huge impact on them and our quality of life. The guidelines for the EEO are quite clear In determining whether to approve the application for an EEO District, the Town Board shall consider whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to the nearby properties will be created by the creation of a district on the property The town board was observing this when they made these noise conditions, and we hope the planning board does also. Regarding noise and mitigation we would greatly appreciate sound barrier fencing and evergreen trees to help limit the noise impact on us.”

Karen Pardini- “The concern of music, this was an issue in Woodstock years ago, the solution to this was done by discussion, there are areas of low and high ground, low ground areas would be better for playing music in if surrounded by trees or covered by a canopy this can lower the sound issue. Lighting could be mitigated and there are options for less light pollution. This isn’t going to be 365 days a year, people aren’t going to be sitting outside in the winter. The quarry stopped being blasted due to rocks going through people’s homes and cars. This project is worthy of our support.”

Mike Fink- “I think this project is going to increase the value of our properties if done correctly. DEC wanted to open the quarry back up. I would rather have this project than the quarry.”

Bill Dagher- “Sound and light pollution is a decrease on our property values. This will change the precedent in the town for years to come. We are excited if this is done correctly.”

Jill Bressk- “Concerned about parking and lighting. We are excited for this project if done correctly. We are fearful due to the impact Arrowwood had on the community. We want this to happen with consideration to sound and lighting.”

Katie Naplatarski- “I am in support of this project. I am concerned about noise, no outside musk is allowed in NYC, people still enjoy outdoor cafes and restaurants without the outdoor music. Outdoor music may get people to drink longer which can create more concerns. Most people like a heavy base with their music which can carry very far. The town needs to create better enforcement for projects like this.”

Chair Grasso read the comments that were emailed in. Mr. Pinsky said the board should do a site visit. Mr. Nelson asked if the DOH knows about the distance of the septic and the neighbors well. Chair Grasso stated that the requirement of the board is to see the properties septic and wells not neighboring properties. Ms. Moloney stated that she doesn’t believe they need to have amplified outdoor music, please take your neighbors comments into consideration. Mr. Jarvis stated he is also concerned about the proximity of neighboring wells to the septic, as well as the noise, this was proposed to the board as low background music. Mr. Jones stated the town board was responsible for the EEO and SEQRA. In the EEO there were several notices of determination that were turned into requirements, their were no proposals of amplified noise at that time, the hours of operation approved by the town board have to be followed, our planner needs to review to give us advise, the difference of square footage between proposals needs to be addressed. Chair Grasso stated that the applicant is not proposing commercial events. Member Jones asked where the music is going to be played, how is the applicant going to mitigate the impact on the neighbors, we don’t want to make that decision for you if we don’t have to, we have no control over the previously done noise study that was handled by the town board, we also need to look into the location of the septic in relation to the neighbors well.

Member Jones made a motion to override UCPB required modification for rail trail access with the condition of approval for the applicant to be open to discussion with the town. Member Jarvis 2nd the motion. Roll call vote, Chair Grasso yes, member Jones yes, member Jarvis yes, member Moloney yes, member Pinsky yes, member Nelson yes.

Application # PB 2024-06 Applicant/Owner: Giordani/Bennett Type: Minor SBD Representative: Bill Eggers, Medenbach & Eggers PC Zoning: R-5 Property Location: 1832 Samsonville Rd SBL: 60.1-2-18.111 SEQRA: Undecided Status: Continued Application/ PUBLIC HEARING DESCRIPTION: The applicant proposes a 2-lot subdivision of 56.69 acres where zoning requirements have been met.

Chair Grasso introduced the application. Member Pinsky asked why there is no parcel address on the map. Chair Grasso asked if there was anyone in attendance for the public hearing. Their was no one in attendance.

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

The board went through SEQRA EAF pt2.

Member Jones made a motion to type SEQRA as a negative declaration. Member Jarvis 2nd the motion. Roll call vote, Chair Grasso yes, member Jones yes, member Jarvis yes, member Moloney yes, member Pinsky yes, member Nelson yes.

Chair Grasso read the draft resolution.

Member Joned made a motion to approve the resolution with the correction of DOH septic permit. Member Jarvis 2nd motion. All in favor 6 yes, 0 no, 0 abstain.

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

Ms. Carney went over the application and additional map changes as well as new provided information. The board agreed that they need to schedule a site visit to view the proposed driveway location, septic locations, well locations, and wetland locations. Mr. Church went over DEC concerns with Ms. Carney. Chair Grasso mentioned that the board needs a SWPPP. Ms. Carney said a basic SWPPP will be provided when it is time. Mr. Pinsky stated the wetland buffer is not shown on the map. Ms. Carney stated that DEC wetlands are shown, and Army core of engineers is not required to be shown. Chair Grasso set ESCROW for $5,000.

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

Chair Grasso went over the application.

Member Moloney made a motion to set public hearing for next meeting. Member Nelson 2nd motion. All in favor, 6 yes, 0 no, 0 abstain.

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

Chair Grasso went over the application as well as the public hearing waiver request. Member Pinsky made a motion to accept the public hearing waiver. Member Jarvis 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: NEW 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

The applicant went over the application and their proposal. Member Jarvis disclosed that his real estate company is handling the sale however he is not financially benefiting from this sale. Mr. Church went over his findings with the applicant. Member Pinsky is concerned about traffic on Mettacahonts, there would be 3 gas stations within 3.6 miles, and require 3 electric vehicle charging stations. Member Moloney stated the church has an active preschool, the traffic for the bus garage, the storage facility, the community, the campground, all of this traffic creates concern on Mettacahonts for emergency access, does not think this will be safe, the gas fumes going into the pre school is also concerning. Member Nelson stated he agrees with member Moloney, It is already hard to get a fire truck onto or off of mettachonts, this intersection has caused many accidents already. Chair Grasso stated the applicant should meet with DOT and bring back their findings, need for CPL review of traffic study, AP overlay district, burying the tanks in the ground isn’t a good idea. The applicant advised the board on the mitigation procedures for leaks in tanks.

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: NEW APPLICATION DESCRIPTION: The applicant proposes Agricultural Retal Sales at their existing farm located off Lucas Tpke.

Chair Grasso went over the application and information provided. The applicant explained what they already do as well as what they are proposing. Mr. Church went over his review with the applicant.

OTHER MATTERS:
– Annual Training Hours Requirement

– Executive Session Meeting with Attorney and Town Planner
Chair Grasso made a motion to enter into executive session to discuss current litigation or discussions regarding matters of personnel at 9:59 pm.
The board exited executive session at 10:29 pm.

Member Jarvis made a motion to cancel May workshop meeting. Member Moloney 2nd the motion. All in favor 6 yes, 0 no, 0 abstain.

ACTION ON MINUTES:

– Approval of April 8th, 2024, Meeting Minutes
Member Jarvis made a motion to approve minutes. Member Moloney 2nd the motion. All in favor, 5 yes, 0 no, Member Pinsky abstain.

ADJOURNMENT:

Member Moloney made a motion to adjourn at 10:30 pm. Member Nelson 2nd motion. All in favor 6 yes, 0 no, 0 abstain.

Respectfully submitted,
Jazmyne Wilhelm,
Secretary