The Town of Rochester Town Board held a public hearing on proposed local law # ___-2023: Economic Enterprise Overlay Zoning District on May 24, 2023, at 6:00pm at the Harold Lipton Community Center, 15 Tobacco Road Accord, NY 12404.
PRESENT:
Councilwoman Erin Enouen Councilman Adam Paddock
Councilwoman Charlotte Smiseth Town Supervisor Michael Baden
Deputy Town Clerk Christina Ferrara Town Attorney Marylou Christiana

ABSENT:
Councilman Michael Coleman Town Clerk Kathleen Gundberg

Supervisor Baden called the public hearing to order and led in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
The public hearing is convened on the matter of request by Accord LLC for consideration of inclusion of 5 parcels in the Economic Enterprise Overlay zoning district, pursuant to Town of Rochester Code §140-18.1.
The parcels are identified as SBL 77.9-1-25, 77.9-1-27, 77.9-1-28, 77.9-1-29, and 77.9-1-31 and are located at 2 Towpath Road, 4 Towpath Road, 8 Towpath Road, and Granite Road and are located in the Hamlet (H) zoning district.

PUBLIC COMMENT:
Susan Shaw- I live in Accord, but not in this area. I don’t think I’d be happy about this proposal; I couldn’t find information on this zoning addition on Town of Rochester website and would like to understand it.
Lindsey Arnold- Want to add my support, I’m a lifelong resident; I think it’s important for Accord to have a more economic base for local people to work here and to enjoy having a restaurant in the area besides one other place. I see this as a positive and would love to see this move forward.
Max Grieshaber –First off, I cannot find all the information I’d like to; I am very active and involved in civil rights, The historic overlay used to have a provision that said you cannot utilize overlays to discriminate against people. The State took that regulation out of historic overlays in the last three years. This overlay does not include that verbiage. I don’t like this economic overlay unless it has verbiage to protect citizens rights and civil rights.
Brinton Baker – I’m excited about having these old buildings renovated. I’d like to be sure the local people aren’t impacted adversely in their day-to-day activities, like water and sewage. Change is always hard; these kinds of things are happening all over the country every day. There is excitement of the new renovation of these historic buildings which I think is exciting for most people, then there are concerns all the details of mitigating and potential harmful kind of things.
Chase Brock – I’ve lived on Raycliff Dr since 2010, since 2017 I’ve been one of the co-owners of the former Accord Depot. I want to speak briefly and broadly in favor of this project. Since living here I’ve always felt like Main St is a place that needs culture and life and the idea that there’s something that’s so visionary in terms of how to repurpose beautiful old buildings. Across the street we’ve brought artists to the community of about 250 visual and performing artists over the last three years as well as 100 families on vacation. So, if you have a restaurant that is just steps away is really thrilling. There would be a durational aspect of it where people would spend time on main street in a civic community way rather than just passing by, there would be a reason to stay on Main St. and that feels exciting to us.
David Stoltz – I reside on Main St, I am a 60-year resident, Henry Rich is a very good neighbor, a scholar, and a gentleman. I am all for this project.
Bob Anderberg – Resident for 45 years, I am in favor of the inclusion of 2,4, and 8 Towpath and Granite Road in the Economic Enterprise Overlay and I encourage the town board, do such. I think the applicants that presented a thoughtful and innovative project that will be a substantial asset to the history of Accord, with feed mills, the canal bed, and O & W railbed. This project honors, and is built on, its history. View this project in conjunction with the proposed renovation of the O&W rail corridor all the way from Kingston down to Port Jervis which is 57 miles about 80% of which is already in public ownership. Open Space Institute opens bids for a 1.3-million-dollar renovation of the inspection rail bed from Accord to Kerhonkson. With the railbed rebuilt and renovated, it will be a huge draw to Accord and Kerhonkson. This project sort of bookends the history of the rail trail. I hope once the overlay district is adopted, this project gets carefully examined.
Ila Gupta – I read about the Hamlet designation of these properties, everything that seemed to be placed into this area with whatever development has to be done; seems to be allowed under the Hamlet designation, so what is it about the EEO that will change things? Seems like Accord will turn into more of tourist designation rather than having It grow organically with the locals, for the locals, developing business out here. I’m excited to see development as long as it’s done in an organic and sustainable way is most important.
Alex Umen – A resident for 20 years and one of the owners of Starlite Motel, we are so excited about this project and can’t wait for it to happen. The intentions and thoughtfulness of Henry, Renn, the architects and everyone are incredible. We are excited to have another restaurant to go to and have another location just to hang out at. I am on the housing board I am tuned into Workforce housing and hope that Henry and Renn consider adding more to the property.
Adriana Farmiga – I wanted to thank the community for coming together. I think this a great example of how we all care for Main St. I see the project offering local employment and improvement of infrastructure, I think it’s important to have a community gathering space. I grew up in Kerhonkson and as a business owner, I’m looking forward to seeing revitalization happen.
Anthony Crook-My family and I live at the old Creamery. I am also speaking on behalf of Marsha Gibney. We are both direct neighbors to the Granary. Overall, we are not against the development of the Granary. We feel change is both natural and important to hamlets like ours. However, we do have concerns regarding the current application. We want to ensure the Town Board in consulting with the planning board, imposes conditions on any zoning amendment, and any subsequent site plan approval to ensure that the project is designed to meet the requirements for an EEO, as laid out by the town, Chapter 140. Zoning. Article IV. General supplementary regulations. 140-18.1. And it is not in line with the comprehensive plan.
Chapter 140. Zoning. Article IV. General supplementary regulations. 140-18.1
In determining whether to approve the application for an EEO District, the Town Board shall consider the public health and welfare of the surrounding area, together with following criteria, and the intent and objectives of this section: 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. We want to ensure that any eventual EEO provides protection to the existing residents of the hamlet, and to us their direct neighbors – As its currently laid it out could result in significant impacts in the following way: The current application states “A redevelopment of rail trail connectivity as a pedestrian easement on the site. ” The Accord Creamery was built directly next to the O&W rail line in approximately 1920. The Creamery has been a single-family home since 2001 and has been our full-time home since 2015. Items would have been passed by hand from the Creamery to the train. The line would be approximately 18 feet from our home. All our living spaces now face the direction of the old rail line. Installing a public footpath directly next to, and running the entire length of, our home would ruin our home and would be devastating to us. The line was abandoned in 1957. Since then, the Creamery has been many things; now it is our home, and we are raising a family in it. We want to make sure that this area is permanently preserved to provide some buffer between our and Ms. Gibney’s home, which are both directly adjacent to the former rail line.
Permanent protection of this rail line area plus the inclusion of appropriate screening and adding fencing around the Granary would help address any impact. We ask that the EEO not be granted until the application meets these important requirements regarding the “detriment to nearby properties”. The abandoned rail line and D+H canal lives a in 60-foot-wide strip of land between the creamery and Ms. Gibney’s home. Tax code 77.9-1-31 The guidelines in the EEO application states that narrow lots, or lots too irregular in shape will not be granted EEO. We would like a permanent preservation of this buffer between these two residential tax lots, a restrictive covenant agreement that protects us and future generations from intrusion. I also note that due to the location of this strip in relation to the bend in that portion of Granite Road, installing a trail in this location would result in a dangerous crossing.
Chapter 140. Zoning. Article IV. General supplementary regulations. 140-18.1District size limitations
No land shall be designated for an EEO if in the opinion of the Town Board it is too small, too narrow in width, too irregular in shape or with topography too excessive to be planned and developed in a manner consistent with the purpose and objectives of the EEO. The Town Board may set lot size requirements to assure that the proposed development is in accord with the Town’s Comprehensive Plan and in concert with the character of the neighborhood. The “character of the neighborhood” is a sleepy village where people come for a quiet life and to raise families. It’s predominantly residential. The application is, as currently proposed, therefore not in “concert with the character of the neighborhood.” It must be revised prior to adoption of any zoning to include enforceable conditions as to preservation of the 60-foot strip as a permanent buffer, installation of vegetative screening and fencing to help mitigate noise and maximum occupancy standards, etc. The comprehensive plan talks about Comprehensive plan town of Rochester 2006
This 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, As the current application stands, it is clear what “the impacts of such development on adjacent landowners” could severely impact two existing family homes. If there is any doubt in this comment, I would like to invite anybody to come and stand in our kitchen, our sitting room, or our children’s room, and then try to say otherwise. As much are we are excited and inspired by the next chapter for Accord and feel that most the developers’ suggestions are appropriate and in good taste. The current application would degrade the residential nature of the hamlet for us, our neighbors, and the next generation of Accordians. We ask the town to consider the people and the families who cannot get in their cars and drive away from this development at night. We remind them that we have a comprehensive plan, and EEO requirements that are designed to protect us. We ask that the EEO should only be considered when the application meets the EEO requirements set by the town and described in the comprehensive plan.
Bethany Ides – The Language of the EEO is interesting and identical of Rosendale. I was struck by the law because the language, the law calling for development of well- configured public spaces dedicated to social interaction, recreation, the visual enjoyment of all residents and harmony with surrounding neighborhoods. In the 8 objectives enumerated as the purpose for the law there’s a special emphasis put on specific use. My real concern beyond those of my neighbors that live closer to the property in question is the lack of imagination of what civic mindedness really entails. I heard from the investors of a book shop or café and other kinds of actual civic meeting areas where people regardless of class background. I volunteer at the food pantry and in contact with people who are struggling from very real and increased food insecurities. So, as we’re thinking about development of a project where people are thinking of Accord as comfort and vacation and relaxation other residents are struggling more and more. I just want to think more creatively and promises about what kind of civics phases that people from all different class and cultural backgrounds and what can be offered in this project. The kind of jobs being offered don’t strike me as a meaningful job opportunity. As I see more hospitality in this plan I see higher turnover, high stress service oriented. I would like to see job opportunities that are solidly, promising, social interactions that are meaningful cross-cultural divides.
Sally Roy- Development in this Town is exciting and this would be a nice addition to the Town. I drive down in the evenings to the market and I think that’s nice, it’s beautiful and a nice addition to the Town. What is encouraging for me that it isn’t that facelift corporation that is coming into town and make something in this town. It’s Henry, he’s been in our town and already made an investment in our Town. For years I have just driven straight through. The excitement used to be snowflakes at Christmas. It’s not a corporation it’s Henry. There were a lot of concerns about parking, the fire department and all kinds of things and it’s been virtually nothing, no big scandals. The people that live adjacent to it completely understand and I hope that in the process of development that everybody will take their concern to the Company and the people involved and work something out and the Town and zoning department can help mediate those concerns amicable workable situations, things morph, and things change as the project develops. Kerhonkson has a bar and store, and it has transformed that hamlet and created an opportunity for a place for people to go. Historically this town has always been a vacation spot. 400 people would come in on a Friday night by train and stay at the bungalow colonies. It’s great to live here but people come and go, and people see the beauty of this Town and maybe they’ll become residents. I’ve seen in the last 10 years an explosion of young families here and I find that thrilling. I’m excited about this project I know that it will change, I know it will become different things I think everybody should voice their concerns to the Town Board it’s going to be your responsibility and our responsibility to hold you to account to make sure this works for everybody.
Katie Naplatarski: I am an Accord resident, living on Towpath Road just beyond Stony Kill Road, a short walk into town and not far from the proposed site. In my opinion, in order for 5 parcels of Accord LLC to be included into the Economic Enterprise zoning district, the following binding conditions should be part of the rezoning agreement: No outdoor music or amplified sound allowed at any time. Residents live right nearby the property. There should be no disturbance of the current peace and silence that residents now have. Sound carries. Along with peeping frogs, drumbeats are not preferred, by me, or other residents no doubt, ever. If the size of the Economic Enterprise district is expanded to accommodate this project, the size expansion should not include an expansion of outdoor music or amplified sound. This includes a ban on concerts and other event which include music. There could be the rare exception, voted on by the TOR, for a whole town Community Day or History Event etc. Retain all old, mature trees. There are a number of beautiful, large old trees next to and between property buildings. These trees should be kept unless proven to TOR that they are not viable. Parking lots should not be blacktop. They should be gravel/permeable for less run off into sewers and waterways, and attractiveness. Parking should have a screen of greenery and/or trees to camouflage it from road and make it more attractive, especially any parking abutting road. No light pollution at night. I would also like to make the following recommendations to Accord LLC: This project could be a place of belonging for all the wonderful people in and around Accord, making it a point to have pricing, food, entertainment, products and employment which reflect the diverse population—from “old-timers” to “newcomers”; artists, farmers, IT developers, contractors; old and young; local and visiting residents; various social, economic, cultural, racial and religious backgrounds. I don’t want another INNES (which has a feeling of exclusivity) in Accord, and I think many people feel the same. Explore the idea of having apprentices or interns in the bike shop or other business areas from the high school or other. Have a small indoor music, performance and cultural area for small, local music performances and other cultural events or exhibits. There are so many musicians and artists around! Partner with other local/Accord groups to have community events, fairs etc. on the grounds. Minimize traffic in whatever way possible. Retain the rustic, historic feel of granaries. Include historical artifacts and information on walls and or designated area; perhaps partner with the TOR Historical Society for this? Somewhere in the property, include a land acknowledgment; perhaps The Lenape Center could be consulted for this. Green infrastructure in whatever way possible. This has the potential to be an awesome project! With the right feel, products, services, pricing, community integration, it could be such a good and welcome addition to Accord, the larger local community and beyond.
Sue Bruck-I’ve lived on Main Street for the most part since 1974. it’s important to qualify that change should not be so overdone as to negatively affect the town not all change is good and practical issues are being overlooked I oppose The Granary project proposal as it stands for many reasons for the sake of time I’m going to limit it and many people have addressed something here that I would have included what we need on Main Street are businesses that fit their footprint this proposal does not fit in the business’s footprint and seeks to put unnecessary burdens on the town its residents and visitors for the sake of a few people making a profit what this town needs is more affordable housing long term what this project includes is more short-term exclusive housing absolutely something we do not need what negatively affects the town not all change is good and practical issues are being overlooked I oppose The Granary project proposal as it stands for many reasons for the sake of time I’m going to limit it and many people have addressed something here that I would have included what we need on Main Street are businesses that fit their footprint this proposal does not fit in the business’s footprint and seeks to put unnecessary burdens on the town its residents and visitors for the sake of a few people making a profit what this town needs is more affordable housing long term what this project includes is more short-term exclusive housing absolutely something we do not need what this town needs is safe traffic flow especially in direct proximity to our Firehouse with this proposal includes is a five-way stop the post office parking lot the apartment parking lot and three stop signs in a bottleneck our fire department’s ability to respond to an emergency is far more important than any business what this proposal suggests is sandwiching the fire department and post office to necessary entities in between two elective businesses creating traffic safety issues delays bad feelings and Chaos what this proposal includes is delivery trucks trying to make turns in what into what may be a crowded parking lot so they do what many of the delivery trucks do at the Accord market park on the sidewalk park in the street or Best Yet Park in compact car parking only what this proposal includes is inadequate parking plans for deliveries and guests this will create the same issues we’re already dealing with on Main Street customers and guests parking wherever it’s convenient for them on the side of the road across the street and the grass in the community center parking lot along Tobacco Road wherever considering the municipal lot as the answer to parking overflow is short-sighted as there are so many other potential places to park in between not legal not safe but they’re there and they will be taken advantage of there will be no one to remove cars that are blocking traffic or creating problems and the business owners won’t be bothered because it’s not on their property so it’s not their problem I would strongly advise any investor to reconsider using the town Municipal parking lots and their business models as the town constables aren’t allowed to patrol them and there are no security measures in place I am sure they consider their guest safety a priority and in lieu of unsecured parking they should be able to Monitor and provide secure parking for their guests on their property certain business owners have expressed that they are more than okay with using the fire department security cameras as if they were their own these same people have expressed that they rely on the fact that there are neighbors surrounding the parking lot providing security for them I cannot speak on behalf of the fire department but I can I cannot stress enough how much their business’s security is not my personal responsibility the town board has created a tone about parking that prohibits an enforcement of local law again putting the burden on the people affected not on the people who are acting inappropriately what this town needs is inviting an inclusive business that’s been unattainable to a variety of people what this proposal outlines is a contrived environment for the financially select shutting the rest of the public out leaving them to deal with the negative effects as they overflow into the town I’m asking that the town board reject The Granary Project’s current proposal the model needs to address with respect to the town all of the points of concerns brought forward if the business owners hope to have the support of the residence thank you.
Alex Benenson- I want to add this is an awesome project and a great new opportunity for the local residents of which I am one, I think that there’s a great opportunity here for this project and these investors to be involved in a poster child project for the economic overlay Zone and for a lot of the town to fully realize in a concrete way the mission set out by the development of this special law to Foster Economic Development through adaptive reuse while preserving historic buildings. These are the most historic buildings or some of them in Accord not only in town center. They were as you all know fellow residents who developed and maintained some of the most important businesses to early residents of this town. So I can’t think of a better opportunity with enthusiastic and experienced local investors to make this really the poster child for economic overlay zone which I know is a recent law but is one that was passed with the support of residents for projects that I think are very much in line with the character. I think it’s the opportunity for sustained public comment here is super important and that any project in town like Mr. Rich’s earlier development in the market take into account the local residence concerns and develop and adapt to those concerns and I think that that’s the power we vested in this board here to apply overlay zones like this with balancing the economic needs of the town for growth and job opportunities with the legitimate concerns of neighbors and the wider community. I just look forward to this project continuing to develop and becoming responsive to everything that’s been raised tonight and continuing to add to this community which I’m happy to call our home.
Guy Garcia- I am a 12-year resident close to stony kill road. With abandoned buildings being neglected Henry and his people brought life through this part of Accord There are a lot of different ideas as to what is ideal, and I couldn’t be more grateful. This is a positive thing. I don’t worry about the noise the firehouse sirens are noisy and sound like a WWII movie.
Resident- I would love to see life be brought back to this dead monstrosity. Music would be a wonderful addition maybe it can be limited. The Town doesn’t have a sound ordinance and we all have to listen to the raceway. Sometimes noise is not so bad. Go for it.
Hudson Roditi- I understood the main focus for tonight is the economic overlay. I still don’t understand exactly the procedure. And reading through the documents I couldn’t get a very tangible aspect of the proposal and the re-classification and with all of this being ok in the hamlet zone why are we changing it or is it not accepted in the hamlet zone.
Katie Naplatarski: – the Speedway has restrictions on days and times they can race and that is what I would like to see here because if there is no restriction, they can play music until 4 in the morning and that’s not the same as a siren going off occasionally.
Supervisor Baden explained the EEO
Written comments:
Alana Blum: To start please note the following commentary was drafted and based on the client presentation in April, with stated occupancies and uses in the documents submitted for that review. The supplementary documents that supersede the April review (the review meeting 12/21/22) were not available at the time of writing this letter. I am going abroad for a week later today and will not be able to update the cited numbers referenced below. I will also be unable to attend the public hearing so I submit this letter and hope it is considered ahead of any vote.
As a resident of the Hamlet of Accord of a property within 500ft of the application being considered I submit this letter of comment for your consideration on the proposed zoning change for the parcels identified as SBL 77.9-1-25, 77.9-1-27, 77.9-1-28, 77.9-1-29, and 77.9-1-31 and are located at 2 Towpath Road, 4 Towpath Road, 8 Towpath Road, and Granite Road within the Hamlet (H) zoning district.
The prospect of an adaptive re-use development at the location in question (aka The Granary) is exciting. The corresponding activation of this historic and otherwise forlorn property with its industrial building infrastructure, redolent of the town’s roots as a transportation hub and agricultural epicenter, does have potential to anchor community life in the hamlet. Rehabilitating this site with relevant cultural or commercial programs and activities would complement and bolster the limited amount of valued commerce already present along Main Street.
However, the town board should not be seduced by the developer’s proposals in this particular application and vote to approve a proposed Economic Enterprise Overlay District at the expense of the hamlet character, scale and the quality of experience and enjoyment for the adjacent residential neighbors as already outlined in the Town Comprehensive Plan.
“Since 1969, changes in technology have substantially changed the way almost every Town business operates. With the advent of the Internet, telecommuters who live in Rochester can work virtually anywhere, and the development of home businesses is on the rise. While these shifts in occupations and work patterns have occurred. Through all its changes and growth, the Town of Rochester has remained a community with great natural beauty a strong sense of history and a high quality of life. This updated comprehensive plan is built on the premise that these values must be maintained.
Scrutiny should be given to the project plans and intentions, not just those on record and submitted thus far but equally as important is the scrutiny of project plans being circulated amongst prospective investors and the impacts the actual development as proposed in those forums will have on the immediate community, usage patterns and scale. Any lack of transparency therein is problematic. Any development within the confines of “H” hamlet zoning district needs to be sustainable for the community and in reasonable and commensurate proportion to the existing fabric, character, and infrastructure of the hamlet. Growth upon the site in question can be accommodated without a zoning change. In fact, growth upon this site as proposed by this application, with regards to types of use, is already accommodated in the current “H” Hamlet zone. The development calls for a 75-seat restaurant and bar, 50-person office space, 18 guest rooms, a gallery, and a wellness barn. The proposed occupancy for these uses adds up to about 225 people on a site with unusual and tight boundaries, close adjacencies to neighboring residential properties as well as site specific geological and geographical constraints. The required infrastructure in relation to the site size and limitations is incompatible with the residential properties that comprise much of the hamlet district and the better part of the directly adjacent properties. To reiterate, granting the EEO zoning change is not necessary. The programs being proposed for the site under the current application are already allowed under the existing “Hamlet” zone at an appropriate scale as outlined in the Comprehensive Plan. If the Hamlet zone is not adequate for the proposed programming objectives with the proposed capacity the application should be adjusted and scaled down. Why should a site with such tight adjacencies be unnecessarily strained when the envisioned programs could all be accommodated if they were to be appropriately downsized?
There is ample opportunity to design to the code while rightly taking advantage of the SHPO subsidies available. This site is not buffered by tons of acreage and the proposed programs have infrastructure demands that will affect traffic, noise, and privacy for all those who already reside in the hamlet. For the reasons outlined below, citing
140-18.1 Economic Enterprise Overlay District Regulations in the town code [Added 6-7-2018 by L.L. No. 3-2018] it is my opinion that special dispensation on zoning should not be granted.
To begin, regarding application requirements. The EEO application requires the following (Section 2):
A description of the existing economic and land use opportunities for the property as currently zoned and/or developed.
Currently All the proposed programs by definition are permitted within the Hamlet district. Though not necessarily at the scale and capacity proposed in the application. There is a reason for that which should not be ignored.
B. An explanation of why and/or how currently permitted uses and/or regulations restrict the highest and best use of the property.
How does what is being proposed qualify as “best use” when there are 3 closely adjacent residences that are occupied on a year-round full-time basis.
(QA description of how the proposed project and land uses are in conformance with the Town of Rochester Comprehensive Plan;
“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.

A description of how the proposed project and land uses are compatible with adjacent existing land uses and those reasonably anticipated in the future;
How is the combined 225-person capacity for 4-5 different commercial functions compatible with the adjacent residential properties? Are residential dwellings or full-time Workforce housing being provided in this development? Is there intention to eventually absorb the adjacent properties to expand the development in the future? Is there intention to use this facility as an indoor or outdoor event venue with regularly scheduled events? This would be categorically incompatible with the intention of the Comprehensive Plan.
There is a severe housing deficit in the Town of Rochester. That there is no workforce (or other full time rental) housing being provided (per the 12/21 presentation) by a development that will effectively remove 2 dwellings from the town housing stock that were previously inhabited before the acquisition of the lots is very troubling. Full-time workforce housing replacing the units that previously existed at 8 & 4 Towpath roads respectively should be a stipulation for passage of an EEOD at the very least.
Regarding the submitted current site plans in the application: the following criteria have not been included (Section 3):
F. The approximate location and outline of existing structures both on the parcel and within 100 feet of the property line;
G. The location of any existing storm or sanitary sewers, culverts, water lines, hydrants, catch basins, manholes and other visible infrastructure as well as other utilities within or adjacent to the parcel;
The lack of inclusion of the above application criteria (f,g) alone warrants a delay in vote and extension of public hearing.
Additionally, per Section Oof the EEO District outline: “In determining whether to approve the application for an EEO District, the Town Board shall consider the public health and welfare of the surrounding area, together with following criteria, and the intent and objectives of this section:” as follows:
a. 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;
If the EEO district is approved and applied there is great potential for the nearby residential properties to be adversely impacted by noise, traffic and light pollution that will result from the increased occupancy that will be permitted in the new zone. Approval should be contingent on agreed upon buffer measures being stipulated in writing for the zoning change, including passing of a town noise ordinance.
b. Whether the site is located in an area suitable for the proposed elimination of nonconformity or readaptation of buildings and site development so as to be reasonably free of objectionable conditions such as odors, noise, dust, air and light pollution, traffic volumes beyond the capacity of the existing road systems or proposed road improvements, and other environmental constraints;
As a resident of Scenic road- a small artillery road that bypasses Main Street and which is habitually used for local vehicular traffic I have deep concerns about the added volume of vehicular traffic that will inevitably be absorbed by Scenic Rd. Currently this small road is utilized by and subjected to drivers in a rush speeding to get to 209, this particular pattern will be augmented with the added traffic that will be generated by the proposed programming and capacity of the development in this proposal. The road is small with 2 blind bends at either end and we already have issues with drivers taking the bends at too high of a speed. Pedestrians, bicyclists and dog walkers use the road as a scenic, quiet and shady bypass to get to the Town Park or just enjoy a walk around the block, the added traffic volume will compromise the safety and accessibility the road currently offers these hamlet inhabitants and visitors. Additionally higher volume of traffic turning left onto Main Street at the intersection of Scenic Rd. near the creek bridge headed toward the 209 junction will cause a hazardous intersection with traffic turning onto Main St. from 209.
With regards to existing traffic along Granite Rd., the speed limit should be lowered and the transition from the 50 MPH limit should be pushed further SW giving drivers more time to slow down as they approach the Granite/ Scenic & Main street intersections regardless of the form this development ends up taking. The development aims to promote the usage of the rail trail and serve as a nexus of sorts for this type of tourism and local use. The added pedestrian and bicycle traffic will need to be mitigated with said commuter traffic. This will be an issue whether the EEO is granted or not.
A more comprehensive traffic study by an independent authority that encompasses the entire stretch of Main Street and Scenic Rd. needs to be performed.
How are deliveries going to be handled for all the use programs being proposed at the proposed scale? Freight routes and arrival times of vendor and distributor deliveries cannot be controlled or dictated by recipients of those deliveries. This is a fact. Has consideration been given to the volume and frequency of deliveries that the site will need to accommodate and the correlated impact on traffic. These are all factors that affect the “character” of the hamlet.
Additionally, per section H subsection 2: (Q Required off-street parking spaces shall be determined by the Town Board with consideration of recommendations made by the Planning Board and in general conformance with S 140-17.
There is woefully inadequate parking accommodation being proposed for the intended occupancy at peak capacity for this project. Offhand it appears that +/- 130 parking spots would be required per code and only +/- 40 are being provided. If a driving motivation for the EEOD is to be able to by-pass the Town Code parking recommendations this should be seriously reconsidered. Patrons will park where they want even if parking spaces provided are at full capacity with no measures currently in place to deter roadside or otherwise unauthorized parking or enforce the parking regulations already in place. Will employees of the development be deputized to issue parking tickets? Will the proprietors of development be aggressive about enforcing parking?
Furthermore, wayfinding to the actual Municipal lot at the north end of Main Street (vs. the false “public” lot directly behind the Fire station, which people still don’t fully grasp) as well as the one dedicated to the Harold Lipton Community Center/municipal office building remains inadequate. Lighting and pedestrian safety standards are not established to a degree that encourages and facilitates the % mile walk to the development site from the actual municipal lot where authorized off-site parking could be accommodated.
Why should the Town of Rochester’s taxpayers carry the burden of upgrading the municipal lot and pathways to it in order for a private for-profit enterprise to have their regular overflow traffic accommodated there when more parking could be accommodated on the acreage in question if the occupancies were lowered?
The Parking count as proposed is predicated on the goal of staying under 0.9-acre disturbance in order to avoid the cost of a SWPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan), a construction best practice required by the DEP, seeing that the Rondout creek is within 500 Ft. of the project, these warrants downsizing the program scale to be commensurate with the parking that development is aiming for. Not burdening the infrastructure of the town in order to bypass environmental best practices.
In conclusion, the current application for a zone change to an EEOD contradicts the objective of the Comprehensive Plan. The adaptive rehabilitation of these historically significant structures is indeed a compelling venture that could invigorate the Hamlet to a certain extent, and I would personally welcome the incorporation of commercial programs that are thoughtful, inclusive, accessible and community minded that would comply will the current zone district of those lots but not at the outsized scale of the mixed-use development of this application. I believe it’s incumbent on the board to honor the Comprehensive Plan’s objectives and vote NO on granting the EEO change.
David Roberts: I am writing to comment on the above proposal and the application for a change of zoning to an Economic Enterprise Overlay District. I am delighted to see these buildings, that are part of the built fabric and history of our Hamlet, be repurposed in a way that might be enjoyed by all.
However, I do have grave concerns about the scale of the proposal and the negative impact that it will have on the adjacent residential areas and the Hamlet as a whole. The overdevelopment of the site is exemplified by the fact that the program is unable to fit on the available land. The carparking required by the Town Code is not satisfied. As of writing this letter the updated occupancy estimates are not available but based upon the April 2022 occupancies and areas, I calculate the required parking to be over 100 cars. The development provides 44.
The development requires the use of the Municipal Lot which by my calculation holds about 60 cars. (90′ x 200′ lot, 3 rows of 20 cars with one-way circulation). This appears to create an undue demand from one entity in the town.
There is no space for a turn-around on the site for large delivery trucks which will park on the Granite Rd or Towpath. That the scope of proposed development is out of scale with the site and the Hamlet is further evidenced by the following:
The corner of Granite and Towpath is designated as an entry for delivery vehicles, disabled parking as well as an intersection for bicycle and (2) pedestrian crossings. An increase in Main Street traffic by 67% as estimated by the Applicant’s own engineer,
Total Daily Trips up by 522 from the existing 771 to a total of 1293. Refer to Traffic
Generation Memorandum dated March 1, 2023.
The above Data provided by the engineer, Brinnier and Larios, did not take into account increased traffic on Scenic Rd, especially the resulting increase at the Main St/ Scenic Rd intersection which is already dangerous.
The lack of parking on the site will increase the above traffic estimate as patrons will attempt parking in the Granary lot, turn-around and park in Municipal parking or park on the road. I’d refer the board to Ollie’s in High Falls, a terrific local restaurant, where the result is tremendous congestion and a negative impact on the adjacent homeowners. The proposed car parking area does not support the code-required parking space size of
10’x20′ spaces but relies on a reduced 9’x18′ size as a special dispensation.
The development places an estimated 225 people on the site. (Latest occupancy numbers are not available at this time so I’m working with an adjusted figure from the April ’22 document). This number should be compared to the number of people doing business in the town on a normal Saturday. I’m guessing it might max. out at about 24. A couple people in the Pottery, 4 at the Post Office, 14 in the Market and 4 in Charlie’s antique store. By this estimate that would represent a 900% increase in the amount of people. It’s hard to argue that this is in keeping with the character of the Hamlet as described in the Comprehensive Plan.
The estimated increase in people and vehicles is being proposed in a development which is bounded on three sides by low-density residential areas.
The very large increase in population will affect the amenity of the surrounding residences with its increase in noise from the facility, associated traffic noise and light pollution.
I’m concerned about the creation of an EEOD and the Town Board becoming the lead agency. I think this requires more discussion and information before this decision can be made. In the discussions to date there has been readiness to dispense with current regulations and Town Code requirements in favor of the development instead of representing the interests of the community as a whole. Examples of this are:
In the 12.2122 presentation to the Town Board, the applicant’s engineer stated that the reduction in the number of parking spaces was in order to avoid initiating a SWPPP (Stormwater Pollution Protection Plan). The Town Board was prepared to make concessions regarding the size and number of parking spaces to assist the developer in avoiding a SWPPP.
The Board is supporting the use of the Municipal lot to make up for the parking that the
Applicant does not want to provide on the site — thereby transferring the cost from the Applicant to the Town of Rochester taxpayers.
In the presentations to the Board there was no discussion regarding the impact to the adjacent residential areas. This development is surrounded by residences on all sides. The Board appears willing to waive a requirement for a comprehensive traffic study on advisement from the Applicant’s engineer that the increased traffic does not seem to be significant. As noted above, the Data provided by Brinnier and Larios does describe a significant increase and does not account for pedestrian and bicycle traffic. Why would the Board not want to best understand the impact on traffic in order to serve the interests of the community and taxpayers? I think it is important to have a traffic study done by an independent consultant or the DOT.
While I appreciate and support the Town’s desire to encourage business development, it is also imperative that the Board members represent the interests of all who live here. It is not the Town’s job to waive requirements so that the development disturbance is less than one acre. Instead, if by following the Town Code the scale of the development triggers environmental oversight then that needs to be implemented for the benefit of the entire community. This is especially so considering the development’s close proximity to the Rondout Creek.
Thank you for considering my letter and concerns. This development will have a substantial and lasting impact on the Hamlet and it is incumbent upon all of us to ensure that the right decisions are made to benefit our entire community
Michael Moss: This letter is in response to the call for comment on Accord LLC’s request for consideration of inclusion of 5 land parcels in the Economic Enterprise Overlay zoning district, pursuant to Town of Rochester Code l40-18.1. The land parcels in question, SBL 77.9-1-25, 77.9-1-27, 77.9-1-28, 77.9-1-29, and 77.9-1-31 are located at 2 Towpath Road, 4 Towpath Road, 8 Towpath Road, and Granite Road and currently have a zoning district of “Hamlet”- “H”.
My wife and I bought our home in Kerhonkson last year, a permanent place to call home and retire in when the time comes. We made this move in no small part due to our love for the charm and character of the area. We would hate to see that character change for the worse. We both appreciate the difficulty of properly managing growth and curating a healthy community. Thank you for taking on this difficult and often thankless task.
There are a multitude of concerns related to change in the zoning districts and a strong likelihood of considerable negative impact for residents of Accord and the surrounding community. Some of these include:
This decision would result in a Limited Liability Company having ownership and control rather than individual residents; that would constitute a monopoly, reducing the effectiveness of the representation for individual residents. The community/people of Accord will have their ability to determine what occurs in the Town severely diminished if this plan is approved.
More often than not LLC’s lack any kind of commitment to a community. Financial interests, unsustainable growth and shielding their owners from liability for negative effects on a community are often the only goals of these legal entities.
The decision would permit larger businesses/hotel like structures that rely on visiting populations rather than encouraging a longer-term residential community. The success of a venture that is outsized for the community in which it resides, and thus dependent on visiting populations, is by no means assured. The only thing worse than having a successful business that dominates a small community is an empty site, abandoned and a blight on an otherwise charming historic district. Route 209 is littered with empty shells of large concerns that took a bet on a temporary uptick in popularity in an area and failed. Each one a call for caution in growth and preservation of the area’s character.
Visiting populations and industry necessarily generate increases in noise, pollution (light, traffic, etc.) and activity levels in the area; increased congestion along Scenic Road and Granite Road, on roads leading to Main Street, Accord. Increased congestion and activity generate strain on existing public (Town/ community) systems that were designed for the need of local residents. The ongoing lack of affordable housing in this residential community and surrounding area is widely acknowledged as an established problem. This project will in all likelihood further exacerbate the lack of housing, adding hardship for local and long-time residents.
There is the risk of increased property taxes that could be unaffordable for local and longer-term residents of the area. This risk is felt most among vulnerable demographics like the elderly who are often on a fixed income. Recent changes in inflation will only accelerate that issue.
These proposed changes impact land parcels in a designated Historic District of Accord and would permanently affect the Town. The existing Hamlet zone allows for development in a manner that is healthy and reasonable for the Accord community.
No significant change of this type should be considered unless the nature and scale of the project, the tax implications as well as other quality-of-life impacts for the residents of Accord and the surrounding area, are fully disclosed and well understood by the community and their representatives. This kind of disclosure to the public should happen before a public comment period or vote is held.
Therefore, it is my hope that the Town Board of the Town of Rochester vote against the change of land use for land parcels SBL 77.9-1-25, 77.9-1-27, 77.9-1-28, 77.9-1-29, and 77.9-1-31 and retain its current land use zoning district to “H” designated for Hamlet. The “H” designation already provides for development that is at an appropriate scale for the Accord and surrounding community.
Rene Schnider: I am writing to share my concerns regarding the application by Accord LLC for a proposed zoning change for the parcels identified as SBL 77.9-1-25, 779-1-27, 77.9-1-28, 77.9-1-29, and 77.9-1-31 located at 2 Towpath Road, 4 Towpath Road, 8 Towpath Road, and Granite Road within the Hamlet (H) zoning district. I believe that the buildings and properties identified above are integral to the history of the Hamlet of Accord; to envision them being restored, renovated and repurposed our community to enjoy would be a welcome change. I am, however, extremely concerned about the scale of the proposal and the negative impact that it will have on the adjacent low-density residential areas – which bounds the proposed development on three sides — as well as the Hamlet as a whole. One of my greatest concerns is the issue of substantially increased traffic volume without an adequate infrastructure to accommodate it. Any development within the confines of the Hamlet zoning district must be sustainable for the community and commensurate to the existing infrastructure of the Hamlet. It is my understanding that the programs being proposed for the site, as per the application, with regards to types of use, are already accommodated in the current Hamlet zone at an appropriate scale as outlined in the Comprehensive Plan, therefore a zoning change would not be necessary. Rather than change the zoning from the existing Hamlet zone to an Economic Enterprise Overlay (EEO) District, efforts should instead be made to adjust the proposal and scale it back appropriately to meet the requirements of the Hamlet zone.
As a long-time resident with property that is adjacent to Granite Rd and which fronts Scenic Rd, I have grave concerns as they relate to Section (8) of the EEO District outline: “In determining whether to approve the application for an EEO District, the Town Board shall consider the public health and the welfare of the surrounding area, together with following criteria, and the intent and objectives of this section:” as follows: 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; (b) V4%ether the site is located in an area suitable for the proposed elimination of nonconformity or readaptation of buildings and site development so as to be reasonably free of objectionable conditions such as odors, noise, dust, air and light pollution, traffic volumes beyond the capacity of the existing road systems or proposed road improvements, and other environmental constraints.
Although I have numerous concerns and reservations about this proposed change, I would like to specifically address the issue of traffic volume beyond the capacity of the existing road systems. Scenic Rd is a small, two-way, unmarked road which is best suited for one-way traffic only. This road is used to bypass Main Street, has a dangerous blind curve as well as sight reduction at the intersection from Scenic Rd turning left onto Main Street heading towards Route 209. We already have far too many instances of cars going too fast, missing the curve, losing control of their cars, and crashing into our fence. This traffic is dangerous not only for the homeowners on Scenic Rd, but also to the pedestrians (some with baby strollers), bicyclists and dog walkers who frequent this tree-lined road to get from Main Street to the Town Park and the Rail Trail. The danger that this road currently presents will be exacerbated exp6nentially with the added traffic from the proposed site development. If Scenic Rd cannot safely support the current traffic and traffic pattern (two-way road), it most certainly cannot support additional traffic volume.
Per the Traffic Generation Memorandum dated March 1, 2023, the Applicant’s engineer, Brinnier and Larios, estimated an increase in Main Street traffic by 67%. They did not address the traffic on Scenic Rd which would increase substantially as well, Before any decisions are made to dispense with the current Hamlet zone in order to move the development proposal forward, it is prudent that a comprehensive traffic study be done by an independent contractor.
I thank you in advance for representing the interests of the community and appreciate your consideration of the concerns raised in this letter.
Hannah Roditi: We are writing to express several concerns about the petition by Accord LLC to change the zoning district of the above referenced parcels to make way for their Accord Granary Project. Until and unless these concerns are addressed, we are adamantly opposed to the approval of the change in land use being approved and this project.
1 . Inordinate expansion of monopolistic ownership of key properties within the central town area of Accord by a single person. Accord LLC owns homes along main street, which have been turned into rentals. Rental housing is helpful to a town if it is affordable to local residents. It is also important for existing local residents that many properties be owner-occupied. It is highly disturbing that Accord center is turning into an opportunity for a single person to make money off turning the town into a playground for those with money who don’t have a long-term commitment to local, long-time residents. As a result, affordable housing, both for homeownership and rental, is increasingly unavailable for long-time local residents and graduates of local schools.
la. Related to this point, given Accord LLC’s outsize existing role in reducing homeownership in the town, no homes should be removed that are owner-occupied. Every owner-occupied home in this town is precious for the health of the town. So I am adamantly opposed to any plans for the xx property that is owner-occupied.
2.Outsize ownership by one individual also presents the specter of outside control over town hall decisions about the future of the town. Town government must protect against this by avoiding the concentration of ownership. This project would put an even more significant percent of central town property in the hands of Accord LLC.
2a. An example of the risk of this kind of outsize influence is a possible future proposal for a bar in town that we understand is a next step. There are many good reasons for declining to allow a bar in this town. Such a proposal should be considered on its merits by the whole community. A concentration of power raises the specter of inordinate influence in future decisions like this one.
Those of us who have lived for generations in this town, do not want it “cutified” and “touristified” with cute signs “harkening back to the good old days” for the benefit of tourist commercial ventures. This would amount to living with a commercialized tourist town 24/7 and would change the authentic and genuine sense of the town of Accord. These signs in essence would present a 24/7 reminder of the inequities in income and privilege reflected in commercial ventures catering to the weekend and holiday needs of wealthy New Yorkers. While there may be some commercial ventures that do indeed cater to these needs, we should not allow the way the town presents itself at every view to reflect and reinforce and remind us of this. Instead, ventures should be practically invisible to local residents. If indeed, Accord as a town decides to honor its past, then we would propose to honor its original people – who were native Americans of the Delawares or Lenni-Lenape tribe.
One of the very few benefits of development might be good-paying jobs with benefits for local residents. How many jobs will be assured? Will wages be living wages, and at what rate? What healthcare and other benefits will be provided? What commitments will be made to hiring people with a history of living in the community and local graduates?
The above are very significant concerns that I believe should lead the town to decline this proposal. In terms of the details of the proposal, there are also a number of flaws, including for example:
1 . lack of solar energy plans to ensure a low carbon footprint;
2. lack of plans for green area to minimize mowing and lawn;
3. lack of freely available community space for community needs;
4. lack of natural barrier to hide the development from Granite road;
5. lack of barrier plans to ensure minimal impact by additional road traffic on homes throughout the area.
Accord should not become Accord LLC’s “company town.” This proposal must be declined until these very significant issues are addressed.
Hudson Roditi: I am the co-owner of 42 Granite Road, which is adjacent to the proposed Granary development.
Accord has been my home for over 50 years and my family has lived in our home since 1975. My mother continues to live year-round, and my family and I are there every week. This will be my full time home soon. I first saw the granary buildings as a 7-year-old, while cross-country skiing on main street in 1973. I lived over the post office at the time. I believe some of the buildings were still functioning commercially at the time I moved to Accord in 1973. I am happy to see a proposal that would use these buildings in a way that prevents their demise and might offer enjoyment by all.
However, I am convinced the scale of this project is out of line with the town of Accord and its development plan, and I am deeply concerned about this. This plan over-develops the 7-acre site itself and is too large and disruptive for Accord.
There are important reasons changing the Zoning of this part of Accord to Overlay must be avoided. The existing Hamlet zone is a very good fit for Accord broadly. It allows for development at a scale that is healthy and appropriate for the Accord community. It should not be changed to any kind of overlay that allows land uses and developments that aren’t allowed by the existing hamlet zoning.
The hamlet zone as it exists allows for bed and breakfasts and other entrepreneurial activities that are sufficient to balance the town feeling of Accord with economic activity. The LLC will change that balance in a way that is dangerous for maintaining the town as we know it
Changing the Zone exposes the town to risk of development that is over-scaled and over-sized for Accord, and not of benefit to the long-time residents. The scale of the change proposed is out of line with this community and the interests of longtime residents.
Examples of the over-development of the site include:
The fact that the proposed project can’t fit on the land it has available. The parking required by Town Code is not met. I have analyzed the likely parking requirements which are in the range of one hundred, and the proposal only provides 44.

The municipal lot would compensate for the difference. Why would taxpayers be expected to make up the difference for an LLC? It’s unfair, The movement of cars between the Granary site and the municipal lot that this proposal will require will be detrimental to the town.

Traffic would be dramatically impacted. According to the Traffic Generation
Memorandum given on March 1, 2023, to the Town Board by Dennis Larios, there will be an increase in Main Street traffic from 771 to 1293 trips, an increase of 67%. Accord residents—once they become aware of this—will consider a 67% increase very significant. This is an unacceptable impact on the whole town! And it is being proposed by a single LLC entity. The Board must not make an irreversible mistake and allow a change in traffic that harms the town’s character.
As stated earlier, the proposed parking on the site is only 44 spaces, and the Board is allowing reduction of parking space size from regulation to 9×18 feet. Why? I’ve learned this is so the proposal can avoid a SWPPP (Stormwater Pollution Protection Plan). Why would Accord taxpayers, who pay for the municipal lot which would compensate for the proposal’s inadequate parking, and the Rondout Creek which is near the proposed site and could be impacted, be thrown under the bus and given inadequate protection in this way?
Other examples of the proposal’s over-development in this site include:
The enormous increases in the number of people that would be doing business in Accord, and using the proposed facilities, which is estimated 225 people. This would be a doubling, tripling, or more, of people compared to the current population and existing commercial activity. This would not be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for Accord, which it is the Town Board’s business to safeguard and support.
Furthermore, all these proposed dramatic increases in cars and people are proposed for a small piece of land that has adjacent residential properties on all sides, one of which is
The proposal ignores the neighbors and the impacts on the neighbors, My review of videos of past board meetings reveals that the LLC didn’t discuss the impact on the adjacent residences, which suggests a lack of attention to the neighbors—a major red flag to me given I would be an immediate neighbor.
The proposed rezoning would be spot zoning—make no mistake. And best practices and precedent in wise land use indicate spot zoning must be avoided by town planners in Rochester and elsewhere to avoid adjacent properties having incompatible uses and needs. I’ve lived here for 50 years, since I was 7, and no LLC or any other entity should be allowed to rezone and cause adjacencies with neighbors that harm their experience of Accord as spelled out in the Town Development plan.
In addition to opposing the change in Zoning, I also am concerned that this development risks not benefiting longtime residents, who may not have the spending power of people with NY City salaries. The project makes no claim to benefit longtime residents. The LLC is likely to create facilities and services for the same population who can afford to shop at the Accord Market, which is not me, or most of us! I grew up in accord and went to Accord Elementary School and Rondout School District. One fancy grocery store in Accord is pleasant and fine to me—it offers choices. But I don’t want Accord to tilt mostly into fancy services for wealthy people. It should stay accessible to long-time residents, which means declining a proposed rezoning and declining this project based on its unsustainable scale.
This project, if allowed to proceed as proposed and given a Zoning change, will exceed a reasonable scale for Accord. The over-scaled project will cause the owners to go into debt and seek investors. And the debt, and the investors, will push the owners to seek greater and greater scale for their project, and greater impact on the town, and the look and feel of Accord. Given the amount of existing land the owners of the LLC have, a zoning change would increase the risks of the concentrated land ownership hitting town politics dramatically and negatively.
The Hamlet zoning is a very reasonable land-use to keep unchanged. It already offers, as is, opportunities to developers and investors who are thinking about projects in appropriate ways that are aligned to Accord and its longtime residents. It doesn’t need changing.
The risks alarm me. They are too high, and a change in Zoning must be opposed. I feel a
proposal that fits within the existing Hamlet zone, and only one that fits within the existing zone, is in the town’s interest. All other proposals must be prevented and go back to the drawing board for redesign.
Gabriel Schnider: In 1980, my father purchased property on what is now Scenic Road. He and r mother cultivated this home with invaluable love, care, and respect for the natural environment. My sister and I were raised there, taught always to be cautious of traffic on Scenic Road; it is a narrow street — ideally a one-way road — with a blind turn at the edge of our driveway. Over the years we watched many drivers miss this turn due to speeding or lack of knowledge of the road, and each time I am thankful that pedestrians, animals, and bikers are left uninjured.
The effects of the proposed zoning change will severely increase traffic on this road and in tum heighten the risk of accident immensely. Scenic Road cannot support the increase in traffic volume. This issue alone supports the notion that our small hamlet lacks the infrastructure to support the construction of large developments.
Per the Traffic Generation Memorandum dated March 1, 2023, the Applicant’s engineer, Brinnier and Larios, estimated an increase in Main Street traffic by 67%. They did not address the traffic on Scenic Road, which would increase substantially as well. Before any decisions are made to dispense with the current Hamlet zone in favor of an Economic Enterprise Overlay District zone, it is vital to conduct a comprehensive traffic study by an independent contractor.
There are other issues as well which will adversely affect the quality of life of the Hamlet and especially the surrounding residential homes and which must be addressed before any zoning changes requested by the developer are made. These are infrastructure issues which include noise pollution, increased traffic volume on all surrounding roads, parking, litter and increased garbage along the roadsides and the Rondout Creek, etc.
Thank you very/much for considering the interest and safety of the community.
Kaustubh Wahal: Regarding the ongoing discussion on the Granary project, I would like to provide my support for moving it forward (accepting and approving) as a denizen of the Town of Rochester (Kerhonkson). To put it simply, if in your analysis and review of the project, you found that the project is good for the town and the town’s economic growth to support a local community, then it makes sense to approve it.
At that point, I would simply ask if the town, it’s community would benefit from local employment and whether this project also improves the local infrastructure (which in this case according to my information, it does), if yes, then it is a good project and should be implemented. A project like this would be a good small business to have in the town, which directly and indirectly benefits not only from local consumers but also benefits from the tourism industry across the valley, especially if rehabilitated, due to its appeal in both current and potential future state. And perhaps, it will bring additional vibrance to our town. Any liabilities should of course be evaluated and considered. But if all the information you have meets the set forth criterion by the town in this case, then it should be approved without undue delay. Essentially, if this project meets the requirements and codes, etc. and complies with the necessary safety procedures and other guidelines, etc. then why not make it available to everyone to enjoy. 1 1 m happy to discuss further.
Balance within the community can be sought and agreed upon to move this project / request forward swiftly.
I believe the project has been under review for a while now. I would like to see resolution soon for the benefit of the town, because, I live here. We live here and would like to see constant improvement in fundamental economy and infrastructure, locally.
In my current knowledge, the project works well if executed appropriately. If I am missing anything or am unaware of, of course I would be happy to include in to my personal evaluation.

Barbara Lawrence: I am writing in favor of the inclusion of the following properties in the Economic Enterprise Overlay zoning district: 2 Towpath Road, 4 Towpath Road, 8 Towpath Road, and Granite Road. I write from the perspective of an Accordian whose family has lived in the Town of Rochester for at least 150 years. In my lifetime I have seen the Hamlet of Accord slip from a place of vibrancy that brought the community together to a low point where there was little reason to be ‘fin town”. The concept of creating a focus for new economic development on these parcels is highly attractive. The proposed re-uses of this derelict property are creative and well-integrated to provide synergy and economic success. In reviewing the town’s master plan I see a convergence between this proposal and the “General Approach to the Plan.” I particularly want to point to the desire to “take advantage of changes in the national and regional economy to build the Town’s economic base by encouraging small business, tourism, arts, agriculture and historic preservation.” As a regular user of the rail trail to Kerhonkson and beyond, I am very pleased to note that one element of the proposal is to extend the multi-use trail to the center of town along the historic right of way where locals and tourists alike can safely arrive at an attractive destination. I have seen in other locations, how recreational trails foster economic revitalization. For the Town of Rochester to prosper in the long run as an attractive place to live and work, it is essential we build a strong center and also connectivity. The concept of bringing together these parcels to focus the next stage of sustainable growth in town does both.
Robert Warner: I have lived there for 37 years and have spent summers here since the 1950’s. I have watched the area decline from what once were thriving small hamlets to empty streets and empty derelict buildings. This was quite sad to see for I truly love the area.
Over the past fifteen or so years we have seen more investment in the area with Saunderskill Farmstand being a prime example. In addition, the Accord Market brings more activity to main street, that once sported an ice cream parlor, a general store (Barley’s) as well as other businesses (the Port Jackson Restaurant Aka Ship to Shore).
We now have the opportunity to bring a complex to the hamlet that will bring employment and much needed vibrancy to town. The thought of an arts centers as well as a restaurant and other venues is very exciting on all levels. Obviously, there will be those who may think “why not leave well enough alone?”. I think that the answer to that is obvious. Bringing business and employment to the area in a healthy way is the way towns and villages thrive and grow. As a result, I am entirely supportive of the efforts and investments of the group that is trying to bring the town forward. I caution you with one thing. There again are those that will claim that this is “gentrification”. It is not. It is progress in an area that can use all that this project has to offer.
Jay Martin: As the nearest neighbor to the proposed development of the property along Towpath Road and Granit Road which is immediately adjacent to mine and running the full length of my property and further, I am concerned with the size, scope and scale of the project. Said project will doubtless devalue, detract and be a detriment to my property and quality of life.
It is my belief, that zoning laws are to protect quality of life, property values and the environment and should not be amended just so someone or group can garner a profit from the amendments.
Having lived at Towpath Road for 37 years I have seen the proposed property change owners multiple times and have witnessed varying degrees of improvement and decay through those decades. Surely, some kind of renovation to the structures will be an improvement, however, there are many underlying issues of concern in the plans. Currently, it is not unusual for the parking lot of the former China Pavilion to flood out to Towpath Road. The creation of some 40 plus parking spaces covered with an impermeable membrane of blacktop or the like will create an even greater problem.
Worse, the proposal calls for the creation of a bar/restaurant’s living quarters some of which might be for permanent residents and a possible event space, all of which will generate noise, traffic, litter, garbage and lighting pollution, Should the buildings be filled 10 maximum capacity per the Table of Uses, there are not enough parking spaces for that number of people. Are the taxpayers of Accord expected to permit and support the overflow of vehicles 10 use the Municipal Lot behind the firehouse?
Ironically, it is an oxymoron that the proposed wellness building is the structure closest to the septic area which is a major concern in and of itself. is this Septic system a pumped storage tank, an evaporation above grade, or sub surface leaching system? Both depictions of the proposal show significant rock ledges and outcroppings which will not absorb any sewage runoff which in turn could affect drilled wells in the area. In as much as the hamlet of Accord does not have a municipal water system everyone owns or shares a drilled well. It is incumbent on the Board to protect its taxpaying resident citizens, their property, quality of life and the environment first, before pandering to entrepreneurs who would seek zoning amendments for their own gain to the detriment of others. This project must he scaled down as a wise man once stated,” Enough is nice, much is nasty.”
Charles Williams: I am, a small business owner on Main Street Accord; the antique shop in 19 Main. I’m writing in support of the Accord Granary Project as proposed. Welcoming the preservation of the historic buildings and the creation of new retail spaces with parking for downtown Accord. Happy to have an extension of the rail trail in any form.
Accord used to have many more businesses than it does now. I used and remember the former Agway store which is fondly remembered by many. Don’t really think that that business or others caused any “traffic problems” .
It’s my understanding that there was a discussion about creating stop signs and cross walks at the intersection of Main Street and Granite Road, adjacent to the current Granary Project. 1 would fully support that. My experience is that people drive way too fast down Main Street. Having stops signs in conjunction with the Granary would slow people down, link up the Post Office, and help to make Accord safer and more of a destination.
Sheila Finan: My letter is in response to your request for public comment on Accord LLCs request for consideration of inclusion of 5 land parcels in the Economic Enterprise Overlay zoning district, pursuant to Town of Rochester Code
77.9-1-28, 77.9-1-29, and 77.9-1-31 are located at 2 Towpath Road, 4 Towpath Road, 8 Towpath Road, and Granite Road and currently have a zoning district of “Hamlet”- “H”.
I have lived at 42 Granite Road since 1975 and in Accord since 1973, across the street from some of the properties owned by Accord LLC. I live in Accord all year round and it is my home. My family has deep attachments and roots and a long-term commitment to our home and to Accord.
I strongly advocate that the Town Board of the Town of Rochester vote against the change of land use for land parcels SBL 77.9-1-25, 77.9-1-27, 77.9-1-28, 77.9-1-29, and 77.9-1-31 and retain its current land use zoning district to “H” designated for Hamlet. These are land parcels in a designated Historic District and the current uses allowed under a “Hamlet” zoning district seem adequate for sustainable growth in our community.
I would love to see Accord flourish with new businesses and sustainable economic activity done in line with the 2006 Town Comprehensive Plan that is currently in place. My concern related to change in the zoning districts for the said land parcels is that it would have considerable negative impact on us at many different levels:
Steep increase of noise level and activity along Scenic Road and Granite Road on roads leading to Main Street, Accord which would also lead to loss of privacy for my home and increased risk of trespass on my property
Light pollution due to added lighting needed to light up a commercial space in the night.
An almost 70% increase in traffic on Main Street, Accord just due to one entities clients.
It would cause a Limited Liability Company to be in control of the area rather than individuals. LLC’s do not have the same kind of commitment to a community.
Lost ability to have a say in what happens in Accord as there will be a concentration of ownership of properties and the EEO designation will also reduce the community’s ability to weigh in on what is being done, – Loss of affordable housing in a residential community which will cause hardship for long-time residents.
It would allow hotel like structures with a visiting population rather than encouraging a community where residents live.
Potential increase in property taxes that could be unaffordable for longtime residents.
It would change the entire fabric of the community.
The parcels in question are part of the historic district of Accord.
Plans for car parking by their clientele depend on municipal parking paid for by Accord taxpayers.
It would pressure elderly people like me to move out of their homes as they would find it hard to continue living with the much busier landscape that would come about with a dramatic change in land use.
Lopsided development in Accord wherein one group controls most of the economic activity in town which likely may lead to skewed decisions by town government.
The wishes of residents and owners who live adjacent or close to the property and who have made Accord their home should be considered as it impacts them the most. This should not be limited to the owners of shared property lines and must include other long-time stakeholders (for example: my family would like to be involved as we would be adversely impacted). The current Hamlet zoning allows for a sustainable growth in Accord. I strongly advocate for the Town Board to vote down any change in land use for the parcels in question owned by Accord LLC and retain the Hamlet zoning for Accord which is a historic district. Please acknowledge receipt of my email.
Peter Nelson: I am writing in support of the Economic Enterprise Overlay (EEO) designation and to voice my support of the future proposed renovation of the Granary Buildings at 2, 4, 8 Tow Path Road (SBL 77.9-1-25, 77.9-1-27, 77.9-1-28, 77.9-1-29, and 77.9-1-31). I am unable to attend the meeting in person tonight due to an Accord fire department training commitment, so please include my letter into the public comments.
When I stand in front of the Post Office and look southeast towards Tow Path Road, I see the old Anderson Feed Mill complex slowly deteriorating, alongside a formally grand, yet empty and derelict stucco house, adjoined by two other smaller, decrepit buildings and wonder why anyone would object to a sensible tasteful renovation and restoration of these buildings to bring them back to life. These buildings have been sitting dormant for many years, some for decades, and the proposed project is an opportunity to rehabilitate, restore and revitalize these properties back into useful and viable businesses along with much needed housing right in the center of Accord. If nothing is done with these properties and they are left vacant, these buildings would likely fall into further disrepair and ultimately perhaps be demolished. That would be a loss for the town as replacement buildings will not likely fit into the small town “railroad adjacent” character the existing buildings have along with the former Creamery that has been transformed into a private residence and the former train station that is now a popular Air B & B. On the opposite end of Main Street at Scenic Road, the former Barley’s store fell into disrepair, had a fire and ultimately had to be demolished. That site is now a vacant lot.
I believe the renovation under consideration for these properties would serve as an anchor for the Granite Road end of Main Street and be a draw to the Main Street area once again. This area once served as a hub of businesses that lined Main Street and Tow Path Road with a drug store, candy store, grocers, a laundromat and more. The former Accord Agway (and Grange League Federation before that) was a building that was successfully and tastefully renovated into viable and useful community space and town offices where this meeting is being held tonight. What a great vision of repurposing a vacant space this was and a good example of what can be achieved. Having businesses on Main Street once again will restore a central focus to the hamlet of Accord and I believe bring back vibrancy and many economic benefits.
The additional concept of extending the existing O & W rail trail towards Tow Path Road adjacent to these buildings would draw people and business to the Main Street area and serve a public benefit for many residents and visitors alike by directly connecting the center of Accord to the center of Kerhonkson by trail. It would make a smart beginning, end or stopping point for the many people who use the rail trail already. This rail trail is but one part of a much larger network of free and accessible public outdoor spaces for exercise and relaxation of all kinds. We see this beneficial interface of rail trail and the communities they peacefully pass through neighborhoods in Marbletown, Rosendale, Hurley, New Paltz and Gardiner to name a few with many positive attributes they bring and very few negative ones. My wife Sally and I are frequent users of the rail trail between Accord and Kerhonkson for cycling several times a week. We encounter people from all walks of life and have never had any sort of negative experience. Importantly, rail trails also help keep cyclists, runners and walkers off the roads and give a safe place to transit and be outdoors. Parking, traffic flow and public safety are always concerns with projects such as this, but these issues can be overcome with sensible planning, public input and safety measures such as cross walks, lower speed limits, adequate parking and perhaps privacy fencing where necessary. This has been achieved repeatedly in many, many communities across Ulster County and throughout New York, so it can certainly be achieved in Accord as well. I hope the Town Board sees fit to move this project and the EEO designation forward to further specific planning, additional public input and ultimately approval. I feel it will be in the best interest of the entire community to see these properties saved, restored and renovated to become a viable part of Main Street Accord once again.

HOLD PUBLIC HEARING OPEN WITH A DATE TO BE DETERMINED:
Resolution # 215-2023:
Motion: Supervisor Baden
Second: Councilwoman Enouen

The Town of Rochester Town board will leave the public hearing open with a date to be determined.

ADJOURNMENT:

Motion: Councilwoman Enouen
Second: Councilwoman Smiseth

The Town Board adjourned the public hearing at 7:45pm.

Motion carried