ZBA Minutes Feb. 2013

MINUTES OF February 19, 2013 the Town of Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals, held at the Town Hall, Accord, NY.

 

Chairperson Haugen- De Puy called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM.
PRESENT:                                                                ABSENT:                 
Beatrice Haugen- De Puy, Chairperson                                    Elizabeth Kawalchuk             
Cliff Mallery, Vice Chair                                                       John Dawson
        Troy Dunn
Charlie Fischer, Alternate
        

 

Also present:
Rebecca Paddock Stange, Secretary.  

 

Because Mrs. Kawalchuk was absent, Chairperson Haugen De Puy asked Alternate Fischer to join the Board.
ACTION ON MINUTES
Mr. Fischer motioned to approve the November 20, 2012 Minutes. Seconded by Mr. Dunn. No discussion.
Vote:
Haugen- De Puy, Chairperson-    Yes                             Mallery, Vice Chair-    Yes
Dunn-                                   Yes                             Dawson-                 Absent
Kawalchuk-                              Absent                  Fischer-                        Yes                     

 

Chairperson Haugen De Puy motioned to schedule a special meeting on March 14, 2013 to be held at the Town of Rochester Community Center for the purpose to have the Town Attorney present to discuss the application of Scott MacScott. This was the only day the Town Attorney had available to be at the meeting. Seconded by Mr. Fischer. No discussion.
Vote:
Haugen- De Puy, Chairperson-    Yes                             Mallery, Vice Chair-    Yes
Dunn-                                   Yes                             Dawson-                 Absent
Kawalchuk-                              Absent                  Fischer-                        Yes             

 

OTHER MATTERS:
Chairperson Haugen De Puy noted that Mike Baden was present to speak with the ZBA about the Code Update that is being presented to the Town Board.

 

Mr. Baden noted that the new Code was adopted by the Town Board in 2009. It has been used for 3 years now and as the Town offices have been using it, they have kept a running list of problems that they have come across. The Town Attorney had recommended this and said it was absolutely normal to have revisions be made to a new code once it started getting used and problems were found. The Code Enforcement Office and the Planning Board/ZBA Office both kept a list that got long enough last year to put together and try and resolve some issues. Mr. Baden put these changes into the Code, not as the Planning Board Chairman, but as a past member of the Code Task Force. He went through the Code and problem areas with the CEO and PB/ZBA Offices and submitted a revised version of the Code to the Town Board at their last Audit Meeting. They went through some of the changes and they want him to come to every Audit Meeting to continue. It will take a while. Not everything is changing—more procedural than anything- and to keep up with the revised State Codes. There were also changes made at the request of the CEO to help them—like definitions to be clearer and more in line with State Definitions so there were less gray areas between the two and some changes were proposed. The next step is to go over these with the Town Board point by point starting on the 28th. He noted that what is being presented to the Town Board is on the website. Both Subdivision and Zoning Codes are on there with the changes crossed out and new additions in red—He wanted it to be very upfront about what was coming out and what was going in. Nothing is being hidden—it’s all out there and easy to see. He’s not sure what the Town Board’s feeling will be, but that’s the process for them to go through it and decide.

 

Mr. Dunn looked online and couldn’t find it.

 

Mr. Baden noted that it was all the way at the bottom.  He would be happy to answer any questions and encouraged the ZBA to come to the Town Board meetings as they have similar questions.

 

Mr. Mallery questioned if this was simply making the definitions and laws conforming with each other?

 

Mr. Baden answered that 60% is that and making laws reflect what we actually do. Discrepancies were found in procedures of what it says and what we are supposed to do. The Task Force that wrote the laws in 2009 were urged by the consultant to leave it a little more open and we are now finding the need for things to be more exact. Courts look at definitions when hearing cases and it also helps the CEO make determinations. For example – the definition for ‘Access’ has been revised to reflect the legal definition of ‘Access’. At the rate this is progressing he doesn’t see the Town Board acting on it during the summer. Another example is in the notifications of Public Hearings. It is proposed to change from bounding owners to be notified to any property within 500’. That is what the state uses as their basis for notifications.

 

Mr. Mallery questioned if it wasn’t just a courtesy that the Town notified bounding owners?

 

Chairperson Haugen De Puy noted that it was a courtesy, but that the Town had that as a law as well.

 

Mr. Baden agreed. He believed it would give better community relations. A lot of times if a property isn’t directly bounding, a neighbor might hear about an action through the grapevine and they are not happy that they weren’t notified just because they aren’t touching the parcel in question. A lot of that came about because of the Cell Tower on City Hall Road. A lot of what is being presented are things like that. He noted that he is available if the ZBA would like him to come back. He again encouraged members to come to the TB meetings where the Code revisions will be discussed. He is not trying to hide anything—just trying to help fix what isn’t working.

 

Mr. Dunn questioned who charged Mr. Baden with the task of making the revisions?

 

Mr. Baden noted that he took it upon himself because of his position of chairing the Planning Board. He is in the process of saving applicants more money by not using the Planner as much with the Board’s permission for him to do the review that the Planner would do. He has the time to do it and these things. The list seemed long enough and since he is very involved and no one else was taking it on, he initiated making the changes with the Code Enforcement Officer.

 

Mr. Dunn questioned who was the Town’s OPR?

 

Mr. Baden answered that the Town Clerk is the keeper of records.

 

Mr. Dunn questioned who was responsible for the code?

 

Mr. Baden noted that once it was filed with the state it is in effect. The Town Board makes the local laws.

 

Mr. Dunn questioned if there was a procedure in how to change laws?

 

Mr. Baden answered that it is up to the Town Board. Not sure if there was a formal procedure- anyone can come in and recommend changes and the Town Board reviews them.

 

Mr. Dunn thought that with something of this magnitude that there had to be a process. The TB was the OPR for Code. Citizens could say they’ve seen enough problems and TB would say- good- how do we procedurally do this? He thinks maybe they would form subcommittees and have changes come out as a systematic approach.

 

Mr. Baden noted that this was just a proposal. He thinks that there is misconception that this is a huge change. The Changes being proposed- Mr. Dunn will see- are not a huge amount of change.

 

Mr. Dunn noted that he can’t comment because he hasn’t seen it yet.

 

Mr. Baden noted that he didn’t deny that he took it upon himself to work on the code.

 

Mr. Mallery noted that maybe there weren’t enough resources?

 

Mr. Baden noted that exactly what Mr. Dunn was saying about having committees involved is exactly what happened the first two attempts to update the entire code—that was a complete re-write though. Here they are just fixing issues that have come out of that product.

 

Mr. Dunn noted that the process to making amendments still needs to be transparent. People get nervous if pressed and a process eases people’s minds.

 

Chairperson Haugen De Puy questioned if there would be a public hearing?

 

Mr. Baden noted that there would be—all of this right now is just a proposal for the Town Board to review. It will take a while and then they will begin to go through the subdivision.

 

Chairperson Haugen De Puy questioned if the new law would give more teeth to the CEO with the Judge and Court? She would like to see properties actually get cleaned up when they get violations.

 

Mr. Baden noted that the Town Board can visit that on its own. What this is just clarifying things and getting rid of gray areas. All the CEO can do is issue the violations and then it is up to the Court to follow through on the judgment. If the Town Board wanted to give the CEO more authority, they would have to specifically review and come up with new laws.

 

Mr. Dunn and Mr. Mallery agreed that the process is what it is as far as violations and court appearances.

 

Chairperson Haugen De Puy questioned if the ZBA could have a liaison to this revision process with the Town Board?

 

Mr. Baden noted that the ZBA is essentially a court and it would be a conflict of interest if the ZBA was writing the laws that they had to interpret and vary.

 

Mr. Dunn questioned if the same thing couldn’t be said about Mr. Baden as the Chairman of the Planning Board?

 

Mr. Baden noted that he didn’t think so because the Planning Board can only review what is given to them by the CEO—they can only go by the letter of the law.

 

Mr. Dunn noted that Mr. Baden was saying that his role in the revisions were brought about by his experience in Planning and from being on the committee and being on the PB and working with it every day. If the Town Board just stamps what Mr. Baden has written, he sees a conflict with that.

 

Mr. Baden re-iterated that the Planning Board has no choice but to follow the laws as written. They don’t interpret them.

 

Mr. Dunn stated that if Mr. Baden is changing things- by definition – he would have written the law he is following. He sees this as a potential conflict without some sort of oversight on the process.

 

Mr. Baden noted that the Public Hearing was the oversight.

 

Mr. Dunn questioned why they should wait until it gets to that stage for any oversight by anyone else? No matter how minor the changes, there needs to be a process to help Mr. Baden and the Town Board to relate the transparency of this to the public.

 

Mr. Baden’s only concern was that the Code gets done the right way. These aren’t huge changes and that’s why he wanted to make the proposals and walk the Town Board through them. He thinks people should be involved in the process.

 

Mr. Dunn noted that without process you have anarchy. It has to be an organized process.

 

Mr. Baden noted that there is a process. The Town Board decides what becomes local laws- and by making his proposal, they are going through the process.

 

Mr. Dunn noted that the process has to start with the OPR. When he found out about this he was caught by surprise. He thought it would have been publicized so people knew about it. He has a bunch of comments.

 

Board Members were in agreement that they would like to be kept up to date about what was happening throughout the process. They would contact the TB after they further reviewed the proposals after the 28thto see where things stood.

 

ADJOURNMENT

 

Mr. Dunn motioned to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Mr. Mallery. All members present in favor.

 

Since there was no further business, at 7:50PM Chairperson Haugen- De Puy adjourned the meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
                                                        
Rebecca Paddock Stange, Secretary