ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
TOWN OF ROCHESTER
ULSTER COUNTY
ACCORD, NEW YORK
(845) 626-2434
nknapp@townofrochester.ny.gov

MINUTES of the October 21st, 2021 Town of Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals, held via Zoom and Livestreamed on Youtube.

Chair Psaras called the meeting to order at 6:00PM.

The secretary did roll call.

PRESENT: ABSENT:
Bruce Psaras, Chair Jill Bressler
Michael Wassell
Charles Fischer
Bill Barringer

ALSO PRESENT: Isabel Vinton – Alternate; Mary Lou Christiana, Attorney for the Town; Nicole Knapp, Planning and Zoning Board Secretary; Erin Enouen, Councilwoman and ZBA Liaison

APPLICATIONS:

1) 21/049 AV – Tow Path Rd. LLC/John Sturges – Area Variance
442 Tow Path Rd./ SBL: 77.2-4-48 R-5 District
• Parcel is in the R-5 zoning district
• Parcel is+/- 1.7 acres
• Applicant proposes the erection of a single-family residence
• Applicant does not meet the 100′ setback set from the high-water line
• Proposed structure is+/- 70′ away from the high-water line
• Applicant would need a +/- 30′ variance

Mr. Sturges was present on behalf of the application.

Mr. Wassell read the letter sent by the Town of Rochester Environmental Conservation Commission:

Request for comments and/or recommendations regarding zoning permit #21/049-03AV – Tow Path Rd. LLC/John Sturges

Dear Town of Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals,

The Town of Rochester Environmental Conservation Commission (TORECC) thanks the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) for requesting the commission’s comments and/or recommendations regarding zoning permit #21/049-03AV – Tow Path Rd. LLC/John Sturges, in which the applicant is requesting a +/- 30’variance to the 100’ setback from high-water line code restriction for the erection of a single-family dwelling at 442 Tow Path Rd. The TORECC has reviewed the documents provided by the ZBA and would like to submit the following comments to be taken into consideration during the ZBA’s review of the above-mentioned zoning permit. The topography of the site works to lessen the risk of flooding for the dwelling, which sits 3’-4’ higher than the flood plain. The shed sits lower than the dwelling and could be at risk of flooding. Extreme flooding events are becoming more frequent and with greater intensity due to climate change. It is a concern of the TORECC that if the applicant were to build within the 100’ set back it could put both structures at greater risk of flooding and property damage. Property damage resulting in the sweeping away of any buildings, construction materials, and/or personal property not only poses a financial and safety risk to the applicant, it also poses an environmental stress to the Peters Kill, Rondout, and other following waterbodies as debris is caried away with flood waters. Debris such as this also has the potential to damage other downstream structures.
A chief purpose of the 100’ setback from high water line is to protect the environmental integrity of local waterbodies in the form of riparian buffers. Riparian buffers are the natural vegetation buffer that extends from the edge of the stream bank. A riparian zone helps to decrease erosion, reduce flooding damage, improve wildlife and stream habitat, and protects water quality.
It is generally considered acceptable to have a buffer that is two times the width of a creek. If the
variance is granted it should be stressed that no damage to the riparian buffer is to take place outside the footprint needed to build the dwelling. Any damage that does take place (i.e. removal of flood plain or streambank vegetation) should be reestablished once work is complete.

Thank you for taking the TORECC’s comments and recommendations into consideration.

Sincerely,
The Town of Rochester Environmental Conservation Commission

Mr. Sturges requested to make a few clarifications regarding the letter. He stated there was never a shed proposed for the project. The building was shifted so it was 6-8 feet above the flood zone, not 3’-4’ like the letter states.

Mr. Fischer made a motion to close the Public Hearing. Mr. Wassell seconded the motion.

ROLL CALL:
Charlie Fischer – Aye
Bill Barringer – Aye
Michael Wassell – Aye
Chair Psaras – Aye
All in Favor. Motion Carried.
4 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstentions

Mr. Sturges clarified there would be no construction near the bank of the stream.

Chair Psaras spoke of Mr. Sturges bringing in soil for the adjacent lot. Mr. Sturges said it will be about 1600 yards for that lot. The other lot will benefit from the excavated materials from the new construction.

Mr. Sturges confirmed there is a plan for a lot line adjustment after the variance application is complete. The cabin and shed on the adjacent property will be removed. The previous Planning Board LLI application was withdrawn and a new one will be submitted once the ZBA makes a decision regarding the variance application.

Mr. Sturges noted trees need to be removed on the property due to their proximity to the power lines along the public road. He stated he will also plant native plants, such as Canadian rye, to establish a root system.

The ZBA discussed the deck causes the new construction to enter 13’ into the buffer. Mr. Sturges stated there is less disruption of the land with the posts of the porch/deck than with an actual dwelling structure.

Mr. Barringer made a motion to deny the variance. There was no second for the motion.

The matter was tabled until next month. The Board has 62 days to make a decision after the close of the Public Hearing.
******************************************************************************
2) 20/264 – DiFlamminio/Kudryavtseva – Area Variance
21 Ski Slope Rd./SBL: 59.7-2-31 R-2 District
• Parcel is in the R-2 zoning district
• Parcel is +/- 1.73 acres
• Current property lines run through a cabin on neighboring lot
• Area variance is required

Ms. DiFlamminio was present on behalf of the application.

Chair Psaras opening the Public Hearing. There were no comments or correspondence from the public.

Mr. Barringer made a motion to close the Public Hearing. Mr. Fischer seconded the motion.

ROLL CALL:
Charlie Fischer – Aye
Bill Barringer – Aye
Michael Wassell – Aye
Chair Psaras – Aye

All in Favor. Motion Carried.
4 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstentions

Applicant was notified the Board had 62 days from the close of the Public Hearing to make a decision and that she did not have to be present at the next meeting for the decision to be made.

******************************************************************************

3) 21/520 – Bettina Schneider – Area Variance
700 Cty. Rte. 6/SBL: 77.2-4-7 R-2 District
– Parcel is in the R-2 zoning district
– Parcel is +/- 2.76 acres
– Applicant requests a variance to build a 6-7 foot fence to shield from increasing traffic and noise.

Ms. Schneider and contractor Donavan Caston present on behalf of the application.

Ms. Schneider presented her application and stated there was a need for a 6’-7’ fence due to the noise level on the road she lives on. She stated she had videos of the traffic she can provide to the Board.

The neighborhood is all residential. No commercial businesses in direct proximity.

There was a suggestion made to try other alternatives, such as planting trees. Mr. Caston stated there is a culvert at the edge of the property that limit the chances of establishing trees there.

Chair Psaras explained why fences cannot be greater than 4’ tall, stating the shorter height is safer to see oncoming traffic, kids playing, etc. 6’-7’ fences have not been proven to eliminate noise levels.

Mr. Caston asked what would be reasons for permitting the variance.

The Chair stated fence variances come up once a year and recalls only one being passed.

Mr. Caston stated the applicant is proposing to build the fence behind a line of established trees at the front of her property, so it would not be so sightly to the neighbors. The fence would only be 100’ of the road. The applicant has spoken to neighbors who stated they would be in favor.

Chair Psaras said that letters in support of the project would be valuable to the Board.

Ms. Schneider mentioned the other fences in the area that are taller than the 4’ restriction. Ms. Christiana said it is possible they were erected prior to the fence law going into effect, “pre-existing non-conforming,” so they would be grandfathered in. Mr. Barringer stated they could also have been built without a permit.

The application process was clarified by Ms. Christiana for the applicant and the applicant was advised to go through the criteria in the application packet and to make sure each of them are met.

Ms. Christiana clarified the home on the parcel is a one-story home.

Mr. Barringer suggested having someone who is 6’ tall stand at the edge of the property and take pictures/video to provide to the Board.

The applicant suggested the possibility to plant in front of the fence. Chair Psaras stated there are more mature plants/trees that can be bought. The applicant commented these are costly.

Mr. Wassell read an excerpt off a website with advice for the applicant and advised applicant to do more research about alternatives to the fence.

Ms. Christiana suggested it would be beneficial to the Board to set up site visits.

Mr. Fischer made a motion to set the Public Hearing for the November 18th meeting. Mr. Barringer seconded the motion.

ROLL CALL:
Charlie Fischer – Aye
Bill Barringer – Aye
Michael Wassell – Aye
Chair Psaras – Aye

All in Favor. Motion Carried.
4 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstentions

ACTION ON MINUTES:

Mr. Fischer made a motion to accept the minutes from the September 16th meeting. Mr. Wassell seconded the motion.

ROLL CALL:
Charlie Fischer – Aye
Bill Barringer – Aye
Michael Wassell – Aye
Chair Psaras – Aye

All in Favor. Motion Carried.
4 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstentions

ADJOURNMENT:

Mr. Barringer made the motion to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Fischer seconded the motion.
All in favor. Motion Carried.
4 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstentions

Respectfully Submitted,

Nicole Knapp, Secretary