Planning Board - Regular Meeting

started at 6:30. Oh, 15 minutes. I'll get a few

We're live. You guys have one earlier. Forgot about that. New is is tonight. always town. Yeah. No, I know the village is on Tuesdays.

We're just waiting for Mr. Gordon. Most couldn't think. Yeah. So happy. The only ones that have any chance

on that choice would be well there's no flood. usually write what

I wanted a nice so at first I was like the white

okay the uh boy meeting on April 27th of the town of Rochester is called to order and for the allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Mr. Stacy, would you read the uh chairs here? Member Nelson here. Member Roberts. Member Roberts, member Duda here, member veteran

here. Uh member Pinsky and member formald are absent. And we have Dave Gordon, Dave Church, and myself. Okay. So, um, just want to get something out of the way that we basically has been we want the family meeting to please take care of it and it's a form or a process called um establishing a limited pre-application consultation procedure and it is in uh it's in the agenda on MUN collab and Stacy, why don't you go through what it says? Oh, jeez. Um, okay.

You can weigh it. You wrote it.

Aaron wrote it. Um, all right. I'll skim through it. So, it's essentially the planning board giving the chair authorization to hold pre-application meetings and consultations. um says, "Upon written request of an applicant and zoning determination requiring planning board review, the planning board chair is authorized to hold a limited pre-application consultation. These consultations areformational only and shall not include any binding determinations or commitments on behalf of the planning board. Uh the town planning consultant and/or planning board attorney may participate in a pre-application consultation only for for the purpose of providing general guidance identifying required approvals and outlining expected application components. Participation is limited to a maximum maximum cumulative cost of $1,000 per applicant unless additional authorization is granted by the planning board. And applicants choosing to participate must sign a pre-application consultation request and cost acknowledgement form to be developed by the planning board clerk which states the nature of the meeting the cap on consultant time um a statement that all consultant fees for the meeting are the responsibility of the applicant and acknowledging that the discussions are non-binding. So, uh, we did this out of an abundance of caution, um, to make sure we get paid, uh, or have something that binds the applicant, uh, that we can get paid in case they decide not not to go, uh, not to go forward. So, there's two options that applicants can take. They can get a freebie by coming for free application meeting with this group in public and it's just a a general chitchat with them or they can have a separate meeting which is referred to

here um with myself another board member or two uh and any one of the consultants. So, so long as there's an understanding that whatever the length of time is, it's chargeable to the applicant and um we endeavor we will endeavor to gather the money or to get the money from uh the applicant even prior to them coming to the planning board formally. Um so it's just to have something in writing as to a procedure. um so I'm not out there winging it and um that the channel gets paid where we are out there talking to people and that we have something that's legally binding on the applicant or proposed applicant that we can go and ask them for the Monday money.

So I was going to say I did forget one part sorry um it also says the chair shall provide a brief summary of the consultation limited to date participants and general topics at the next meeting. So you guys will everybody that's not participating in that meeting that's a part of the board will have an understanding of what happened during the meeting. But that was the first thing I want because I think it's important that in other words you just formalize basically the existing process, right? Yes. That's um so any other questions? Would somebody make a motion to approve this? It's a planning board procedure. I'll make a motion. Peter makes the motion. I

Han second it. All in favor? I the chairman votes I. So five to zero. two hours or so. Thank you. And we did have one this past week, last week. So, I'll give you a summary of that before the meeting is sent out. Why not? It was a a meeting to talk about um stage what I call stage two of the INIS project. So, I'll give you a quick update of that. Are these written summaries or verbal? The objective is to have a written summary minutes. un unfortunately um my able the able administrative assistant couldn't make the meeting. Okay. So just no either myself is we're going to put something together for the

the unable attendant will put the unable attendant will put a summary together. I'm going to give this week. So yeah I would prefer to just have a couple of pages or less of comments. Okay. Uh Bill Heml Ventures. Yeah, my ventures. Um, we start at the beginning or we uh don't know.

Well, last time we met, we asked that a couple of things be placed on the map, which you may not have gotten to yet. Um, time we got those onto the map. Um, we didn't weren't able to get them to you in time before a meeting. Um the one I got here that was one thing that Jennifer had requested was to show on the uh the lot that has the addition of the small parcels of Heaven's Way to indicate what would be the buildable area in there. So that would be everything between the sideyard setbacks and the limits uh by the wetland bumpers. So, we outlined that in there. Uh, the other substantial um thing I think that was news to me was that there was a house under construction on the the fun lot and so we located that. It looks like it's pretty far along. Um, so the driveway, that house, septic leech field, septic tank is all in place already.

That's the one revised area 7.5. Yes. 78 the Baker Road probably lot. It's pretty far along. Yeah. It's almost finished. I drove today. Yeah. Yeah. All right. So, Bill, the one thing that seems to be missing, you have the rattlesnake timber rattlesnake note on it. Um, you have the buffer around the wetlands. You need to get me the limits of disturbance before I'll sign the map. It's not on the map that I have here. Okay. You realize that, right? Yeah. Okay. So, this map is Oh, yeah. That's that's not the only you have is not the uh the final. Okay. Let's just take it March 24th. Does everybody else have

That's April 4th. A type of April 4th. Yes, you're right. April 4th. Yeah. So, there that was before we had the house on there and everything else. We hadn't even actually done the the actual ground survey on the part of the having parcel at that time. So, I So, as long as the applicant and you understand that that's going to have to be on there, the limits of disturbance. Okay. Right. We don't need to put a well and septic area. That's right. Um the house isn't built yet. Yeah. It's pretty limited where

I don't know if you u because Jennifer was talking about just showing the area of the buildable area. You want that and the limit of disturbance or whatever. Well, the assumption is that if you the limits of disturbance, you would have everything within there within that septic. Put the septic and well in there, right? Asking do we need to show the buildable area then if we're going to put the limits of disturbance? Well, I look at the buildable area and the limits of disturbance as being the same thing. Uh, no. All right. Then make it the limits of disturbance. Does that one include the buildable area as well as the sewer and the well?

Yeah, that's that's what plan to be built on the buildable area. Jennifer talking about she was talking about she wanted to see kind of a shaded outline of what is not either in the sideyard setback or in wetland. So could build with any place within that area. Okay. Well, Jennifer's not here. Let's go with what? Okay. All right. And I think it accomplishes the same thing. Yeah. I just saying, do we want both of them? You want one or the other? One or the other. It's It's a lot line granted and had a lot of bumps on it and warts on it, but I think we're getting there.

Okay. Now, we can do And then, um, we need an easement. We need an RMA or an easement and a maintenance agreement. Proof that there's a maintenance agreement. um or permission to use the road and something that evidences a road maintenance agreement regarding that whatever is existing. So there was an easement on it that allowed for and I think this board was anticipating some sort of a road maintenance agreement as well. I can get you as one party to agree to it, but I can't make all the property owners in there sign on to it. Agree. What are you talking about? That's a different property.

What are you talking about? How does it get here? Heaven's way. That's a different property. This is the road. This is the road. That's the same. This is that that that this road is on the property. Not on his property. Oh. Oh, this is a public road. Yeah. Okay. So, well, the Heaven's Way is not Women's Way is private. It doesn't make it as private. Yeah, it is private road. And then you've got this road that's maintained by the Citizen Association. Well, okay. What right does he have? It's in the It's in the easement. He's got an existing

I've seen the access easement whether they are part of the of a road maintenance agreement. um you know these are things that were put in place something 20 years ago. All right. So I'll tell you what the the easement which is in the deed. Um some of us when we have nothing to do we read we read deeds. There's an easement there. I don't feed it. I'm not one of those people by the way. Especially going back to the 1700s in long hand now. Now now um Bill's got to get some marble town right. Um, so there is an easement. It's within the deed. I want to see the easement verbiage on the map.

Okay. And when the property is sold, obviously that will go along with the deed. If the lawyer does it right, but it definitely gives rights to whoever has this property, buys this property. Yeah.

And I'm not Okay. Does the board have any other questions, comments, Dave? All right. So, I'm going to quickly read this. This is a lot line um for an applicant Hemlock Ventures LLC. it um reason for request. Hemlock Ventures um has asked that uh a lot line a line separating two parcels um be moved uh to make the two parcels into one. Uh lot one has an approved building permit for a single family dwelling and garage which are shown on the plan and plant provided. Um, the town code enforcement officer zoning permit determination provided states that development with the approved building permit will not be impacted by the proposed LLI. The new parcels will improve in compliance with the lot standards and will meet the requirements of the town code section 125-18 with respect to approving lot line adjustments. Um, the planning board jumping down to the bottom. The planning board has reviewed the plan and certifies the lot improvement proposed will meet town of Rochester lot requirements but will improve the ability of the existing parcel to comply with setback road access and other standards for the A3 zoning district and for recording purposes only further represents an exempl improvement in accordance with section 12518 of town of Rochester subdivision regulations. No subdivisions. No subdivisions approved. Approval is subdivision approval is required or given by the planning board. The planning board further grants the authority to the chair to sign the plant certifying the lot improvements for filing purposes without further resolution upon receipt and the chair's determination that such plant meets the requirements of the code and is in

agreement with the survey plan and maps provided for review. The plan shall be prepared by a licensed land survey or professional engineer to describe the conveyances involved by meets and bounds. The following notes with map elements must be placed on the map reflecting this lot line certification. First one, these plans are acknowledged by the town of Rochester and for recording purposes only to represent an exempt lot improvement in accordance with section 12518 of the town of Rochester subdivision regulations. No subdivision approval is required or given. Lot improvement parcel shall not be considered a separate building lot apart from the track for which it is being added. Two, the plan will delineate limited disturbance to the satisfaction of the planning board chair prior to prior to signature. The plan will include a note regarding timber ran snakes and habitat to the satisfaction of planning board chair prior to signature. And Bill, that note is the same note that we have on the larger lot.

The plan will delineate a 100 foot buffer around any and all wetlands as per requirement of the town code. Number five, the plan shall include any and all nodes from prior subdivision approval for the subject parcels to the satisfaction of the pling board chair prior to signature. An access easement and maintenance agreement for Heaven's Worry will be provided to the satisfaction of the planning board chair and I1 and and added the verbiage of it added to the map. Did you hear that, Bill? Yes. I'm adding and it put the easement verbiage on the map. Yes.

Stacy, would you make a note of that?

Yes. Okay. The owner shall open with the or county clerk such certified plant bearing the chair signature and notes 1 through six above within 62 days of this certification. The owner shall have the responsibility to return four county certified copies of the plan to the town of Rochester planning board within 30 days of filing. So, let me just make sure that we have the right numbering for that which has to go onto the map. Uh, one, number one, number three, number one, number two, number three, number four, five, and six. Okay. So, I'll entertain a motion with the adjustment that the easement from the deed, the road easement from the deed must be put on the map. Um, and that the notes 1 through six must be either followed or placed on the map. So, I'll entertain a motion to that effect.

I'll make that motion. I'll second it. Peter Paulina seconds. All in favor? I chair votes I. Um, we'll do a new one. I'll sign it to the draft has each a couple things there. The one through six and last paragraph of one and two and the rattles. Yeah, I changed that on there. I changed the two to six. Okay.

Okay. She'll do it then. I'll sign it tomorrow. Any copy to I can just send it. I'll email it to you. I just did it. Oh, okay. Thanks, Dave. Thanks, Dave. I'll ditch the note. Okay. All right. So, Dean, we're going to just do the uh one more for uh that Bill is representing, then we'll get to the five colleagues. Thank you.

Hi, Bill. Dun farms. Last time we met I um we did set up and we went we all went on the site visit. I don't know if any of the board members has comments from the site visit. Um and Bill there were some notes that you had to make on the map. Um it's about some changes to the map. We wanted the middle thing like I remember when there was when this little farm lane cuts across the corner of the lot from the adjacent property to the fields and there's some question about whether there was a need for that which is not and that was requested to be labeled to be abandoned. Uh we did that. Um make sure we're looking at the same map here. Uh revised April 21st you have to edit lot three.

Y We were I think you were checking on the meet and bound, right? I think you had when we were walked, I think you had not. You said it was going to shift because the meets and bounds were not.

Yeah. Um there was that and also on the one that was should have been loaded up to Mic Lab um April 21st. Um one kind of significant change, but really doesn't affect the big picture there was an existing well. um they had a garden area and they've got a well down there and originally that well was falling within lot three and um the property owner said oh no no we didn't want that to go we want that to stay with our existing house parcel which is lot one. So it just extended lot one down to include that in there reducing the size of lot still that's 4.27 through 7 acres. Uh it's a 3acre zone there.

So that second well that you're referring to is down at the bottom of the uh of lot one. Yes. And that was pre previously part of lot uh that had been part of lot three. So lot three just extended all the way back um to the border of lot four. So, we just took the lower end of it and popped that off and included in the Okay. There's still, you know, plenty of room on lot for any forever. Still needs to bulk requirements. Yep. Okay. All right. I see what you're doing.

And um I don't know if that's a you thing or not, but we need to we need to leave the the new collab to reflect that, right? project description because the lot acres has changed. Okay. Yeah. Project description. Yeah. Narrative or whatever call it. Yeah. Okay. Because it still lives 5.3 acres here. First lot three. I also saw that publication should be on. Yeah. She was missing the four. All right,

you're good. Okay, keep anybody else to

only once. No, only going twice. Okay. Um, actually, I'm sorry for the third time. Do we need waiver requests for farmland on this?

Uh I think you just probably do unless was 125 there's 12 impacted. Well you agreed to narrow the soils listed last meeting right? Yeah portion of what's the percent lot two was some place it looks to me roughly 50% I don't know but it is prime farmer so yes so yeah you would on on that one lot and going by this the what I see as the strict wording of the code as a lot in a subdivision that's a lot you know it's not the whole subdivision it's less than 40% of the whole subdivision So, we need a waiver for lunch, too.

Okay. All right. Do you know anything else? Uh, no, that was it. Um, I guess did this get referred to highway department and fire department for review. Bill, we had talked about that and we asked you to send it off to them.

Yeah. Highway and fire. All right. So, I'd like to propose that we set the public hearing. Um, and Bill, if those things aren't to us by the public hearing, they'll just be when we get to this decision, we'll uh they'll be conditions. But I don't think any of these are going to affect the public hearing.

Um, no, I don't expect so. And the time uh time frame thing right here is going to be scheduling to get highway and fire to come out. That's up to them by the way. Come out. All right. So, there nothing else. I entertain a motion to do uh to um schedule the public hearing for the 11th. I make a motion to schedule public hearing for May 11th. I'll second. All in favor? I. Anybody opposed? Chair votes I. And we have enough um escort. Yeah.

One more thing I wanted to mention was just looking at the EAF um it flagged yes for 12 which is a take us to a building archeological. Did we ever find out about that from Shival? I don't know to check you know certainly we submitted to DC on the wetlands um checking which it's probably either one of two stone houses there. So

we did talk about a west I just don't remember. Yeah, there's the house s that's next door um on the same side, but then across the road also is uh Dun's house to Dun's old house. I don't she'll be able to take care of that old stuff. Yeah.

Was that in the U meeting?

All right. So, Bill, you have a public hearing. You have a lot of things that need to be uh checked on. All right. Are you scheduling the public hearing? The public hearing will be on May 11. Wasn't the post? Huh? It was in a post meeting.

It was in the post post meeting. Yeah. Thank you, Bill. All right. And still decision. Yeah, I think you took it.

Yeah, you took both Romy at the same time. I try to hold them so you don't lose them, but Okay. Peter, how would you like to read the decision for dignified dogs?

I can do that. You want to Yes, sir. Uh let me just first say does the applicant have anything to update us on? So we're going to do the uh the decision tonight and um let's roll. That is a resolution for the planning board for major subdivision approval uh for dignified dwellings EV 202320-45. Uh reading for request applicant proposes a major three lot subdivision private for residential purposes. Lot one to be plus or minus 12.3 acres currently vacant. Lot two to be plus or minus 11 acres currently vacant. Lot three 15.1 acres currently vacant as conservation area plus or minus 17 acres is proposed shared by lots two and three locations on Rose Hill Road. Um I'm not going to read all the details of the SPL um uh code enforcement major subdivision approval uh planning board application originally filed as a four lot subdivision updated to a three lot subdivision August 27, 2025. um referred to Olster County Planning Board permit from Olster County Health and Town of Rochester Highway Superintendent as condition of approval. Coordination with the town of Marbletown as a small portion of the proposed lot one includes plus or minus.35 acres of SPL60.4-1-31 4-1-31 under same applicant ownership New York State Department of Environmental Conservation uh wetlands jurisdiction. We can skip

I'll skip all the other yeah takes us all the way to um first page four the first point of errors.

Okay. All right. Continuing to the whereas dignified dwellings LLC owner and applicant seeks approval for a major three lot subdivision with private road for residential purposes. uh there's the same lot descriptions uh plus or minus whereas the applicant submitted an application of permit and classification to the town of Rochester and whereas the applicant with the original roadway in without authorization and before any appearance at the planning board was issued a stop work order by the CEO at the outset of the project and whereas the CEO determined determined that the applicant had met zoning requirements and it would require major subdivision approval and whereas the applicant and submitted an application for subdivision approval filed on August 27th, 2025 after an earlier submission for an alternative major subdivision sub subdivision design. The subdivision was supplemented with substantial the submission was sub supplemented with substantial documentation as listed above. Whereas the applicant has made multiple occurrences at the planning board meetings and whereas the planning board has carefully considered all submittable submittals relating to the project from the applicant and their consultants, its own consultants, comments and/or approvals from public officials and agencies including and without limitation code enforcement officer of the general public. And whereas such consideration by the planning board included the review of alternative subdivision layouts and designs, including a conservation design option as guided by the town of Rochester subdivision regulations. And whereas the planning board coordinated a review and public hearing notice with the town of Marbletown given the inclusion of a contiguous small parcel of land also owned by the applicant that is part of the application. that coordination and comments from Marbletown are referenced in the above listed documentation and any comments by Marbletown will be met in this decision. And whereas Rose Hill

is maintained by the town of Rochester and plowed by the town of Marbletown. And whereas the planning board reviewed the full environmental assessment form part one submitted by the applicant and on January 15, 2024 circulated notice to involved agencies declaration of intent to be lead agency dignified dwellings LLC major subdivision. And whereas lead agency, the planning board reviewed the FIFA part two at their March 30th, 2026 meeting. At their April 13, 2026 meeting, the planning board reviewed the FE part three prepared by the town planner and made a negative declaration that this project will not have a potential for significant adverse environmental impact based on a review of all application documentation. A completed SE part 3 has been signed and filed. And whereas at their March 3rd, 2026, the planning board opened a public hearing and on this application said hearing through their April 13, 2026 meeting. During said public hearing, comments were made and considered by the planning board. Now therefore, be it resolved that the Town of Rochester plane board hereby finds that this application complies with the criteria for approval in chapters 125 and 140 of the town code and with all other applicable provisions of the town code and hereby approves the project as depicted in dignified dwellings subdivision plan map set repaired by Peak Engineering dated 1222 2025 with revisions dated 124 2026 211 2026 310 2026 and consisting of five sheets. Uh I don't need to leave those sheets. General conditions

did before we read that. Hey Dave, the second uh the next to last whereas the last line says a completed SE. Yeah, it's got to be FBA. FDA. Okay, good call. I was Yeah, FDA. All right. Um general conditions. You don't want me to read those, right? Um, no.

The general conditions of the general conditions specific specific conditions of approval. Number one, a final subdivision map plan shall be provided consistent with the maps and other documentation noted above and consistent with all conditions of this approval. Number two, all surveyors and engineers notes on final maps submitted must be followed in the field. Number three, documentation of all relevant and required and approved Olster County Health Department permits shall be provided to the planning board chair prior to signature by said chair of the final subdivision plan. The number four, the final subdivision map shall show a 100 foot buffer around any wetland shown on said map. Additionally, no paved areas including road or driveway improvements shall be allowed in the 100 foot buffer of any wetland. Number five, the applicant shall provide documentation on a homeowners association and road maintenance agreement necessary to meet all elements including notes on the plan for this major subdivision. This documentation will be filed with the town of Rochester and it's acceptable to the planning board chair and with and the planning and the talent board of trustees in consultation with the town attorney prior to signature of final plan. Number six, the HOA documentation provided will include text related to a voluntary conservation easement for a plus or minus 17 acre conservation area consistent with the plan/plat to be signed by the planning board chair. Said text of the easement will be noted on the map and contained in the deeds for each of the three parcels. Said HOE agreement must be satisfactory to the planning board attorney prior to the planning board chair signing the final plan. Number seven, the text of the prohibited activities in conservation area will be placed on the map and in the deeds of each of the lots and in the HOA document. The pro prohibited activities include a cutting or removing of trees

and harvesting of timbers will be prohibited except to be the minimum extent necessary to remove trees and limbs which are dead, diseased or dangerous. C. Excavation or alteration of natural resources within the conservation areas except for the construction, repair, maintenance and all permitted uses as reserved by the grantor. D. Construction of or maintenance of deer stands and other hunting related accutrants. E. Creation of any impervious roadway surfaces and roadway appertes except as may be shown upon the final subdivision plat. F. Storage of any vehicles, mobile home, truck, tractor, trailer, camper, boat or any other vehicle not repair thereof. G placement, construction or maintenance of wells, septic stat preserve systems, drainage structures, roadway and purpose surfaces or other improvements affecting surface water or groundwork other than as permitted pursuant to the town of Rochester zoing law and or subdivision regulations and/or as shown on the file subdivision plat. H prohibition of construction or placement of any permanent structure. I placement or maintenance of ashes, trash, rubbish, garbage, yard debris, waste, oil, petroleum products, toxic substances, hazardous material, bill material, or any sightly or offensive materials. J. Conservation areas will be maintained will be, excuse me, conservation areas will be managed in accordance with sound and generally accepted soil and water conservation practices. No pesticide, herbicide, inorganic fertilizer or other chemical treatments for land, vegetation or animals will be used unless it is done in accordance with applicable laws and regulations and will not contaminate any water body. K. Leg holds

and trapping of all kinds are prohibited in the conservation article. L use Use of all traded vehicles, motorcycles, snowmobiles, minibikes, and any motorized vehicles will be prohibited for use upon the conservation areas. Back to the specific note, I think A and B are one. Yeah, I think so, too. Yeah. So, it'll be one less. Yeah. Okay. We got to be reading letter. Do you want me to do that, Steve? Uh, I can do it. Well, I don't change things. I did. No, I'm not just I'm not sure I got it in the forag I get added. I got it. I can do it. Okay. Yeah,

thank you. Back to specific number eight. Is that right? Yep.

Specific condition number eight. The above referenced conservation area shall be delineated on the plan SLP plat to be signed by the pling board chair and shall be marked in the field using property markers as delineated in the map set. Number nine, a road reclamation block on sheet five must be added. Number 10. A note on sheet 205 needs to be changed. Unauthorized quote unauthorized road needs to be abandoned. End quote from quote existing dirt lane to be abandoned. End quote. 11. Performance bonding documentation has been provided by the applicant and has been referred to the town board for final review and approval. Such approval must be completed prior to planning board chair signature of final plan. Number 12. The applicant shall comply with any and all comments from the Town of Rochester Highway Superintendent and the Airport Fire District andor the Town of Rochester Fire Inspector as well as the Town of Marbletown Highway Superintendent. Condition 13, the applicant shall present a final subdivision plan of signature.

You know what? Um, somehow this dropped out, but there's no reference to the RMA. Oh, yeah. You're right. Um, that might have been my fault, but uh, so let's add that was referencing to number five. Is it five? Thank you. Yes. Thank you. Yep.

Okay. Start here. Um the town of Rochester planning board further grants authority to the chairman to certify that these conditions have been met at which time the chairman is authorized to sign and date the plat without further resolution by the planning board. This final subdivision approval shall expire 180 days from this approval date unless all conditions are satisfied and certified as completed. This period may be extended for two additional 90-day periods upon application to an approval by the town of Rochester Works. Effective approval number one, the owner shall file for signature and certification in the office of the Olster County Clerk. six approved paper plans flats and one myar plan flat copy bearing the chairman's signature and any other related documents within 62 days from the date of the chairman's signature or such approval shall be deemed to expire without further notice in accordance with New York State town law section 276. Number two, the owner shall have the responsibility to return four Olster County Clerk certified copies of his file plan and any other related documents to the planning board within 30 days of such filing. The applicant upon submitting for final plan maps signed and stamped by the county to the planning board will also submit a PDF of the final SL final plan map to the planning board. Draft resolution was prepared by the chairman and/or town planner was read and discussed as needed by the planning board in a public meeting at a time in a place of adoption. I do uh does the applicant have any questions or comments? Good. All right. So, uh I'll entertain a motion. The board we'll make motion.

Dave Robins makes the motion. Second. Hans adopted tonight 27 by the following vote. All in favor? I chair votes I. Nay zero and two uh two abencances. Okay. Thank you very much. We're done. Thank you. One quick question. Do you get any response from the town board as far as the bond or anything like that? We reach out to them. I'll send I'll let you know. Okay. All right. Thanks, Casey. Yeah. All right. Thank you. Thank you. So we meet again on another project soon later.

Okay. I know we talked earlier today about the larger maps. Okay. So I've produced some smaller maps people to look at. All right. So um obviously this is for circles. We don't like maps coming in at the last minute. The map came in quite a while ago. It was a detailed topographical map showing the location of the sound um receptors receptors. And I told him, you got to get me you got to get the board a bigger map. Bring something to the meeting. So that's what he brought tonight in order to be able to see. I guess the map that was submitted just was property line to property line. You didn't see evidence of plot outside. Correct. Yeah. So I'm hoping that's what we have here.

Well, it's two smaller versions here. One is actually we did add some of the buildings. So I should have copies for everybody here.

Yeah, this is a just a different version. So you giving us each two? It is but smaller one's a blow up. So Phil, are you giving us two? Are they different? So the one that was on top has been was made today that show the actual buildings. Most of the buildings uh these buildings were located using an aerial image. So some of the ones obscured the trees may not be on there but it does show the majority of buildings. Um and that scale is correct. Then the second map was a smaller version of what we actually sent the board before. So scaling

right but this landing. So the first uh circle is half mile and then the second circle. Second circle. It's not labeled though. Yes sir. All

right. So what we wanted to do tonight was to confirm the location of the sound receptive sites. I know Helina has been all all over this with Caleb as to what would be appropriate. So I wanted to get that done. Um I also wanted the applicant to um or to talk about Dave. you'll be helpful here. Um the make the referral have the board agree to make the referral to the historic historical preservation commission. Um and then any other updates of other material that you're preparing. Uh if you have any other updates for us, uh that would be great. I don't think the board has anything more than that. This is an important step to get the sound study and the locations for those receptors done. So if we can accomplish that tonight, we've made some progress on this.

Yeah, I hope I hope we discuss that we discuss that first. Okay. So, and we did we did have a site meeting today with several board members. And so I So if anybody from the board has any comments as a result of the site meeting to share with those who were going out tomorrow, that' be great. So you want to start you want to start with the um It's mud. Look at this. It's Marty. Okay. Clippers. Sorry. Clippers or machete. Do you want to start with the u sound receptor sites?

Um yeah. So the fire sites uh you know I know the previous video we're at we talked about this uh these uh locations. Um previously I had three locations shown and we added several additional ones on top of that. Um, currently, uh, you know, I do have a list here. Uh, first one is is some of the closest neighbors on to path there. It's in the northwest corner of the property near near several adjacent homes. Um, uh, two is in the parking lot for the deepole uh, sanctuary. Uh, three is just a long is near the closest neighbor to the site. three which is actually really close to feed pole itself as well. Um and then number four is on the western property closest to the proposed building. Um five we had at the north property line uh by the old canal there. Uh and then six we were asked to have a receptor up on Rockfield Road which is definitely the closest clustering of residential homes uh near Bills. And I I uh the only one I haven't been to yet today uh was number five. And so I made a point of walking down there specifically to see because Helina had said maybe about moving it up the hillsides u because where it's currently located probably looks to be maybe an old uh

it's either a remnant of an excavation or the DNH canal and all I'm asking for the board if you look at a relief map or these contours on the larger map um it's in a hole and all I ask is that it just be brought up uh through the 25 at 250 260 elevation uh with number five and I I don't after being down there I don't see any issues with that moving it up there. Yeah. Well, I don't and I did follow up with technical staff on Okay. that appropriateness of having that. Yeah. But um and then one

one there is a property line there. So, I guess I can give a little on that. Well, that's the one we wanted. You know, those are some of the closest neighbors. Um, right. I just wanted it up a little, but it's not as it's not in a hole like. Yeah, exactly. That that does look like it's it was probably a boring for the canal at some point. All right. So, is the board okay with the moving of of number five? Yeah. No, I think that that's that's good. Maybe back. Yeah, we spoke about it this

and you saw the actual and I I I agree with colleagues when they said something that was fairly. So, I'm confused by number six that's not on the property, right? I believe Jennifer was the one who actually asked to put it on.

No, I did. All right. Sorry. as as and I think Jennifer also had the same idea and most of us were talking about it and whoever was with Dave and Peter. Um it's basically because going to go up don't know it's just a good data point to have. You have a lot of residences over there. We're just to be thorough and to capture what you're proposing to the neighborhood.

Point out that I I fortuitously met the owners of that site or that house number six. And I'm hoping that having met them and to say, you know, be in your interest to have a sound receptor there that they'll go along with it. I have not spoken to them about it because I didn't know for sure what you all wanted, but I'm just gonna trust that that it's in everybody's interest to test the sound up there and that they will do that. Well, it sounds like a good idea, but you'll have to get the landlords,

right? We'll have to get that. But as you pointed out today, your property line does extend there. So, it's really I mean actually to get to where your property line is on the other side of the tree, it's a lot easier getting that rock hill, right? Oh, it's it's easier to access from rock from That's exactly right. As opposed to going to your property line down flow. Yeah, I assume there's something that that it happens. Person says no, you can't come on my property. Where do you guys listen to it? Then it would be on the property. Yeah. So it's actually on that side of the creek, the default property, not spirit circle, right? So

Okay. Everybody okay with that? Yeah. Yeah. All right. And thank you, sir. Even though it was less. Thank you. Yeah. No other we will guarantee you

David off code with respect to the historic preservation mission there's no specific documents that are mentioned in the code as to what needs to be delivered to them but in the past when we've done this we've gotten the latest maps we've given the latest maps the narrative and Do you remember what else they need? Well, they were interested in but the building design. Yeah. Right. Which is the primary function, right?

I mean, it's an interesting I mean, I just want to say from our site visit this morning, the building is really sensitively located. I mean, it's and you're not going to see it a public road anything. I don't we may see it. They may get seasonal views from the uh you know the road above. I don't know if you'd like to be with most things. So you know it's unusual in that sense. I think it would be in the middle

would be visible from the property to the right property. So it's so well it's the same elevation correct but there are a number of trees that are between there there's some large pines there's a pine grove I'm I'm looking at a a map that shows the vegetation and if you're standing on the border of that property you'll definitely see it would work today the roof line I would imagine I don't know about the lower elevation stuff were there yesterday? Yes. Okay. So, Peter and Davey were there. So,

and Helina, it was shielded byers or not? There's a the line of cedars along the top road that I think they're intending to keep. There's kind of a little meadow area for the houseite and I agree with Dave where it is located um is uh uh is very sensitively done and I think it's a good location for it. I I do think that we even though the property next to next door I do think it would be visible from there but that's there's nothing on that property right now but all right I don't think we can say it's not going to have any impact on

yeah I mean I I think that's worth mentioning you know when what's heard is that you know it's sort of it's not that's right on the strength right so Mike I saw saw you making notes about what we're going to need to send to the historical societ So, we need the latest map showing the location. Um, we need the um architectural 3D or uh side view, top view, all sides of narrative. We have it that we need that. Yeah, Dave.

Some indications to terrorists, right? Good. Yep. Yeah. I suppose I don't I remember the materials that you talked about. It was soundproof/fireproof light. Yeah. That's the Okay. So, we can get

the colors, the material, the colors, the color scheme of of what's actually going to be used. This reference to the historic preservation commission is because it adjoins the historic Hamlet area. Right. Right. Right. But also we should make note that it the property does adjoin D&H canal um property on the along the Ronda between that exists between the Rondout and the property. Right. Well, that's the feature that's within proximity. Yeah. The canal is on the national register. Right. But I think it's also it triggered because the district is the district. Yeah,

it's closed next door, right? There there is however no possibility of being seen from the canal. N I guarantee you there's it's not a visual thing. Visual it's not a visual thing. It's a it's a proximity to it this historic register. So they just need to be notified. Yeah. But but it won't it won't visually impact them for sure. it. If it's possible that it can be seen from the OSI uh land, I'd be surprised, but it is possible. And anyway, we'll give you that information. So, Mike, if we can get the seeker docks, too, Mr. Chairman, we don't I don't think that they don't need to see. No, I think what we gave the list we gave you is sufficient.

We got it. as soon as you get those to us. If you get them to Stacy, one of the things that we discussed in the field today was that um the structure may be lower. So, you know, when we're discussing visual from the properties that would, you know, that's under so I have my I just want the rest of the board to know that you were contemplating that and I mean maybe once you come up with um final elevation, a couple of rudimentary line of sight uh profiles should be sufficient. What do you guys think?

Yeah, I know the architectural pamphlet that was it had some of those sites in it, but yeah, blueprint. I mean, right now, especially since you're contemplating lowering the roof line, whatever whatever you give us, if that's your final line, if you're going to change it and it goes higher, we got to go back to them. No, it's going lower. lower.

The discussion is active that bring the roof down itself, but also in elevation we're talking about bringing um the grading. We originally we talked about maybe having a walk out against it, but that's been kind of taken away. Um in the essence that we the main portion of the building want to be a slab on grave, so we actually want to lower it so the foundations aren't installed. And we're we're also looking at the living roof right now which is a like a 212 pitch instead of a 5 or 72 pitch. So it will bring the roof down and lowering the walls. So all that's with my builder and architect and in the thick of discussions at this

so we're a little you get us the package. as quickly as it's so I'd entertain a motion to for the board to refer the state historic preservation commission with the materials that I just asked them to provide us with. Peter Dave seconds. I all in favor. Anybody opposed? Chair votes on. Um Caleb, uh Dave Church provided you with a a write up of all the things that we're going to need. Yep. It was I know he sent it back a while ago. I know I know we haven't really answered all that stuff. So to move this project along, every everything that's in there needs to be done.

We we Yeah, we owe you a response letter. There's a lot of stuff you owe us. So yeah, I'm not going to keep track of it except if it's missing, but do you know what you need to No, I I I do know there was an there's an outstanding letter and we do need to respond to that. Um, you know, I know we're trying, you know, we wanted to get the sound receptor kind of done and so then we can schedule that um at the next. I'm not I don't remember the specific dates, but I did you say May 26, May 29th? May, what' you say, Helina? They had mentioned a couple of dates for the uh ambient noise monitoring.

I think it was May 2 or 22nd. I put it on. We're not going to be there. No, but it's good to know because we asked for it to check. They had last week a weekend and a week day. They had last weekend available and we didn't have the you didn't have the final location and then May uh sounds 29th and 30th. Well, we need the final we need the final report. Okay, Greg, have you done you haven't done a review of this, have you? Yes, I have. Oh, yeah.

A while ago. 222. Well, it sounds all right. Well, good. I Okay. It sounds like um they're going to be changing the uh profile of the building. Parking lot. Oh, in the parking lot. Oh, we had talked about using the parking lot. Yeah. Okay. What else did we There were a couple other things that were discussed in the

I know you know we had talked about uh and I think even uh we met with the contractor uh David Lawrence about possibly shifting the road one direction to avoid um you know basic drain the current drainage path that's there um all that drainage along the road generally as we uh because there is a steep embankment as you come down to the uh as you go up the driveway state there's a steep embankment and we're kind of going in between where that drainage path is. So, we can talk about shutting that over a little bit, but we can, you know, there's some work to do there, too. And then probably get back uh and this is going to disturb more of the trees that we don't have located right now, but there's definitely a lot more.

All right. So, Caleb, the point is um yes, all these changes that you're making, we need to let Greg know so he can incorporate them either in one more look see at the whole project engineering point of view. Um so in the similar fashion that we did with some other projects if you're making if you're making these changes um going to keep the board as well as uh break in in the loop. Yeah. you know, we've I mean, like a month ago, we did a site visit with uh you know, David Florence and then also, you know, the builder

and we walked the driveway similar to what we did today and there's already discussion about trying to move it a little bit to the work out the bills a little better as well. Okay. But will there come where it's going to be, the height's going to be with the point? Will it come come a point where you'll be able to tell us we're done with the changes? Correct. Okay. So, we need to know when you're done with your changes so that we can have Greg evaluate. Does he need to do any more work on it? I think it it I had noted in this that it was more than an acre disturbance. So, there will be absolutely and I haven't Yeah.

Okay. Seen I think go ahead. I'm sure they want to get everything done. starting. No, go ahead. I'm sure they want to get everything finalized before they do the swim. Yeah, you know, we just preliminary calculations for the fire retention size stuff like that, but that's not before that work out. Okay. Okay. Traffic study. I think we talked about that. So, it was a great Oh, yeah, we did. Yeah. Uh so we did uh was probably a couple weeks now since uh we actually got engaged with Jennings uh put together a traffic study. Okay.

We haven't seen it yet. We probably reach out to Ken out of that. All right. Anybody else in the wood? Dave Storage Preservation Commission meets next. They meet on the third Mondays which would be 518 next at the unique time of 2:30 in the afternoon. Oh, very uh Mike seems to be chuckling. That's a good time. 2:30 is a good time for What an unusual thing. Uh we've only gone there once. It's a new part of the code, right? Yep. So their co their complete focus on the one experience we had was on what the building's going to look like.

Yeah. It's not from where it's going to be seen from. It's not going to be other issues. It's what's the building going to look like? Is that a meeting? I'm sorry. Go ahead. No, I was just going to ask Dave. So if they're going to change the elevation of the roof and lower it, then would this project be ripe to be referred to? Well, you could explain that by in a month. Yeah. I don't know what we can if if I'll have it 518 or not. Two weeks. Explain it.

You I don't I would suggest it was very rational conversation the first experience, right? Um my suggestion is schedule them go. Yeah. And if you want to see it one more time, at least you're not bind to because they only meet once a month at most. There's some months I don't think they even meet. Right.

All right. So Stacy, could we reach out to them um and scheduled to be on the agenda, their agenda for 518? And as I said before, if you have a finished packet, fine. If you make changes, you're going to have to go back significant changes. So, and I think if you are making significant changes and you don't have it ready for the 518, um, doing shadow figures on a wall isn't going to work with them, right? You know, it's moving this way and that way. So, you got to show us what you got to show them what it looks like. They're not engineers. But there is an architect. There is an architect. There is an architect. Thank you. Do

you know where they meet? They're meeting. Well, they typically meet in the historic the museum, but they moved to here when they had because technically it would be public. It could be seen as a public discussion about an applicant. So, they've got to be accommodating. I the museum is the last one that we did we did here. So, it's likely to be here if it works. If it works. So, we need to find out if it's I don't we don't have to do a public hear a public notice. We didn't do sales, did we? I It's whatever their meetings are. Well, they have to do that. What you know? Yeah. I don't know that they do that or not do that.

Um I mean their schedules on the town gen town website, so they must publish it once a year. Okay. I uh yeah, I will note the primary consideration in the code is referring you to historic design elements. So, you're going to have to explain this is not going to look like a farm in 1880s farm structure. I that's what they're push to advise on. They look a little more like a 15 or 1600 indigenous, but I don't think they're it would seem very rational. Yeah. Times we've been there. Okay. Anything else for the board on this project at this point?

We're going to talk about commercial Thank you. Um, at the last meeting that last night of the year, Darl, you and I spoke about this after that, we talked about commercial events and Dave Church put together a um description of commercial events, how it changed within the within the code. Um, and that's on MUN Collab, okay,

under your site, so you can read it. So at some point, I don't know that we're ready to do that yet, but we need to talk about the impact of commercial events as defined within the code are no longer available in any of the zones and how does that affect what you believe your intended uses are going to be or your intend your intended uses are going to be? I I'll just say I mean I think it'd be good for the discussion with Mike and and Dave to have maybe initially but I I think we've been clear from the beginning that it's for ritual and dance. It's a conf conference and education center with ancillary Asian possibility of other types of ritual and dance. That's that's the only thing that will be there. Music, dance, ritual, um participatory events. Um I think there's some questions around when you're say this kind of ritual and not that kind of ritual. I I I'm not in I'm I'm not going into business for for something that is not my passion, which is the dance and ritual that I've expressed. And it will need to pay its bills hopefully in perpetuity. Um and so some kinds of those kind of events, it's the there's a possibility of ancillary weddings. And I think I'd like to we have a 75 person limit. This is a small location. This is not a you know not a narrow. This is not a

thousand people coming with big speakers and big electron electrification and and we're going to have sound studies that I'm expecting will assure everybody that nobody is going to be bothered by this. And that's my desire, my commitment, my intention. And so if it needs uh you know you know I I get that commercial I mean anything can be called an event but I don't think that makes it a commercial events facility.

So there's two two terms in the code. One is commercial event and it's in the code definitions and there's an actual definition for it but it's no longer in the code the actual provisions. The other definition which is the is what you are right is education and conference center that definition is in the code also. So what I invite you and your attorney to do

is to look at both of them. You could only ascribe in in this use to the one and figure out we're going to need something in writing from from you guys as to what you're proposing, what kind of stuff you're going to do. It's very clear what you can do in education and conference centers. Um, and at some point present that to this board because that'll be part of the decision. If you need advice, Mike, you could certainly call Dave Church and I invite you to look on Munich Collab for the document that he put together. It's page and a half um where he describes what is and what isn't and also describes an approach that could be taken not to stretch the definition but to implement what you're trying to do. All right. So, it's pretty clear in those two definitions what's in, what's out. And just invite you to explain to us what you're going to do,

the limits that you're going to apply in terms of people, in terms of sound, in terms of instrument, all that stuff. And you're going to have a sound study that you have to ascribe to. So, I just mention it just to to keep you up to date on Yep. We're going to be looking for that. Okay. Thank you. I I do I'm there is a in the initial that's there that's technically the initial narrative that we submitted there was a an explanation as well. So that's there but we can flesh that out. Well, I think it'll be useful this issue.

I think you're going to find it useful for Mr. Marie Allen to flesh it out with with Dave. Yeah. in order to satisfy this board when we do the decision that we've got it all tightened up. Okay. And you and you understand what's allowed, what's not allowed. Okay. The board have anything else? We're good. Okay. Okay. So, we're we can do the sound study now and that's all. Do you do you want to see anything else? I mean, I know where we're going to move that receptor map. I could update the map and set it for you and yeah, especially if uh you're going to be doing the ambient monitoring in May.

Well, we don't need to come back for any further a minute and put the revision date. As we said when you first started, you got a lot of work to do and you still have a lot of work. We've done a lot, but made some progress. Thank you. Thank you. I'm going to ask for a 10-minute break.

So, we'll reconvene in at 5 minutes to I don't think Skies are finally done. Not ski season finally.

Yeah, I'm supposed to remind you if it's limited party time. We'll run have a drink or go fly somewhere. Yeah. Yeah.

But it's been great.

How you doing? Okay. Oh. Stacey, you'll

reset. But I don't know just The thing is even though at least give yourself great There's no there's no point in the works. They were in a in quite a different place than I was.

I mean, I knew they never seen The only one I saw was a second. If I need to

I would assume the camp they want might assemble soon. They probably already registration the resort question. They want to use I think it doesn't come instruction. You know, the smell Yeah.

I think it's like building it outside. I wouldn't know. I've been in this building for like 12 hours and then bring her home and this come back. So I left for like an hour. Wow. Want to go run around the fort? Yeah. You want to race?

I'm pretty broken. I can't run. Yeah, I think that's a great idea.

Now they're good. You're going to be walking through.

Yeah. Move it over. Why do you want to put So you didn't I think I I knew about that but I didn't I missed that. I knew

that's okay once you get through it. You get through that and then you get and then you get that

when I wasing surprises. So, I wouldn't raise that on the trucks. You have to build. Trump's art almost.

All right, Jeff, we're gonna get started. It's more than audible. We have specifically model that are

so Jeeoff are the any of the applicants the actual applicants here? I know you're the represent Oh, in the back. Okay, Mr. treat. I recognize you from the last time you were here. So, you came all the way up from DC or I did, but I do have a mom in uh I know you told me that in Jersey. So, did you come to see her and then thought you'd stop here or did you come here? You going to go see her? Right. And this must be Mr. um Milspa. Yes.

Okay. Cool. Um so, there is no public hearing here for the the public. I think you all know that. So, I just want to get that out of the way. and we'll be here until we're exhausted and we drop one by one for as long as it takes to um for the applicants to say what they want to say.

Just by way of an update to remind the board and also we um we published a um what's called an AF part three um two meetings ago. I'm sorry, one meeting ago and also a draft resolution for a pause deck. The FEF part three responds to the part two. The part two, the seeker form part two has 18 questions in it with a numerous u subcategories and we identified which of the 18 categories applied to this project um that were either moderate to launch impacts and those categories were um primarily environmental categories whether it be water, groundwater, septic, traffic, uh noise, uh, odor, light, things of that sort. And there were seven items that we identified as being moderate to launch. That was done in the part two. The part three was done then elucidates the reasons why we believe that these are moderate to large impacts. Um, and then from there, it's up to the board. Um and we did prep prepare um a pause deck resolution for a pause deck. It's up to the board to decide u whether or not the environmental impacts are controllable or or so small as to warrant a negative deck or are large enough to warrant a pause deck. And we have a pause deck ready um waiting in the the wings if you would. Um the applicant knows that the applicant has seen everything. I think you've had all the material for two or three weeks and they prepared

information to us um either countering or or um supplying additional information which might cause us to change our mind in terms of the bos. And for the board um there's three or four main new items that we received from the uh applicant and correct me where I missed some of them. One of them was a six to sevenpage document from Mr. Mills who's their engineer which goes through each one of the items that we identified in the part three um and answers each one of them. Um I think the well I know everybody has read read them. So that was one document. There was a email from the county department of health having to do with the gallons per day per person that the county department of health indicated would be the number that the applicant could use in um pursuing their project. And I'll comment on on that later comment on all of them later. Um so that was the second item. Third item was a document that Jeff sent me last Thursday or Friday which laid out the occupancy of um how many people were in each of the rooms and there were a set of rooms of the 126 rooms. There were a set of rooms where they purported that those rooms could hold eight people per room and the remaining rooms could hold four people per room. And that summed up to 770 people give or take 765 770. And there was a fourth document which is escapes me right now. Um maybe you could tell me in a second which one I missed.

Um in addition to that, the board certainly has all the documents going back a year. Um so to about this time last year when we really started getting into this project. So, I'm not going to comment on anything that you've sent us at this point. I'll let you proceed uh to um talk with respects to the FEAF. Um we're here to listen. We're usually here to midnight. So, um we don't serve corki, however. Um, so we'll here to listen and I know that we're going to have a lot of questions and a lot of comments of our own when we're finished.

Do you want to add anything uh legally in terms of the FEF and the PAS deck that I may have mopped up? No. Okay, let's I'm ready for the bar exam. Okay, who's first?

Um, I'm so uh thank you again. We are following back here February. Um, again I know that you mentioned but to my left is our engineer Mark Milsp engineering. My right is Eric Crane uh from Associates Associates. Um, I want to start by just saying I was a little disappointed with the tone of the letter we received today from your engineer. It seemed me quite frankly to be very adversarial in nature. We've tried to comply and respond to everything that's been said here. Uh I think my client as we go through our comments today um has gone overboard in attempting to respond to all of the concerns including the height of the building, the length of the building, how the building is situate. Um and after a year of being before this board, the first be told our application is incomplete uh seems a little quite frankly adversarial as I mentioned. So I want to give you a brief history as far as we see this on this project. So my client before he even buys the place goes into your building department and says to the building department, "We run a uh voice uh camp and we're uh considering buying time growth ranch and we want to make sure that we um meet your criteria uh and that the use is uh allowed and authorized." uh in response to that application which is required under the Rochester law, we got back a letter that basically said uh this is not a change of use and you are authorized to proceed with the operation of a camp at that

site. We then in furtherance of that following purchase made several applications for building permits all of them involving the use of this property as a camp. all of them involving inspections by your building department and all of them resolved uh with the appropriate CO um or CC um that's required after doing that again there was complete knowledge of what we were doing there that we were using the camp again we got a letter indicating that there was no change of use and we then then went as we were supposed to to the board of health in DEEC DEC accepted uh a an assignment of the permit that the prior user had and the board of health reviewed our applications and let us operate for 2002 2003 2004 2005 and in 200

what 2002.5 Jeff did you get written um permits from the health department um yes I'm sure that yes of course Yeah. Well, Jeeoff, we've been we've been talking to you for for more than a year. Is it possible for us to get those permits? They submitted. They were submitted. Yeah, we have permits. We have permits from 2024, I think. Well, that's the permit 2024, believe. Yeah.

So, in any case, in 2025, there was an application made. We clearly specified in the uh application to the board of health how many people we were going to have and that permit was approved and that's how many people we had at the camp at that time. Somewhere in the range of 740 760 uh but it was within the application. Um that application we haven't seen. we can submit that application

and that that's one of I'll let you keep talking but that's a huge crux of the matter that we're we need to deal with this seven number 770. So, in any case, having gotten um a a commitment from town of Rochester, having gone to the town of Rochester building department getting our building permits um without any requirement that we come before this board, uh not until we decided to build a more significant addition to the camp, and it was our first significant addition to the camp did the building department say, "At this point, you should go to the um planning board for review of your new building. Um and that was started about a year ago. The new building was a kitchen and a uh dining room and quite frankly that's really all this should be. We've done every step along the way before that got the getting the approval from from the planning board from the uh building department uh for the use and uh thereafter applying for any additions or modifications we have done to the property. So what we should be looking at and this board should be looking at is this building. Um, beyond that, and that includes quite frankly calling this a type one action when it really is an unclassified action. Never seen a building of this nature being called a type one action. So, you're going far beyond just the building. And again, we're going back to the creation of this property as a camp, religious camp that was already reviewed and approved in the in the manner in which the process within the town required. So

at this point, you now come forward before you. Um, we've given you a report. You said to us the building initially was too long. Uh, we broke up the size of the building. You said the building was the footprint was too big. We reduced the footprint. Our latest thing now and I I believe Mr. Chairman early on you had recommended this. We now turn the building. So now instead of being lengthwise as you drive down the road, you only see one side. Most of the trees that would have been removed as a result of putting it lengthwise are now going to stay in place. Screening. There's very little you're going to be able to see from Cherry Town Road right in front of it, let alone from 4455 miles away. Um, so I believe that we've complied with everything. The board of health again knows how many people we have. They've done their analysis. They have other camps within the area where they have the same amount of gallons per day that we are using. Um, and that is specific for uh camps uh and should not be related to I know that you now submitted uh a letter uh from a school that was had been applied for and really has nothing to do with this application. So I believe that we are covering everything you've asked for. Again, no increase in the population. We've now removed the basement. uh no increase in traffic. In fact, there will be a reduction in traffic because we're going to have larger storage facilities in this new building. Um and um I think there was one other thing I just wanted to just again go through the process. When we were here in February, we were told the following

that we'd be getting a letter from the um building the planning board clerk followed shortly by the proposed recommendations from this board for part three that we would then be able to respond to and then work with you before uh the next meeting. All right. We after a couple calls I did get the letter from the uh Rochester clerk and I appreciate that but we didn't get anything regarding part three for almost two months after that meeting and then when we did get that we got shortly after that we get a proposed positive deck without ever looking at any of our comments and then when I proposed that we meet with your professional staff we were told sorry the board will not allow you to meet with our professional staff. I mean, I don't understand how we went from a meeting in February in which we were going to work together to see what we could mitigate and see how we can resolve that to a point where everything was done without our input and without even allowing us to meet with your professionals at our cost.

So, I'll take with that said, I will now turn myself over to uh Mr. Tra. Let me respond quick.

Hang on. We got a lot of things I want to challenge you on in terms of your facts. Um, first of all, and I appreciate the your tone, um, which is very calm. if there was any uh tonal assumptions on your part on the part of our engineer. Um I think if you you've met him, you know him. He doesn't um run around like a screaming mini. Um and so if there was any tone that you took from his comments, I apologize on behalf of them. It could reflect maybe the sense of the board that you know we are as frustrated as you are but for different reasons. our reasons on we don't seem to be getting the same story from either the same persons or we get different stories from different persons as to some of the things you spoke about. So let's first talk about the 550 770 people or 570 765 people etc etc etc and I'm reading from the initial narrative from this project that was delivered to us on March 10th or 11th of 2025 and I'm going to read the paragraph and a half uh for the record and it's a category called existing permitted capacities the facility operates year round with a temporary residence TR permit from the Olster County Department of Health facility code yada yay blah blah blah blah permit number blah blah blah blah and is permitted for a capacity of 126 rooms and units. Additionally, a children's camp permit is held for the summer months allowing for a capacity of 570 people see attached in the middle. Then it goes on to say, as stated, the

site has a capacity of 126 units/ rooms accommodating up to 570 people. Doesn't talk about 770, 765. It talks about 126 rooms accommodating 570 people, which would suggest to me to jump ahead with something that has been said before where you couldn't possibly have that number of campers without some adults supervising them. That's not what this says. This says the 570 and we took it to mean from this time last year to mean that that was campers and attendant people, whoever those attendant people were. Doesn't say 570 plus 220. doesn't say anything other than 126 units and rooms accommodating up to 570 people. That's what we've been working with. And we suddenly found out and that was in February, March rather, of last year. And then we suddenly found out on November 17th of last year in a document that came from Sterling um Mr. Mills, your your company, Sterling Associates, the number 770 popped up. We found that in a meeting that we were having with members of the board and our engineer and um members of your team and we questioned that where did this number come from? It's the first time we've ever seen that number. We've been working with 550. First of all, working with 550, we had said back in April of last year after getting this that we would wave the hydrogeeologic study because you purported that 550 was the number that you've always had. and you had you would not use any more water. Okay. Our code allows us and we had advice not to ask you to do the hydrogeeologic study. Well, if in fact you are going to have 770, right now we're working with 550. If you're going

to have 770, that notion of no hydrogeeologic study is out the window because you've told me in the past you had 550. Now, I don't believe you've ever had 550 up there the last 3 years that it's been operating. And you're going to need to provide us with proof that there's been 550 people there. Rosters, something. I don't believe you had 550 in 2025, 2024, 2023, and I don't think I don't know how many months you were working or you were operating in 2022. I think it's been significantly less than that. It's a new camp and you were soliciting people from Brooklyn and Queens, young ladies to come up there. You didn't have 550. Besides that, you gave us a application for 550. So, let's hold that thought. The 36 gallons per day per person, 55 gallons per day per person, 75 gallons per day per person. These numbers have all been knocking around. When we did the FEF, our engineer along with some experts from the board who work for the work for the DEC and also work now for the DP came up with a number of 75 gallons per person per day with the admission that with water saving devices it could be 55 gallons per day. Now, they just didn't pull this out of the clear blue sky or out of whole cloth as you would. They pulled it out of the appropriate state book and I'll let the experts tell him the name of it. It always escapes me, but they pulled it out of um resources from New York State. And the specific category of use was called boarding boarding school, which to our experts was the most applicable category to use. I've gotten nothing in that or I've learned nothing from that email from Mr.

Kazasser of the Department of Health that I got three or four or five days ago which said 36 gallons. It's just 36 gallons. No reference to where that came from. 36 gallons per day per person. No references, nothing. Compare that. I know that you'll be using examples of other camps in the area as evidence that everything's honky dory. So, I'm going to reference an email that we got or actually a letter that got from the same engineer from the county, William Kazassa from May of last year when we were working on a different project, a very similar if not exactly the same. A boarding school, a camp, a camp for young men, whatever. But it was going to be occupied in the same fashion that this is occupied. People were going to stay overnight. They were going to be fed. They would be washing their laundry, etc., etc. And I remember the quote that he had which was, "In my professional opinion, this is William Cassid. In my professional opinion, the water needs of this facility are 55 gallons per day per person with water saving devices, not 36." So, I don't know where he came up at 36 and

same guy. Same guy. We're going to have to ch we will challenge that.

Okay. And we'll challenge that through you you uh to say no, we're not accepting 36. It just doesn't hang together technically hang together. And we can have a robust discussion with the engineers about which code book is used to come to that number. Um, and there are other things that we probably are not yet on the same page. SWIP, we already went through this with your applicant that we need a SWIP. Theory, full stop. And somewhere in one of the documents recent, we don't need a SWIP because it doesn't meet the one Henerance. We absolutely disagree with that that you're going to need a SWIP. Um, so there are some things we do agree with. We at least agree that there should be work done on the lighting that everything has to be dark sky compliant. We can all agree to that. I don't know whether we agree yet on the need for traffic study. You made some very good points about the traffic study. So, we'll have to talk about that. Um, all of what I've just said is embedded in the FEAF. Now, I'd have to go back and check the records with Stacy to see when we got you the FAF.

I think April 7th. I thought it was in March sometime. I think you got it in March. I think we got it beginning of April.

Yeah. Um, all I could say is we're trying to move as quickly as possible to accommodate your applicant. We did not want to meet with your experts. As I told you before, part of that was quite frankly this board had a significant not even a meltdown but a significant um gave significant instructions to the chair in October of last year after numerous meetings where maps came in the same meeting at the same time as the as the meeting information was not provided information was late couldn't review it. They made it very clear to the chair that they didn't want me meeting with with other members of the board and the applicant unless they gave approval for that because of the frustration at trying to get our hands around this stuff. On that specific request, I pulled the board over the weekend, whatever weekend it was, and six six votes. No, we want everything to be done here in public at this point. And so that's the reason for that. It wasn't Nobody's pulling the rug. You didn't say that. But nobody's pulling the rug out of anybody. Yeah. From underneath anybody. We do need to move forward, right? Um now a comment about a pause debt. Pause.

What? Don't Oh, okay. We're not doing a pause deck. It's proposal. I'm not saying that because I was gonna make a comment about what a pause deck is used for. Yeah. But I won't I actually wanted to speak of the pause stack issues there. I'm not I'm not

I'm not finished. Um and I was going to turn it over to my attorney. Okay. So um well maybe I am finished but those are the things that we have been grappling with the specific items that I have given you um that we disagree with in terms of numbers you're going to have to do either a lot of convincing or you're going to have to come to our u side of what the facts are.

I I have a couple couple of questions. Yeah. First of all, just to be really clear, the type one designation for this project comes right out of the code. It's in black and white. I'll read it for you right now. This is in the AC aerial protection uh a protection overlay district, which is where you are. The following uses and activities when proposed partially or wholly within the acryer protection district shall be designated as type one actions under seeker. B. any commercial, mixed use, or industrial use or activity with projected on-site groundwater withdrawals and/or sewage disposal flows of over a thousand gallons per day or more during any single 30-day period. Black and white. It's type one action. Just the way it is. I also want to point out that although you may have been surprised or shocked, we drafted a part three which has all the facts that you discussed that Rick discussed that we've all discussed that are important. Put it up on the internet and you've had several weeks to comment on. We haven't done we also published a draft part a draft pause deck but we haven't taken vote on we haven't scheduled a vote for tonight on it. I don't know what's going to happen in terms of a motion. you're here tonight, you can comment on it. You did submit a comment on it. The idea that we're taking this step without listening to you, without discussing it with you, is rhetoric. That's just simply not true. We we we've heard your pres we've heard your presentation for a number of months, but even at that, we've published part three for everybody to see and for you to comment on. So the idea that this is somehow being, you know, put past you without the opportunity for comment is not true. Also, what we're doing tonight is functionally the same as the meeting that you wanted.

The only difference is that the whole board is here and the public is here. And frankly, that's the preferred way to move forward. We have had couple of meetings with um the applicants not in public and that is a concession which frankly should be somewhat limited because the business that we're talking about is public business and so the discussion that we want to have can be had right now and that that's exactly what we're doing today and I have two questions for you. First of all, the reconfiguration of the building. What is the width along Cherry Town Road?

I think it's 150. 158. Will you confirm that? I can. Oh, Mark, that's it. 158. I would have to pull the drawing up and measure it. I don't I don't have the hard copy drawing wouldn't be so we don't know as you sit here tonight we don't know what the what the is the long ch it shows on the draw

I I seen the drawing but I I want to be able to express to the public and for ourselves this was this was expressed in the part three as a critical factor in terms of that particular aspect of the environmental impact which was the pres the visual presentations to the community um I don't want I mean I think it's great that you guys have worked on reconfiguring the building but it's it's you um that particular statistic is actually of fundamental importance and we need to know what it is and it's frankly a little surprising that that we're here tonight discussing the whether or not the impacts of mitigating we just don't know what the answer is. Jeff I got one more question.

Um there's a number of things in your statement I want to boil it down to just one. There's clear and and the chair alluded to this. There's clearly a disagreement about the number of gallons per day per person that ought to be applied here. Your concern about a perspective pos or whatever your concern is, is it based on that disagreement or is it based on something else? And be clear about my question. If we were to decide on a technical basis that the that the gallons per day the applicable gallons per day per person was somewhere north of let's just say 40. So that the total use per day on the facility exceeded the speed. Let's just say that's the number we come up with. Are you still asserting that this board should not be looking at that as part of its declaration of significance? What I'm asserting is that border health is the expert in this area and the board of health has determined it's 36 not 40 not 50 and they have the right to make that determination and they they you know if you'd like to contact them and challenge I want to be clear what I'm saying is it comes down to the number it's not like and if it turned out that the number was higher for whatever reason then you'd be then we that we have right to learn

the calculation are such that we don't have the capacity then you'd be correct but that's not that's not part of the posc question that's that's a broader question of this site use plan because lets you look at the change the delta from the project what is the project before us it's the dining hall it's not the camp the camp's going to be 770 you know whether this dining hall is there or not what what it lets you look at baseline but only to calculate the delta the change and The change here only goes down. It go It's the same number of campers, but you have fewer. You said three uh sittings. You have any case law on that? What's that? Do you have any case law? On which

on what you just said? Yeah. Yeah. You can look at the baseline, but it's it's you look at the change, you know, cases that hold otherwise. I'm sorry. There are cases that hold otherwise. I want to know what your personal law is. Well, not you know, not the cases I've been reviewing. But send it to me. But for the question is is always in secret. What is this project that's before you going to cause and the water should be off the table? The traffic should be off the So your assertion is we have no right to look at the water and the sewer.

You can look and sewer as part of the overall site plan. I and you can you can look at it if there's a change, but I don't see any objective evidence that this dining hall will replace current dining hall. So again, I want to ask the same question to you then that I asked Jeff because you didn't seem to like his answer. If the technical investigation here on gallons per day per person shows that the number is greater than you're asserting, if it shows that let's say it's north of 40 so that the total use of the project is greater than 27 and a half thousand gallons a day, you're asserting that that's not a secret issue that we can that we can can look at. Jeffrey

you secret I heard Jeff's answer. Yeah. I believe that SERA looks at the the change in in of the project that's being considered.

Boiling it down to the specifics here. We're in a very specific case. This is what this is why I assume you're here. This is why we're here. If the technical review of the gallons per day per person where you've asserted 36 gallons per day and we have a a host of other numbers that are way up above that and if the answer turns out to be somewhere in the middle whatever it is let's just say it's 45. So that so that the total multiplied together gallons per day usage on this project is let's just say north of 30,000 gallons a day when the speedy's permit is for 27,550 gallons per day. Those are the facts I'm laying out before you now. These are very possible facts. Are you asserting that that is not a seeker issue for us?

Based on my review of the case law, it is not. Okay, that's going to be a disagreement then. Oh, one more. Um, when you can I say, let me I want to ask one other question. Um, when you were here last time, you were talking primarily about Ulupa and about discrim um I think you were you were also certain discrimination laws under the federal and state constitution. Are you assert are you in any way asserting that this disagreement that we're having on the law is a Raulupa issue?

Uh well actually it it is because the leading case in the second circuit on Raulupa is uh Westchester day school versus amerit. In that case the district court ruled that ackatra that was issued for arbitrary reasons was immediately challengeable in federal court. and the second circuit uh ultimately upheld finding a held a rela violation uh from the denial of the uh approval for a expansion of a a Jewish day school.

Well, that's so you so I'll take a look at that case on the on the on the procedural issue of the PADC, but I was actually asking a different question. I'm talking about the substantive issue here of the distinction between uh this board's concern about um sewer and your position that we can't look at it. Is that a rela issue? What relup looks at is overall is is there an action that is creating a substantial burden on religious exercise? Right. And one of the things courts do look at in what is a substantial burden. It's sort of a meaningful burden. It's also the process. Was it arbitrary? uh was were were rules followed were where normal procedures.

This board looks into all of the gallons per day issues and determines that the gallons per day is not 36 but something else and that therefore we want to look at the issue of that excess sewage discharges and what we would consider excess water police water discharges. Is that an impermissal burden on religion? It could be. Yes, it is. Well, you use the word you use the word arbitrary. I don't see anything that this board has

what I'm saying is if the board instead of looking at what's going to change from this project where you know the height in which we've lowered you know the visuals we've turned it uh but is going to look at things that are going to be the same anyway. The water consumption water consumption is going to be less from this project. Dave, we've always been taught by you or counseledled by you that on a project on any project, we can look at the sum total of the impacts of an individual item. We can look at that individual item, the building being built, the cumulative effects on that entire site. Since we're doing a site plan, we can take the accumulative effects um of a new dining room with all the other effects of all the other changes that have been made and all the other things that have been done on the property.

Of course, it's right it's right in the regulations. Well, the gentleman seems to be saying something entirely different. Yeah, that's what they that they have effect putting that building on can be reviewed, but it's the cumive effect. you take away the building, whatever was there before is still there.

They are they're attempting to frame this whole issue in a very idiosyncratic and specific way to insulate themselves from a lot of other issues. And it's what we've been driving out here. I don't think anybody's going to I don't think the court's going to buy it. I don't think anybody else is going to buy it. I think the idea that they would um that they'd be angling for a neg permit that would would legitimize a use of water that would be in excess of their speedies permit. Just just taking one issue um in an acryer protection zone. I don't think any judge would agree with that as a matter of either seeker or loompa. I respect I understand where council's coming from. He's he's his job is to take whatever's on paper and frame it in the most advantageous way possible. We've drilled into what their arguments are. Um, I think the board needs to do what it needs to do to assure I think this is a type since this is a type one action, you're either going to get a neg or pause. There's no chance for a CND. Um, the board will issue a NEG deck if it is convinced that there is no sub that that there either is no substantial adverse environmental impact or that any adverse environmental substantial environmental impact is adequately mitigated. The mitigation for excess sewage discharges is to build a good septic system that covers it. That's that's not um a difficult concept. If the board is not convinced at whatever point after we as we've been discussing things submitting um uh documents back and forth if the board believes that more review and study is necessary including of alternatives the regulations require PASC. If there's any doubt, the regulations require PASD. If the when the board issues a NED deck, it's a certification to the community that there's going to

be no significant adverse environmental impacts. That is flat out in the regulations. The idea and you know just look there are softer regulations and there are harder regulations. But Mr. presentation which um I largely agree with originally they were focusing on the questions of um impact on the impact on the character of the community. These are these are sort of the as I've explained to this board these are that's sort of the the red flag for for religious discrimination. They're very soft issues. Why you know we have a different question what you do etc. When you talk about sewage discharges, when you talk about withdrawal of water from an aquifer, I mean, I'll look at the case law. I'll look at Westchester day was you raising for procedural issue. I I'll I'll look at whether sewage issues have ever been held to be religious discrimination. built. I think where this board's going to come out is that well,

if there's excess sewage going into the ground that your system won't cover, we're going to go The bottom line is this. We've been in business for four years. We have a speed permit. There's been no violation served on us by DEC. They've had no problems. There's been no showing of any violation. The board of health has established our water usage as they're required to do. And basically what you're saying is this board has the right to usurp the authority of the DEEC and the board of health and their findings and make your own independent findings.

No. No. No. We're not usurping anything. You have a Speedy's permit written in I think 2012 for 27,550 gallons a day. We're not usurping anything. We're trying to figure out whether the water discharges from this facility are greater than that or less than that. There's been no DEC finding that I know of to to that to that extent in the last four years that your that your clients have been here or or at any other time. As far as the Department of Health, I don't have the documentation you're throwing out. I don't think they've looked at this question. If they do, you should send it to us because we've been talking about this for quite a while, including again tonight when you've had the the draft part three for several weeks. If you had a finding that that that the that the current use is essentially equal to the proposed use and that it's less than the speedies the the allowed speedies discharge, send it to us because we don't have that right now and we're trying to figure out what this is based on the best information and at some point the board's going to move forward. So we are listening to you. We do you do have this opportunity. Your engineers submitted a letter. We're looking at all of this very seriously and we're looking at a very serious environmental issue and and we're going to move and we're going to move forward according to what seeker requires and Jeff I I I I hear your argument and again just for the board's information Jeff is an attorney whose job it is to frame these issues as vested campus client and he and Mr. Trina are doing exactly that but that doesn't make it right. lawyers have different frames that they that they that they propose and I'm proposing a different frame tonight and that's where we're at. So,

and my response again is that this is not the first camp that has 35 or 36 gallons per day per camper per user per person. There are other camps that have the same uh findings in this county by the same board of health. So, this is not new new math. If we if we if if if the issue getting past what you guys what we've been talking about for the last 10 minutes, if we can get into the numbers, that's where we want to be. Whether it's 36 or 50 or 55 or 75 or whatever it is, if we can have an argument between the professionals as to those numbers, that's where we need to be. And if there's other camps, if they have the same character, we can look at that documentation, which we do not have, and it turns out it's it's very similar to what we've got here, whatever whatever the parameters are, Jack, whether it's a existence of a pool or a mikvah or whatever else it is or or or flow saving devices, if we can get to where you are, then that's where that's that's the direction you need to be you need to be pushing us in. And we don't have that documentation as we sit here tonight. And so the point is we do have a draft pause deck. I don't know when the board is going to want to move on. Probably there's different impressions, but the time is now to get to that spot. And with respect to the other arguments that we don't have a right to look at that, I hear it. I understand the framing. I get the I I I know how to I know how to hear legal arguments. My guess is we're going to move forward with with what we think we need to do to protect the environment. And so if you want to if you want to convince us it's a 36 the door is open but I'm not sure how long it's going to stay open. We've been doing this for a while. And again there's nothing prejuditial about a pause deck. It just formalizes this interchange where we start putting things up. We do scoping documents. We put things on paper. It's

what the law actually prefers if we can get if we can't negotiate over a period of several months and get it done. The fast act is not a is not a denial. Yeah. And the whole bit with the 36 with what you got from the department of health which was nothing more than an email three or four days ago. And I don't I don't mean to denigrate Mr. Kaza but I am comparing what he sent to you about 36 and what he sent to the same assembled people except for uh the two gentlemen to your left and right. A year ago it was 55 for almost exactly the same kind of project. It was the same project. I'm sorry. the same project that was

to my attorney's point a deck doesn't decline the project. A pause allows us to grind away at this and for you and for us to work together to get the information that we need in order to make a decision. That's all we're asking that you work together with us wherever you come out when you come out. We've been at it for a year, right? That's all we ask. at it for a year. We go. So, could we let let us complete our discussion and then please go ahead. You're up.

So, my my letter of April 20th was intended to respond to the part two issues that were raised by the board when you deliberated the part two of the EAF. And I organized it by each individual section of the EAF. Um, starting with water use, I have documentation available on the existing wells on the property and the characterizations that were done on those wells when they were permitted as water supply wells. And there's three wells on the property that collectively are capable of producing just shy of 60,000 gallons a day. Under u the Department of Health water supply regulations and policies, you have to look at this with your largest well out of service. Um be protective of the uh the water supply system. So, uh, it's it's just shy of 30,000 gallons a day documented capability of the wells to furnish this project. And

what was the year of the well test? Uh, I'd have to pull those records up. Was 2002, 2004. Yep. I don't dispute that. Um and the um uh 36 gallon a day. But before you jump off the weld, I have a question for you. The purpose of the well test primarily is to ensure that the facility gets an adequate supply of water. Right. That the wells are an adequate supply for the intended use. Yes. Including if if the biggest well is knocked down. Right. Right. The purpose of the APO regulations is to ensure that the aquifer is not deposable. Right. Right.

So those two things are different to an extent. Well, it's it's one thing to to figure out if when a well is knocked out whether you can actually supply the people on the property with water. That's purpose of the the test that you described. That's not the same as as certifying to the people who live in the community that the well's not going to be depleted by however many hundred people that are on the site. Those are different things. It however and when the when the department of health reviews applications for public water supplies, part of their consideration is

uh the neighborhood and and the exact point that you just raised. It's um well our hydro geologic study which we're heading towards actually requires you to test wells in the area while you're doing a draw down test. Department of Health doesn't do a draw down test. We've been through this with many other projects. The Department of Health does nothing to ensure that existing wells are not negatively impacted. Nothing. Particularly in this county. Let let them go into 36 now.

Okay. On the issue of the uh 36, uh I'd have uh experience working across a range of different camps and I've seen uses as high as 75 per person per day and I've seen uses as low as 35. It it goes to the nature of the operation. If there's uh multiple places where meals are taken and kitchens, you you tend towards the higher end of the spectrum. uh in this case it's a uh religiousoriented uh use the meals are are common and there's a under this proposal there's a single kitchen um there's efficiencies in that kind of operation on water use also the the um campers bring their own linens they're they're not part of the uh there are some washing machines on the property, but they're not doing the linens for the uh for the campers. Um I mean, the applicant is here and can elaborate on that if you want, but based on all the evidence before me with the way that this camp operates and the fact that the same uh operator has a another camp with direct experience that that is at 35 gallons a minute. Um, I'm confident as apparently is the Olster County Department of Health that that this camp can operate at 35 gallons.

Well, I have a couple questions. First of all, as we get further into this, whether it's in this process or, you know, in a DEIS process, when you supply us with with the data that you're describing where the there's other camps with other numbers and and different and different characteristics, those that's the data that would allow us to make a decision, right? um if you've got that but again I want to urge you to share that with us so we so we can make so we can make we can make the decision based on the vision that you have and we can share that vision right now we're just hearing you say that and that's that that's very critical secondly I I want to be clear on this because I did see it in your letter are you alleging that the linens that these campers use through the summer are not going to be washed one way or another you want comment on that

three week rotation each they bring their lens they take them home when they go home

they take them home it's help thank you for your time I appreciate I understand it's very easy your time is very that's essential and you spend your time to help us out and get this project approved uh what might our concept about the lemon path But let me try to express it. Maybe it will be more understandable. Uh when you run a hotel every day, new people coming in, all the liner being ripped off, all the towels packed together, they have to wash it, put new ones. This is increasing a yield, a high yield of using water. The same thing with dishes. what we uh submitted to the do is when we took over the pine grove, it's still over there somewhere the cross in the van pallets of pallets of plates, cups, uh nice uh uh dishes uh uh what the what the hotel serves versus to a summer camp. Some of every child come with his bags and he's a learner and he put it on his bed and he use it. So it's not like we provide and we have to wash. It's not being washed every day. Most of the time they max what I could say is case if they have a problem they going to ask permission to wash a load. Most of the time they if they want to change it every week they're going to bring two sets. If they want to change change it every half a week, they can bring along three sets of sheets, whatever they want. It's their option.

She explained the camp session that they're not there all summer. Yes. And uh we have sessions and they pack up and they go and then uh the new session come and they bring the How long are the sessions?

Uh we usually try to accommodate three week sessions. So it's either two sometimes three sessions what we have somewhere between two and three sessions. So uh if it's uh so therefore our application is not close in terms of water sewer is not even close to any yield of a different location where you have to provide lemon where you have to provide you you're using everything plastic utensils everything all along foil all kitchen equipment everything is disposable. to be clear. Therefore,

the do and we study it and we do have proof from other we from our of our facilities and a lot more down the road where we monitored flow records and the do monitor the flows and we came down somewhere between 33 and 35 gallons per day. In terms of this, the DO told me it gave us the letter of 36 guns. We could use 35, but we have to file for a waiver and and and add the provision. We didn't do that. That's why it's somewhere we put down K5 and the DO gave us K6 because they use uh uh a formula which came down from a lot of proof that it's that amount water and now engineer did more of that he will be able to give you more I just want to give you the

explanation of the linen just one part why you could see some were 75 gowns and some were 35 gowns. I remember you telling me that you're the person in charge of soliciting um the children from Brooklyn and Queens to come up to the camp. So you have a good idea of at any point in time how many people come in the camp. Are you telling at this board that last year 2025 you had 770 people there of which 550 were campers? About 550 word campers perspectively or you did what do you mean speak? Yes. You have logs for that.

And if I do have everything you need whatever my my will the year before if you redact the names of the campers. I I I would appreciate if we could work out a way how I don't want this and it's minors. It's not I'm not allowed to give out any names of course it's a formal way how evidence that you had that number of people it could work out if my attorney is the legal path but I have everything ready and if anyone and the year before you had the same number 550 770 and the year before that you had 550 770 first names maybe the fifth year

I I don't remember for sure but the last year so the first year you may have had 350 or 375 I don't know second year you probably pull out numbers from my mouth I will not be able to furn just because it's being asserted here you understand that you've your past use for every one of those years and you said you you had enough water was 770 people there I just find that to go from the 400 and some odd 495 that the dude ranch had up to 770. It it just confounds me that you had that number for three years running. No,

I have a couple of questions I want you I want you to say. First of all, it's your So, what I'm gleaning from what you said is that it's your expectation that the campers will stay for basically three weeks and basically unless there's some special request not wash their linens. They they bringing along their linens. They could they if they need two sets, they're bringing two sets. If they need five sets, they're bringing five sets. It's not on the side that the child should wash his own linen. And how many of them what percentage of them bring two or three or four sets? Whatever they want. I never I never ask children and I never uh I never uh uh it's some bright uh stuff.

So your your expectation is that there's no provision for these folks for these kids to wash. Okay. Um also um and I this is the first time I've heard this but I'm not sure maybe I've missed it. you're asserting that on a uh every three weeks that the the camp population is going to turn over. So, however many buses it it it takes to bring them up and and also bring them back, that is going to be on a three-w weekek cycle, not on a not on an 8week cycle, not not once for the summer, but rather every three weeks. Yes. Okay. It's useful. And that's not new. This is current. Maybe not. I hadn't heard, but that's

we put this in front of town.

Okay. Um, third, I I want to be I want to be clear because I think Jeff mentioned this. I think Mark mentioned it and you mentioned it. So, I just want to be clear on this because you've all mentioned the DO finding that this camp would that it's appropriate to use 36 a county do finding for 36 gallons a day. Is the only documentation of that finding in the email that Mark provided us in in in in his um in his submitt this month? No, no. We put in our letter um an example of a comparable camp in Worsing that uh uh that Mchy Rat tub um which was um 35 gallons per person per day.

That and that was a DO finding. Yes. But with respect to this camp, the the DO finding that you're talking about with respect to Rav Tav, it's in that email. There's no other there's no other finding. There's no other research. There's no other that that's the finding you're you're talking about.

Yes. But I applied I I took the Department of Health's number and uh I didn't just forward it as a given. We we looked at the circumstances of the camp. the point that that Hershey made that um uh the the dining facility relies on paper plates and cups and silverware and you know when you look at the sources uh the uses within the camp that demand water it

this I we really do look forward to your analysis we'd like to see more of it but my my question was not about your analysis my question was about department of health findings what is the documentation of the department of health's findings with respect to rava that I don't know you'd have to ask the department of health so so we have other you're not aware of doc of documentation as to the department of health's findings that's the graph including a finding of 36 gallons per day per person

the department of health is cognizant of the um uh water usage uh and permitting history and the wastewater permitting history and they're they're cognizant of the use and for the reasons that Hershey outlined. Um the the the water demands be on the lower end of the spectrum and as I said earlier I've seen I've seen in the mid30s for certain camp operations and I've seen other camps that are up around again we look forward to getting the full range of your analysis of this that but some more than we have now.

I'm sincere about that. I'm asking specifically though because everybody's asserted that but the department of health has found I'd like to know what the documentation of the department of health's finding is

the the additional consideration is uh on the wastewater side that the DEEC design standards that are in their document intermediatesized wastewater treatment systems has several methods for arriving at at flow estimates. You you can use uh actual data where you have metered flow. uh you can use comparable facilities and you can also use the allowances that are published in the tables of that document um for for different land uses and and uh the the statement was made earlier that this board was leaning towards boarding house as the applicable unit rate which which is higher than 36. We're we're we're relying on direct experience at other camps and on the Department of Health who's who's the agency that that regulates these types of facilities. When asked um about usage rates would find in that email that 36 gallons per person per day was acceptable for this camp. So the

I I invite you to look at the even the letter from Kaza almost a year ago May something uh of a year ago. It it it's a complete analysis in which he came up with 55 gallons per day. I was involved with that application. It was a totally different use or you're going to need to do something equally as aerodite with this purported different use to come up with 36 to prove the 36. We got no washing dishes. We hear verbally. We got no Washington. All we have We got no washing. Let's open it up to everybody else. You had a question. Yeah, I had a question for her.

Um you had just mentioned um the water uses you said 30 between, you know, the camps typically use 35 to 75 gallons per day. Um and that's what has been found. However, you said with kitchens, however, tend to have a higher amount. So why are we using No, what I what I said was if if all the buildings had their own kitchens, multiple kitchens on the but it it Well, there's also another kitchen in the auditorium. But I believe with the proposal here, the the intent is to have common meals. That's true. And then what about the other kitchen? Well, what about it? I mean

that that's so we're having an additive source. It's not it's it's not replacing your add cooking in the central location and carry the meals to the other dining hall.

We have that I can I appreciate that but it's not in writing in our application. And then the other thing is what you know Mark I started looking at your your letter to um I've had a stepmother in hospice. So, um I was reviewing your letter and in your description of the work that has been done here. Um there's you mentioned, you know, you give a little synopsis, but you failed to mention the other building the other permits that uh and construction projects that have occurred on the site that use water. And one is there was an addition um I I can give you the permit number but there was a post addition with 97 showers. Another an auditorium with a kitchen and five toilets. The bath and utility project with 24 showers and 15 toilets. Um I also have gone back the de we're all talking about the county board of health permits but no one's talking about the DEC permit. And the DEEC permit, my understanding, was predicated on the flow summary that was um handled submitted by Barry Menbach May 3rd, 2012, which states 126 rooms, two people per room with, however, on occasion Ruth group youth groups are held at the facility with four persons per room. So that would give you up to 500 504. So all this board wants to do is we you know yes you say we want to look at the delta and that's what we're doing and we have been asking for this information along with Olster County Planning Board has asked the applicant to demonstrate the the flow etc etc and we have not received that and it's and I'm sorry if I'm speaking for other people but it's very frustrating you know we keep going back and forth and no one we want to go

forward with this but until we get the water use and the septic etc. We can't even begin to look at the size of the river.

So beyond what has been provided, what specifically is the board looking for? We we've attempted in my letter of April 20th to answer the concerns that are raised by part two of the EAF. We we've taken the population, the usage rates, we've done the math, we've made the presentations. What what more does the board need? Do do you need affidavit from other camps or I mean what we've have documentation from the Oster County Department of Health. Do we need to have that engineer come to one of the planning board meetings?

No. You know, we appreciate you saying that. Um, but also when if you if you'd like to reach out to Thomas Necroitz from the DEC, my understanding that if you're proposing a new building or a retrofit or a modification to your facility that is under their speedies permit, then that is they are required to review and approve that action and that my understanding that has not been done. So what we're trying to do as a board is make sure that from a regulatory point of view we are in compliance with all of these other ancillary permits. That's all we want. I mean am I correct here? Yeah.

Um and we keep you know I mean you give us the action. You've missed some of the biggest projects that occurred on the site. So we're not I'm not comfortable. I don't know what what else to say. I mean I defer to our engineer. I don't think I think Greg you have found that we have that that they have not um provided the information that has been requested by the board. No. Or by you.

Well and and the biggest thing with the speedies permit is there's seven separate there's seven seven separate systems. So, if you've taken a use that goes to this system and now you you I I mean, okay, people are shaking their head. It it's it's there's change there's building permits that made changes to the site. So, the current speed permit is no longer valid. While that permit may have been transferred to this facility, that permit was for the use described in that permit. The fact that the applica has made changes to the site which redirect sewer in different directions that is not analyzed anywhere and I've seen nothing to indicate whether or not there's been any analysis. So if you have a building now that has 91 shower, that 91 showers is going to a septic system. Previously those 126 units were going to four different septic systems. So the showers from that 126 units were going to three or four different septic systems. Now they're all going to the same septic system. So is that septic system properly designed to accept that flood? The out we have multiple outpos by the numbers

seven

I whatever number is seven I trust it it's uh each let's out one 7,000 only 7,000 go over there no change was done no pipe was done the building one goes over there building one uh was approved for 7,000 the same 7,000 goes over there there is no change or no read out any sewer or any outfill or any septic everything was place it is handing the same amount it's designed even the new kitchen it's going in and we we bring it up about a half year ago and it's under plan it's going in in the same uh septic tank with the same alcohol no change of use no change of therefore We don't believe and we don't think that this changed anything on our speed permit.

But isn't the DC supposed to be notified of that and they make that decision? Only only if you seek a flow increase or extend sewers to new buildings or adjacent properties. So modification of the system doesn't count for that. No, it does.

No, I'm asking not within the currently sewered area. if if if a new building was going up somewhere else um or you were extending sewers to an adjacent property, you have to go to the DEC and amend the Speedy's permit. But this the point that that Greg raised uh is is something that that we can do a presentation on. You want you want to see how the flow was allocated to the on-site leech fields in the past and how it is under the current. And we're not seeking a flow increase. So, we're not we're not seeking a modification to the Spies permit, but you might just said you might be switching where the flow is going.

If you're constructing a new building, you they need to be notified. It'sin within the campus that's served that the the intent of this wastewater system was to serve camp the camp. We're not we're not sending a sewer across the street for a for some building that's not part of the current campus. Uh one more thing uh I would like to be uh as much as best parent as possible uh in thatium application and you mentioned the number the the PB number before that it's going to be a kitchen and five toilets. Mhm.

That was never built the the kitchen and the toilet. So it's no additional use for that. Just it's not going to change any of our because I just like to be as much as open. I don't want to tell you 570 that you're that side could be as much as open as possible on the floor especially with my chairman. Thank you for the clarification. Thank you.

I want to make something clear to the board and the applicants here. Um as we look into the question of what DEC has done and for that matter what the health department has done. This is all very very relevant and in particular the the documentation and the and the facts that that were exchanged between the applicant and the DEC and the agencies is relevant. this board's jurisdiction under seeker is that we're not issuing a speedies permit. We're not modifying a speed permit. We're not issuing a camp permit. We're not issuing anything. Well, we're maybe we'll issue a site plan approval at some point. We're doing a seeker analysis and that's a look at whether or not the the action may or may not cause at least one significant adverse environmental impact. And if it does, we'll do an environmental impact statement that and as the regulations make clear, that jurisdiction is different than DE. So when if they have violated if they were supposed to have submitted a modification of DEC and they didn't that that's for DEEC and that you know we can make whatever inferences in terms of you know that violation or whatever that that is not what we're doing. Our job is very clear and simple. Our job, well, it's not simple. It's stated simply. Our job is to determine whether the proposed action will or will not or had or will or will not or might cause at least one significant adverse environmental impact. We should use all the available data. If there's if there were DEC action submittals to DEC, we should see those. We should see what DEEC did. This is all relevant. But fundamentally, it's different. We and we so I would don't want to spend too much time going down whether there whether they should have done a modification or not. It's interesting, but at some point what we want to know is what they're doing now, what they're proposed what they're proposed to do and whether or not there's a proposed mitigation system sufficient to cover it. That's basically where we're at. Everything else is is um relevant and we ought to look at it, but it's it's not the hill we need to die on. We're not an enforcement agency, as I think as as Jeff alluded to, I think a

little bit earlier. So keep our keeping our eye on the ball. It's whether or not there's going to be significant adverse environmental impact. And the reason why frankly the speedy's permit is relevant here is because it specifies the capacity of the treatment system. We have an we have a number bad for better or worse or otherwise 27 correct me if I'm wrong 27550 gallons per day for the facility in a disagregated form. So we it may actually be helpful to know if those systems are independent um what those independent capacities are as well. Greg has pointed it out. Um, but that's that's the task before us is to figure out whether that system is adequate to to deal with the proposal. And so I just want to point that out. It's useful to ask those questions, but don't get hung up on on a permitting snafu or whatever.

Thank you. I was just using it as a delta from the Pine Grove to here.

Also, let's talk about Delta. I'm sorry. The delta is the delta is the way that they're framing it to try to get away from certain issues. The issue I'm framing is the mitigation system that they either have or is proposed. They can certainly propose more mitigation. That's some that's a place we may end up going. Is the mitigation system sufficient the treatment system sufficient to deal with the proposed use whatever it may be. That's what I counsel the board to keep on. If I could just mention getting away for a moment from the new building, one of the things that this camp did when it came in is that each room, but it was a a hotel had separate bathtubs. People after they were riding board went in and took a bath and they finished up. The showers that you're alluding to really replaced all the bathtubs in all of the rooms where the kids were and they now take communal showers. Uh, and quite frankly, it's water savings as close to filling up a tub every time someone's taking a bath. So, when you look at those showers, that really replaced something that was probably using a lot more water. So I mean this this chunk brings up you know something that's resonating for me throughout this entire process which is that we have not in order to allow allay our fears of there being an environmental impact. We have not had a cohesion lineal story, a a a narrative that tells us why the use now comparing it to the use before. and these narratives that are interesting and and informative but have never been put together in a way that we have a comprehensive understanding of how this

facility works in comparison to its prior use and and honestly you know when we look at permits you know I'm hearing about speedies and permits that were granted years ago we don't have that as a comprehensive package and that's been our um our confusion or part or has been part of our confusion throughout this whole process. If we get a little bit of information here and there, a little bit of narrative, we have examples of, you know, another um facility that uses 35 gallons a day. We don't know what that is. You know, it's one facility. It's very confusing. And so it doesn't to me lend itself to allaying my concerns about there not being the possibility the possibility of an environmental impact here. It's in a very sensitive area. We I mean if there's one thing that is so important within our region and specifically where this where our top is, it's water.

It's the key thing. And every development that we talk about, every subdivision, even subdivisions of, you know, one lot into three houses, we talk about warming. And this happens to be in, you know, in an aquifer that's so sensitive. And so that's why we are uh, you know, asking this question, but it's so frustrating because we don't get a whole story about

Let me say this. I I appreciate what you said and one of the problems we've had from the beginning and I think that Eric said it much nicer than I had said it which is that we made an application for a building not for a camp we are running a camp already and most of the questions that have been asked by the board are about operating a camp not building a building and we've gone back and forth with that and I understand where they come from with the information you need so you can answer that. But you know, it's our problem is the more we acknowledge that we'll go over the whole camp, the more questions you weren't going to get. We got a letter from your building department that said that this is not a change of use. And so we didn't have to go through this whole camping process. We started with the fact we're building a building. Ask us how the building impacts the water use and the sewer use. And I think we can give you excellent answers on that that say it's going to be less. There's going to be savings on both ends. But then when you're going into the history of the camp, then one question leads to the other and we sort of lose touch with why we're here. Should build a new building not to operate a camp. I

I think we've been talking about a speed permit from 2012 and do we have that? Yes. Yeah, we have a permit. Y. So, you know, it's like, you know, I just feel like the information has not been given to us and certainly the narrative. So, we understand, you know, the the impact and if it comes down to that that uh that measure of if there's, you know, do you have any concerns about there being uh environmental impact? you know that's that's where I'm at is you know thinking those fears have not been here fundamental issue that we deal with in this

and again our position is we're running the camp again this summer if we had this building we feel that water and sewer would be more efficiently used than it's going to be used this summer because we don't have a new building but the camp's going to run at 770 where we are well the documentation you care about 765 yeah says 570 But I don't know where you get 770 from. Says 5 570 right here.

I You're referring to the narrative you read out before at the beginning of the presentation. That what you just mentioned. You're referring to a narrative was you read out before. You're referring to a narrative you you read out before when we start this application. Okay. First of all, as much as test pen, we we have to be as much as camp what the entire board going to be and as much as the community. What I understand is maybe uh it's uh read out correctly. This new building only being used for the children, not for the families. Therefore, the allocation we put in was only for this amount or the amount of children we have, not the amount the entire facility had. Maybe this was on clearly. I apologize for that

and uh I let me just tell you what we also asked. You don't need to apologize, but no, but you I like to be as much as transparent as possible. You're trying to be as upfront as possible. When we asked what you're doing with the existing dining room, you didn't tell us that you were going to be serving pe the other 220 people there. What you told us you were going to do with that is use it as office space. So, hang on. You tell me it's going to be 570 people. They're going to want to be fed in this new room. 550. 550 570 the existing dining room you told us originally nobody is being served in

there going to be glass or offices whatever right so where are you serving the other 220 if you see on page heshy where are you serving the other 220 people

if you see on page one of the 13 pages we submitted that is building number two or refing to the second is dining room and I'm referring to this machine and if you look on the legend on the left which is say uh building three one then second bedroom dining room people.

Does that mean there's another? Yes. And we mentioned this before at this maybe it wasn't so clear but in the previous building we mentioned that they being over there. So the secondary D which is there since we bought it. You're talking label as three number three secondary quickly. the existing use. You have the big dining room.

Well, all I can tell you is that when we sat here a year ago, we asked about the existing dining room. We understood perfectly well a number of things. We understood that you wanted to have a cleaner operation both in terms of your kitchen. Had the opportunity to meet your chef. He's pulling his hair out. Fact, he has no hair left because you know he can't operate. We asked specifically what are you doing with the old one? It's going to the old dining room. I'm referring to the secondary dining room. That's not the old dining group you That was never Are you talking about the chart on the on the bottom left of that? Yes.

Well, we're talking about two different maps because that doesn't drive in Florida just said. So, there's another map that was you had listed as 70 people. Yes. But now you're telling us 220. Yeah, but they come they come it's come and go. They're not eating as United. So, I don't I don't disagree with what you're saying, but a year ago that's not what we heard. And when we had the meeting in the firehouse, we could only we couldn't find any other place to meet than other than the firehouse. We found out that this 770, it came like a bolt of lightning out of the skies. Where the hell is this coming from? So, you can understand the board.

I have a couple thoughts here. It's it's probably not the most productive thing to go back over the last year, year and a half and and assess where there might have been misstatements or inexact statements. Starting this point forward, you guys have heard the type of information that we need and the back the the background information that goes into some of the documents that have been presented, including that health department um email that that was provided to us. Um, I would like to think through what the most productive way is moving forward to get this information so we can have the conversations that we need because we still have a significantly different impression from what your impression is both frankly technically and legally. Um, but we're we're all better off if we can try to bridge those gaps rather than to go back and and figure out why they fell through the cracks. But you understand that at some point the process ought to move forward for the benefit of everybody or not. I mean we can just do this for

So if I could just one more thing because I I think just to clarify the dining room situation. I believe that what Hershey is saying is that there was a staff dining room and that's where the family staff members ate since they were there and ate with the other staff. He is eliminating the guest dining rooms but not the staff dining room. So when the campers dying now who you understand that now I do. Oh I wish I understood it this time last year. I apologize. So what's important what's important to do is for the board um is for the board to make a decision as to how we want to proceed.

Can I ask you one other question because we spent a lot of time on water and sewer. uh forget about the building for a second. What we'll get to the rotation and that of the issues that you found to be significant, what other information do you need from us to give the board a little better peace of mind? You mean aside from water, sewer in the building? Yes. Is there other issues there that we can't mitigate by just giving you a narrative? We now understand that the traffic is going to be much more the heavy traffic is going to be much more frequent than it was before. It's going to be every three weeks rather than every

that's been the operation since day one that they started. They were not allowed to let this the kids stay more than 3 weeks.

I'll leave this to the technical people. Do we need any more information on the on the traffic flows in order to in order to um uh come to a conclusion? If the board allow me to give just a little impression about traffic, not traffic expert, but I was a very good friend with David, the old owner from Pangrove. I used to visit him a lot and he had 120 rooms, average plus employees, plus day visitors. So on average day he may have 120 plus parking slots and they changed every day checking in checking out and uh when I used to come over there to visit him there was one parking two parking there's a third parking we never used since we took over the place that was always full the back of parking parking tak down the road was every time full I couldn't find a parking spot now you rarely find person uh packed over there. There was a parking in the back every time empty. People used to pack across the roads was every time full. Now since we took over the gates is always slacked as you see. And we have almost almost no traffic. where you're spoking about the few buses coming in a few weeks versus 120 cats every day coming and going plus employees plus day visitors they have uh it's I would say 95% cut in

actually how many buses do you need to bring um to bring 550 kids to the site and and move them off the site and also what's what's the daily car traffic for the 220 other people that are there 220 people don't have cats they coming to they're coming to they're coming up in the beginning of the summer and they uh stay over there. So uh so they bust in once for the summer. So if you want to know just to give for the board an idea, it's about nine or 10 bosses coming and going

coming and going versus 120 calves plus employees plus day visitors in that m every day and this is once in three weeks that yield should be very comfortable for the board if I may ask for the board and we all know brick I'm just saying on the traffic you Just quantify that. Mark knows what I'm talking about. Just put it in writing that you're going to every three weeks it's going to be a Thank you. Um I I think it's relatively straightforward. I know there were some community concerns about the pedestrian dress. I would like to address the pedestrian.

I I don't think it we're not I'm not offering that as a problem. I'm just saying you could address in the narrative what kind of pedestrian movement there you'd expect in at the property it be an issue of whether there should be a wider shoulder sidewalks that kind of design question but um I just wanted to note you you've applied according to the application also for resort use is that still in play during the winter because all we've talked about so far is the dead camp in the winter February 100. It's known around here as other than summer, right? Right. So, so 10 months of the year there's no camp.

No. There'll be a resort use or not? It is. Yeah. Well, how does these impact issues we talking about relate to non-ampers during the 10 month period? Use it was over there all the time. It's no different than the only thing is we Yeah. But the problem was I only think we open once a week for a period of time. What was that question? Did the new branch close for a certain point and not get No, we took over after they took it over after they had winter. They had winter activities. We took it over. It wasn't abandoned a year.

Oh, no. No. Makes it nonexisting. there was a sale to another party and then that party sold to us. So my my point being the same discussion we need to talk about the other 10 months is what's going to what's the water use what's the traffic same thing you had right over then just I think the what Rick's trying to say is just say that

hang on hang on hang on there's two or three things we need to proceed with because um two or three things I need to say uh and ask the board about. First thing is just keep in mind um nothing that we're doing here is personal, right? It's all business. Now, you know, in the Godfather, they came up and it turned out to be kind of personal, but then hey, hey, hey,

the um the board needs to I've been listening a lot. We're getting a lot more information. The board needs to decide at some point tonight how they want to get at resolving this stuff. Do they want to do it quite frankly through a pause deck or do they want to do it in the fashion in which we've been going about it which is let's call it non-paste deck. Essentially the PAS deck puts a frame around how to get up the information a very rigorous frame with lots of public input etc etc etc. the other way, which is what we've been doing. Part of the reason why we're here a year and we still don't have our hands around it. So, I don't have a solution to that, but I put it out there. Is it something we need to discuss? But before we go there, you have a a comment about relooper.

Yeah. Um

that you want to and then we'll kind of come back to my question for the board. Eric mentioned a case that he was asserting made a pause deck um legally actionable and I I I've had a chance to look at it while we were chatting and I'm glad I want to tell the board about it and and still here so you can find him as well. um case was marin Westchester day school versus Marinette and in fact in that case although the the board did do a pause deck it was that was not ultimately what was actionable what was actionable was that the board actually denied the application for the religious use also that's point number one which is of fundamental importance because RUOP is all about a denial of of of relig of opportunity to enjoy religion And as we know a pause deck is not that denial. It's just it's a it's a study.

There would have been no case if it was No, I need to respond to it. Let me let me let me continue.

Additionally, the pause deck was not simply a pause deck. It was a reversal of an egg deck. So the board had made an egg deck and then they went ahead and reversed it to a pause deck and then they denied the application. So I know Eric's here may want to say something about it, but I I want the board to know that if you if indeed we are considering a pause deck. No, I absolutely want to respond to that because here's what happened in that case. There there was initial proceeding where they did a pause deck that was challenged in federal court and the district court ruled that that violated CCR under the it's its uh supplemental jurisdiction. It it evaluated it and said where they had uh there was a a NEG deck and followed by a pos. They said that was arbitrary and

was a neck followed by a positive but it would be feudal and there's a well-developed second circuit case law on futility in land use application. What's the futility? The futility is if you know we have a disagreement on whether SRA looks at the the change or it can look at you know anything but we we believe that it it looks at the change and if you're saying you know the only change here that we can see is that's water use.

I want to be clear when Eric was here the last time he had one demand on this board under woopupa and the assoc the associated other constitutional provisions. That demand was that this board consider and ultimately approve a facility that was substantial enough to um to to serve all of the campers in one sitting. That was the religious use that was very specific. this board both informally in communications with with Eric and ultimately in the part three specifically agreed to that formulation. There's nothing there's nothing feudal here. This board has agreed that the that the that the application and that our consideration of the application is for a facility that will serve all of the campers in one sitting precisely as they requested and you requested. The question here is how seriously we need to look at the side the for you asked about this case and you've characterized how I've said it and I'm going to have to respond. What the court did in that case is it looked at secret. It said, "Is it feudal, not the Rupoa part, but the secret part? Is it feudal to pursue it?" And they said, "Yes, under the second circuit's precedence, it's feudal because of the arbitrariness they're facing." Then the the half of the Westh Westchester decided not to not to fight that, not to appeal to the second circuit, and they heard the uh site plan and ended up denying that. that ended up being challenged. That challenge continued. That is what went up to the Senate.

I'll brief the board in more detail on on the clarification here. I think that the point is fairly obvious. This not this is not feudal. This board is not reversing a neglating denying the application. Why I was saying it would be a it would be feudal because in our view the view the secret looks at the change. It's not what what's the campility. The camp is operating.

If you're looking at things that don't affect the change, right? We if you want to look at the the building, what what's happening to it? If there is increased water consumption from the from the from the building, that's part of the change. But if you're looking at things dealing with the operation of a camp that's already existing, that has nothing to do with SRA. And that is an inappropriate use of SER. We we can disagree. We can exchange some cases over the next week. But that's our that's our view of secret. We don't have a we don't have a judge here to rule one way or the other. So unless you want me to bang on the gamble and make a decision.

No. Substantive burden in the second circuit is a holistic view. Does the actions of the government impose a substantial burden on their relation? Does delaying a year? Does delaying two years uh burden them? Then it shifts back to you to say, "Ah, we have a compelling government interest." And that that can denial litigated over that where there isn't a denial or or a there's an actual injury to delaying worship for a year. The activities they're going to have in community that we talked about. I don't know if any of pace has ever held that. No, circuit delay uncertainty and expense are I'm happy to I'm happy to trade. Yeah, we can talk.

I'm very proud of the fact that this board made it clear I put it in writing. Did you tell it? But I put it in writing to make it clear to you when you first made a variety of assertions, very interesting assertions. I made it clear that we had no intention of trying to deny the religious rights of this group. Made it very clear. You you remember it. Nor are we doing that now. We want to make sure that the rights of the other people that you see sitting here are not denigrated or affected. Let's leave it. Democrat is too harsh to worry or excuse me

or the taking of water or the increase whatever traffic that's that's all we're doing. I understand your point. Our point is we're not here. Nobody has de demonstrated any kind of religious okay it's not about bias but it's about burden and we don't believed should be consumed whether this building is approved or not. But if this building is not approved for at least a year, maybe two years, these children will not be able to have all those things that you talked about in that email to me of is your objective to get to an answer and to get a solution or to sue we want to get this thing built. Okay. So then we're going to get it built

in some fashion. He decides how much he's going to pay you to do whatever you got to do. I see him shaking his head that he wants to get this done. he being hesit. So this board needs to decide how we're going to get at these issues and how we're going to get this resolved. So we either keep going around in circles get back for one second or we do a pause deck. Yeah. I just want to know what other issues. We've now talked water sewer. You talk traffic. We gave you some answers to somebody's lighting of the other thing and lighting. We're going to cap all the lightings. I think we can resolve that in mitigation. we don't need to go

if if we can get through the water and sewer issues to the point where we're in either in agreement or the board can make a decision. Um, and we understand more fully the mitigation that has been done on the building, which I mean I personally appreciate the effort, but now it's time for us to take a look at it. We don't even know how wide it is on um on

It is 158. I told you it was. All right, you got it. Okay, so we got 158 ft. at some point getting some visuals for what it's going to look like from from the community from Cherry Town Road. It may be I don't know where the board's going to come down on it, whether we whether we need more mitigation or whatever, but that's the sort of thing that we need to evaluate and get that moving, but this water thing we're going to have to we're going to have to get on. Sounds like water, sewer, and the building. We're one of those and um

we need um we need the traffic. I mean, with all respect to Heshy, we can't we're past the point where we can simply have a conversation and answer those. We need it on paper. We need it analyzed. And also, we need to figure out as Dave brought up whether any of this changes during the 10 months of the year when we have a resort instead of a camp. And we unfortunately, as Dave um I think mentioned, I'm not sure we've really seriously broached any of those issues. So, we need to know what's going on, what the differences are, the traffic, the the everything else. I you know Jeff the best way the best way to answer your question about what are we going to

question when you say water and sewer what are we going to specify for a hydrogeeological report with a draw down and the impacts of I mean okay because when you say water and sewer I just want to be clear that the applicant knows what we are asking well in general so pump tests well yeah okay for the hydro you know because he they are in the active sewer I'm looking at the the delta if any between the speedies permit and and the amount of uh the discharges of of

No, we understand that. Look, our position on the hydraological is that that that provision of your law came into effect long after this property was used for the purpose that it was used. You you've that that law came into effect what about a year ago, a year and a half ago. What purpose does that mean? We're going forward. You're going forward with the new building. We're only putting in the new building. We're not increasing water or sewer use. Again, we go to that issue that this new building will reduce water and sewer use, not increase. Jeff, we're at Jeff, we're at a crossroads. Yes. We're either going to work out a way to have a very robust exchange of information or you're going to deny that it's necessary. And we're going to

we're going to give you as much information as we can. We're going to try to uh explain to you why we don't believe a hydraological is required. As much information as we can. Okay. The board has a decision to make. It sounds like they've made to to answer your question about what else. It's all in the FAF part three and it's late. Well, except we haven't except for the except for the resort which really isn't. We didn't get to yet.

So, the board has a decision to make um as to whether we continue to work in the fashion we've been working with the with this group um or we go into a pause deck. I see no other um and it's the crux of the matter. Caesar has is ready to cross the group of cards.

I I I have one objection to what you're saying, but for the first time, we got you part three. We've responded to your part three. This has not gone on for a year. This has gone on for 30 days. Since we got you part three, now we're responding. Now, we're specifically giving you the information to mitigate. So, it's not like we were talking about this in November. This is the first time we went through seeker. You gave we gave it you gave us the part two then your proposed part three. We responded to your part three. You've now asked us for some additional information and we intend to give that to you. But in terms of saying we've been jerking this around for a year. That really is not the case. So you're proposing you get another x number of days or weeks.

We would like to now that we've had this meeting and you've asked for specific information. We'd like to try to get you that information to see if we can make you consent. I'd like to know that the we've been asking for this information from the very beginning. It's not like we just started asking for. Well, I've only been here since November, so Okay. So, you can't speak to it, but we've been asking for this and it's part of the frustration with this board is we've been asking for these things from the beginning. Well, well, if if I understand it right, in November is the first time that you realized or thought at least that there was a significant difference in the way the camp was being operated in the resort. So, I don't think before that it was much of a issue as Jeff.

It was in December that we got Mark's letter that indicated there were 77 people. To that, I have to say what the biggest questions was sewage and water use, etc. and Mike's and I had conversations with Mike Scaliz as did Jennifer former but prior to that also it was the building we we had and that was and I was saying let's not even talk about the service we need to hear from I want to hear from the board the board Peter kick

I I'm I'm just I'm I see another month of the the same thing that we've been asking for um for months and we get blamed for not asking for stuff specifically that we've already asked And that's that's the frustration that I feel is this stuff has been we've been batting this around for months. The 220 was not announced to us. It wasn't told to us. It was stuffed into a a report that was presented to us at a meeting, one of these outside meetings of a small group meeting. It wasn't told to us. We looked at it and so what's this 220? What's this 770? So it's just I just feel like the it the whole process has not been upfront in some shifting sand. The whole this whole experience for me from my perspective

I feel also that I hear the same thing I hear today for the first time it's it's only three weeks my understanding and I have to go back but my understanding I was told all the time that these people would stay there for the whole summer. this is only one data point which is is completely inconsistent. That's why I think we need to have a formalized approach and and and and owe this to this community and and to ourselves as a board and I we I I agree with Hans. Um I've we've been asking for this. We've been reviewing this for over a year. we're not getting the information that we need and um it's very frustrating. We want to move forward. We want to be able to give alternatives and I I agree with Peter and I'm not going to make

I don't see forward.

Yeah. I mean I think that he was saying thoughts is that you know with a comprehensive and we ask we've asked for this for so many times but with a comprehensive application the narrative that we're hearing tonight should have been part of what we got as the original narrative like the use and and and yet here we are you know over a year later just understanding and It's useful information but just understanding now about you know water usage and and like I say this is the number if you exist in this area this is the number one issue this is the thing that needs to be addressed as being responsible to the community and um the this information isn't you know it's not because we hadn't asked for it. It should be part of a comprehensive understanding of this site and of an application right from the start. And we've asked for it so many times. We we we each inch with a little bit of information here and there. And like I say, you know, we went from 550 to 770. And I think we're just blindsided by that from

Listen, I again I just want to say this. I've been involved in a lot of applications and when someone comes into my office and says, "I'm running an operation. I want to add a building. I want to do this." You bring your application based upon what the addition is, not on the entire use of the property. And that's done in every case I've ever been involved with. So again, this is my third meeting here. This is Mark's first meeting here and brought him on board because of your concern about water resource. so to say it's been jerked around for a year. we did or they did without me what I would have done if I was here to begin with which is to give you an application to add a building to an existing facility

and you have asked us to now no that's not enough we want to know your whole facility and again that's unusual abnormal from what is usually done in an application for building a building

I I want to point out to the board um there actually is middle ground here which board may wish to think about as well. You we have two documents that are that are proposed uh that have been that have been provided to the applicant provided to the public. One is a part three and one is a a draft pause deck resolution. Um if one possibility here for whatever it's worth for you to consider is that we can adopt the part three. Um part three is extensive. It's on the issues. It's got extensive findings. Um, clearly a number of those findings lead to a PAS deck, but it is not a PAS deck in any way, shape or form. And furthermore, if we if we adopt a part three, they still have the dialogue can continue. We can propose a pause resolution for the next meeting. They can come in with whatever data, information, reports that they think is useful. We can always amend the part three. There's nothing in in secret. is, you know, it's when you try to amend a NED deck or or, you know, you can't amend PAS deck, but you can amend the NEG deck. That's much more significant. Amending part three is just uh a resolution based on new information, but it does show forward progress um for whatever the board thinks it's worth. It's got a number of things in it that clearly established a potential significant adverse impact. In fact, I think it probably says so. And so the board can do that and suspend or or table for the next set of 41 the actual resolution for PAS deck if but it adopts language that gives these guys something that um it would be administratively adopted should be there they can then have something that not only advisory to shoot at it gives them something that is right there that they need to rebut if they want to avoid a pause next time. So that's a possibility.

How how is that different from where we are at the moment? I mean, I think from what I'm hearing is that you're saying, well, the the if we adopt the part three, we're saying we're begging them to respond to that item by item. If I have a seven-year-old and you say, I really mean it. I mean, well, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I guess is that Yeah. Yeah. So, it's kind of saying

really respond. agencies do stuff like that all the time as a it's a it's take it for it's just a suggestion that my dad explain I just make an observation on that my April 20th letter was following the draft part three u tonight's meeting was useful for me because on the issue of wastewater I heard Greg comment on um you know there's seven different wheat fields. There's no documentation before this board about what flow goes where. I understand that. On on water, we provided you the email from the Olster County Department of Health, the agency that oversees these types of operations that stated 36 gallons a minute. I heard

a day. What I what I heard I'm sorry, 36 gallons per person per day. What what I heard back though is you're not putting much weight in an email from the department of health and it didn't in my view looking at the language it didn't even embody the finding that you're saying let alone where it came from what was what went into it but yes you're correct we're not putting much weight to it that's correct but it's the same individual who wrote the letter that you and we believe that the amount of the amount of work that he put into that previous letter and the situation in the previous case and this situation are practically the same if not exactly the same. So I don't know how he came up with 55 in one case and 36 in the other. That's a true statement from this board.

Mark, if I can suggest, I think what you're hearing is the more you were come forward with very substantial serious background information, the more we the more the board is is is going to be interested in pursuing further discussion. It's just we don't have to do it. And here's a here's a oneliner from from from the health department. At some point the board is not feeling um satisfied in terms of the you know all I said is there's no prejudice in saying all right you want 30 days you get us the stuff in 30 days and then we'll tell you but to to now give a positive deck and put us in another direction alto together I think is very short do part three

well I think it's yeah I I mean I don't think positive deck is another direction I mean no it's not there's a wait but Yeah. Well, he's got the floor here. Yeah. I I mean I I see that as a way of formalizing a for us to get the information to fully understand the impact of this that that's what it is. Is there any possibility? First of all, I'm not going to the board of board of health and saying we don't you guys will have to go and get from Kaza

and we'll after you come back with something else and I believe it will be something else or it'll be more substantive then we're going to bang away at it. But what we're saying right now is somebody somebody called him on the phone said I need a number. I'm exaggerating. I need a number. He's busy. He needs to get off the phone. I'll send you an email. We need more than that. A lot more than that because the two situations are exactly the same in my opinion. Ridge View Realy and this project are exactly the same. And if they're not, then you got to prove it to us because as and and you guys got to prove it why it's not the same. So, um,

and just say something about the PDAC. Um, with a PDAC, it can be a very narrow pac limited to what it's it's not a change in direction. It's trying to get the data that we have been asking for and it can be very streamlined and and a very workable document. I've done them in the past and I'm prepared to do it again. So although there will be a scoping session that would that would define the EIS a significant expense to the applicant without question. Well Jeff, we have to get on the train where we start exchanging information.

We are on the train with you. I like your proposal. I don't know. I kind of feel I I'd like to make a motion that we declare a positive decor declaration specifically the one that's in the um the one that's that's been um one in our drafted up on the on the site. All right. I'll ask for a second. All right. So, let's have some discussion. Rick, go ahead. I'll just know it uh the sterling response I I haven't had an opportunity to look at it is knows I had other I had other what came in this week between time and

other assignments um but there is substantive response to some of the items so uh I would suggest if you're going to go that path your scope may be narrowed Now, so okay. So, for example, I Dave Dave, hang on. We have a we have a motion. We have a second. So, now you want to discuss the motion. Correct. Go ahead. Correct. So, uh the motion is a resolution. It's been drafted.

It's it's up on the internet. suggest we there's been lack of time to analyze this but the same scope of issues is in may not still be valid today well based on responses that I've only had a preliminary opportunity to look at the scope of issues will ultimately be defined by the scoping session and the but you have a resolution that has a list of items what I'd like to talk to the board is there because one way or the other we're going to be talking a lot together. The pause debt puts a lot of format around it. Lot of process process.

I think it's going to be about the same amount of time for us. It'll be the same amount of time and money. Perhaps more money for them. I don't know. Well, you have procedural requirements. There's definitely procedural postings, scoping, potential public hearing. And you know how I just love to go through pro process. Uh there were also some um misstatements in your resolution where we're well down below 39,000 square ft in building and you're still showing that as a reason to pause here. I don't think I don't think you're below 39,000. Yes. What What do you think you're at?

29

29th. This this your uh your building schedule says 42,000. It's 1905 in France. You were at 52.

They brought it straight. They were at 52. CJ the resolution with flourish through the part three is written to the findings

and it also lists in section number one impact one it's got the completed part two presum different maybe square footage is under 30 undesity.

We have a slight pause to see if Mr. Robbins is an architect. And it says 42. Well, I don't know. This is This is a drawing looking at. I don't know what should be looking at. Yeah, basically your the resolution that you have really ignores the information that we've submitted in terms of visual once you turn in the building in terms of the size of the building. Now definitely not ignoring it. We we we didn't even know how wide it was and we don't have any visuals.

Exactly. So that's why we should hold off on this uh positive that they have an opportunity to really review what we just gave you. Well, well, the question is whether there's been enough. It'll be up for the board to determine whether we've gotten enough in a sufficient amount of time. Jeff, I could I could tell you that what we received from um Mr. No Spot, we appreciate it, but it's nowhere near the level of detail that we're going to need. nowhere near it.

For example, the historical part of it uh you know to say that that is a uh a significant impact. Um I don't see that especially after you've now turned the building that one of the reasons why it impacted your historical building. Well, I'll I'll elaborate. I mean, we're the construction activities don't include blasting or pile driving. Um, you know, we're not going to have ground vibrations. I think somebody said it at the last meeting when Mr. Tren was here and it was Mr. Tren who I think said it the issues are water and septic primarily and the building.

Yeah, that's not what your resolution says. That's what we that's what our objective because it had to include lighting. It had to include noise. It had to include all these other things and those are still important things. What's your point? The point is they should not be part of a positive debt. Those are the things that can be re they're going to do a positive debt on everything that we have in the FA and I believe I heard from Molina that we would be able to narrow what would be scope.

I didn't hear anything from narrow I said in you you had mentioned you stated that a deck was a change in direction and that it opens a lot of things up. I said no you can have you can have a narrow past deck that you know it addresses the issues that we have brought up to you and your and the engineer. Dave's point was that as draft and there may be certain things we've wanted understood. So that could be a change. Maybe today is not the day for a vote. I don't I that's all we're asking.

And what are you going to do between now and the next meeting? We're going to go back through the comments that were made tonight. We're going to look at your part three what we've responded the information that you're looking for which is more definitive information on the water and this is what in particular uh I think the visuals we can readily show to you that when you well it's in the package

yeah it's in the package already but once you uh move the building to the way it is the the visual goes down significantly I drove Cherrytown Road today and the existing building and the standard trees along the side of Cherry Town Road substantially block any view in. You have to be standing right at the driveway and looking directly into the site to see this building. You know what's going to happen? You know what's going to h what I see happening? We're going to go back in 30 days and you're going to give us some stuff. You're going to say, for example, Mr. Elmore, you're going to say, "Hey, you're not going to be able to see it. You just make that statement instead of giving us Well, we're going to give you a site. I want I want I just want to give my impression.

Um I think with respect um we're past the point where we can make decisions based on statements such as that one or statements such that like Hesshi gave before at the end of the day if we have a visual a simulation uh that will allow the board to make a decision and I'm actually hopeful that the work done on the building will will prove to be useful. I'm we still have a lot of problems obviously with water and sewer, but I'm respectful of the fact that you you know I asked you in the email a couple months ago, Jeff, to roll up your sleeves and I told you to work with the board, you did it yourself, but to roll up the sleeves and reconfigure and be creative and we've gotten some movement. We but we we can't evaluate it. It's just it's kind of just words, but we need we need something that the board can evaluate and it's it's not going to it's not going to be a dialogue anymore in one form or the other. It's going to be the dialogue is going to be backed up by by formal documents and and stuff that we can dig our teeth into. Um that's why it's going, you know, we've had the dialogue for a year and the progress has not been sufficient. So, um more serious documentation of of the issues is going to be what gets us past where we where we are. So, there's a motion on on the floor. If the board wants to um think, you know, suspend it for a while, there can be a motion to table um and then we can vote on that.

We have a motion. We have a second. Does anybody have anything else to say? And I'll call the vote. Um we'll do a voice vote. Not a voice for individual roll call vote. Okay. And by the way, we're missing two. So we need we still need but we still need four to pass it if it's anything less than that um doesn't get passed. So um let's start from left to right. Uh member Nelson. Hi. Member Fetcher. Hi. Member Dudra. Hi.

Sorry I can't take that fast. Uh member Roberts. Hi. And chair Jones. Hi. Did you pass a resolution with false information? Are we in agreement with that? That's what the resolution was. You're saying 39,000,000 39,000 ft. We submitted uh maps and many We submitted those maps after we did the we did the work. Yeah. But you still we that's what we did. So So we made we accomplished something. We got it lower. You just showed us something lower. again impacts of sewer use.

Say that again. I said there was a change in the side size of the building, but it's still impacts to the to the septics and and water use. That's not what you vote with. Vote is much more expensive than that. So, are we going to get your cooperation to go move forward? They want to open sessions now.

Move forward with the application. That's good. Yes. 11 and I Be You think just

other Thank you very much.

Well, they just didn't want it. I was going to say we're still we're still going to Do we have anything else for tonight? No. Did I miss anything? Just can I make a motion to adjourn?