ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
TOWN OF ROCHESTER
ULSTER COUNTY
ACCORD, NEW YORK
(845) 626-2434
btetro@townofrochester.ny.gov
MINUTES of the September 17th, 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 7:00PM.
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: 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
APPLICATIONS:
NEW APPLICATION
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. And Mrs. Glenn and Margaret Jackson were present on behalf of the application.
Mr. And Mrs. Jackson explained why they were seeking an area variance for a fence. They sited heavy traffic, noise, and concerns for their pets as several reasons why they wanted a 9 foot fence. They stated the listed issues would not be resolved with a 4 foot fence.
Mr. Jackson added that a 9 foot fence would not interfere with anything or anyone on the road. He also noted that Central Hudson had a right of way that went through the property which also made it difficult to have a smaller fence.
Mr. Barringer asked if they had considered putting in trees or shrubs to help relieve some of their concerns and issues.
Mrs. Jackson stated they had looked into it but it was too expensive as they would have to get more mature plants and trees in order to block out any sort of noise, light, etc.
Mr. Psaras stated this wasn’t the first time the Board had seen this type of application but in the instance he was recalling, the applicant was asking for a 6 ft fence, Mr. And Mrs. Jackson were asking for quite a bit more.
Mrs. Jackson noted they had submitted a photo of a 6 ft fence, and it was clear a fence of that height would not solve their issues, they needed more.
Mr. Psaras stated the referenced 6 ft fence had been denied so asking for a 9 ft fence was substantial. He stated Mr. Barringer had already suggested alternatives.
Mrs. Jackson reiterated that trees and shrubs wouldn’t do. She stated they needed more privacy than what those would provide.
Chair Mallery asked for clarification. He stated on the application the applicant stated they wanted a 9 ft fence, but then they had provided a written statement asking for an 8 ft fence.
Mrs. Jackson stated they were asking for at least 8 ft.
Chair Mallery referenced 140-66 (c-2):
C. Area variances.
(2) 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:
(a) 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;
(b) Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance;
(c) Whether the requested area variance is substantial;
(d) Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district; and
(e) 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.
Chair Mallery stated the variance was substantial. He also noted that the property was straight, not curved, which would be a consideration. He stated he did not see many fences on Granite Rd.
Mrs. Jackson asked if he saw the one on the corner of Countryman Lane?
Chair Mallery stated he saw that fence but it was split rail and 4 ft high. He stated the only fence he saw on Granite road, was the one corner across from Scenic Rd. He stated that was a 6 ft fence, and had been granted a variance, due to light intrusion.
Mr. Psaras added corner lots were different as their requirements were not the same as a straight lot.
There was further discussion among the Board and applicant about the fence.
Mrs. Jackson stated that if it would be easier to obtain a variance, a 6 ft fence would possibly work.
Chair Mallery said it would be a good idea to try and find a way to minimize the request, including lowering the fence height and/or adding trees or shrubs.
Mr. Jackson asked what would be the maximum height the Board would grant them?
Chair Mallery stated that would be something discussed at the next month’s meeting, after a public hearing was held, etc.
Mr. Psaras made the motion to set the application for a public hearing at the October 15th, 2020 regular meeting. Mr. Barringer seconded the motion.
All in Favor. Motion carried.
3 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, 0 abstentions, 2 vacancies.
PRE-APPLICATION
2020-05AV- Solcberg, George
Area Variance
879 Queens Highway/ SBL: 60.3-3-8/R-5 District
Proposed Use: Add approx. +/- 15-16 feet of land o this property from 885 Queens Highway
– Area Variance Required: 125-18A(2)- “Not reduced the ability of the lot from which the lot improvement parcel is taken or reconfigured, to comply with the applicable development standards of this law.”
Ms. Heather Gabriel from Medenbach and Eggers was present on behalf of the application.
Ms. Gabriel explained they were seeking an area variance of +/- 15-16 ft. In order to make the lot conforming for the lot line.
Mr. Psaras asked what the square foot would be.
Ms. Gabriel answered about 2,200 sq ft being moved.
Mr. Psaras stated it may be easier to take 2 acres from lot, therefore making lot 8 conforming, and then take 2,200 sq f t from lot 8 and give it to lot 7. He said if that were possible, there would be no need for a variance.
Ms. Gabriel explained that was possible as Mr. Solcberg was amendable. She stated it would be likely they would withdraw the application in order to move forward with what was suggested or something similar. She stated they were thinking of moving corner of lot in to swamp area and asked if that would be possible.
Attorney Christiana said that would be a questions for Jerry Davis, the code enforcement officer.
The Board discussed scheduling a public hearing in case the application was not withdrawn.
Mr. Psaras made the motion to set the application for public hearing, pending all fees for the application were paid no later than September 23rd, 2020. Mr. Barringer seconded the motion.
All in Favor. Motion Carried.
3 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, 0 abstentions, 2 vacancies.
OTHER MATTERS:
-Accepting the meeting minutes of May, June, July, and August 2020.
Chair Mallery made the motion to table the minutes until the October 15th, 2020 meeting. Mr. Psaras seconded the motion.
All in Favor. Motion Carried.
3 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, 0 abstentions, 2 vacancies.
-Application notice
The Board discussed the addition of a note on applications that explained if an applicant did not provide their materials within one week of a scheduled meeting, that they ran the risk of it not being heard in front of the Board. There was no decision.
-Article 78
Attorney Christiana explained that there had been an Article 78 filed that was appealing both decisions from the Allison and Sean Hoots area variance denial and Home Occupation definition. She stated the Town Board had authorized her to represent the Town in the matter. She stated at the moment, the ZBA did not have to do anything but that she would asking 2 members in the coming weeks to sign affidavits. She asked that the secretary send the appeal to the Board members for their review and reference.
Chair Mallery asked what the appeal was for, in a nutshell.
Attorney Christiana stated it was the same arguements that had been presented during the application review process. She said she felt the ZBA had made the right decisions, on both the area variance denial and the neighbor’s appeal.
Mr. Psaras asked what the Hoots’ were looking for in regards to an outcome.
Attorney Christiana stated they wanted the decisions to be overturned.
There was no further discussion.
ADJOURNMENT:
Mr. Baringer made the motion to adjourn the meeting at 7:49 pm. Mr. Psaras seconded the motion.
All in Favor. Motion Carried.
3 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, 0 abstentions, 2 vacancies.
Respectfully Submitted,
Brianna Tetro, Secretary
Accepted January 21st, 2021