ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
TOWN OF ROCHESTER
ULSTER COUNTY
ACCORD, NEW YORK
(845) 626-2434
torpbzba@hvc.rr.com

MINUTES of the January 18th 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 Bruce Psaras
Steven Fornal
Erin Enouen
Charles Fischer

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.

Mr. Mallery stated that the Ulster County Planning Board response had no County impact listed. He noted that a notice to New York State Historic Preservation Office was sent but the Board had not heard back from them yet. He added that the SEQRA determinations from the last meeting were to be changed.

Mr. Fornal motioned to rescind all previous SEQRA related motions. Ms. Enouen seconded the motion.
Motion Carried. All in favor.
4 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstain, 1 absent
Roll Call:

Chairman Mallery: Yes Ms. Enouen: Yes
Mr. Fornal: Yes
Mr. Fischer: Yes

Mr. Fischer motioned to classify the application as a type II action under SEQRA. Mr. Fornal seconded the motion.
Motion Carried. All in favor.
4 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstain, 1 absent
Roll Call:

Chairman Mallery: Yes Ms. Enouen: Yes
Mr. Fornal: Yes
Mr. Fischer: Yes

Mr. Fornal read a letter from a neighbor’s attorney to the Board.

There were concerns about where the septic system was located. It was brought up that the septic system might be on the neighbors, Simone Hirari’s property and not the applicants.

Mr. Mallery stated that a lot of concerns that were listed in the letter from Ms. Hirari’s attorney were not applicable to the project that was in front of the Zoning Board of Appeals.

Simone Hirari stated that she would like a lot more information before she could be more familiar with the application. She was wondering where the trucks would be going to pick up his product. She also had concern about an additional employee at least. She stated that the lot line from his art studio is only 10 feet off the property line which was where Mr. Feldman was going to put new parking. She stated that Medenbach and Eggers was her engineer and when she went in front of the Planning Board they found that there were septic issues with the two properties. She stated that she had spoken with Mr. Feldman in the past and that he informed her that he would be using pesticides and herbicides on the growing of the grapes. She noted that in his applications that he would like to grow his vineyard. She was concerned that the pesticides and herbicides would flow into her pond and affect the use of the pond for her; she added that there was a natural spring as well. She noted that there had been a lot of things/events that have happened with his property. There’s an apartment, air BnB and always different people there. She noted that it was not just one guy living in the house but that there was a lot of other things happening. She stated that she read in the application that Mr. Feldman stated that he was already bottling wine and having tastings. She also showed concern for the traffic with the new changes. She added that she had worked very hard on putting her property on the natural historic registry. She added that she had questions about the type I and type II SEQRA. She stated that her home was within 500 feet of the property. She stated that she read in Mr. Feldman’s application that he noted the property was used for an agricultural production facility. Ms. Hirari stated that her family used to own Mr. Feldman’s home. She stated that the barn only house thousands of chickens that were grown and just shipped out. She said that in terms of the variance she’s not sure what checks and balances came into effect. She stated that she was not sure who was going to keep an eye on what Mr. Feldman was doing and making sure he was complying with the codes of the Town.

Mr. Fornal stated that Mr. Feldman amended his application and that every concern in Ms. Hirari’s attorney’s letter had been answered. He stated that everything was going to be all inside. He stated that there would be no retail sales, no pesticides, herbicides or anything. He stated that most of her concerns were more for the Planning Board and had nothing to do with the variance he was in front of the Zoning Board of Appeals for.

Ms. Hirari stated that what happens with the apartment, art studio, residence, wine tasting and that she feels there’s too much going on at the property.

Mr. Mallery stated that it really comes down to the winery. He stated that if the applicant wanted to grow grapes he could just grow grapes and use pesticides and herbicides if he wanted without being in front of the Zoning Board of Appeals. He stated that it was really the variance that was in front of the Board.

Ms. Hirari stated that she owned property all around Mr. Feldman’s property. She stated that she would like to know who would keep control of all the pesticides that would run into her pond that people can swim in. She stated that businesses grow and that if they allow one thing why can’t he grow later with the property. She stated that there was not enough room in the barn and that there would be things that would need to be done inside to make it work for food production.

Mr. Mallery stated that the pesticides would be used in growing grapes, not making wine. He stated that there were a lot of things the Board would look at to grant a variance. Mr. Mallery read the section of the law about the Zoning Board of Appeals making a decision to Ms. Hirari.

Ms. Hirari asked about the quantity and how much wine production there would be.

Mr. Fornal stated that it would be Planning Board questions.

Ms. Enouen tried to explain to Ms. Hirari the schedule of district regulations. She stated that if Mr. Feldman would not be in front of the Zoning Board of Appeals if he had the right amount of acreage.

Ms. Hirari stated that there were too many uses on the property already.

Mr. Fornal noted that Mr. Feldman had an accessory use on top of the residence.

Ms. Hirari stated that there was just a lot going on at Mr. Feldman’s property.

Mr. Fornal stated that the Board’s determination was based off determination.

Mr. Mallery asked Ms. Hirari if she had any documentation showing where Mr. Feldman’s septic system was.

Ms. Hirari showed the Board on the map where she believed the septic was and where it over flowed into her property.

Ms. Enouen asked if it was the actual septic system or the leech field.

Ms. Hirari was not sure.

Mr. Mallery stated that if the Board did not grant the variance the leech field would still be flowing into Ms. Hirari’s property.

Mr. Fornal stated that Ms. Hirari’s concerns would be taken into consideration with the Planning Board.

Ms. Hirari asked if the meeting could be held open so that her attorney could foil and review the current application that was revised.

Mr. Mallery stated that the public hearing would have to stay open until the Board heard back from New York State Historic Preservation so it will be open at the next meeting.

Mr. Baden explained the difference to the Type I and Type II for SEQRA to the Board and Mr. Feldman.

Mr. Mallery asked Mr. Feldman if he had any information on the septic system.

Mr. Feldman stated that he did not put in the septic system but that he had had the septic tank pumped and knew that that was on his property so he assumed that the leech field was on his property.

Mr. Fornal asked if there was a survey map of the property.

Mr. Feldman stated that the survey map only had the septic location not the leech field.

Ms. Hirari stated that she had a copy of the original survey map of the property.

Mr. Mallery asked if Ms. Hirari could provide the survy map for the Board.

Mr. Mallery asked Mr. Feldman how much more stress would be put on the septic system with the making of wine.

Mr. Feldman stated that there would be increased water use but that it would be minimal. He added that the volume would be limited with the sole purpose of not having a tasting room. He stated that this would be a test to see if the wine they wanted to make would be successful. He stated that if they do good with the wine then they would have to move to a bigger space. He stated that the bottles had to be rinsed out with water but there were no chemicals used to clean them out. He stated that gallons of water used would be less than some households use.

Ms. Enouen asked if with part of the license that Mr. Feldman would be issued if the DEC would have any oversee of the project and license.

Mr. Feldman was not sure if there was. He believed that the State inspected but that was it.

Mr. Fornal motioned to keep the public hearing open. Mr. Fischer seconded the motion.
Motion Carried. All in favor.
4 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstain, 1 absent

Mr. Mallery suggested that Mr. Feldman take a look at the letter from Ms. Hirari’s attorney and answer some of the questions in the letter.

Ms. Hirari stated that in the application she kept reading “we, we, we” and was wondering who the “we” was.

Mr. Feldman stated that he had a partner, no employees.

There were no further questions or comments.

Other Matter:

Mr. Fornal provided a procedural guideline for the Board to look over. He stated that the guideline would help out the applicant and the Board with the whole process. The Board decided to discuss the procedures at the next meeting.

Mr. Fornal motioned to adjourn the meeting at 7:45pm. Mr. Fischer seconded the motion.
Motion Carried. All in favor.
4 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstain, 1 absent

Respectfully submitted,
Shaye Davis, Secretary