ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
TOWN OF ROCHESTER
ULSTER COUNTY
ACCORD, NEW YORK
(845) 626-2434
btetro@townofrochester.ny.gov

MINUTES of the August 20th, 2020 Town of Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals, held via Zoom and Livestreamed on Youtube and the Harold Lipton Community Center.

Chairman Mallery called the meeting to order at 7:10PM.

Chairman Mallery recited the Pledge to the Flag.

PRESENT: ABSENT: VACANT:
Cliff Mallery, Chair Charlie Fischer Steve Fornal Bruce Psaras, Vice Chair Erin Enouen

ALSO PRESENT: Bill Barringer, Alternate, Mary Lou Christiana, Town Attorney, Brianna Tetro, Secretary. Mike Baden, Town Supervisor and meeting host.

Chair Mallery read the following statement:

I have confirmed with the Town’s Counsel that tonight’s meeting has been convened in accordance with the Governor’s March 13, 2020 Executive Order 202.1 which suspends certain provisions of the Open Meetings Law to allow a municipal Board to convene a meeting via videoconferencing. In accordance with the Executive Order, the public has been provided with the ability to view tonight’s meeting via YouTube and a transcript will be provided at a later date.
The Secretary has completed a roll call of the Board Members and there is a quorum present for this meeting. I have also confirmed with the Secretary that this meeting has been duly noticed. We have fulfilled our legal notice requirements by posting Notice on the Town Clerk bulletin board and outside door, posting legal notice in the Shawangunk Journal, and posting notice on the Town’s website.

Chair Mallery also noted that since there were 2 vacancies on the Board, and one member was absent, Mr. Barringer would be sitting on to review the application, so there would be a quorum.

APPLICATIONS:
PRE-APP
2020-04AV Di Flamminio, Selene and Kudryavtseva, Marina
Area Variance
19 Ski Slope Rd. / SBL: 59.7-2-32/ R-2 District
Proposed Use: Adjusting property lines. Currently half the cabin is built on a neighboring lot.
– Area Variance required: 125-18(A): “Not reduce the ability of the lot from which the lot improvement parcel is taken or reconfigured, to comply with the applicable developmental standards of this law.”

Ms. Marina Kudryavtseva was present on behalf of the application.

Ms. Kudryavtseva explained the background of the application and why they were seeking the variance. She stated they had learned after the purchase of the second property, that the property line runs through a cabin located on the parcel, which caused a natural division. She said they had been under the impression the line ran through the driveway but clearly that had been false, but in the end that was where they wanted the line to be placed.

Chair Mallery asked what the acreage would be should variance and the subsequent lot line be approved.

Ms. Kudryavtseva stated the parcels would be 1.2 acres and +/- 1.43 acres going from 1.7 and +/- .75 acres respectively. She said they bought the second property because it was for sale and it was suggested by their neighbors. She stated at the time they weren’t aware that the cabin was even part of the property.

Chair Mallery asked if she had a survey done.

Ms. Kudryavtseva said they had not due to the Covid pandemic.

Chair Mallery asked when the lots were created,

Ms. Kudryavtseva stated she did not know the history and that the owners did not do anything about fixing where the current lot line was and it had always been an issue according to surrounding property owners.

Mr. Psaras asked when the cabin had been built.

Ms. Kudryavtseva answered about 30 years ago.

The Board and the applicant discussed the proposed project more. The Board suggested putting the 2 properties together, negating the need for an Area Variance. The applicant stated they did not want to combine the two properties together.

Chair Mallery went through the 5 factors for Area Variances:
– The Zoning Board of Appeals shall have the power, upon an appeal from a decision or determination of the administrative officials charged with the enforcement of this chapter, to grant area variances as defined herein.
– In making its determination, the Zoning Board of Appeals shall take into consideration the benefit to the applicant if the variance is granted, as weighed against the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community by such grant. In making such determination the Board of Appeals shall also consider
-Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the area variance;
-Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance;
-Whether the requested area variance is substantial;
-Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district; and
-Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created, which consideration shall be relevant to the decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals, but shall not necessarily preclude the granting of the area variance.
Ms. Kudryavtseva asked what the Board needed from her, going forward.

Mr. Barringer made the motion for the applicant to provide a survey of the property. Mr. Psaras seconded the motion.
ROLL CALL:
Chair Mallery- Yes
Mr. Psaras- Yes
Mr. Barringer- Yes
All in Favor. Motion Carried.
3 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, 0 abstentions, 2 vacancies.

Chair Mallery noted it would also be nice to have letters from the nearest neighbors to garner their thoughts on the proposed variance.

OTHER MATTERS:
-Accepting the regular meeting minutes of May 21st, 2020, June 18th, 2020, and July 16th, 2020 regular meetings.

The Board discussed approving the minutes form May 21st, June 18th, and July 16th but did not reach a decision.

Supervisor Baden noted that the Secertary could provide draft copies of the minutes to the Town Clerk so there would be a temporary record of the meetings, until they were accepted.

Mr. Psaras asked the Board if they had any thoughts regarding the wording for applicants about a timeframe to submit application items that had been sent to the ZBA Secretary and sent out to the Board members. Mr. Barringer and Chair Mallery claimed they did not see the email. Mr. Psaras asked the Secretary to re-send the email so the matter could be revisited and discussed at the September 17th, 2020 meeting.

ADJOURNMENT:

Mr. Baringer made the motion to adjourn the meeting at 7:48 pm. Mr. Psaras seconded the motion.
ROLL CALL:
Chair Mallery- Yes
Mr. Psaras- Yes
Mr. Barringer- Yes
All in Favor. Motion Carried.
3 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, 0 abstentions, 2 vacancies.

Respectfully Submitted,

Brianna Tetro, Secretary
Accepted January 21st, 2021