ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
TOWN OF ROCHESTER
ULSTER COUNTY
ACCORD, NEW YORK
(845) 626-2434
torpbzba@hvc.rr.com
MINUTES of the February 15th, 2018 Town of Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals, held at the Town of Town of Rochester Community Center, Accord, NY.
Chairman Mallery called the meeting to order at 7:00PM.
Pledge to the Flag.
PRESENT: ABSENT:
Cliff Mallery
Steven Fornal
Erin Enouen
Charles Fischer
Bruce Psaras
Also present:
William Barringer, Alternate. Shaye Davis, Secretary.
Public Hearing
Dan Feldman
2017-07 Area Variance
93 Kyserike Road, Tax Map # 69.4-2-3, AR-3 Zoning District. 4.42 Acres.
Proposing to have his residence and agricultural processing facility for Winery.
Lacking required acreage for additional requested uses. Multiple permitted uses would require 6 acres, applicant has 4.42.
Dan Feldman was present on behalf of the application.
Chairman Mallery stated that the Board had received a letter of response from NYSHPO. He also noted that the applicant, Mr. Feldman, had submitted a letter to the Board addressing the letter from his neighbors attorney.
There were no questions from the Board.
The Board opened the meeting for public hearing.
There were no comments.
Mr. Fornal motioned to close the public hearing. Mr. Psaras seconded the motion.
Motion Carried. All in favor.
5 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstain, 0 absent
Facts established and DECISION:
Whereas the applicant first submitted an Application Of Zoning Permit and Classification (dated 8 September 2017; #17/309) requesting two additional uses (Agricultural processing and Retail Sales of wine) thereby requiring 9 acres of land and was referred to the Town of Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals by the Code Enforcement Officer
Whereas the first meeting with the ZBA (21 September 2017) included discussion as to the concerns with such a request.
Whereas the applicant amended application (#17/309; dated 15 November 2017) differing from the first application by reducing requested uses and was referred to the Town of Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals by the Code Enforcement Officer; no longer was the applicant requesting on-site wine tasting, sales on premises or expansion of grape vineyard (Narrative amendment received 7 November 2017 stated “I am amending the application to omit retail sales and to only request a permit for an agricultural processing facility.”)
Whereas a request to add agricultural processing of grapes requires 6 acres of land while the applicant’s parcel contains 4.42 acres.
Whereas the applicant was asked the following questions:
* Do you own any contiguous property? ANSWER: No
* What is the history of use on that property? ANSWER: Was used in agricultural manner.
* What was formerly processed in that building? ANSWER: Chickens
* Do you anticipate increased water demand? If so, by how much? ANSWER: Increase of 375 gallons per month (as detailed in 22 January 2018 applicant response to 18 January 2018 Capello, Esq letter) It should be noted that typically 80-100 gals of water is used per person per day [https://water.usgs.gov/edu/qa-home-percapita.html] or 2400 to 3000 per month per person. In addition, the property in question is in an area with better than average water recharge rate and effluent dispersal capability [according to town-wide water study performed by NY Rural Water Association, 2006].
* Do you use pesticides? If so, is that use regulated by any NYS agency? ANSWER: No pesticide use.
* Do you hand harvest grapes? ANSWER: Yes
* Will you be using additional machinery outdoors that would create noise? ANSWER: No
Do you understand that you’ll not be able to sell wine either retail/wholesale from your site? ANSWER: Yes
* Do you understand that you’ll have to get Planning Board Special Use Permit and Site Plan approvals? ANSWER: Yes
Whereas at the 21 December 2017 ZBA meeting a member of the board brought forth information via the NYSDEC online EAF Mapper app that stated an historic structure on the National Register was situated on the applicant’s property yet the applicant flatly rejected that contention therefore the application was subsequently classified as an Unlisted Action under SEQR, the secretary was authorized to put out legal notice for a public hearing to be held and the Ulster County Planning Board was notified as the project property is contiguous to a duly designated Agricultural District (ULST003) as was SHPO (State Historic Preservation Office) notified.
Whereas during the time between the 21 December 2017 ZBA meeting and the 18 January 2018 ZBA meeting, it was confirmed that there is a building listed on the National Register located on a neighboring property within 500′ of the proposed project.
Whereas during that same time span the Town Attorney was consulted and it was determined that the application conformed to 6 NYCRR 617.5(c)(3) Type II action (viz., “agricultural farm management practices, including construction, maintenance and repair of farm buildings and structures, and land use changes consistent with generally accepted principles of farming”).
Whereas at the 18 January 2018 meeting the motion re SEQR typing made at the 21 December 2017 meeting was formally rescinded and the application was retyped as a Type II under SEQR thereby requiring no further environmental review.
Whereas on 18 January 2018, a letter from John Cappello, attorney for neighbor Simone Harari, was received by the ZBA.
Whereas at the 18 January 2018 meeting a public hearing was convened and neighbor Simone Harari spoke addressing the 10 itemized issues contained in the letter from attorney Cappello.
Whereas it was obvious that the 10 points mentioned by attorney Cappello were based in part upon the applicant’s first application and not the amended application and, further were issues that fall under the auspices of the Planning Board.
Whereas the proposed agricultural processing facility for the crushing of grapes will not require any new construction and will utilize an existing building formally used in agricultural processing thereby eliminating any undesirable impact upon the neighborhood.
Whereas the amended application significantly reduced the original variance requested.
Whereas the variance requested cannot be achieved by any other method on that property.
Whereas the proposed additional use requires 6 acres while the applicant has 4.42 acres thereby requiring a 35.74 percent variance which is moderately substantial.
Whereas the hardship is not self-created as the applicant bought the property prior to the 2009 Code change re Density.
Whereas the UCPB Referral Response stated “No County Impact.”
Whereas SHPO responded with opinion of “no impact” re contiguous property’s house listed on National Register.
Whereas the benefit to the applicant far outweighs any impact on neighboring properties or the neighborhood.
Therefore, based upon facts and information obtained and reasons stated above, the Town of Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals, on this 15th day of February 2018, approves the Area Variance of 1.58 acres to accommodate grape processing endeavor provided the following conditions be met:
• No sales allowed on site
• No wine tasting activities allowed
• Obtaining a Special Use Permit from the Town of Rochester Planning Board
• Obtaining a Site Plan Approval from the Town of Rochester Planning Board.
Motion made by: Mr. Fornal
Motion seconded by: Mr. Fischer
Vote: Ayes: ¬¬¬¬¬¬¬ 5 Nays: 0 Abstain: 0 Absent: 0
CONTINUED APPLICATION
2017-05 AV – Area Variance
Town of Rochester (owner) and PV Engineers, PC (applicant)
Proposes a change of use and new construction on a ±30-acre parcel
Off Airport Rd., SBL 69.3-2-41.1, R-5 zoning district, Adjacent to Ulster County Ag District #3
SEQRA: Type I Action, Neg. Declaration, 7/6/2017
No one was present on behalf of the application.
Mr. Fornal motioned to resume the public hearing on March 15th, 2018 and to have the secretary post the notice in the paper and send out notice. Ms. Enouen seconded the motion.
Motion Carried. All in favor.
5 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstain, 0 absent
OTHER MATTERS:
Mr. Fornal spoke to the Board about their procedural guidelines.
The Board discussed their different views and what changes they would like to see.
Mr. Fornal stated he would make the changes for the next Zoning Board of Appeals meeting.
Mr. Fornal motioned to adjourn the meeting at 7:42pm. Mr. Fischer seconded the motion.
Motion Carried. All in favor.
5 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstain, 0 absent
Respectfully submitted,
Shaye Davis, Secretary