ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
TOWN OF ROCHESTER
ULSTER COUNTY
ACCORD, NEW YORK
(845) 626-2434
torpbzba@hvc.rr.com
MINUTES of the May 17th, 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.
Continued Application – Public Hearing
2017-03 AV – Area Variance
Willfred and Susan Neff/Rondout Creek Solar, LLC
12 Pompay’s Cave Rd, Tax Map #59.4-2-7.111 AR-3 Zoning District. 91.6 acres.
Area Variance – As per “Large Scale Solar Energy Systems shall not be permitted to
be constructed on areas of prime farmland as designated by the US Department of
Agriculture
Proposing development of a 20-acre utility scale community solar farm using ground mounted
solar panels.
Anne Whaling and Doug Worden from Cypress Creek Renewables were present on behalf of the application.
Ms. Whaling explained to the Board what the application was about and why they had been taking their time with the application. She stated that they had been looking into the Pompey’s Cave and working with the Northeast Cave Conservancy and that the project would not impact the cave whatsoever. She stated that they talked about doing a conservation easement for the public to access the cave. She also added that since the last meeting Cypress Creek Renewables had opted to using pollinator grass seed on all their sites due to the concern for the bees.
A Board member brought up the issue of impacting the quality of the land.
Ms. Whaling stated that the land would not be impacted from a quality of land stand point.
Mr. Warden stated that they still had not received a SEQR determination from the Planning Board which is something they will need in order to move forward.
Mr. Mallery asked if the submission to the Planning Board was complete.
Mr. Warden stated that it was with the pollinator and conservation easement.
Ms. Whaling added that they would supply the Department of Environmental Conservation paperwork if needed as well.
Mr. Mallery asked the Board if they had any questions.
There were no further questions from the Board.
The Board opened the meeting for public comment.
No one from the public spoke.
Mr. Fornal motioned to close the public hearing. Mr. Psaras seconded the motion.
All in favor. Motioned Carried.
5 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstain, 0 absent
Continued Application – Public Hearing
Stanley Wright
2018-01 – Area Variance
298 Samsonville Road, Tax Map #68.3-4-21.100, AR-3 Zoning District. 1.5 Acres.
Proposes constructing a house 50 feet from stream. Section 140.12 E of the code states “Water front yards. Each lot fronting on a named stream depicted on USGS Maps shall include a setback of 100 feet in depth from the high water mark of such stream.”
Stanley Wright was present on behalf of the application.
Mr. Mallery explained that they already went over quite a few things with the application.
The Board reviewed the new materials that Mr. Wright submitted.
Mr. Mallery asked if there was any more information that the applicant wanted to submit anything else.
Mr. Wright stated that there was not.
Mr. Mallery asked if the Board had any comments or questions.
There were no further comments or questions.
Mr. Mallery asked if there were any other structures on the property.
Mr. Wright stated that there was not any other structures.
Mr. Mallery opened the meeting for public comment.
No one spoke during the public hearing.
Mr. Fornal motioned to close the public hearing. Mr. Fischer seconded the motion.
Motion Carried. All in favor.
5 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstain, 0 absent
Mr. Fornal read a decision to the Board.
Facts established and DECISION:
Whereas the applicant submitted an Application Of Zoning Permit And Classification on 21 February 2018 (#18/033) and was informed that the proposed location for a single family house would violate §140-12 E re Waterfront Yard requirement for maintaining a 100′ buffer from a named stream as designated on USGS maps
Whereas the applicant then filed an Application to Zoning Board f Appeals on 4 April 2018 (#2018-01)
Whereas the applicant submitted a letter 4 April 2018) to the ZBA office dated 9 March 2018 from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation approving the applicant’s proposed septic installation
Whereas the applicant met with the Town of Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals on 19 April 2018 and discussed the application for relief from §140-12 E requirement for a 100′ setback from stream located on a pre-existing nonconforming lot (1.5 acres).
Whereas it was suggested that that applicant redo his to-scale site plan to increase the distance to stream which would require him to amend his application and which would necessitate a small variance for front yard setback to accommodate applicant safely backing out of garage.
Whereas applicant was also requested to provide pictures of the property in question, a letter from bounding neighbor regarding the fence location (placed upon the boundary line?) as well as a statement re the stream height during the 2011 hurricane Irene.
Whereas the applicant amended his application (submitted 30 April 2018) to include non-substantial 5′ front yard variance (14.28 percent) with a moderate 35′ (35 percent) stream setback variance based upon the revised site plan dated 27 April 2018 (Note: 35′ side yard setback allowed via §140-43)
Whereas the applicant provided pictures of the property (emailed TOR ZBA office on 2 May 2018)
Whereas the applicant provided a letter from bounding owner Douglas Dymond re fence (dated 29 April 2018) stating that, in fact, the fence was erected along the bounding property line
Whereas the applicant supplied a letter detailing the fact that the stream in question during hurricane Irene in August 2011 did not rise high enough to overflow its bank
Whereas the proposed variance will not create an undesirable change to the neighborhood and will, in fact, be a positive change to the property
Whereas the hardship was not self-created as the property was purchased prior to adoption of the 2009 Zoning Code and the waterfront restriction as stipulated in §140-12 E
Whereas there is no other way to achieve building a home on this property without the proposed variances
Whereas the variances will not produce a negative effect on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district
Whereas under SEQR 617.5 (c)(13) this is a Type II Action with no further review required
Whereas a public hearing was scheduled for 17 May 2018 and no one spoke for or against the application
Therefore, based upon facts and information obtained and reasons stated above, the Town of Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals, on this 17th day of May 2018 grants approval for the requested variances on the condition that should an Ulster County driveway permit be required it is obtained.
Motion made by: Mr. Fornal
Motion seconded by: Mr. Fischer
Vote: Ayes: ¬¬¬¬¬¬¬ 5 Nays: 0 Abstain: 0 Absent: 0
Continued Application – Public Hearing
Sue Lapp/Kyle Pugliese
2018-02 – Area Variance
76 Tow Path Road, Tax Map #77.1-3-32, AR-3 Zoning District. 4.6 Acres.
Proposes a 6 foot high fence in front yard. Section 140-13H(2) if code states “fence height shall not exceed a height of 4 feet when located in any front yard setback.”
Kyle and Chenai Pugliese were present on behalf of the application.
Mr. Pugliese explained that he wanted to put a 6 foot high fence in his front yard to block the lights from cars shining into his children’s rooms and for privacy, also for safety of his kids. He stated that he had pictures showing how high the fence would be with measurements.
Mr. Fornal asked what the measurements were from the road.
Mr. Pugliese stated that the fence was 15 feet and 8 inches from the road and that there would be 3 feet of sight distance from the driveway. He stated that the driveway across the street from his home and when cars are leaving.
Mr. Fornal stated that he had driven by the property and that the driveway was not exactly across the street from his.
Mr. Pugliese stated that the driveway across form his has other driveways that come off of it and when people pull out of the driveway and come down it is on an angle and the headlights shine into the bedrooms.
Ms. Enouen stated that the Board tries not to grant variances. When they do grant a variance it sets precedence and basically changes the code.
Mr. Fornal asked when the property was purchased.
Mr. Pugliese stated that he had bought the home 4 years ago.
Mr. Fornal asked if the house was already on the property.
Mr. Pugliese stated that the house was there already.
Mr. Psaras stated that there may be other ways to meet the fence code and getting the privacy that they want.
Mr. Mallery opened the meeting for public comment.
No one spoke from the public.
Mr. Fornal motioned to close the public hearing. Mr. Fischer seconded the motion.
Motion Carried. All in favor.
5 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstain, 0 absent
Mr. Fornal read a decision.
Facts established and DECISION:
Whereas the applicant submitted an Application Of Zoning Permit And Classification on 13 March 2018 (#18/047) and was notified that a variance would be required according to §140-13 H(2) which limits fencing located in the front yard setback to 4′ height
Whereas the applicant filed an Application To Zoning Board Of Appeals on 11 April 2018 (#2018-020) requesting a 50 percent variance of 2 feet so that a 6′ high fence could be erected
Whereas the reasons given for request, as stipulated in the narrative dated 11 April 2018, were to “protect our children and our pets from the traffic on Tow Path Road. In addition to that, we would like the fence to help with road noise.”
Whereas in the narrative dated 11 April 2018 the applicant stated that the fence would be located 10′ off the shoulder of the road
Whereas at the 19 April 2018 ZBA meeting, the applicant mentioned that it was also hoped that a 6′ fence would cut down on the light from neighbor across the street. The applicant stated their property rose 3′ from road level
Whereas at the 19 April 2018 meeting the applicant was asked if two driveway entrances/exits on either side of the proposed fence would have gates and responded, “No.”
Whereas at the 19 April 2018 meeting the applicant was asked to consider a hedge or other green planting alternative
Whereas a site pass-by visit showed no fences in that section of the Tow Path Road neighborhood
Whereas a site pass-by visit showed no neighbor or driveway directly across the street from the home in question
Whereas the proposed fence would not stop children from accessing the road due to lack of gating at driveway ingress/egress points
Whereas the 3′ rise with a four foot fence would bring the top of permitted front yard fence to 7′ above the road surface thereby adequately shielding the home from light and road noise without the need for a 6′ fence
Whereas granting a variance for 6′ fence would change the character of the neighborhood
Whereas the same benefit could be achieved via planting a hedge
Whereas the requested 2′ variance (at 50 percent) would be significantly substantial
Whereas the close placement of the home to the road creates the situation that the applicants desire relief ergo a self-created hardship
Whereas the application is considered to be a Type II action via 617.5 (c)(10) with no further review required
Whereas no one spoke to the application pro or con at the 17 May 2018 public hearing
Therefore, based upon facts and information obtained and reasons stated above, the Town of Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals, on this 17th day of May 2018 denies the variance request.
Mr. Mallery asked if there would be a gate on each side of the fence.
Mr. Pugliese stated that there would not be.
Ms. Enouen stated that since the property was bought as is and the zoning code was in effect at the time the issue was self-inflicted.
Mr. Mallery stated that the Town Board was working on changes the code about fence height for front yards to 6 feet.
Mr. Fornal stated to write letters to the Town Board stating that you think the code should be changed.
New Application
Susan Edelman
2018-03 AV – Area Variance
55 Rock Hill Road, Tax Map #77.2-4-62.100, R-2 Zoning District. 18.5 acres.
Area Variance – Proposes detached 2 car garage. Section 140-13 C.2 “ Accessory structures not attached to principal structure shall be no closer to the street than any principal structure on the lot.
Susan Edelman was present on behalf of the application.
Mrs. Edelman explained that they have had the house for 30 years and that it would be great to have a garage. The reasoning for having the garage where it’s mapped out is due to the landscape of the property and the way the house was situated with the electrical pole and the ponds. The applicant shared pictures of the property with the Board.
Mr. Psaras asked where the electrical pole was and the pond.
Mrs. Edelman showed the Board where the structures, ponds and other things were making it difficult to place the garage in other places.
Mr. Fornal pointed out that the lot was a corner lot. He noted that the applicant could designate the other side as their front yard due to that. That would make it so they would not need a variance because they would meet side yard setback standards.
Mr. Fornal motioned to send a letter to the Code Enforcement Officer stated the designation of front yard, alter location of garage to conform to the code, and to verify it would all be okay. Ms. Enouen seconded the motion.
Motion Carried. All in favor.
5 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstain, 0 absent
Mr. Fornal motioned to adjourn the meeting at 7:55PM. Mr. Psaras seconded the motion.
Motion Carried. All in favor.
5 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstain, 0 absent
Respectfully submitted,
Shaye Davis, Secretary