ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
TOWN OF ROCHESTER
ULSTER COUNTY
ACCORD, NEW YORK
(845) 626-2434
btetro@townofrochester.ny.gov
MINUTES of the October 15th, 2020 Town of Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals, held via Zoom and Livestreamed on Youtube.
Chairman Mallery called the meeting to order at 7:00PM.
Chairman Mallery recited the Pledge to the Flag.
PRESENT: ABSENT: VACANT:
Cliff Mallery, Chair Charlie Fischer Steve Fornal
Bruce Psaras, Vice Chair Erin Enouen
Bill Barringer
ALSO PRESENT: Mary Lou Christiana, Town Attorney. Brianna Tetro, Secretary. Mike Baden, Town Supervisor and meeting host.
Chair Mallery called the meeting to order.
The secretary did roll call.
*Chair Mallery read the following statement before the application was reviewed:
“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.”
APPLICATIONS:
CONTINUED APPLICATION/ PUBLIC HEARING
2020- 03 AV- Jackson, Glenn&Margaret
Area Variance
108 Granite Rd./ SBL: 76.2-3-9/ H District
Proposed Use: Wooden privacy fence parallel to the road, approximately 200’ long and 9’ high.
-Area Variance required: Fences in front yard not to exceed 4’ in height.
Mr. Glenn and Mrs. Margaret Jackson were present on behalf of the application.
Mr. Jackson explained that they were no longer seeking a 9 ft fence, but a 6 ft fence.
Chair Mallery noted they had received letters from the Jackson’s neighbors who wrote in support of the proposed fence. He stated the letters had come from: Banta, Wild Lands Holdings, LLC, Fink, Stone Ridge Equities and Conney. He asked where these neighbors were located in proximity to the Jackson’s property.
Mr. Jackson stated the Conneys were north of them, Fink and Wild Lands Holdings, LLC owned land across the street, and Banta and Stone Ridge Equities were south of their property. He asked if the Board had any objections to the project, to please state what they were.
Chair Mallery asked if the members had any comments.
Chair Mallery asked if the members had looked at property.
Mr. Psaras said he had seen the property and was disappointed to see that they had begun construction of the fence prior to gaining the variance. He also wanted to remind the applicants that they measurement of the fence came from the ground not from the road.
Chair Mallery noted that had been discussed in a prior application where the ZBA had requested a ruling from the Code Enforcement Office on how he measured fence heights and the CEO had stated he measured it from the ground.
Mr. Barringer stated the property was on a straight away and a fence would not help with the noise.
Chair Mallery said he had looked for other fences on the road and had not seen many just a chain link fence and the one on the corner of main street and granite.
Mr. Psaras the fence located on main street and granite was on a side yard, a corner lot.
Chair Mallery opened the public hearing.
Ms. Marylyn Tetlow stated she was located on 54 Scenic Rd and had no objection to the project. She stated if they wanted to build the fence, more power to them.
There were no other comments from the public.
Mr. Barringer made the motion to close the public hearing. 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.
Attorney Christiana commented the application was a Type II for SEQRA.
Mr. Psaras made a motion:
DECISION # ZBA 2020-03 AV
Applicant: Glenn and Margaret Jackson (Applicant/Owner)
Reason for Request: The application proposes erecting a wooden privacy fence parallel to the road, approximately 200’ long and 9’ high within front yard setback. Revised by the applicants on 10-13-2020 to be a fence 6’ high above road height.
Location: 108 Granite Rd. Total Acreage: +/- 2.54 acres
S/B/L: 76.2-3-9 Zoning District: H
Code Enforcement Determination: Area Variance Zoning Permit: 20/257
Zoning Board of Appeals Application: 20/257 SEQR Type: Unlisted Action
ZBA Application filed: July 6th, 2020 SEQR Determination: Type II
EAF filed: N/A Other Agency Referrals: N/A
Documents considered by the Zoning Board of Appeals for review:
1. 07-06-2020-Jackson-Zoning Permit-Area Variance
2. 07-06-2020-Jackson-Area Variance-ZBA Application
3. 07-06-2020-Jackson-Area Variance-EAF
4. 07-06-2020-Jackson-Area Variance-Ag Data Statement
5. 07-06-2020-Jackson-Area Variance- Sketch
6. 10-05-2020-Connelly public comment-Jackson-Area Variance
7. 10-05-2020-Wild lands holdings public comment- Jackson-AV
8. 10-09-2020-Jackson- Banta public comment-Area Variance
9. 10-13-2020-Stone Ridge Equities- Public Comment- Jackson-Area Variance
10. 10-13-2020-Jackson-Letter to ZBA
Notice of Public Hearing:
1. Published in the Shawangunk Journal, October 10th, 2020 Edition
2. Notice by mail to known landowners within 500’ and application referral agencies: October 7th, 2020
3. Posted on the Town of Rochester Clerk bulletin board : October 7th, 2020
Date(s) of Public Hearing: 10/15/2020 Place: Remote Dial-in as a consequence of Covid-19
Public Comment: (see Minutes of Town of Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals – 10/15/2020
The Town of Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals hereby makes the following findings with respect to the specific criteria for area variances as set forth in the of the Town’s local law § 140-13 H (2)
1. 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.
a. Yes No
b. Finding: Granting a variance for a 6’ fence would change the character of the neighborhood. A site pass-by showed no fences in a front setback exceeding a 4 foot height in within proximity to either side of the Applicants property. The variance being sought is not a suitable remedy for the condition that is shared by the neighborhood as a whole.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance.
a. Yes No
b. Finding: There are alternatives available for privacy screening that could provide the same benefit, e.g. plant materials.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial.
a. Yes No
b. Finding: The application proposes a highly substantial variance of 50%.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district.
a. Yes No
b. Finding: There is neither a positive nor a negative impact on the physical or environmental conditions.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created, which consideration shall be relevant to the decision of the board of appeals, but shall not necessarily preclude the granting of the area variance.
a. Yes No
b. Finding: The difficulty is not unique to the applicant’s property and is shared by other properties in the district. No unnecessary hardship would result from adherence to the ordinance.
Determination based on the above factors:
It is hereby determined by the Town of Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals the request for an area variance is DENIED.
A motion for approval is made based upon the available facts and Town of Rochester Zoning Code Chapter 140
Motion made by: Mr. Psaras
Motion seconded by: Mr. Barringer
Vote: Ayes: 3 Nays: 0 Abstain: 0 Absent: 1 Vacancies: 2
Adopted: October 15th, 2020
Mr. Barringer seconded the motion.
Roll Call:
Chair Mallery- Yes
Mr. Psaras-Yes
Mr. Barringer- Yes
All in Favor. Motion Carried.
There was no further discussion from the Board.
OTHER MATTERS:
Accepting the meeting minutes from May 21st, June 18th, July 16th, August 20th, September 17th, 2020 regular meetings.
The Board tabled the minutes.
ZBA Process Chart
The Board discussed a flow chart provided by Mr. Psaras in order to help applicants understand the review process better. Chair Mallery suggested going over and deciding on it at the next month’s meeting (November 19th, 2020).
ADJOURNMENT:
Mr. Psaras made the motion to adjourn the meeting at 7:32pm. Mr. Barringer 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