The Town of Rochester Town Board held a public hearing on proposed local law # 1-2022: Accessory Dwellings on March 31, 2022 at 7:00pm 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
Supervisor Michael Baden Town Clerk Kathleen Gundberg
Town Attorney Marylou Christiana

ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA:
Resolution # 155-2022:

A Motion was made by Councilman Coleman that The Town Board accepts the agenda, as prepared by the Town Supervisor.
Second: Councilman Paddock
Aye: 5 nay: 0 abstain: 0 motion carried

PUBLIC COMMENT ON PROPOSED LOCAL LAW # 1-2022:

Ellie Perez: I live locally and I’m a local real estate agent. I agree that we need to create more affordable and accessible housing. Thank you Erin for drafting the law and thank you to the Town Board for doing it in a time where there is a critical housing shortage this is an important part of this relationship. In the past week I have had the opportunity to have two communications; one with some community members and discussing this law as part of a solution to the house crisis and one with Erin in relation to the intention as well. The takeaway from both of these conversations is that there is an overall interest in creating affordable and accessible housing as well as seeing this law effectively create more housing in our community for daily use. Some suggestions in making this law more effective;
Restriction of driveways- getting rid of this may be more helpful.
Size of ADU- it would only be 40 % of the primary structure- this would limit people with what they could do especially if the primary structure is small.
Yearly affidavit clause- could affect homeowners
I do want to thank the town board for amending part of the law having it be uniform with the original. Changing that will help it be more accessible for community members to build. There is more value in passing this law than in holding up. I do hope that if the Town Board can commit to the community to continue to improve the law for the sake of creating more long-term accessible and affordable housing. The creation of a housing advisory committee allowing the ability of the community members to weigh in to create change and be able to be apart of the solution. I am in favor of the proposed law and urge the Town Board to take on the support of the community solutions for this project.

Donna Harris: I don’t know a lot about the law but wanted to share my story. I’ve been a town of Rochester resident since 2014. When my son left the military, he came to live with me and respectfully needed his own space so we built an apartment off the garage. This is my home and my legacy and from what I gathered these rules will instruct a guy to come back and inspect every two years? It’s an invasion, this is my home; I pay the taxes I’m very responsible. Please be mindful of this power.

Tina Bergan-Russell: Just echoing what Donna said, I have accessory dwellings on my property that is 3x the size of the main house. I took a barn that was on my property and spent the last 18 years rebuilding it and the barn lives again because of my family. I don’t feel an inspection should be done every two years, it sounds like government over reach, invasion of privacy. I came from Florida where everything is the same I love the uniqueness of our Town. Item J seems very restrictive. I have 5 acres of land and if I wanted to break them up into 5, 1-acre parcels for my sons I should be able to do this.

Supervisor Baden clarified the density law.

Marc Grasso: asked for clarification of the business district.

WRITTEN COMMENTS:

Claire Wasserman:

Thank you, Town Board for the work towards addressing housing in our town as housing in our town and in the larger community is at a critical point, especially among low and middle income groups.

I am writing this letter as the town board is about to make a decision regarding ADUs and I have concerns regarding the current draft of the ADU law that is presented to be decided upon.

I do not see that the current draft is tied and aligned to the comprehensive plan as it states “Adopt and implement policies to promote housing that is affordable to those making less than the median household income in Rochester,” that asks to consider incentive and inclusionary zoning, such as:
Planned Unit Developments:
That “enables a developer to use a single large parcel of land to create mixed-use developments that can include a wide range of housing styles from large-lot estates to small apartments in the second floor of commercial buildings.
Allowing Mixed Uses:
“This effort should also seek to provide housing options to accommodate an aging population in the Town of Rochester. For example, it may be important to create smaller residences in or near hamlet areas that retirees could move into as they become unable to care for larger, more isolated houses. This would allow these residents to remain in Rochester while making the houses available for growing families and others.”
Whereas the ADU prohibitions are:
1. On parcels utilized for two family or multifamily dwelling units.
2. On parcels where the principal use is commercial or industrial.
3. On parcels with an existing or proposed primary dwelling unit that are non-conforming with regards to lot size, unless located in the R-1 or H zoning districts.
Since there is this discrepancy, I ask that the ADU Law as it is written be held off from decision until it is more aligned to the comprehensive plan. The development goals in the comprehensive plans can’t be pursued independently from the ADU plan because they both are tied to density, infrastructure, and affordable housing.

Shannon Seitz:

I want to thank the Board for tackling the issue of ADUs and for all of the hard work that has clearly gone into this proposed addition to Chapter 140 of the Code. ADUs are an important part of the solution to our local housing crisis and the Board should be commended for taking this step. I especially appreciate the purpose and intent of the proposed law which is to address the needs and concerns of a broad cross-section of residents, balancing the critical need for housing with goal of preserving the character of our beautiful town.
However, I have some concerns that I hope the Board will consider before proceeding with the ADU law.
I am concerned that some of the features of the law conflict with the purpose and intent of the ADU law. Some of the restrictions in the law as written seem to limit the potential of ADUs to increase the housing stock for low-income families:
The restriction that ADUs may have a maximum of one bedroom, for example, would exclude someone with a child from residing in one.
The restriction that ADUs be subordinate to the principal dwelling is important to maintain the character of the town, but restricting the size of an ADU to less than 40% of the gross floor area seems unnecessarily restrictive and may exclude many smaller homeowners from taking advantage of the law. Why not consider limiting ADUs to be no larger than the primary residence?
Finally, it would also be helpful for the Board to define some of the central features of ADUs in the proposed law. For example, there are several references to bedrooms, kitchens, and permanent foundations without defining exactly what specifications are required to be in compliance with the ADU law. Are all of the definitions the Board has in mind consistent with those in existing New York State building codes? Putting more precise language in the law now will prevent uncertainty and expense down the road when homeowners are trying to figure out what they can and can’t build.
Thank you again for taking this important step towards addressing the town’s housing crisis.
Elizabeth Zeldin:
I work for a national affordable housing intermediary and work closely with municipal leaders throughout NYS on housing and displacement issues (https://www.enterprisecommunity.org/about/elizabeth-zeldin) so was really intrigued when I learned about the pending ADU bill, albeit very late to the game. I read through the language and listened to the youtube conversation from the Feb 16th meeting.
I’m writing to find out if there is any opportunity to broaden the applicability to lots on which the existing building is a STR. The town has so many STR lots (at least 100, per the latest cap, I believe?) so limiting the opportunity to build additional housing on a few of those lots feels like a missed opportunity, as long as those ADUs are for primary residency, of course. I know this is coming late to the conversation but I did want to throw out this possibility since this is such a fantastic opportunity to provide more desperately needed opportunities for long term rental housing.
Full disclosure: my husband and I have a pending STR permit application in with the Town office, but per my reading of the law, our lot is non-conforming already, so this request wouldn’t affect our property. I am writing purely from a policy perspective.
Andrew Pekarik:
I want to thank the Board for establishing a Housing Advisory Committee. The problem of housing is a very serious one in this town as prices have risen and available housing, especially for those with low to moderate income levels, has virtually vanished. It is good to see the Board take up the important issue of housing availability. The Ulster County Action Plan specifically encourages towns to pass laws encouraging the construction of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), and I appreciate the harmonious, collaborative way that Board members have approached this topic .ADUs, because they allow for new housing within existing parcels, are one of the quickest and simplest ways to add supply to the housing market. However, the most effective way to promote and realize this potential would be to consider it within a larger strategic framework. Affordability, for example, is a key factor, and the ADU law should be written in such a way that it does not just add new housing stock, but that it also increases the likelihood that this new housing will be affordable to those with low or moderate incomes and to families. I suggest that the Board establish the Housing Advisory Committee, and ask them to take on this ADU law as a priority, so that it can be considered within a broader context. The aims set forth in the opening section of the draft law are admirable, but will the law as currently written achieve these purposes? Can we expect that aging homeowners, young/older families, or those with limited income will have the capital and expertise to plan and construct ADUs that meet the standards of this law without some kind of help? Although the law offers zoning relief, it does not ensure that, if the ADU is rented, it would serve the neediest demographic by being rented below market rate. Moreover, there is nothing in the law that would prevent a long-term tenant from sub-leasing the ADU as an STR or a new property owner from using the ADU as an STR. It would be useful to consider the laws created in California around ADUs, since the housing crisis in that state is particularly severe. There are both state and local laws. Interestingly, they point out that ADUs cannot be limited to one bedroom by state law because “a limit on the number of bedrooms could be construed as a discriminatory practice against protected classes, such as familial status.” ( https://stgenpln.blob.core.windows.net/document/ADU_Handbook.pdf).
Santa Clara County, in particular, has a very proactive approach, including a clear and simple FAQ sheet (https://stgenpln.blob.core.windows.net/document/ADU_FAQ.pdf) and a sophisticated interactive ADU calculator that allows one to calculate construction costs, operating costs and monthly rent, return on investment, etc., depending on the type of construction and size. (https://santaclaracounty.aducalculator.org)In addition, it is worth noting that our State Senator Michelle Hinchey is co-sponsor of Senate Bill S4547A relating to the regulation of ADUs. That bill would set 550sf as the minimum size of an ADU. The proposed ToR law would conflict with this proposed State law in other ways, as well, and that is yet another reason to pause before passing this law.
Ulster County Planning Board:

Re: Local Law #1 of 2022 – Zoning Statute Amendment
Summary
The Town of Rochester has proposed an amendment to their zoning law to facilitate the development of
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) to create additional affordable housing opportunities throughout the Town via
administrative review.
The following materials were received for review:
• Referral Form
• Draft Local Law
• Notice of Public Hearing
• EAF
Recommendations
The Town of Rochester has produced a draft law to support the development of ADUs that agrees with policies and consistent recommendations of the Ulster County Planning Board concerning the regulation of this type of use. The UCPB would like to congratulate the Town on this draft law and offers additional recommendations for the Town to consider that may further increase the development opportunities for ADUs.
Detached ADU Density Requirements
The Town is proposing for proposed units in detached structures require an additional 50% density be permitted. Advisory Comment The UCPB recommends that if adequate water and sewer/wastewater treatment is available on site, the additional density requirements are unnecessary. Referral by the building inspector of the application to the Town’s Planning Board for further review if there are physical design constraints associated with the lot.
Non-Conforming Lot Size – Advisory Comments
The UCPB recommends, rather than disallowing lots on undersized lots that if adequate water/wastewater service is available, that the Building Inspector is given the ability to refer proposals on non-conforming lots to the Town’s planning board for site plan review to handle the unique circumstances of these individual proposals.
HOLD PUBLIC HEARING OPEN:
A Motion was made by Supervisor Baden to hold the public hearing open with a date to be determined.
Second: Councilman Coleman
Aye: 5 nay: 0 abstain: 0 motion carried
ADJOURNMENT:
A Motion was made by Councilwoman Erin to adjourn the public hearing at 7:35pm.
Second: Councilwoman Smiseth motion carried

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

KATHLEEN A. GUNDBERG
TOWN CLERK