Town Board Public Hearing 2 – November 2023

The Town of Rochester Town Board held a public hearing on proposed Local Law # 12-2023; Amendment to Chapter 125 Subdivision on November 30, 2023, at 6:30pm at the Harold Lipton Community Center, 15 Tobacco Road Accord, NY 12404.

PRESENT:
Councilman Michael Coleman Councilwoman Erin Enouen
Councilman Adam Paddock Councilwoman Charlotte Smiseth
Town Supervisor Michael Baden Town Clerk Kathleen Gundberg
Town Attorney Marylou Christiana

Supervisor Baden opened the public hearing and led in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.

Supervisor Baden gave a brief overview of the process of updating the Subdivision Code

PUBLIC COMMENT: No comments made.

HOLD PUBLIC HEARING OPEN FOR WRITTEN COMMENT:
Resolution # 369-2023:

Motion: Councilwoman Enouen
Second: Councilman Paddock

The Town of Rochester Town Board will hold the public hearing open for written comments until 3:00pm on 12/5/2023.

Supervisor Baden amended the motion to hold the public hearing open for written comments until 12/14/2023 at 3:00pm

Seconded by Councilwoman Smiseth

Aye: 5 nay: 0 abstain: 0 motion carried

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

KATHLEEN A. GUNBERG
TOWN CLERK

The Town of Rochester Town Board held a public hearing on proposed Local Law # 13-2023; Amendment to Chapter 140 Zoning on November 30, 2023, at 6:47pm at the Harold Lipton Community Center, 15 Tobacco Road Accord, NY 12404.

Supervisor Baden gave an overview of the proposed zoning changes.

PUBLIC COMMENT:

Claire Wasserman- Statement by the Town of Rochester Housing Committee
An important goal of the Town’s Comprehensive Plan is “to the greatest extent possible,
that the town remains an affordable place to live.” After 911 but before the Great
Recession, this Town recognized affordable housing as an issue (and states):“It is clear that Rochester must find ways and establish guidelines to help makehousing affordable for people of all age brackets.” Future growth must “maximize theability of people of all means to find an affordable place to live in Rochester by providingfor a range of housing choices and lot sizes.”
Our chartered mission as the Town’s Housing Committee, created in 2022, is toresearch and advise the Town how to begin to achieve these clearly stated goals.
At our request, and with the support and assistance of Ulster County, the Town of
Rochester has hired a consultant to execute a Housing Sites Inventory. The Inventory
will identify those properties in the town, vacant sites and those that have potential for
redevelopment, that are suitable candidates for residential development. As a
committee we will be scrutinizing the Inventory results through the lens of the Town’sComprehensive Plan housing goals to increase our housing stock.
We commend the Town Board for taking on this complex zoning update. The HousingCommittee would like to ensure that the zoning plan allows for flexibility so that the
Town can be nimble in response to identified opportunities for building and preservinglong term housing in our community. In addition to a review of the Housing SitesInventory, the Housing Committee is researching regional strategies and precedentsthat may serve as models for providing a wider range of housing solutions in our ownTown, including opportunities to accommodate Tiny Homes on permanent foundationsand streamlining redevelopment of existing former seasonal vacation community sites.
One of the stated objectives of the Plan (page 13) includes broadening housingopportunities in the Town of Rochester to provide housing for all populations includingyoung families, senior citizens, working families and households, single adults andothers.
In furtherance of this Plan, we intend to provide recommendations to the Board in thecoming months on how to facilitate opportunities for strategic and thoughtful housingdevelopment on the most viable sites.

Connor Williams- I see no amendments to the short-term rental law that was adopted two years ago. The property next to me is a 4,200 square foot house with guests up to 15 people at times. Prior to it being a STR I had no existing problems, now it’s an overflow of cars on the road, noise issues throughout the night, unattended fires. In the current law section V.- Complaints seems like it was an afterthought. Seems to protect the operators not the neighbors, this is on me and my quality of life, how are we going to protect residents? I see that the board tried to curb the amount of STR’s but you need to consider ways of protecting people, there is not much in this current law that does that.

James Guyette- resident of Route 209 and was notified that a letter was going out. This doesn’t feel like it’s been enough ample time for the public to gather their information. When the changes are finally made will we receive an update?

Dan Getman- to add to the letters that were sent out, it is a short of time period for us. Are there additional measures you can take? Additional processes for the land that will change? We all want to do our due diligence and have a general understanding as to what this means for each of us.

Kaustubh Wahal- I agree with the comments of the short, dated letter. I am looking into the documents, for definitions, purpose of changing the map and law. A few areas just didn’t make sense for the change. Certain businesses overall not completely unbiased, seems to favor one entity over others, open space is going from 20 % to 10 % and that didn’t sound right given what we want to do. I have come before the board in the past to ask for rezoning to my property so I know it can be done. It looks like some of these changes are infringing on our rights, the tension in the rooms tonight proves that people are not happy, it’s a big change and opportunities shouldn’t be restricted, it doesn’t seem right, this necessary change is bringing in bigger effects.

One resident spoke on the tax base and affordable housing being affected by restricting growth in the Town.

Mike Fink- Asked for more clarification between existing R-5 to proposed PL-10.

David Roberts- I understand that there is no Q &A during the public hearing, but when is the Q & A sessions? How do we get there? I had issues with the granary process, I wrote letters, called and asked questions that I got no answers. How are we supposed to understand the process and what it means if we can’t get answers?

Gerry Fornino- I appreciate the time the Town Board has taken to get to this point. I was part of the committee in 2007-2009 that worked on the zoning updates at that time. There were topics that were controversial but over all created a good comprehensive plan and zoning amendments.
When I received my letter regarding the zoning change I realized that I am a tenant to the Town of Rochester, a tenant to Ulster County and NYS. I have lived here for over 50 years and pay close to $ 10,000 a year in taxes just to simply be a tenant to the land. So, we ask that you act accordingly when making these changes and allow us what little property rights we have left.

Tim Bunch- I received a letter for the changes but due to the time frame we ask that you give your residents some time to review. I’m not opposed to some of the change, but it is unfair to the taxpayers to rush this through.

Neil Cohen(zoom)- in reviewing the code I can see the hard work placed into this but don’t know how quickly it is expected for us to process the material. The section of the proposed law regarding contractor storage yards- I worry that the definition is weak or non-existent, opening the Town up to a lawsuit. There is a lot coming at us very quickly.

The Board reviewed the section Mr. Cohen referenced.

Katie Naplatarski- How do we get to the process of a Q & A session or a workshop? There needs to be a better exchange of information moving forward so residents can make adequate decisions and have a better understanding because many of us are just as confused now as when we got here.

Jack Dawson- Resident for over 45 years. In the past I have been very involved in the process serving on the comprehensive plan and zoning committee. We had some great workshops and everything I was involved in during the amendment process has completely changed. The work we submitted isn’t there. I have respect for what you all do and a public workshop meeting is the way to go here.

Oleg Duda- asked for clarification with the PL-10 and parcels that have less than 10 acres.

Alex Kamboris- asked why the change on Route 209, you’re taking local business off route 209 with changing the designation from commercial to residential.

Chad Elson- I’ve lived here 40 years now and my land will be considered PL-10. Has there been environmental impact studies done? What are the tax implications? As taxpayers we all deserve to have input, so what is the process from here?

Jack Dawson- when I sat on the committee, we came up with an opt out option. It still allowed the ability to subdivide the land, to give to their children. That information was submitted to the Town Board and now it’s all gone.

Tony Kawalachuk- Regarding connectors for parking, I don’t know if you realize theexpense you put on the owner when their insuranceincreases. I don’t see what good can come of this.

One resident asked if they could clarify the landscape changes made to the proposed code.

The Board answered the questions the best to their knowledge.

WRITTEN COMMENTS:

Glenn Land: I trust this letter finds you well. We are reaching out to express our thoughts on the proposed changes in the Solar Bylaw for the Town of Rochester. We genuinely believe that the town stands to gain immensely from the thoughtful integration of solar projects and facilities within its boundaries, both from a financial standpoint and in terms of environmental benefits. Community solar initiatives, in particular, provide an opportunity for local ratepayers to subscribe to solar farms, resulting in a noteworthy reduction of Central Hudson utility bills, averaging between 10-15% annually. Additionally, the proposed Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT payments) from developers directly to the municipality offers a promising avenue for further financial advantages. Moreover, the positive impact of these projects on reducing greenhouse gas emissions aligns seamlessly with the town’s initiative of addressing climate change to safeguard our community, wildlife, and ecosystems. We have carefully reviewed the Town of Rochester’s proposed bylaw update, specifically noting the proposed 250′ setback from the property line to the solar facility. Given the limited available space for development in the town, we are concerned that this setback may impede solar projects due to project footprint constraints. With due respect, we propose a more balanced approach, suggesting a 100′ setback, which still ensures adequate buffers between properties. Importantly, our research indicates that a 100′ setback is even higher than the norm observed in surrounding towns. On our specific parcel, we are committed to maintaining a forested 100′ setback to mitigate any potential visual impact a solar project might have on neighboring properties. We wonder if the town would be open to considering a modification that mandates a vegetated 100′ buffer, providing a harmonious compromise. We appreciate your time and consideration of these proposals and eagerly anticipate your valuable feedback and response.
Town of Rochester Planning Board:
This is a compilation of comments from Planning Board members in addition to the attached.

140-2 N This statement strikes me as odd. Remove the statement regarding protecting the Catskills.
140-4 Definitions:
Environmental Impact Statement – Change to “A written draft or final document prepared in accordance with 6NYCRR § 617.9 and § 617.10 of SEQRA (State Environmental Quality Review Act) Article 8, of the Environmental Conservation Law”

Hydrogeological Study – A study or investigation of the subsurface hydrologic and geologic conditions in an area or location. Data are collected about the type and thickness of geologic materials, the occurrence of groundwater, how it flows in pore spaces and/or fractures, the quality and quantity of the groundwater, and what can be expected at surrounding wells. The purpose of hydrogeological studies is to (1) assess the available groundwater to support the proposed development and (2) evaluate the potential impacts for adverse impacts on nearby groundwater uses and surface waters.
Mining – The excavation of overburden and minerals from the earth; the preparation and processing of minerals, including any activities or processes or parts thereof for the extraction or removal of minerals from their original location and the preparation, washing, cleaning, crushing, stockpiling or other processing of minerals at the mine location so as to make them suitable for commercial, industrial, or construction use; exclusive of manufacturing processes, at the mine location; the removal of such materials through sale or exchange, or for commercial, industrial or municipal use; and the disposition of overburden, tailings and waste at the mine location. Mining shall not include the excavation, removal, and disposition of minerals from permitted and approved construction projects, exclusive of the creation of water bodies, or excavations in aid of agricultural activities.
Invasive Species – A nonnative species whose introduction does or is likely to cause economic or
environmental harm or harm to human health as defined in Federal Executive Order 13112
signed in 1999, as amended or superseded by Federal Executive Order, NYS Regulation 6 NYCRR Part 575 or by designation of the Town Board.
Prime Farmland Soils – As mapped and defined by the United States Department of Agriculture and the Soil Survey of Ulster County of New York.
Solid Waste Landfill, Processing, or Storage Facility – change 6 CRR-NY Part 360 to 6 NYCRR Part 360
Stable, Commercial – needs to be included in the definitions.
Park Model Recreational Vehicle
Please add that PMRVs are not to be placed on vacant land and used as residential structures or short-term rentals.
Major Subdivision: Lands that are being re-subdivided that were previously part of a major subdivision.
TYPO in the word “Development” on page 62.
Animal Husbandry: There should be an acreage limit on how many acres per large hooved animal. 3-acre minimum for large-hooved animals. Then 1 acre per large hooved animal (such as horses, mules, llamas, cows, sheep, goats, hogs, or other domestic farm-type animals.) No large hooved animals should be permitted on lots less than 3-acres.
Camps :Agree with the 25 are minimum for a camp. However any buildings/cabins being built on the grounds should have a minimum amount of acreage per camp dwelling unit. (maybe 3 acre minimum for every cabin or structure) if not already in place.
Commercial Event Facilities: Agree with 140-35-D
Event times Sundaty-Thursday should have a 9PM end time not 8PM, as many of the local facilities holding events are not open past 9PM anyways.

Page 5 – Affordable Housing – Needs to be tied to HUD Guidelines which is what I believe the County is using?? Sshould say: ‘Affordable Housing is housing where the AMI (Area Median Income) is first determined using HUD standards for the Market Area where the proposed action is being considered. Then the housing is that for which the unit rents are no more than 30% of this AMI.”
Page 6 – Agricultural Use, Non-Animal “it includes the preparation of plants or plant products (seeds, lotions, medicinal items, etc.) for people to use and/or be distributed to markets”
Page 7 – Change to ‘Alteration of Building or Structures’
Page 11 – Charging – include bike charging or charging of Off-road vehicles??
Page 16 – Should Electric Vehicles be change to Electric Conveyances?
Page 20 – Greenhouse – Not sure why word commercial was added? Should there be a Greenhouse – Residential definition??
Page 20 – Ground Water – change to ‘Ground Water is that which is beneath the boundary called the water table’
Need to define Water Table in the ‘W’ section
Page 32 and 33 and 36 – Need to really wrap minds around definitions for streets and roads. There are numerous terms being used such as collector roads, town roads, private roads, shared driveway roads, state roads, etc. under Roads/Streets each of these needs to be defined as to width of, side aprons, whether they are defined by what they lead onto or into…. Etc. So, I’m going to assume that Town Road should be 20 feet; Private Road should be 18 feet, Shared driveway 16 feet with the appropriate aprons. But where do these terms get used – by virtue of what they lead to and from??? There is confusion with our code and the New York State Fire Code which is sometimes referred to by applicants or their attorneys. Help is needed on nailing these down.
Page 37 – need a definition of Timber Harvesting – Commercial
Page 22 – Hydrological Study – need an additional mention that well testing of contiguous wells for capacity and draw down is permitted (may be required) when the Planning Board requires a Hydro Study.
Page 45 – Aquifer Overlay – Residential use – make it 1500 gallons a day. And the usage will be regulated by the number of water drawing appurtances are in the house including sinks, toilets, bathtubs, garage units and spigots with an assume per use gallon number assigned to each.
Page 48 – Historic District ‘rules’ – don’t you want some added setback for any structures built next to an Historic Building? Double the rear and side setbacks? Also require screening by landscape material.
Page 85 – #E Shade tree word should be changed to ‘Deciduous Shade tree’; Evergreen should be changed to Evergreen/Conifers. Height of Deciduous should be 10’ and Evergreen should be 8’
Page 88-89 – I didn’t see it in the Parking section but we should encourage the use of pervious surfaces or ask for the possibility of asking for gravel instead of asphalt.
Page 210 – Drop the TDR altogether. Isn’t going to happen
Page 214 – Commercial Events – all commercial events require special use permits and the permits must be renewed every year before the planning board in order for them to review compliance with site plan requirements.
Only permit commercial event special use permits in B, R-5, PL-10, I and NR areas.
Add a requirement for commercial events that the planning board will ask for parking plans regarding day of event, traffic control patterns and people directing, emergency services provision, crowd control measures, sanitation provisions and all other public safety and services requirements.
Ulster County Planning Board: The Town of Rochester has been going through the process of updating its zoning statute with a focused approach, topic area by topic area. This referral now presents a revised version of the entirety of its zoning statute including responses to comments previously made by the Ulster County Planning Board (UCPB) as well as members of the community and additional zoning standards and districts not previously reviewed by the Ulster County Planning Board (UCPB).
Materials Submitted for Review:
Recommendations
The UCPB commends the Town for updating the zoning statute to align with the goals of itscomprehensive plan. The updated document prioritizes quality of life by emphasizing design standards, guidelines, and environmental protection. It actively incorporates sustainable practices into the development process, significantly contributing to preserving the natural environment. Additionally, the focus on good site design and lot development underscores the town’s commitment to enhancing quality of life.
Furthermore, the UCPB expresses gratitude to the Town for implementing the Board’s recommendations regarding mandatory affordable housing set aside. This initiative is a valuable addition to the update, reflecting the Town’s commitment to addressing housing accessibility.
Lot Development Standards — Advisory Comments
The Town is proposing to utilize the Ulster County Design Manual for all lot development. While the UCPB appreciates this, the Town may wish to, over time, adopt graphics and standards from the design manual for use concerning certain parts of their town to develop design standards rather than guidelines. It is unclear from the draft language how the local planning board will apply the manual on a caserby-case basis. It may be appropriate during initial or sketch plan meetings, to identify from the manual which guidelines will be applied so the applicant has a clear understanding of what is desired in their lot design.
Density Bonus — Advisory Comments
The UCPB supports incentives for sustainable design and affordable housing. We recommend, that in addition to providing the standard, an example of how to calculate/utilize the bonuses practice within the zoning statute itself would be a transparent and straightforward means of educating board members, the public, and potential applicants on how to best apply it.
Parking Graphic — Advisory Comment
The Town’s decision to reduce parking space size to reduce impervious surfaces is a good one and the UCPB appreciates that the Town has demonstrated this change via a graphic, however, the graphic still reads 10′ x 20′ standard rather than the new 9′ x 18′ standard.
Clarification on Nonconforming Uses/Buildings — Advisory Comments
The Town has updated its section on nonconforming uses and the UCPB is unclear regarding some of the changes in 140-41 Restoration, Replacement, or Replacement with expansion. The code indicates that to restore a nonconforming building or structure, a building permit must be obtained within 18 months of the date of damage. Permits after 18 months were treated as reconstructions in 14041B. However, 41B uses the term “replacement” instead of “reconstruction” and only also requires a building permit. 140-41C — replacement with expansion, however, requires a special permit. The Board wonders If there is a possible error here in that 140-41 B should require site plan review if a building permit is acquired outside of the 18month threshold to carry more weight and involved review than 14041 A.
NYS Agriculture and Markets:As requested, the Department reviewed the Town of Rochester’s (Town) draft Zoning Law for compliance with Agriculture and Markets Law §305-a. AML §305a provides that local governments when enacting local laws shall exercise powers in such manner as may realize the policy and goals set forth in Article 25-AA and shall not unreasonably restrict or regulate farm operations within agricultural districts unless it can be shown that the public health or safety is threatened.The Department offers the following informal comments (Please note that the Department’s comments only relate to the impact of the amendments on farm operations located within a county adopted, State certified agricultural district):The Department has developed model streamline site plan guidance(http://agriculture.ny.gov/land-and-water/guideline-review-local-zoning-and-planning-laws) which states, if the municipality requires construction of farm buildings and structures within a state certified agricultural district to undergo site plan review, the review and decision be expedited within 45 days, without the need for a public hearing. Farm operations located within county adopted, State certified agricultural districts should not generally need to obtain a special use permit to conduct agricultural activities.§ 140 – 5.2 Economic Enterprise Overlay District.The EEOD seems to have regulations relating to parcels located in the agricultural district.Farm operations located within a county adopted, State certified agricultural district are priority uses and should be able to produce, process and market on farm products. If same is restricted because of the administration or interpretation of the EEO it may be unreasonably restrictive to a farm operation.The following link will take you to additional guidance documents the Department has, that may be helpful in future requests. https://agriculture.ny.gov/land-and-water/section-305-review-restrictive-laws
HOLD PUBLIC HEARING OPEN:
Resolution # 370-2023:

Motion: Supervisor Baden
Second: Councilwoman Enouen

The Town of Rochester Town Board will hold a continuation of the public hearing with a date to be determined.

Aye: 5 nay: 0 abstain: 0 motion carried

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

KATHLEEN A. GUNDBERG
TOWN CLERK

The Town of Rochester Town Board held a public hearing on proposed Local Law # 14-2023; Amendment to the zoning map, appendices to Chapter 140, zoning of the code of the Town of Rochester on November 30, 2023, at 8:15pm at the Harold Lipton Community Center, 15 Tobacco Road Accord, NY 12404.

Supervisor Baden opened the public hearing and led in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.

PUBLIC COMMENT:

Randy Hornbeck-I received four letters regarding my commercial lands becoming residential. My plans were for my children to be able to utilize the land for their potential businesses. I’m a farmer, I work long hours I’m dirty and my children may not want to follow in the agriculture business, I don’t have a retirement my land is my retirement and now you are restricting what I can do with my land. When I ask questions why you are taking away commercial use the response is well, you’re not using it. This has been done all wrong and you have pushed this way too hard, why would you want to put a house on the corner of Route 209/ Kyserike Rd? You have the Hamlet going down route 209, there are thousands of cars that travel on Route 209 why would you do that? You just cut commercial property in half. You are devaluing our land. The mapping is all over the place, slow it down and allow us time to review it.

Gerry Fornino- you are taking away our rights as tenants to our own property. I never heard of this opting out idea that Jack made mention of with the PL-10. I’m lost here tonight; we need a lot of workshops to explain this process, and this is just one of many things.

Tony Kawalchuk- it was a poor choice putting this topic at the end of the evening, I am here to support my neighbors, I am pro-business and much of 209 has now gone from business to residential non-conforming lots. I think there are a lot of issues here and you potentially are pulling business status.

Erin Mahoney: My name is Erin Mahoney and I’m a resident of the Town of Rochester.
My family has deep roots in the town, having settled in the area in thelate 1800’s. I, like many of the other individuals in this room, have a great amount of love for our town…. And I am here because I believe the proposed change to zoning will have an overall negative impact on the town and subsequently land that I own; which has been inmy family since 1904 – almost 120 years.

I own 3 parcels of land in the TOR, all of which would be affected by the new proposed zoning laws; 2 parcels are proposed to change from Business to AB3, whereas the other parcel (where I reside) is changing from AB3 to low density residential. I’m here, however, to speak about only 2 parcels; the 2 acre corner lot located on the northeast corner of Route 209 and Kyserike Rd and the adjoining 1.5 acre lot on Kyserike Rd. Both lots are currently zoned as Business, and have been for as long as I can recall and I strongly believe they should remain that way. The corner lot is located at a busy intersection, with atraffic light (one of few – maybe 1 of the 4 in the entire town), whichlends itself to being a commercially zoned area, not agricultural.

Furthermore, the property located directly across the street on thesoutheast corner of Rt 209 and Kyserike Rd has been designated to remainas a commercial property. Why is that? Was it perhaps an oversight????From a logistical point of view, it would seem to make sense that
parcels directly across the street from each other and adjacent to abusy intersection controlled by NYS Dept of Transportation would havethe same commercial zoning status. Especially when both parcels wererented out commercially.
I’d like to point out that my property has, in fact, been utilized ina commercial manner since 1984 when Cross Lumber (now Williams Lumberand Home Center) began renting the parcel and erected a large,commercially approved sign -which still remains today;For those of
you that have lived in the area a while, you likely recall that betweenthe years of 1990-2010 there were two large signs on the property, bothof which generated income to my family (and now me). By renting theparcel, we felt like we were helping to support a local business while
also utilizing the property in a commercial manner.In fact, thecontract with Williams lumber isn’t up for renewal until 2025.
I respectfully request that the board does not implement the proposedzoning changes to my 2 parcels (SBL 69.4-2-1.100 & 69.4-2-1.200) andthat they retain their current zoning classification. Never in mywildest dreams would I have thought that a piece of property located onthe corner of a busy intersection (with a traffic light) would lose itscommercial status. Route 209 is a busy road; the most direct pathwayfrom Kingston to Port Jervis – for that reason alone, all property alongroute 209 should remain zoned commercially. I have spoken with the majority of the neighboring property owners onboth Route 209 as well as Kyserike Road, and they fully support myargument that my 2 parcels should remainas is” and not be affected
by the proposed zoning changes.
In conclusion:
My property located at the northeast corner of Route 209 and Kyserike Rdhas been rented and used as commercial property since 1990 and continuesin that vein. The lot DIRECTLY across the street is designated to remain zoned ascommercial property, and as such I believe that mine should remain zonedcommercially as well.
All neighboring properties and stakeholders support the belief that myproperty should continue to be categorized as commercial property andnot be subject to the proposed zoning changes presented by the TOR.

Bunny Dymond-I have property on route 209 that was business and is now residential. It’s a building with a toilet and sink but nothing else that is needed for a house. This is going to be my son’s financial future and his lively hood, and you are restricting him. I have another property 5.9 acres that is going from R-5 to PL-10 and I am not sure if you are influenced by State land but I believe this should stay R-5.

Dan Getman- I give credit to the Town Board for listening, it means a lot. I hope you hear and feel the tension in the room. I am the only house on St. Josen that was changed from R-5 to PL-10 and it doesn’t make sense to me.

David Granik- I have potentially been rezoned to PL-10, I have property frontage of the coxing kill so there is little room to work with as it is. Can the Town Board provide more context to the reasoning for the rezoning, why are some zoned R-5 to R-2 then R-5 to PL-10? What factors were considered during the rezoning?

Katie Naplatarski- Is there any way to extend the moratorium or file a new one?

Elaine LaFlamme- In reviewing a particular property, the proposed redesignation is going from Agriculture Business to the Hamlet. What does this mean for this business? It couldn’t be anymore than Agriculture business then Saunderskill Farm what is the rationale?

Jack Dawson- the main issue with the map is the PL-10. You have 3 acre parcels that are now PL-10 designations and they have to meet building standards of the PL-10 using smaller acreage. 75% of the business designations have been moved to Hamlet. Whoever did this map hasn’t looked at the vacant land next to Taylor Rental, it’s now business. We didn’t have this on the committee I sat on, this board changed it. This is why people have to be involved.

Betty Callhan- I live on Rock Hill Rd., I went from R-5 to PL-10, I am opposing that. We can’t subdivide to our children if this change goes through, and I don’t understand why this changed to PL-10.

Jeremy Backofen- I own property on 44/55. Is there a good reason why we shouldn’t be able to opt out. With the changes proposed, it sounds like a huge number of people that want to opt out.

Yuval Sterer- There has to be this dialog, each comment made has a value and needs to be discussed. This is their bank accounts, what they consider their 401K. We are the Town we should be heard and ask that you slow this process down.

Nick Rider- I own property on Route 209, I now have to supplement my income because of this possible change to my designation. My deeper concern is the alof attitude that I am seeing from the 6 of you at the table. We are taxpayers and when we are speaking you are making jokes about breakfast, looks of disgust from some, you’re dealing with our lives and I wish that you took it seriously.

Tom Henebery- a resident of the town for 42 years and I agree with Nick, you have some members sitting there with a smug look on your face when people are talking. You work for us; we pay you and it looks like you don’t care. Who are you trying to appease? I am here for my neighbors, and it looks like you’re trying to screw with their land, it’s not fair at all, it’s not right and what ain’t broke don’t fix it.

Resident- I own land on Clove Valley and moving from a R-5 to a PL-10. What was the decision when making this? I don’t want the lot size to double you don’t have the right. This has a huge effect on the people, and I hope you look at that first. It looks like the PL-10 targeted lands boarding preserved land already.

Tammy Smith-We live on Lawrence Hill Road and our land been Agriculture for generations. We haveapple orchards, farmland, barns open space,no wetlands or ledges, so why this change?

Elbert Dejager- In 1966 zoning was starting, I am not a fan of zoning it does create problems. Its our constitutional right to own property. We have to abide by the rules and then taxed on it. Each encroachment lessons the rights of us property owners.

One resident asked what the criteria was for proposed scheduled uses the current uses for Route 209?

Cora Loomis- I have the tanning saloon on Route 209 and you are turning it into residential. We have continually changed the type of business that is utilized there. Changing the designation will effect our ability to have a viable business there.

One resident stated they just found out tonight that their zone was changed in 2009 without them knowing. How do we fight this and ask for it to be changed back?

Stephen Lopez- I sat on the democratic committee and interviewed each of you and you all had some great insights on affordable housing. In 2023 it is still an issue, what has the Town done to work towards solving some of these issues?

Many residents stated the Board has to do better and hope for workshop meetings to go over this.

The Town Board answered as many questions as possible. Supervisor Baden thanked everyone for coming and for their patience and how well they conducted themselves. We know the letter is upsetting and the Board will work really hard to take it all in. It is all about balance.

WRITTEN COMMENTS:

Chris Devito: Today I received notice that the property I own at 4685 Route 209 is
being rezoned from B/AR-3 to R-1. I would like to propose the property be rezoned to Business District (B). Today the property is split between B and AR-3 and by rezoning out of the Business District I feel this negatively impacts the value of the property by reducing the permitted uses in the future. The property is currently bordered by other Business District properties. The property is also a manufactured housing community-which is a permitted use for the Business District but not for the Neighborhood Residential District. I do not plan on changing the use of the property but would also not like the property and land value to be negatively impacted by the rezoning. Please let me know if there are changes to the permitted uses for each district that I’m unaware of and please let me know if I can provide any further information. Thanks for your consideration in this matter.

Jonathan Scheuer: Regarding the public hearing scheduled for this evening, Nov 30, 2023, regarding the amendment of the Town’s Zoning Code, Subdivision Code, and Zoning Map, I am stating my objection to the re-designation of my property, SBL 77.2-3-30, from R-5 to PL-10.
The notice of this hearing that was dated and postmarked Nov 17, which I received on Nov 22, was the first indication that II had of this ongoing process. This was not adequate time for me to understand the implications of the proposed change on the current and future use of this property, or to participate in the rezoning process at all. I will give consideration to the proposed change and respond accordingly, reserving the possibility of challenging this re-designation.

Mike Redmond:I have reviewed the letter from the Town of Rochester informing me of a proposed change of zoning designation from B- Business to R2 – Low Density Residential. I believe that you Should rethink making this change.Going north on 209 from the new bridge on 209 to Lucas Avenue, on the north side of 209 there are businesses except for four houses between the gas station and the ice cream stand. That ice cream stand has had various businesses in it for at least the last 40 years. Behind that is a large block building that has been used for commercial purposes for at least that long. One of the homes has frequent yard sales and another is used privately to repair cars.
To summarize:Between the new bridge on 209 and Lucas Avenue on the north side of 209 there is a large commercial building formerly a carpet store a busy hardware store a corner building which used to be a restaurant a busy gas station/minimart four homes a former ice cream stand which has been used continuously for commercial purposes a home with a large commercial building in the rear then two homes. On the south side of 209 along the same distance there is a large auto repair shop, a hobby farm, a large busy equipment business and a large empty corner lot.
It does not make any sense to rezone my property for the sake of four homes. I suggest that the zoning board rethink the change in designation from B to R-2.
Simone Harari:RE: Zoning Map notification letter for parcels 67.-2-71 and 67.-2-78
Thank you for sending out these Zoning Code Amendment notices. It ismuch appreciated. I just received mine today (11/29/2023) and was honestly quite surprisedby the letter but also the timing as the public hearing is tomorrow. Iunderstand you have no control over the post office and this was acourtesy but it leaves me as a potentially affected land ownerscrambling to respond. As I am concerned that any proposed changescould substantially impact my land use and approvals I have spent yearsworking towards obtaining.
I would like time to review the new proposed zoning law with my legalcounsel in detail which is impossible to do in this short time frame,especially as I have a prior commitment during the pubic hearing on
November 30, 2023 (tomorrow).
I am formally requesting that the zoning remains R-5 on my parcels67.-2.-71 and 67.-2-78. In addition, I am also requesting that the newPL 10 zoning not be applied to a parcel adjacent to my property thatwould impact me having a straight property line across my existing
driveway in the future as I hope to purchase that parcel.
I have owned these parcels (71/78) since 2000 (and moved them into theentity Real Escapes Property 2, LLC in 2021) and have been working onthe property to the end of it being a Resort where I could holdretreats, have overnight lodging and so forth. I submitted anapplication to the Planning Board back in January of 2019.Suggestionswere made to me by the President of the Board during a preliminarymeeting at that time and I have been taking actions as requested. I havespent tens of thousands of dollars, time and other resources on soundstudies, engineering consults, legal fees etc. towards this finalsubmission of the project to the Planning Board.
The proposed zoning changes to my parcel negatively impact me and myability to care for the land as I have been doing. Honoring the land isvery very important to me.
Due to the holiday season, I formally request that the Board hold thehearing open until its January meeting, at least, to allow myself andmany others who may be impacted by this change to review and relay theirconcerns and comment to the Board to use in your deliberations.
Cindy Anzel:We recently received the notification letter regarding the zoningreclassification of our land, and we would like to express our concernsand seek clarification on certain aspects of the proposed project. Firstly, we were surprised to learn about this project, which hasapparently been in the works for six years, with only a limited nine-daywindow provided for response. Given the magnitude of this undertakingand the holiday season, we believe that a more extended notice periodwould have been reasonable, allowing residents ample time to comprehendthe project’s implications and provide meaningful feedback. Moreover, the letter we received does not sufficiently outline thepurpose of the project or its potential direct impact on our property,such as implications for property taxes and value and any restrictionsthat may be implemented due to this change. Clarity on these matters iscrucial for us to make informed decisions and offer constructive input. We wish to officially record our concern that, as currently understood,we cannot support the project if it restricts our future ability toregister and operate a small business from our home, both for ourselvesand any future property owners. Preserving the flexibility for residentsto engage in small business endeavors is vital for the continued growthand prosperity of our community. We kindly request that you acknowledge receipt of this letter andconfirm that our concerns will be duly recorded. Additionally, we urgethe town board to reconsider the timeline for responses, allowing for amore thorough and thoughtful community engagement process.
Manuela Mihailescu:This is to express our strong disagreement with the proposed change of zoning for SBL 76.2-2-39.110 from B/AR-3 (Business/Residential Agricultural) to A3, Local Agricultural, as per letter dated November 17, 2023 signed by Mike Baden, Town of Rochester Supervisor.

Historically, this lot fronting Boice Mill Road is the place where a house was built in the 17th Century, on stone foundation still present. Residential for 400 years!

The very small current B area (adjacent to the lots at 5868 Route 209 and 5858 Route 209) borders a creek and includes wet land. The change does not accomplish anything in terms of density control.

Supervisor Mike Baden is aware that on November 13, 2023 we got our Lot Line Adjustment approved by the Planning Board based on a map (recorded with the County) showing the current B/AR-3 zoning. Why make changes now?

Please let lot SBL 76.2-2-39.110 remain the way it is right now, B/AR-3 and do not make any unnecessary zoning changes.

Mark Neumann/Debra Neumann:We are writing to express our strong objection to the change in zoning for our parcel SBL 6.2-2-3 from R-5 Rural Conservation to PL-10, Preserved Land.
This parcel has been in our family for over 100 years as an 8.17 acre parcel. The lot was historically a woodlot from a time when there were few trees available in the lowlands for firewood. The R-5 zoning is more fitting for this parcel and allows for more value in our family land. The change in zoning to PL-10 puts our parcel in a zone for which it does not qualify for the same uses as it has for many years.
There are 6 adjacent parcels in this area. Each of the 6 parcels are of similar history, created over 100 years ago. Only 2 of the parcels are currently owned by the original families. The other parcels are owned by people that have purchased large tracts of land in the adjoining area so these other owners will not be disadvantaged. We have included a photo of the parcels for your reference below.
We do not understand the motivation for the town to make this change to our specific parcel. We wonder what data would support making such a decision.
We respectfully request that you leave our Parcel (SBL 6.2-2-3)zoned at R-5 Rural Conservation to preserve its current status and to respect the size and history of this original parcel.
Salvatore Marano: This is in response to a letter I received on 11/20/2023 regarding 4627 Route 209,Accord, NY zoning classification going from B, Business to R-l, Neighborhood Residential (property purchased on 1/30/2019 as town class B*Business). As per our conversation on 11/27/2023 via phone I am requesting Zone B remain for this property.I understand my property is not a large tract of land, however for decades it had business and residence on it, for at least the past 2 owners. The surrounding properties are a mix of residence and business (local business) bordering State Highway 209 which is one reason I invested in this property, as an asset to family and remain local, not to flip (which I had opportunity to do resulting in a tidy profit).I would appreciate your consideration on this matter and I don’t envy the task of what the Board is trying to accomplish for the Town of Rochester. Thank you for your service.

Kimberly Williams:I am the senior Vice-President of retail sales at Williams Lumber. I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed local law 14-2023, Amendment to the zoning map, Chapter 140 zoning, of the code of the Town of Rochester. These changes include converting commercially zoned land into agricultural/ residential zones. If implemented, these proposed changes could alter the landscape of the Town of Rochester, both economically and aesthetically. Williams Lumber has had a sign on SBL : 69.4-2-1.100 since 1990, which is a highly trafficked area. By converting this parcel from commercial to agricultural, it will eliminate and flexibility in the future use of the property. This will not only impact the use of the property but will also detrimentally affect the property value. I urge you to disapprove the proposed rezoning, and I know my opinion is shared by many in the community.

HOLD PUBLIC HEARING OPEN:
Resolution # 371-2023:

Motion: Councilwoman Smiseth
Second: Councilman Coleman

The Town of Rochester Town Board will hold a continuation of the public hearing with a date to be determined.

Aye: 5 nay: 0 abstain: 0 motion carried

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

KATHLEEN A. GUNDBERG
TOWN CLERK