Source: http://townofrochester.ny.gov/agendaminutes/planning-board-minutes/planning-board-minutes-may-13th-2019/
Timestamp: 2020-02-29 10:06:05
Document Index: 35958382

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 140', '§ 125', '§ 140', '§140', 'art 1', '§140', '§140', '§140', '§301', '§301', '§305']

Planning Board Minutes May 13th, 2019 | Town of Rochester
Planning Board Minutes May 13th, 2019
MINUTES OF May 13th, 2019 REGULAR MEETING OF the Town of Rochester PLANNING BOARD, held at 7:00pm at the HAROLD LIPTON COMMUNITY CENTER, Accord, NY.
PRESENT: ABSENT: VACANT:
Maren Lindstrom, Chairperson Zorian Pinsky Alonzo Grace
Mr. Zurofsky made the motion to cancel the May 27th, 2019 Workshop Meeting. Mr. Jones seconded the motion.
5 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstentions, 1 absent, 1 vacant.
Chair Lindstrom announced to the Board that she was planning on doing the June Workshop Meeting.
Another item Chair Lindstrom communicated to the Board was that if anyone had Stipend checks that they would like to donate back to the Town that they could sign it back to the Town or cashed and then donated back to the Town in that form.
Attorney Christiana stated that they should cash the stipend check and then donate it back to the Town in that form because the Town was obligated to pay them.
Chair Lindstrom informed the Board of the NYPF (New York Planning Federation) Online training courses. She stated that the Secretary had the code to take these courses should any of the members be interested. Chair Lindstrom also mentioned that the NYPF does on-site training as well and it was an idea to think about until the next meeting and if she had a strong feedback of response for members wanting to do an on-site training she would extend the invitation to nearby Towns, the ZBA, and members of the Town Board. She stated she would make a donation to cover the costs of the training should she get a large and positive response.
Mr. Jones made the motion to accept the minutes from the April 8th, 2019 Regular Meeting. Mr. Buchbinder seconded the motion.
PB 2019-05 LLI	New Application
Proposes the transfer of +/- one acres from parcel S/B/L 69.4-2-17 (+/- 9.38 acres) to S/B/L 69.4-2-19 (+/- 2.98 acres), Both properties are AR-3 zoned and contiguous to AG-3 district & partially in FP. ACOE wetlands exist on the non-transferred portion of parcel S/B/L 69.4-2-17. Parcels are located at 2659 Lucas Avenue and 521 County Road 6 Accord, NY (corner parcel).
Mr. Terry Ringler was present on behalf of the application.
Mr. Ringler explained what the Lot Line was about. He explained with the addition of the one acre to the property it would never be able to be subdivided because of the zoning.
Attorney Christiana stated they would need to get a variance if they ever wanted to subdivide.
Mr. Williams made the motion to certify the Lot Line adjustment. Mr. Zurofsky seconded the motion.
Decision: PB 2019-05 LLI
Applicant: William Cafiero
Owners: William Cafiero & Lama Karma Drodhul/Wen Huiqu
A lot improvement proposing the transfer of +/- one acres from parcel S/B/L 69.4-2-17 (+/- 9.38 acres) to S/B/L 69.4-2-19 (+/- 2.98 acres). Both properties are AR-3 zoned and contiguous to AG-3 district & partially in Flood Plane. ACOE wetlands exist on the non-transferred portion of parcel S/B/L 69.4-2-17. Parcels are located at 2659 Lucas Avenue and 521 County Road 6 Accord, NY (corner parcel). S/B/L 69.4-2-17 contains a National Historic Register House (Van Wagenen Jacobus Stone House).
Location: 2659 Lucas Avenue and 521 County Road 6 Accord, NY
S/B/L: 69.4-2-17 and S/B/L 69.4-2-19
Zoning Permit filed: 04/24/2019	SEQR Type: Type II by definition
Planning Board Application #: 2019-05 LLI	PB Application filed: 04/25/2019
PB 2019-08 LLI	New Application
Sonia Kortright
Proposes the natural subdivision of S/B/L 67-1-22.113 (+/- 17.88 acres) into two parcels of +/- 14.60 and +/- 3.28 acres. Parcel is crossed by Upper Cherrytown Road, Kerhonkson, NY which creates the natural subdivision. AR-3 zoned, in the AG-3 district and partially in FP zone.
This application was set to be next on the agenda. However, Mr. Bill Eggers who was representing the application was held up at the Planning Board meeting in Marbletown. The Board tabled the application until later in the meeting.
Glen Dymond	New Application
Mr. Dymond and Mr. Terry Ringler were present on behalf of the application.
Chairperson Lindstrom stated as the Code read it contradicted itself to some degree because normally they’d lean toward the property owner and since Mr. Dymond wanted to do four lots and by one interpretation it looked as though he could do four, however the other one was more ambiguous. She read #140-10 D (2)
140-10 (D):“Insufficient frontage with access via shared driveway. The Planning Board may grant a waiver from required lot frontage and other street requirements of this Law upon written request and application by the developer to the Planning Board to permit a subdivision which would result in access to no more than two single-family dwellings or lots which do not have the required minimum lot frontage and are proposed to gain access from a shared driveway through the establishment of a right-of-way. The shared driveway shall be utilized by no more than a total of three single-family residential lots including the lot it has access over. The Planning Board shall review such application in the manner as prescribed under the Town of Rochester Code section § 140-10(D)(3) and no approval shall be granted unless, a release has been given the Town and approved by the Town Board making clear that the Town is exempted from all responsibility for the maintenance of the same and the lot in question is not capable of being subdivided further or is so restricted. Evidence of satisfactory shared arrangements for ownership and maintenance of the drive shall also be provided in the form of deed covenants and a road maintenance agreement. See also § 125-28 R hereof.”
Chairperson Lindstrom stated the applicant met all of the criteria in regards to #140-10 D (2). She went on to state that 140-10 (E) was where it got vague and read for the record:
E.	Flag lots. The development of interior lots with limited lot frontage consisting of only an access right-ofway shall be permitted provided:
(1)	The right-of-way is a minimum of 50 feet in width. See illustration.
(2)	The lot area shall be exclusive of that portion used as a right-of-way for purposes of meeting minimum lot area and all other development standards for the District.
Chairperson stated the Flag lot was large enough where the right of way would still be over 2 acres.
Mr. Williams asked if that included the portion that was going to be taken away from the lots that were going down the line as well.
Chairperson Lindstrom stated they would still meet it.
Chairperson Lindstrom continued with #140-10 (E):
(3)	No right-of-way shall be established over an existing parcel of land to reach a new lot to the rear which would reduce the length of the front lot line of the existing parcel to less than the minimum lot width for the applicable zoning district.
Chairperson Lindstrom stated everything was met in regards to #140-10 (E) #3. She then went on to explain that #4 was okay but #5 was where things got a bit more confusing:
(4)	All flag lot access right-of-ways shall be titled in fee-simple ownership to the flag lot property owner and shall not be used to access any property not part of the original tract, provided that the Planning Board may waive this limitation to accommodate one adjoining lot for purposes of reducing additional curb cuts. Such owner shall bear responsibility for maintenance of the improvements. A road maintenance agreement (RMA) approved by the Town Board shall be required and included on the plat.
(5)	No more than one such lot shall be created from an existing parcel, a cumulative total of three lots including the original. This restriction shall be incorporated in deed covenants and placed on the recorded plat map at the time any flag lot is created.
Chairperson Lindstrom explained that point #5 was stating there could only be 2 lots created but that it contradicted the first point and so since the Code was ambiguous the landowner would win and there could be 3 lots created.
Mr. Ringler asked for confirmation that they would need to submit a waiver.
Chairperson Lindstrom said yes, that they would need to submit a waiver for 140-10 (D) (2) for the rear two lots not having the required front footage but to have access via shared driveway right of way. She went on to explain they would also need to get the release and approval of the Town Board for the Right of Way.
Mr. Jones asked who owned the road at the moment.
Chairperson Lindstrom stated it didn’t exist at the moment but that the applicant would own it with a Road Maintenance Agreement.
Attorney Christiana provided that she believed Lot 2 was going to own it and the others would have easements over them.
Chairperson Lindstrom reiterated for Mr. Dymond what he would need going further; the waiver, the Right of Way, and the Shared Driveway Agreement.
Chairperson Lindstrom made the motion to the Type the application as an Unlisted/Uncoordinated SEQRA. Mr. Williams seconded the motion.
Chair Lindstrom: Yes	Mr. Jones: Yes
Mr. Buchbinder: Yes	Mr. Williams: Yes
Mr. Zurofsky: Yes
Mr. Buchbinder made the motion to set the application for Public Hearing at the June 10th, 2019 regular meeting. Mr. Zurofsky seconded the motion.
PB 2019-02 SPA	New Application
Applicant proposes the addition of a Class II Home Occupation for a vehicle detailing business. Business is conducted in a single bay of existing single family dwelling’s attached garage. Parcel is +/- 2.97 acres (S/B/L 68.3-4-7.100) located at 249 City Hall Road, Kerhonkson, NY. The parcel presently has an existing single family residence with road frontage onto City Hall Road. The parcel further contains flat and gently sloping woodlands and lawn/landscaped area. Parcel is R-2 zoned (low density residential).
Mr. Meoli was present on behalf of the application.
Chairperson Lindstrom stated she was going to read, for the record, the Class II Home Occupation as the Board has never had one presented to them before.
#140-19
Class II A low-impact home-based business or commercial activity administered or conducted as an accessory use that is clearly secondary to the use as a residential dwelling and does not significantly change the character thereof, involve the use of mechanical equipment other than that customarily used for domestic purposes and involves no retail or services resulting in other than occasional and limited numbers of visitors.
• No more than one on-site employee other than family members residing in the dwelling
• No display or sale of retail goods
• No stockpiling of inventory of a substantial nature
• No equipment or process that creates noise, vibration, glare, fumes, odors or electrical or electronic interference, including interference with radio or television reception, detectable in the neighborhood.
• No generation of any solid waste or sewage discharge, in volume or type, not normally associated with residential use in the neighborhood
• Shall not occupy more than 25% of the habitable floor area of the dwelling or 500 square feet of floor area, whichever is less, regardless whether located in the dwelling or in an accessory structure
• No display or parking of equipment or products, storage of goods or materials or signs visible from outside the building, except for a name or accessory use sign
• No external evidence of the home occupation or alterations inconsistent with the residential use or appearance of the buildings
Mr. Meoli explained he was doing auto-detailing in his garage, that he wasn’t taking up more space than what the rules stated, he was using his own well and had invested over $8,000.00 into a catch basin because he couldn’t have the run-off go anywhere else but his own property. He further went on to state he had his own supplies and he kept everything indoors, everything was neat and taken care of around his property, there was no noise, his business was only by appointment because he had a full time job and it worked around that schedule.
Chairperson Lindstrom presented the Board with photos the applicant had provided detailing all the work he had done around the property.
The Board looked at and discussed the photos.
Mr. Zurofsky was curious as to how the application had even gotten presented to the Board.
Mr. Meoli stated he had received a violation from the Code Enforcement Office due to a complaint from a neighbor. He explained that before he had a catch basin the water would come out from the pipes in his garage and run down the driveway and his neighbor stated it was polluting his property, which is why Mr. Meoli put in the catch basin.
The Board looked at and discussed the Site Plan Map.
Mr. Jones wanted confirmation that Mr. Meoli was only using non-phosphate, biodegradable, and non-toxic cleaners on the vehicles.
Mr. Meoli stated that was all you could use on cars, that was all they sold, and that the salt on the roads was more harmful to a vehicle than anything.
Chairperson Lindstrom stated that Site Plan Approvals generally need to go through the Public Hearing process but that she had suggested Mr. Meoli request a waiver for the Public Hearing. She read the Code language for a Waiver for the record:
§ 140-47 Waivers. The Town of Rochester Planning Board shall, pursuant to Section 274-a(5) of the Town Law, have the right to waive, when reasonable, upon written request of the applicant, any of the procedural or submittal requirements of this article for the approval, approval with modifications or disapproval of Special Use permits and site plans submitted for approval. Such waiver and the reasons therefor shall be recorded in the minutes of the Planning Board. This waiver authority may be exercised in the event any such requirements are found not to be requisite in the interest of the public health, safety, or general welfare or are not applicable to a particular site plan. Any such waiver shall be subject to the following conditions:
A.	No waiver shall result in allowing a use not permitted within the applicable Zoning District.
B.	No waiver shall be given with respect to standards outside the scope of this article which would otherwise require a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals, except in the case of the adaptive reuse of a building or structure.
C.	Waivers shall be limited to those situations where the full application of the requirements contained herein would generate unnecessary data with regard to deciding the matter at hand, due to the scope or nature of the project involved. The proposed enclosure of a deck or a simple change of use with no significant structural modifications in the case of a commercial property, for example, might not require typical cross-sections for proposed regrading or water supply data.
D.	An applicant for site plan approval who desires to seek a waiver of certain of the above-referenced requirements pertaining to such applications shall submit a preliminary site plan as provided above. The Planning Board shall review the preliminary site plan, advise the applicant as to potential problems and concerns and determine if any additional site plan information is required. The Planning Board shall consider such site plan as adequate when, in its judgment, the information submitted is sufficient to make a determination of compliance with the development standards contained herein and the intent of Site Plan Review criteria found below.
E.	The Town of Rochester Planning Board, following a public hearing in conjunction with other matters before the Board, shall be permitted to modify the standards of this law to the extent of 10% of the stated criteria where the circumstances otherwise meet the tests for an area variance as set forth herein. Such modifications shall also be permitted for the purposes of increasing the efficiency with which buildings and their sites use and harvest energy, water, and materials; and reducing building impacts on human health and the environment, through better siting, design, construction, operation, maintenance and removal during the complete building life cycle; otherwise known as energy efficient building.
F.	Nothing herein shall authorize the Planning Board to waive State Environmental Quality Review requirements.
Chairperson Lindstrom read Mr. Meoli’s Waiver request for the record:
“I am writing this letter to the Town of Rochester Board and asking for a waiver in regards to a public hearing for my Home Occupancy Permit.
I was under the understanding that my violation was in reference to “Runoff”. I have since addressed that problem and had a catch basin (dry well) installed with a closed pipe to prevent any further runoff to neighboring property that has cost me 7,700 dollars. At no time has there been a town official examining the problem or the fix. I am running a small, part time business in which I feel I have been treated unfairly with this whole process. I am not a business that uses it as a sole income and I feel I should not to go through what big businesses go through if I am following the Home Occupancy law in which everything I do, falls under that.
I am the sole proprietor and the only employee of the business. I do not sell any products nor am not a retail store. I do not store any of the products I use outside of in any other building other than my garage where it is climate controlled and in small quantities. I do not have a showroom or a waiting area so the waste and or sewer is not utilized other than for residential use. My business does not utilize my entire garage, I use one side with the dimensions not exceeding 400 sq. Ft. (13.8×30). I have a small sign, non illuminated that displays my location and does not exceed 12 sq. Ft. Sign Dimensions (10’X26’).
Other than the sign listed above, there are no other indications that I have a business. The residence is not altered in any way and the outside of my home and property is kept neat and clean. I do not store bulk items like I previously stated and I do not utilize the shed on my property for anything other than my personal lawn and winter removal equipment. I do not store vehicles on my premise for more than 2 days and I only service one vehicle at a time. These vehicles do not cause a traffic flow issue because they are parked in my driveway away from the public road. I am only average 1-2 vehicles per week. My full time career I work in emergency services in the air medical field. I only work by appointment only. Being that I am the person that details the customer service vehicle, I have time to do usually one vehicle per week. I only use a 5 gallon bucket for my soapy mix. I do not share water with any of my neighbors nor am I on a community well. The water I use dissipates in my garage or if it does drain the excess runs into my newly installed catch basin, (dry well) and does not run off into the neighboring property. I only use non Phosphate, Bio degradable, and non toxic cleaners to the outside of the vehicles. I do not store these vehicles for extended periods of time nor do I do any preventative maintenance that relates to engine work potentially cause any spills or fluid leaks. Therefore, there is no disposal of any hazardous fluids or materials.”
Mr. Williams asked if the Board granted the waiver, then the neighbor who had initially filed the complaint against Mr. Meoli, he would not be able to speak?
Chair Lindstrom stated yes and anyone on the Board was able to vote against waiving the public hearing should they choose to do so.
Mr. Zurofksy stated he would make the motion to waive the Public Hearing as it seemed like it was permitted by right as long as Mr. Meoli was meeting the definition of the Class and it seemed like he had done alot as it was to be in full compliance.
Mr. Zurofsky made the motion to waive the Public Hearing. Chair Lindstrom seconded the motion.
5 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstentions, 1 absent, 1 vacant
Chair Lindstrom asked Attorney Christiana for clarification on what they should type the application as for SEQRA. She read the definition she found for the record:
617.5 Type II Actions [13] (18)- Reuse of a residential or commercial structure, or of a structure containing mixed residential use and commercial uses, where the residential or commercial use is a permitted use under the applicable zoning law or ordinance, including permitted by special use permit, and the actions does not meet or exceeds any of the thresholds in section 617.4 of this Part;
Attorney Christiana stated she believed it would be a Type II as he wasn’t changing anything and it had no impact.
Chair Lindstrom stated for the record the application would be a Type II SEQRA.
Mr. Buchbinder asked if the Board needed to vote on that action.
Attorney Christiana stated no, as it was Type II under definition.
There was no other questions from the Board.
Decision 2019-02 SPA
Applicant: Michael Meoli
Reason for Request: The application proposes the addition of a Class II Home Occupation (a vehicle detailing service “Spotless Rides” to conduct business in one bay of the attached garage of an existing single family residence), a permitted use by §140-19 with site plan approval.
Location: 249 City Hall Road, Kerhonkson, NY
S/B/L: S/B/L 68.3-4-7.100
Total Acreage: ±2.97 acre parcel
Zoning Permit: 071 of 2019, filed 3/26/2019
Planning Board Application: 2019-02 SPA
PB Application filed: 3/28/2018
1.	Zoning Permit 19/071 Class II Home Occupation & Site Plan Approval dated 3/26/2019
2.	Planning Board Special Use/Site Plan application 2019-02 SUP/SPA – dated 3/28/2019
3.	Application narrative – received 3/26/2019
4.	Site Plan sketch – received 3/26/2019
5.	Existing Site Plan for parcel – received 4/24/2019
6.	Short Form EAF Part 1 – received 04/24/2019
7.	Request for Waiver of Public Hearing – received 4/24/2019
8.	Aerial View of parcel from PB Secretary – 5/13/2019
1.	The Planning Board received a zoning referral for the approval of a Site Plan for a Class II Home Occupation. The proposed use is an auto (vehicle) detailing and wash service “Spotless Rides”. The proposed use is to wash cars and to detail the vehicles in an interior bay of the residence’s two car attached garage. Only one vehicle is serviced at a time-by appointment only-with an average of 1 -2 vehicles serviced per calendar week. The use is a permitted use in an R-2 zone by §140-19.
2.	The zoning department received notice that there was runoff drainage from washing vehicles flowing onto an adjacent parcel. The applicant installed an extensive curtain drain and catch basin (photos were provided to the Planning Board) to curtail any runoff.
3.	The Planning Board received a Site Plan and Special Use application, EAF, photographs of the site and interior of the garage and related documentation from the applicant, cited above.
4.	The applicant demonstrated that there will be no physical changes to the parcel and/or single family residence or any accessory structures with the use and submitted a site plan sketch reflecting updated labeling of structures and site plan map notations. The residence and the parcel are not altered by the use and no “external evidence of the home occupation or alterations inconsistent with the residential use or appearance of the buildings” (as per code) are present.
5.	The parcel to be developed is known as SBL 68.3-4-7.100
6.	The proposed use is compliant with all articles of §140-19, Home Occupation Regulations, Class II.
7.	SEQRA Review was conducted on 5/13/2019 and typed as a Type II Action. No further action was required by the Planning Board.
8.	The applicant stated he would only use non phosphate, bio degradable, and non toxic cleaners to the outside of the vehicles. He would not store these vehicles for an extended period of time nor would he do any preventative maintenance that relates to engine work to potentially cause any spills or fluid leaks. There would be no disposal of any hazardous fluids or materials.
Ayes: 5	Nays: 0	Absent: 1 Vacant: 1
Second by: Mr. Buchbinder
The Town of Rochester Planning Board grants Site Plan–Final Approval for a Class II Home Occupancy Use permitting a low impact home based business as defined per §140-19 on +/-2.97 acres of property located at 249 City Hall Road, Kerhonkson, NY, S/B/L 68.3-4-7.100, a R-2 zoning districts of the Town of Rochester.
Site Plan dated __June 9th, 2019 is approved with the following conditions:
2.	Any and all fees due to the Town of Rochester involving this application shall be paid in full prior to the Chairman’s signature on the Site Plan.
4.	Any and all other agencies’ permits or approvals which are currently required or any which may be determined in the future to be required in conjunction with the construction and/or operation of this use shall be secured or renewed as applicable. Should any conditions imposed by other agency permits cause conditions to be in conflict, the more restrictive condition shall prevail. Should any permit approvals necessitate a change to the approved Site Plan, the matter shall be referred to the Planning Board for consideration.
The Town of Rochester Planning Board further grants the authority to the Chairman to certify condition 2 has been completed without further resolution and to sign and date the plat at such time.
Adopted May 13, 2019, by the following vote:
_______________________	______________________________
Date	Maren Lindstrom, Chairman
The Board revisited this application from earlier in the meeting as Mr. Eggers was now present.
Mr. Eggers explained that the owner Ms. Kortright was divesting the land and that was the reason for the Natural Subdivision, as he believed it would be easier for her to sell off.
The Board looked at the map and didn’t find anything concerning or needing discussion.
Mr. Zurofsky made the motion to certify the Natural Subdivision/Lot Line Improvement. Mr. Buchbinder seconded the motion.
Decision: PB 2019-08 Lot Line Improvement/Natural Subdivision
Applicant: Sonia Kortright
A natural subdivision/lot improvement of S/B/L 67-1-22.113 (+/- 17.88 acres) into two parcels of +/- 14.60 and +/- 3.28 acres. Parcel is crossed by Upper Cherrytown Road, Kerhonkson, NY which creates the natural subdivision. AR-3 zoned, in the AG-3 district and partially in FP zone.
Location: Upper Cherrytown Road, Kerhonkson, NY
S/B/L: 67-1-22.113
Zoning Permit filed: 04/22/2019	SEQR Type: Type II by code
Planning Board Application #: 2019-08 LLI	PB Application filed: 04/29/2019
PB 2019-01 SPA	Continued Application
Ms. Eleni Calomiris (Applicant) and Mr. William Spade and Ms. Keiko Saski-Spade (Architects) were present on behalf of the application.
Chair Lindstrom announced that Wayward Ranch had pulled the Commercial Special Events Special Use Permit from their original application and they were going forward with the Site Plan Approval for the Kennel and Special Use Permit for the Animal Sanctuary process but that they could come back at a later date and go forward with their initial plan of applying for a Special Use Permit for Comercial Special events if they so desired.
Chair Lindstrom stated that she knew most of the people in attendance were there for the Wayward Ranch application and she reminded them that this was not a public hearing and they could not say anything. She went on to say that they were just in attendance to listen and that the application would eventually be scheduled a public hearing and they could submit items in writing or speak at that time. She explained that there were plans out for the people to look at should they want to.
Chair Lindstrom also stated for the record that decisions for Commerical Special Events were between the Planning Board and the applicant, with the first look being from the Town Board as the Town Board sets the rules and regulations of the Town and that the public had adequate ability to speak and have their opinions but the decision was done between the Planning Board and the applicant. She stated that the property had by Code the ability to do Commercial Special Events and that there were property rights within the State of New York and there needed to be respect to the property rights of what was legislatively allowed for someone to do. She said the property was an Ag District, had agricultural zoning, Ag and Markets Law, and municipal law cover the application. She stated that before the applicant began explaining everything, she had the guidelines from Ag and Markets for the Review of Local Laws Affecting Direct Farm Marketing Activities because they could do certain special events through Ag and Markets if approved without a Special Use Permit from the Board. Chair Lindstrom read the following for the record:
Guidelines for Review of Local Laws
Affecting Direct Farm Marketing Activities
“Typically, “direct farm marketing” encompasses roadside stands, farm markets, farmers’ markets, and “u-pick” or “pick your own operations.” However, the Agriculture and Markets Law (AML) definition of “farm operation” [§301(11)] has been amended in recent years to include
“commercial horse boarding operation,” “compost, mulch or other organic biomass crops,” “commercial equine operation” and “timber operation.” Each of these activities may require an on-farm marketing component that may differ from the typical direct farm market. Additionally, greenhouse and nursery operations may also market agricultural products produced on their farms directly to the public.1
Direct farm marketing should be allowed in all areas within a county-adopted, State certified agricultural district.”
“E. Ag-tourism/recreational activities:
.…If it can be shown, on a case by case basis, that an activity will “…contribute to the production, preparation and marketing of crops, livestock, or livestock products…” [AML §301(11), emphasis added] it may be considered by the Department to be part of the farm operation. However, the activity, e.g., hayrides, a petting zoo, or a cornfield maze, must be used as part of the direct marketing strategy of the farm operation and the primary purpose of the activity must be to sell the farm’s products/services, not to serve as a recreational use of the land. 4
Similarly, the Department has concluded that on-farm special events, such as harvest festivals, help market the farm operation’s crops, livestock and livestock products. These activities, as well as on-farm recreational activities, are evaluated on a case-by-case basis to determine whether they are protected as part of the farm operation. 5
The Department considers events/activities to be “incidental” only when the gross annual receipts from facility rental/vendor fees, admission fees, sale of non-agricultural products6, etc. at such events/activities does not exceed 30% of total gross sales from the retail sale on-site of crops, livestock and livestock products at such events. All products must be sold at a cost no higher than the current retail price of such products sold at the farm. The primary purpose of the event/activity is to sell the farm’s agricultural commodities and not to gain admission fees orrental income. Farmers must keep sufficient records to prove that this requirement is met. Further, local governments can require the farm to submit an annual report to the locality showing that these conditions have been met.
In cases where the farm operation offers a recreational activity or holds a special event, including charitable events, as part of its overall marketing strategy, the event is open to the general public, the farm’s agricultural products/services are sold at the event and no admission, facility rental and/or vendor fees7 are involved, these activities are part of the farm operation and an evaluation of fees versus farm product sales would be unnecessary. The primary purpose of the events must still be to market the farm’s agricultural commodities and the events must be sufficiently related to the farm operation.
4	Horse boarding services would be marketed for a “commercial horse boarding operation”; commercial equine services for a “commercial equine operation”; woodland products for a “timber operation”; and “compost, mulch or other biomass crops” for farms removing excess agricultural waste. This guidance document applies to these services/products as well as to “crops, livestock and livestock products.”
5	Crops, livestock and livestock products from other farms may be sold at events/activities when they are representative of the crops, livestock and livestock products that the farm grows/raises and sells and the annual sales of these “off-farm” produced agricultural products does not exceed 49% of total gross sales of all crops, livestock and livestock products.
6	If a farm offers food and beverages for sale at such events/activities through vendors, as a convenience to its customers, and the farm is not charging the vendor or sharing in the profits from the sale of these non-agricultural products, these sales would not, of course, be counted as gross sales to the farm.
7 Admission fees or minimum donations which are donated to a charity are, of course, not subject to this condition. Further, the fact that admission fees or all, or a portion of sales, from the event are donated to a charity does not mean that the primary purpose is not to market the farm’s agricultural products. The Department evaluates all AML §305-a matters on a case-by-case basis. Therefore, if necessary, the Department would examine the specific event(s) to determine whether it is part of the farm operation.
Chair Lindstrom concluded for the record that even though the applicant was pulling their Special Use Permit application that they could still do special events under Ag and Markets if they desired and if they qualified.
Mr. Zurofsky stated for the record that where he lived was on Maple Lane which was in a way neighboring the applicant’s property and that he had been approached by several neighbors about it and asked for his comment, in which he stated he had no comment because he sat on the Board but he wanted it to be on the public record that had happened and he did not feel conflicted and he had consulted with Attorney Christiana who agreed that there was no conflict of interest.
Attorney Christiana stated they had spoken about this before and if anyone should approach any member of the Board, outside of a public hearing, and wanted to discuss the application, that they could not comment on it.
Mr. Jones stated that he wanted to clarification on what Chair Lindstrom had said about the applicant qualifying under Ag and Markets for special events as there may have been those on the Board who disagreed on whether or not they qualified.
Chair Lindstrom stated she never said they qualified for anything, she had just stated that they could go to Ag and Markets and ask and then Ag and Markets would make the determination if what the applicant qualified for special events under them. She explained she wanted it to be known that they could do something because it is an agricultural operation.
Mr. Jones stated for his own clarification that there were two options, there were commercial special events under the Town Code and then Ag and Markets because they are an agricultural operation and that the applicant did not need and for the Ag and Markets they would go to Ag and Markets but if they wanted to come back to the Board for commercial special events they wouldn’t need to go through Ag and Markets, they would just get 12 approved events through the Town.
Ms. Calomiris stated that was correct but they were pulling their Special Use Permit for commercial special events application from the Board and they would just go down the Ag and Markets route and see how that went.
Chair Lindstrom stated that it would be easier to go through the Board to get the 12 special events rather than having to do a case by case basis for each event but that the applicant had chosen to go with Ag and Markets at least for the time being.
Mr. Spade gave a summary about what had been discussed and presented at April’s Planning Board Regular meeting before he discussed the changes they had made. He explained about the animal sanctuary use and that it would be applied to the property as it was defined in the Town Code, and it was intended to house and be a place of refuge for abused and neglected animals and that was Ms. Calomiris’ passion and that would be for the entire property. Mr. Spade further went on to speak about the proposed new kennel building and that it was a one story, 5,400 sq ft. Building, slab on grade, intended to look like a stable building and the animal population would be up to fifteen dogs, ten cats, and about five to ten small animals.
Ms. Calomiris explained that the idea of the kennel was different than most as the idea was for enrichment, to keep long term stay animals happy and to have minimal noise. She stated animals who were engaged and happy tend to have less kennel anxiety which leads to less noise and sound. She said the new kennel building was designed to look like the current barn building that was already on the property and it was designed on the inside to give the animals and comfortable, family-like set up and set them up for success for long term housing if needed. She stated they really wanted to focus on local rescues. She stated they worked with Yonkers Animal Shelter, the Manhattan/Brooklyn animal controls, livestock auctions for the horses, and many pig owner surrenders.
Chair Lindstrom stated that she wanted it to be known that there was a very detailed and in depth narrative that provided everything about the landscaping, testing of the water, on the protection of the wetlands, on what the structures would look like, and anyone was more than welcomed to go to Planning Board office to read the narrative.
Mr. Spade stated that they had a landscaping plan, noise data, and additional information on the EAF that the Board had requested at the last meeting to bring.
Mr. Buchbinder asked if the noise data rate was in any relation to the Special Use Permit.
Chair Lindstrom stated the Board now had excess noise data with three noise points. One was for animals making noise within the structure, one was for when the animals were outside on their runs, and for the events, when the applicant was still planning on doing such, the ambient noise was taken at the periphery and each of the three noise sources were tested to the periphery. She stated the Special Events were underneath the hurdle rate the entire time and the other ones were basically at zero for noise.
Ms. Saski-Spade presented the landscape plan. She explained they were going to be widening the existing road on the property to 25ft. Drive to have access to enter the circular driveway that would be used for parking for the kennel. She stated they were going to be planting trees and bushes surrounding the property and the buildings to help block sound. She stated they were doing up lighting by the signage but there would be no direct lighting that could be in someone’s face.
Mr. Jones had Ms. Saski-Spade went through what types of trees and bushes they were intending to plant to assure that there would be no invasive species.
Ms. Saski-Spade went through the list of what vegetation (trees, bushes and perennials)they would be using. Mr. Jones stated what they intended to use were not invasive.
Mr. Spade presented the noise information. He stated they were eliminating one noise source, which was the music, so there were focused on the indoor and outdoor dog noise. Mr. Spade stated that the results were the ambient noise level around the perimeter of the property was the lowest noise levels were between 31 and 41 decibels the equivalent noise level over a period of time was between 43 and 49 decibels. The noise from the kennel from a dog source was about 103 decibels and their noise source level was put to 105 decibels. The 6ft. high double wood fence they propose putting up around the outdoor area would reduce the noise by 24 decibels and that noise level transmitted out to the property lines and was no higher than ten decibels more than the ambient noise level. He believed the highest noise level they got was 41 decibels at the property line from the outdoor noise runs.
Mr. Williams asked if the noise source they used would be equivalent to one dog.
Mr. Spade answered it was actually considered multiple dogs and a single dog was about 102 decibels and multiple dogs added about 3 decibels to the 102.
Chair Lindstrom stated they would refund their Special Use Permit fee since they were no longer going forward with that and that they Board needed to vote on SEQRA lead agency.
Mr. Zurofsky asked if all the plans for needing the Fire Department access would go away since the Special Use Permit was now being pulled.
Chair Lindstrom answered yes, and that their payment for the Special Use Permit would be refunded.
Chair Lindstrom said that the Board needed to send letters out to SHPO and the Ulster County Planning Board to let them know of the Board’s intent to be lead agency.
Mr. Williams made the motion to declare the Board’s intent to be the lead agency and to refer to all involved agencies. Mr. Buchbinder seconded the motion.
Chair Lindstrom- Yes	Mr. Zurofsky- Yes
5 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstention, 1 absent, 1 vacant.
Chair Lindstrom made the motion to type the application Type I SEQRA. Mr. Buchbinder seconded the motion.
Chair Lindstrom stated possible involved and interested agencies would be: Ag and Markets, SHPO, Army Corps of Engineers because of the wetlands existing, Town of Rochester Historic Society, Jill Shufeldt- Town of Rochester Dog Control Officer, Town of Rochester Highway Superintendant. She had also said the Ulster County Planning Board but Attorney Christiana explained they were an interested agency and not an involved agency as they can only make recommendations and they do not have permitting authority.
Mr. Zurofsky made the motion to refer the application to the Ulster County Planning Board. Mr. Jones seconded the motion.
Mr. Jones had a question about the septic and the disposal and asked if that had to be referred to the Board of Health.
Chair Lindstrom said they just required the permits but they don’t need to refer to the Board of Health because they wouldn’t be a lead agency and the same thing with the Fire Department and the Town Highway Department.
Mr. Jones asked about run-off.
Mr. Spade answered they will have a Storm Water Prevention Plan.
Attorney Christiana stated if it was over two acres of disturbance it needed a SWPPP.
Chair Lindstrom stated they shouldn’t get to a SWPPP Level disturbance, but will need a basic SWPPP
Mr. Buchbinder made the motion to set the Public Hearing for the June 10th, 2019 Regular Planning Board Meeting. Mr. Williams seconded the motion.
PB 2017-04 SPA/SUP Amended Application
Amendment of Existing Site Plan
Town of Rochester (Owner) and PV Engineers PC (applicant)
Proposes an amendment to approved site plan to install new electricity storage units on a ±30-acre parcel off Airport Rd., SBL 69.3-2-41.1, R-5 zoned, adjacent to AG-3 district, freshwater wetlands.
SEQRA: Type I Action, Neg. Declaration, July 6th, 2017
Mr. Michael Conway of Borrego was present on behalf of the application.
Chair Lindstrom stated that this was no longer an amendment to the Site Plan but that what they intended to do was going to be explained to the Board and it was contingent on State Funding.
Mr. Conway explained they wanted to put new electricity storage units that would store lithium batteries that would shift some of the solar production that was only available during the day time to the evening. It would increase the utility of Solar generation which was only available when the sun was out.
Chair Lindstrom asked if there were batteries being used right at the moment.
Mr. Conway stated right now they were getting their energy from some wind power that happened at night and natural gas. The idea of using the solar energy with batteries was to absorb some of the excess generation that may not be needed at high noon and to shift it into some of the evening hours.
Chair Lindstrom asked if the batteries were just for a number of hours and not something that could be stored for days.
Mr. Conway explained it was basically a lot of cell phone batteries and it was a stack up type of architecture.
Mr. Zurofsky asked what the technology was.
Mr. Conway said they were lithium ion.
Mr. Jones asked how much could they store.
Mr. Conway stated 4 mega watts and 15 mega watts hours.
Mr. Williams asked what the footprint of something like that system.
Mr. Conway explained the system of that size would be 2 containers 50 ft long and 8 ft wide.
Mr. Jones asked if they would be the same height.
Mr. Conway said it would be the same height as the top of the existing solar panels.
Mr. Jones asked what would they do if there were lithium meltdowns or lithium explosions.
Mr. Conway said the fire prevention detection had several different layers. The first was a software monitoring system, the second was climate control with the use of HVAC containers.
Chair Lindstrom stated so basically he was saying they have to use electricity to get electricity.
Mr. Conway said yes that was essentially correct.
Chair Lindstrom asked what would happen if a loss of electricity happened could they self generate from the solar fields or could the batteries have a kill switch.
Mr. Conway stated the batteries were not designed to do that. If the grid power was loss then they would lose power as well. The HVAC system had a smaller back-up battery for itself and that could keep some of the core functions going on for an extended outage of about 8 hours, but it was really for the alarms more than anything.
Mr. Jones asked if they would provide training for local fire companies on how to control fires caused by lithium batteries.
Mr. Conway stated they do but the State of New York provides training.
Mr. Jones asked how much more money would they make as a result of using these batteries.
Mr. Conway stated it was comparable to the return on the existing project.
Mr. Jones stated that then they would double their income
Mr. Conway stated no, because the batteries were not as expensive as the solar. He said there would be an increase earning power for the facility but it would not be double.
Mr. Zurofsky asked that since this idea was adding on an element that wasn’t present when the application was initially introduced, especially the environmental aspect, how would the Board determine if they had to re-open the application to make the amendments.
Attorney Christiana stated they would have to see what they presented and would have to send it to the Town’s engineers and they may need to amend it.
Mr. Zurofksy stated what he was basically understanding was that essentially the batteries were going to take solar power during the day at noon and putting it in a savings account, so to speak, and then dumping it at the end of the day when the solar power isn’t as high.
Mr. Conway stated that yes, that is basically the idea.
Chair Lindstrom asked how often would the batteries need replacing?
Mr. Conway stated they potentially could last for 15-20 years but may need to be replaced every 10 years.
Mr. Zurofsky asked why they wanted to put these containers only on the Off Airport Road site and not the solar project off of 209.
Mike Baden, Town Supervisor and Liaison to the Planning Board, stated that the solar project off of 209 was essentially finished while the site off of Airport Road was still being worked on and it made more sense to put the containers there.
The Board discussed the application further and decided that they would wait to hear if the application would get amended and would go forward from there.
Pre-Application SBD
Applicant John Dawson, Owner Shane Ricks/D.A.R Properties
Applicant proposes the subdivision of a +/- 12.298 acre parcel (S/B/L 76.2-2-8.200) into three parcels. Parcels will have a shared drive with cul-de-sac. Parcel is accessible by/located on Mill Brook Lane, Accord, NY and is presently undeveloped flat/rolling scrub and second growth woodlands. Parcel is R-2 zoned (low density residential). One proposed parcel is in the 100 yr FP and Floodway and abuts the Mill Brook.
Mr. Dawson was present on behalf of the application.
The Board discussed various items regarding a long right of way, floodway plains, and a cul de sac.
Chair Lindstrom asked if the Board would have to re-open the original Subdivision which was Cedar Meadows since that is where the parcels are.
Attorney Christiana stated they would be amending the original Subdivision and that Lot 2 of the 3 parcels was part of the Cedar Meadows subdivision and therefore that was why it would need to be amended.
Attorney Christiana stated Mr. Dawson would have to supply a new letter of authorization for Shane Ricks, since the owner on the application was D.A.R properties and even though Shane Ricks owned that he needed to state he was the president of the company.
Mr. Dawson stated he would provide that letter.
The Board discussed the application a little further but there were no other questions or comments and it was decided that when Mr. Dawson provided further items for the application then they would go forward.
Chair Lindstrom made the motion to consent to the Governer’s Office of Storm Recovery to be lead agency for the Alligerville Fire House application. Mr. Jones Seconded the motion.
Mr. Buchbinder- Yes Mr. Williams- Yes
Mr. Zurofksy- Yes
Chair Lindstrom stated if the Board wanted to read them, she had items in regard to Kennel laws, Ag and Market Laws, etc on Google Drive for them to look over to help with the final process of the Wayward Ranch application. The Secretary had also printed out the information as well if they wanted it.
Chair Lindstrom also informed the Board that there was a grant to possibly obtain a projection screen with a projection program for meetings so that the applications would be able to be seen by the audience when being presented. She stated the Board could think about if they might want to try and attempt to obtain a grant for such program.
Chair Lindstrom stated that the Board should re-look over their settings to Google Drive as some members had said they were not seeing/receiving items that were uploaded.
Mr. Williams made the motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:25pm. Mr. Zurofsky seconded the motion.
Chair Amended- Adopted and Accepted: June 10th, 2019