Intensity of Use
Intensity of Use—Not Building Size—Is the Dispositive Issue
Recent discussions before the Planning Board have focused heavily on the size and configuration of the proposed dining hall. While building scale is relevant, this focus risks narrowing the inquiry in a way that obscures the true land-use issue before the Board. The dispositive question is not square footage, but intensity of use, specifically:
● How many people will use the facility
● For what purposes
● Over what time periods
Under the Town of Rochester Zoning Code, the Planning Board is not obligated to enlarge or accommodate an applicant’s programmatic objectives if those objectives exceed what the parcel can support and what is allowable within the zoning regulations. Where a proposed use cannot be made compliant through reasonable modification, the Board has both the authority and the obligation to require a reduction in use intensity—or to deny the application.
Put simply: This application should not be evaluated as a question of architectural scale alone; if the proposed use does not fit within the zoning envelope of the land, the remedy is not to expand the envelope, but to shrink the use.
I: Historical Baseline: Pine Grove Resort
The subject property previously operated as the Pine Grove Resort (formerly Pine Ridge Dude Ranch), with an approximate maximum occupancy of 400 persons across roughly 104 rooms and a limited number of suites. Even at that level:
● Full occupancy was rare
● The facility was dormant for substantial portions of the year
● Parking was insufficient during peak periods
● Typical stays were short-duration (1–2 nights), primarily on weekends
These operational characteristics materially limited cumulative impacts related to traffic, wastewater, water supply, noise, lighting, and emergency services. By contrast, the current use of the property reflects a fundamentally different—and significantly more intensive—pattern:
● Substantially higher occupancy levels
● Continuous and long-duration stays
● More persistent and cumulative impacts
I: Camp Rav Tov currently holds two separate Ulster County Department of Health permits:
1. A children’s camp permit authorizing up to 570 campers, and 200 staff, as acknowledged only recently by the applicant
2. A Temporary Residence (Hotel) permit for 126 rooms Housing 770 persons in 126 rooms yields an average of approximately six persons per room, a population density far exceeding that of the historic Pine Grove Resort.
Moreover, in addition to resident campers and staff, the site experiences regular day-use visitation by families during camping season, further intensifying impacts. These conditions have already resulted in documented adverse effects, including traffic congestion, wastewater concerns, water supply stress, noise and light pollution, and parking inadequacy—all prior to the proposed dining hall expansion.
II: DOH Capacity Is Not Determinative of Zoning Compliance
The applicant has repeatedly relied on Department of Health capacity figures as a proxy for lawful land-use intensity. This reliance is misplaced.
While DOH permits address public health considerations, they do not supersede the Planning Board’s independent authority to regulate land use under the Zoning Code or to conduct environmental review under SEQRA.
The Planning Board is legally obliged to evaluate and regulate impacts including, but not limited to:
● Traffic flow and roadway safety
● Parking adequacy
● Groundwater and aquifer protection
● Septic and wastewater disposal
● Noise, lighting, and nuisance impacts
● Community character
● Burdens on police, fire, and emergency services
DOH determinations neither resolve nor preempt these zoning and SEQRA considerations.
III: Zoning Code Authority to Limit Intensity of Use
The Town Code expressly authorizes the Planning Board to modify, condition, or deny site plans where necessary to protect public welfare and community character.
§ 140-49 — Modifications and Conditions
The Planning Board may require modification of a site plan and impose reasonable conditions directly related to the proposed use in order to:
● Protect health, safety, and welfare
● Secure harmonious development
● Protect neighborhood character
Limiting the number of users or occupants is a well-recognized and reasonable condition where land-based constraints cannot support the proposed intensity of use.
§ 140-54 — Conformity With Other Plans, Laws, and Ordinances
In reviewing a site plan, the Board must consider:
● Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan
● Impacts on surrounding development and the Town as a whole
● Traffic flow, circulation, and parking adequacy
● Public safety and interference with surrounding roadways
A proposal that depends on extreme or unsupported occupancy assumptions—or that exacerbates existing deficiencies—fails this conformity requirement.
§ 140-2 — Purposes of the Zoning Chapter
Chapter 140 is intended to guide land use in a manner consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and to protect community character and environmental resources. Where a project cannot be modified to meet these purposes, denial is an expressly authorized outcome.
IV: Established Local Precedent
The Planning Board has previously exercised its authority to limit intensity of use and assembly size where land-based constraints warranted such action. Examples of where they have done so include:
● Accord Speedway
● Arrowood Farms
● The Crested Hen
● Inness (including limitations related to placement, parking, and use)
● Ravenwood
● Stonehill’s Farmhouse on Mill Hook
● Westwind Orchard
In each case, the Board recognized that the land itself sets the outer limits of permissible use. The Camp Rav Tov application raises the same fundamental issue. Based on parking, loading, water supply, wastewater capacity, traffic, and environmental constraints, the site at 30 Cherrytown Road cannot support the 770-person occupancy figures advanced by the applicant. A substantially lower cap is warranted.
V: SEQRA Considerations
SEQRA requires the Planning Board to take a “hard look” at the full scope of a project, including:
* Cumulative impacts
* Long-term effects
* Reasonably foreseeable future uses
Segmentation of related actions is impermissible. Approval based on incomplete, artificial, or constrained assumptions regarding intensity of use risks being arbitrary and capricious. The present application raises substantial questions across multiple SEQRA impact categories that must be evaluated holistically and at realistic occupancy levels.
VI: Conclusion
This application should not be evaluated as a question of architectural scale alone. The central issue is whether the intensity of use proposed by the applicant can be supported by the land, existing infrastructure, and the surrounding community. If it cannot, the Planning Board has both the authority and the responsibility to require a reduction in use intensity or to deny the application.