The Audit/Workshop Meeting was held on May 28, 2015 at 5:30 pm at the Town Hall.
PRESENT:
Supervisor Chipman Councilwoman Chachkin Councilwoman Fornino
Councilman Drabkin Councilman Spano Town Clerk Gundberg
Attorney Christiana
APPROVAL OF BILLS:
A Motion was made by Councilman Drabkin to approve the following bills as audited this date
General Fund Abstract 5 of 2015 $ 57,849.79
Highway Fund Abstract 5 of 2015 $ 88,954.31
Street Lighting $ 1,068.42
______________
$ 147,872.52
Seconded by: Councilwoman Chachkin motion carried
DISCUSSION ON LOCAL LAW # 2-2015:
Attorney Christiana discussed with the board part 2 of SECRA. It has been determined that there is no environmental significance and no declaration made.
Resolution #68 -2015:
A Motion was made by Councilman Drabkin to enact Local Law # 2-2015 with part 2 SECRA included.
ROLL CALL:
Councilwoman Chachkin aye
Councilwoman Fornino aye
Councilman Drabkin aye
Councilman Spano abstain
Supervisor Chipman aye 4-0 aye, 1 abstain, motion carried
The Town of Rochester Planning Board and the Ulster County Planning Board issued no comments or recommendations in regards to these changes, and all proper agencies were notified.
ZONING CONCERNS:
Steve Fornal submitted a letter for the record to the Town Board and expressed his concerns;
Prior to my serving on the ZBA, my next door neighbor called me about doing a large shed on their property. The particulars were such that a variance was definitely required. However, a month or so after the building was erected when I asked her how the variance had gone she told me that Brenda had stated that a variance was not needed.
I went to Brenda and talked with her. I said that apparently she was applying section 140-43 to ALL accessory buildings and she confirmed my suspicion. This is the pertinent section:
§ 140-43 Use of Existing Non-conforming Lots of Record.
A structure may be erected on any lot of record, existing at the time this Law is enacted; provided no front yard is reduced in size and no side yard is reduced to less than 50% of the requirement for the district in which it is located or 20 feet, whichever is greater; and a sewage disposal system meeting New York State standards, including well and septic isolation distances, can be placed on the lot should public facilities be unavailable.
As you can deduce, this section was an exception for placing a residential structure on a pre-existing non-conforming lot. The references to sewage disposal system, septic and well isolation distances are obviously for applying to residential use and not a storage shed. The thinking was that since people had owned an undersized parcel and had been paying taxes it wasn’t fair to disallow them the ability to place a home on said lot.
However, section 140-13 states (relevant parts):
§ 140-13 Accessory Structures and Uses.
The location, limitation and coverage of accessory buildings and uses shall be as follows:
A. No accessory building permitted by this law shall be placed in any required side or front yard (setbacks) except as provided in sub-section C below.
B. The aggregate ground area covered by any accessory buildings in any rear yard shall not exceed 25% of the rear yard (setback) area.
C. Accessory structures not attached to a principal structure shall:
(1) Be located not less than 10 feet from any side or rear lot line or in such a fashion as to prevent emergency firefighting access or to shade a residential structure on an adjoining lot. Any structure over 200 square feet in floor area shall meet setbacks for principal structures.
(2) Be no closer to the street than any principal structure on the lot, except in the case of agricultural buildings. Accessory buildings to principal structures located more than 100 feet from a lot line shall also be exempt. Accessory structures may, in these situations, be located in front of residences but not in required front yard setback areas.
Please pay particular attention to the bold, underlined sections. As stated ALL accessory buildings are to be considered via subsection C; plus any structure over 200 sq ft SHALL meet setbacks for principal structures. Not only that but section 140-13 actually allows for less of a setback for storage sheds under 200 sq ft than section 140-43 allows.
That Brenda is offering up her rather strained interpretation rather than complying with the obvious requirement for ALL ACCESSORY BUILDINGS to come in under 140-13 C has led to a situation that the ZBA isn’t getting variances. Brenda has single-handedly thwarted the intent of the code with that strained interpretation. Now, I understand that if a resident filing an application for variance brought up section 140-43 and made a point to object, THEN Brenda would be correct in using her interpretation as without the word VACANT included in 140-43 there is some ambiguity that a judge may rule against the town for not giving the applicant the benefit of doubt.
But, what’s happening now is not that at all. Therefore, I’m asking that the Town Board consider and request of our attorney to write a letter to Brenda stipulating the proper interpretation should be used; viz., 140-13 and NOT 140-43.
The thinking behind 140-13 was to preclude the ability of a home owner putting up a 1500 sq ft accessory building (itself a flaw as the homes in question were approximately the same size and therefore the accessory buildings were NOT clearly subordinate to the main building) and then begin businesses out of them. This happened again and again (e.g., CJs and Richard Smith) and required lawsuits to be filed by neighbors which cost those impacted by the intrusion to spend money rather than the violators of the spirit/intent/written word of code. By not allowing such area variances to take place via the ZBA the town has no record of intentions as to what the use of the structure will be. Also, what’s to stop Brenda from allowing the following interpretation: A person comes into Building Dept office and says they’d like to put up another residential unit on their property. They have a two acre parcel in a five acre district. What’s to stop Brenda from considering it a pre-existing non-conforming lot and allow another housing unit to be built? Nothing! Which would essentially nullify zoning districts throughout town as most parcels now meet the pre-existing non-conforming status as the minimum acreage has gone from one acre throughout town to 2, 3 and 5 acre zoning. I don’t think she’d do this but seeing as she’s really stretching 140-43 to accommodate accessory buildings being built without required area variances, who knows?
I requested this change be made and it was not included in the most recent code update. But, I think this is absolutely necessary.
Thank you
Steven Lance Fornal
After a lengthy discussion of the interpretation of the Law and whether the Town Board should wait or act now. Councilwoman Chachkin suggested;
140-43 Use of Existing Non-conforming Lots of Record
A. A principal structure may be erected on any non-conforming lot of record existing at the time this Law is enacted provided no front yard is reduced in size and no side yard is reduced to less than 50% of the requirement for the district in which it is located or 20 feet, whichever is greater, and a sewage disposal system meeting New York State standards, including well and septic isolation distances, can be placed on the lot should public facilities be unavailable.
B. Accessory structures placed on non-conforming lots of record after the effective date of this Law shall comply with Section 140-13 of this Law, Accessory Structures and Uses.
The Town Board agreed to direct Attorney Christiana to draft an amendment for next Town Board meeting on June 4, 2015.
CONSTABULARY PROCEDURES:
The Town Board reviewed the policy and procedure manual with Richard Miller. Attorney Christiana will review the mission statement and policy & procedure manual for the next Town Board Meeting.
ESCROW ACCOUNTS FOR PLANNING FEES:
There was a brief discussion on Commercial applications paying the legal fees of the Town Attorney. Attorney Christiana suggested the board speak with Chairpersons of the Planning Board and ZBA.
Supervisor Chipman will send Becky in Planning and Zoning a request to have all applications posted on the Town of Rochester website. Attorney Christiana did not see any problems with it being done. Rich Miller said he could create a spot on each board’s site. The Board would like to have this done to show greater transparency and to also mitigate false information spreading as what is being proposed to those boards. Many times the rumor mill has blown things out of proportion and this would be more accessible way for those who are concerned about certain applications to find out what is going on. I believe it would just involve scanning the application and then posting it at the designated spot on the website.
RECAP OF MEMORIAL DAY:
The Board discussed having the parade end at the Town Hall next year. Supervisor Chipman asked a few board members to work together with the Ladies Auxillary to have a community parade end at the Veterans Park and maybe a few vendors, military members, food and music.
NYRISING BANK ACCOUNT:
Resolution # 69-2015:
A Motion was made by Councilman Drabkin to take the Safety Net account and rename it the NYRising account for Town of Rochester.
Seconded by: Councilman Spano 5-0aye, motion carried
AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE VEHICLE WITH A $ 3,000.00 LIMIT:
Resolution # 70-2015:
A Motion was made by Councilman Drabkin to authorize Richard Miller to bid on an auction site for a vehicle for the CEO with a set max no more than $ 3,000.00.
Seconded by: Councilman Spano 5-0aye, motion carried
SOLAR AT THE TRANSFER STATION SITE:
Councilman Spano asked Supervisor Chipman about looking into solar opportunities at the Transfer Station. Supervisor Chipman stated he was working on it.
ADJOURNMENT:
A Motion was made by Councilman Spano to adjourn the meeting at 6:40pm
Seconded by: Councilman Drabkin 5-0aye, motion carried
Respectfully submitted,
Kathleen A. Gundberg
Town Clerk