Rescind the county planner's report on the Broccoli Patch Distillery

Editor's note: Lewis Donnelly, owner of the former Sugar Loaf Business Center, sent the following letter dated Nov. 6 to Orange County Executive Steve Neuhaus in response to the county's review of the Broccoli Patch Distillery, which was published in the Nov. 22 edition.

Dear County Executive Neuhaus:

My name is Lewis Donnelly. I am the current owner of the former Sugar Loaf Business Center located at 1355 Kings Highway next to the Sugar Loaf Performing Arts Center. I have been pursuing an exciting project in the hamlet of Sugar Loaf that will certainly help revitalize the currently struggling artisan community.

The project includes the restoration of the existing structure and a new addition for a farm-to-table restaurant, a farm distillery, a catering facility along with my personal residence. The structure will be tastefully designed to fit in with the current architecture and theme of the local community. The project is designed to look like a farmhouse and barn on the former Business Center site that has been vacant and in disrepair for many years. Not only will the project create jobs and opportunities for local citizens, it will help to bring back tourism activities to the hamlet of Sugar Loaf and neighboring Town and Village of Chester.

We have been pursuing our approvals for over a year now and recently we received a review letter from the Orange County Planning Department that in my opinion is overreaching and not consistent with the stated goals of the Planning Department nor the County’s recently adopted Orange County Comprehensive Plan.

Below are our responses to the comments included in the “County Reply – Mandatory Review of Local Planning Action dated 10 October 2019:

1. Accurate Site Plan: There is no site plan dated October 7, 2019. The plan submitted to the Town that was referred to the Orange County Planning Department is dated January 7, 2019 last revised October 1, 2019. This plan clearly shows the cemetery and wetlands. There is no site plan requirement of the Orange County Planning Department that requires us to show individual trees and I question how the reviewer would even know there were five trees without trespassing on the property or by project opponent comments. Tree location and preservation is not an intermunicipal nor county wide planning issue. (We ask to kindly check the Orange County Comprehensive Plan)

2. Water Supply. Nowhere in any documents nor at any meetings have I indicated that I would be willing to pursue an extension of the water line along Kings Highway through the hamlet. I would like to clarify the false and inaccurate statement made by the reviewer. At the last Planning Board meeting held on 16 October (after report was issued) , I did verbally agree to look at the option of running public water through my property and connecting it to an existing easement from Creamery Pond Road which was originally created for a possible water service some years ago. However, that option is installing a new waterline from Creamery Pond Road through the existing easement designed for water service through my property to the proposed building and to a new roadside fire hydrant located on the south end that will service the hamlet in the event of a fire emergency -- not a major construction project of installing a water line along Kings Highway through the center of the hamlet. b. Please note upon review, use of onsite wells for water supply is a Town SEQR issue and an Orange County Health Department permit and not an intermunicipal county wide planning concern.

3. Stormwater Management: The author/reviewer indicates in her letter that there “...are two small stormwater management ponds onsite...” and that the stormwater will “flow directly in the Creamery Pond”. However, the stormwater will not flow directly into the Creamery Pond as they will flow into the stormwater management ponds onsite as noted in the plan and by the reviewer herself. This is an inflammatory comment contradicted by the author/reviewer’s own statement within the comment. Furthermore, the author/reviewer references the Southern Wallkill Biodiversity Plan and suggest that based on this study the development should be reduced. The project conforms in all aspects to the Town’s adopted zoning ordinance. The Southern Wallkill Biodiversity Plan is not an official planning document and is not even referenced in the Orange County Comprehensive Plan just adopted in May of 2019. To make such a statement is overreaching, inflammatory, not consistent with the Towns law, and not even consistent with the County’s own Comprehensive Plan.

4. Noise: We are fully aware of the proposed noise ordinance and will be more than happy to comply with the ordinance if, and when, it is adopted. Regardless, I will insulate the building and provide appropriate mitigation to ensure that neighboring properties are not negatively impacted as I look forward to being a good neighbor and my business being an intricate part of the community.

However, suggesting a landscape buffer along the rear property line (the pond, that is) is not consistent with the Town’s proposed noise ordinance. In addition, noise is not identified anywhere I could find in the Orange County Comprehensive Plan as an issue of intermunicipal county wide planning concern.

5. Safety: Distilling occurs in multi-use buildings all over New York State and the design of the building will follow all NYS Building Codes to ensure safety. The author/reviewer incorrectly states that access to a fire which was started by a trespasser on July 4, 2019 was through the “neighboring” property. This is misleading as the access is shared as of right between myself and the neighboring property. Please note, a second roadway access drive to the north of the parking area exists and will be improved to meet town access standards. These are matters for the Fire Code officials and the planning board -- not a matter of intermunicipal county wide planning concern. We question how the review appears to know this information. Where they at the fire?

Other comments:

• The author/reviewer mentioned Black Fungus. Again, this is not an issue of intermunicipal county wide importance and why would this be included in this review – it appears to have been prompted by someone other than the County;

• Cemetery headstones and the cemetery fence are both shown on the plans and are not impacted. The steep slope from the cemetery on our site would make it impractical for any other grave sites. Again, this is not an issue of intermunicipal county wide importance and appears to have been prompted by someone other than the County.

• Parking is a local planning issue. The plan depicts all the uses and the required parking per the Town Zoning. I am unaware why the County would have to verify parking and why this would be a intermunicipal county wide planning issue.

The most important point here is that Sugar Loaf is considered a “Local Priority Growth Area“ in the Orange County Comprehensive Plan; this is not mentioned nor referenced even once in the author/reviewer comments. This review appears to have been entirely biased by someone or some group and should be withdrawn. For the author/reviewer to make items 1 through 5 mandatory for county plannings approval recommendation is overreaching and not consistent with the Orange County Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, I am asking you to rescind this report as this will severely and negatively impact the planning and public board and impede the revitalization of the great hamlet of Sugar Loaf community.

Very respectfully yours,

Lewis J. Donnelly

President, Broccoli Patch Inc.