TOWN OF KENDALL

PUBLIC HEARING on THE COTTAGES AT TROUTBURG PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PLAN and RE-ZONING TO CREATE A WATERFRONT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT

Tuesday, November 19, 2012, 6:00 PM

Kendall Junior-Senior High School

Notice of this hearing was published on both November 11, 2012 and on November 18, 2012 in the Hamlin Clarkson Herald.

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON A PROPOSED LOCAL LAW OF THE TOWN OF KENDALL AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AS SET FORTH HEREIN

LEGAL NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to Section 20 of the Municipal Home Rule Law, Section 6(h) of Town of Kendall Local Law No. 1 of 2012, and a resolution of the Town Board of the Town of Kendall, adopted October 30, 2012, that the Town Board of the Town of Kendall shall hold a public hearing at 6:00 p.m. on November 19, 2012 at the Kendall Junior-Senior High School auditorium, 16887 Roosevelt Highway, Kendall, New York 14476, for the purposes of considering and possibly adopting a local law amending the Town of Kendall Zoning Map to create a Waterfront Planned Development District (“WPDD”) and considering and possibly approving the Cottages at Troutburg planned development plan, pursuant to Local Law No. 1 of 2012. The proposed WPDD would include property located at 19 Monroe-Orleans County Line Road, Town of Kendall, New York 14476 (parcel no.: 11.-1-9; 11.-1-10; 11.-1-11; 11.-1-15). Copies of the proposed local law and planned development plan are available at the Office of the Town Clerk at 1873 Kendall Road, Kendall, New York 14476. At the time and place above, all members of the public shall be heard.

TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF KENDALL

By: AMY RICHARDSON, TOWN CLERK

Supervisor Gaesser called the Public Hearing to order at 6:05 p.m., and led the Pledge of Allegiance.

ROLL CALL

Councilman Pritchardpresent

Councilman Josephpresent

Councilman Schuthpresent

Councilwoman Szozdapresent

Supervisor Gaesserpresent

Others present: Attorney Spitzer, Planning Board Chairman Paul Gray, Code Enforcement Officer Hennekey, Engineer Mike Schaffron, Al and Bev Lofthouse, Paul Cocuzzi, Pat Condo, Kathy Scroger, Don Beers, Jim Ferris, Dan Pixley, Missy Pixley, Tony Cammarrata, Hans DeSelms, Brian and Linda Convery, M. Clement, Ed Gaesser, Susan Pritchard, Nadine Hanlon, Melanie Whitehair, Ty Whitehair, Mr. Hewitt, Dave and Jon Wegman, Matt Tomlinson

SUPERVISOR’S REMARKS

Supervisor Gaesser introduced the engineer and special attorney, and read the following:

“As stated in the Public Hearing Notice, tonight will be a Public Hearing on the Cottages at Troutburg Project. Tonight’s Public Hearing will serve as the Public Hearings for both the Planned Development Plan, submitted to the Town Board pursuant to Local Law #1 of 2012, and the proposed Local Law creating a Waterfront Plan Development District. The Town Board will hear comments on both of these matters in the course of this Public Hearing.

It should be noted that the purpose of this Public Hearing is to receive input and comments from the public. This is not a question and answer session, but a forum wherein the public may provide input to the Town Board. We have a sign-up sheet, and ask that if you desire to speak during the Public Hearing that you sign up. We will hear comments from the public in the order that people signed up on the sheet. We would ask each speaker to limit his or her comments to approximately three minutes. Once everyone desiring to speak has been heard, if time allows, people may be afforded an opportunity to speak a second time.

Before we get started, I would like to describe the process that has occurred in the course of the Town’s review of this project. I would like to explain how we arrived at this point, and the activities that have been undertaken by the Town to date. The Town Board first became aware of the proposed project in August 2011. The Wegman Group then submitted an application for the project in December 2011. At that point, almost a year ago, the Town began its review of this project. In January 2012, the Town’s Planning Board began its review of the project, to provide a recommendation to the Town Board. In February 2012, the Town Board hired the law firm Hodgson Russ LLP and the engineering firm LaBella & Associates, to aide it in conducting a detailed and comprehensive review of all legal and environmental aspects of the project. From that point, the Town has met with its legal and engineering consultants repeatedly during the course of the review.

In the Spring of 2012, the Town Board and the Planning Board reviewed the proposed project in light of the Town’s zoning regulations, the Town’s comprehensive plan, and the Town’s local waterfront revitalization program (“LWRP”). In conducting this review, it became apparent that the Town’s zoning regulations were inadequate to achieve the goals and policies outlined in the comprehensive plan and the LWRP. For example, the comprehensive plan contemplated the use of cluster development and planned unit developments to achieve the goals and policies laid out in the comprehensive plan and the LWRP, but the zoning regulations did not provide for planned unit development. Having identified this inadequacy, the Town Board began working on revising the zoning regulations to achieve greater consistency with the comprehensive plan and the LWRP. This resulted in the adoption of Local Law #1 of 2012. This local law allows for the creation of waterfront planned development districts in the Town of Kendall. Before it was adopted, the Local Law was referred to the Planning Board for its review, and a full SEQR review was conducted. The Town Board also determined that Local Law #1 of 2012 was consistent with the comprehensive plan and the LWRP. It was adopted in July of 2012, and is the law of Kendall today.

In August 2012, the Town received an application from The Wegman Group to rezone the Salvation Army parcels to create a Waterfront Planned Development District and for approval of its planned development plan. The Town Board reviewed the application, requested additional information, and then determined the application to be complete in August 2012. Soon thereafter, the Town Board referred the application to the Planning Board for its review. The Town also began the SEQR process immediately, by designating itself as the Lead Agency for the project, and by notifying other involved and/or interested agencies. During the course of the review, the Town Board and the Planning Board reviewed the comments of other involved and interested agencies. The Town Board also required the developer to respond to these comments and questions. From August 2012 to October 2012, the Planning Board conducted its review of The Wegman Group’s application pursuant to Local Law #1 of 2012. During the course of the Planning Board’s review, it required and received four subsequent revisions to the planned development plan. In October 2012, the Town Planning Board completed its referral and recommendation by submitting a detailed analysis with a recommendation of approval to the Town Board. In November 2012, the developer’s application was referred to the Orleans County Planning Board for its review pursuant to the General Municipal Law. The County reviewed the application and all relevant documentation, and recommended that the project be approved. It should be noted that the Orleans County Planning Board commented on the Town’s diligence and thoroughness in conducting its review of this project.

I would also like to let the public know that numerous public officials have worked extremely hard during the course of this review. There have been numerous meetings, both at the Planning Board level and at the Town Board level. Our consultants and experts have done detailed analyses of the legal requirements and environmental factors, at the request of the Town Board. We have also reviewed written public comment on this Project from the public.

That is how we got to the Public Hearing phase of the project. The Town Board is still working on the environmental review. It is still working on the LWRP consistency review. And is still working through its review of the project.”

No action on this will be taken at the regular November 20, 2012 Town Board meeting. That meeting will be recessed until November 27, 2012 at 7:30 p.m., at which time the Troutburg Project will be on the agenda.

Supervisor Gaesser outlined rules of order for the public comment.

PUBLIC COMMENT – 6:14 p.m.

Dan Pixley -expressed concern that the Town Board do its due diligence in every aspect of this unusual and large project review. Mr. Pixley asked how the public can be assured that this will done properly. Attorney Spitzer assured him that all has been and will be done properly. Tonight’s Hearing is part of that proper process. Mr. Pixley asked what will happen with the issues still left open, and about the body of the law which will be considered, and the involvement of the DEC, and Army Corps of Engineers. Mr. Spitzer said the attachment to the law will be the actual submitted plans. Supervisor Gaesser said the outside involved agencies will require their own submissions from the Wegman Group to assure that each agency’s requirements are met. The Planning Board listed compliance with each of these and emergency service requirements in its conditions. It will also be in the Town Board conditions. Mr. Pixley asked about the water being affected in the current district. Supervisor Gaesser stated that the lengthy discussion held with the Board, attorneys, the developer, the engineers for the town and developer, and Morton Fire Deputy and Assistant Chiefs at the November 17 workshop resulted in every party being satisfied with the proposed water system plans. Mike Schaffron went into detail with his analyses to verify the developer plans. There was input from the MCWA. The current users should not be affected as to quantity or pressure. Mr. Pixley said according to Local Law 1, the developer should provide a schedule of construction, and wondered what the potential tax revenue may be. Supervisor Gaesser said it is an unknown at this point. Attorney Spitzer explained that the future budgets and assessments are what affect taxes. Mr. Pixley asked about the debt reduction for the water district. Supervisor Gaesser explained the steps which would need to occur if the project is approved. There is a potential to positively affect current users as to water district debt reduction significantly. Mr. Pixley expressed that he wanted to see more of the agencies involvements. Attorney Spitzer explained that those steps cannot occur without this step of Board approval. The Board must act first, then the several agencies, then Code Enforcement. The legal responsibility to obtain agency approvals and permits belongs to the developer, not the Town. The Code Enforcement Department will assure compliance if the project progresses, not the Town Board. The process unfolds in order. Mr. Pixley does not want his life disrupted.

Marilyn Clement – said in her opinion the proposed project is not a good fit for Kendall. She thinks this project will be one of “transient, seasonal residents, who will not enhance the community, will not give back to the community, or be a part of it.” She would be more comfortable with development of full year homes along this area.

Brian Convery – expressed confidence in the Planning Board and Town Board vetting the information and acting in the best interest of the Town. Mr. Convery asked if the potential tax revenues have been estimated. Supervisor Gaesser said the financial benefits have been discussed. This property will have private ownership. The developer’s value projections at full build out could be 20 to 25 million dollars. This would have a significant benefit to town, school district and county taxpayers. Mr. Convery asked if the developer has sought a tax abatement. Supervisor Gaesser replied that that would happen at the county level, through the economic development agency. There has been nothing official regarding this. A county Public Hearing would be required if this is considered. The Economic Development Agency

has said it will take the Town’s position as to any abatement under its consideration in making its decision. Mr. Convery would like to see no abatement. He asked about emergency services. Councilman Joseph listed all the agencies involved, and said each has had input.

Mr. Pixley asked if there is any financing for this project from the government. Supervisor Gaesser said none he is aware of, and certainly not through the Town.

With no one else wishing to address the Board, Councilman Pritchard motioned to close the public hearing, seconded by Councilman Joseph; all ayes. Supervisor Gaesser thanked those in attendance and closed the public hearing at 6:42 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted,

Amy K. Richardson