ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
TOWN OF ROCHESTER
ULSTER COUNTY
ACCORD, NEW YORK
(845) 626-2434
nknapp@townofrochester.ny.gov
MINUTES of the February 17, 2022Town of Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals, held via Zoom and Livestreamed on Youtube.
Chair Psaras called the meeting to order at 6:16PM, due to technical difficulties regarding the Zoom.
The secretary did roll call.
PRESENT: ABSENT:
Bruce Psaras, Chair
Charles Fischer
Jill Bressler
Isabel Vinton
Ken Stephens
Clayton Haugen, Alternate
ALSO PRESENT:Mary Lou Christiana, Attorney for the Town; Nicole Knapp, Planning and Zoning Board Secretary; Erin Enouen, Councilwoman and ZBA Liaison (Facilitating the Zoom/YouTube stream)
APPLICATION REVIEW:
Continuing Applications:
• 21/674 – Jeffrey Shapiro – Area Variance (PUBLIC HEARING)
` 62 Raycliff Dr./SBL: 77.3-3-41/ R-2 District
o Parcel is in the R-2 zoning district
o Parcel is +/- 3.8 acres
o Applicant has erected a 6ft fence on the front yard of the parcel.
o Applicant does not meet the code for the side/front yard’s fence requirement (section 140-13 (H)
o There is currently an open violation as the applicant had previously applied, was denied approval, yet erected the fence regardless.
Jeffrey Shapiro was present on behalf of his application.
Mr. Shapiro read an updated letter to the Board, mentioning new details regarding his lot being on a corner location.
Feb 16, 2022
To the Zoning board,
The condition caused by large vehicles on our dirt road have deeply effected the quality of life for us.
Besides the main reason of emotional and psychological pain/anguish, I am asking for the area variance on the grounds that the topography drops off drastically from the road surface( *included images of level from road surface to the fence) At most places it is only 4 feet above the road surface!! And, we have realized that we are a corner lot, bordering Raycliff Dr and Hemlock. The fence is on one side. So the question becomes, ‘what is the reason not to grant the variance’? I understand the displeasure of the board due to the fence being built already. I apologize for doing so. I explained in my previous letter that it was not the way I had planned to approach the permit application. I attempted to go through the formal application process, but when I was told that I would not be scheduled for the meeting ( actually that was the morning of the meeting!) That I was unsure when the next opportunity to make my case would be, and since there was the pouring of cement involved and paint, I was concerned that it would compromise the structure if I waited until there was frost. I was at my wits end with all the dust and noise. I accept my actions, and would be amenable to a reasonable fine for said actions, but as to the variance. I hope the board can consider the merits of the fence by itself.
Neighbors are fine with the fence. It is a fence that is accepted by those on the road. It is a fence that is aesthetically pleasing. It is a fence that is not in any way hindering the maintenance of the road. (* Please see statement by David Lawrence who maintains the road throughout the year)
Without the fence, we are not able to use our property to be outside in the dryer months. Isin’t that compelling enough to grant a variance? I have now submitted letters from people boarding our property as well as other people on our road.
Covid is a new reality in many ways and it has had ramifications many times over that concern us all in new ways. For us, we have had to deal with the tremendous influx of new people to the road. As where previously, the houses were approximately half weekenders and half full time. The ratio has substantially changed to having a high percentage of houses occupied by full time residents; 26 houses, and that means many more deliveries. I have counted on a typical day the number of box trucks ( UPS, Amazon, Fed Ex, Refuse trucks in particular) in a given hour between 10:00am and 5:00pm to easily be 5 large vehicle deliveries, not to mention individual cars. The dust stirred up by these vehicles is unbearable. It has caused emotional stress for myself and my wife.
I have tried to answer the boards questions to the best of my ability. And ask for compassion from the board in making their decision. It is a heavy weight on my wife and me. Losing sleep over a fence is not what I should have to worry about. But this issue has effected our life and caused too much anguish.
The board of the Raycliff Homeowners Association accepts that a 6 foot high fence on individual frontage property is in compliance with the H.A. covenant if:
(1) It is not a hindrance to road maintenance
(2) It is aesthetically acceptable to the nature of the road and environment. To be determined at the discretion of the board.
I have the Raycliff Homeowners board agreeing with the fence. I have letters of acceptance from the neighbors that border the fence area. I have sent the board the images of the fence with a transit level from the road surface that shows the fence is really only about 4 feet off the road surface. I have sent the board the video of UPS dragging dust behind the truck. I have submitted letters from other people on the road who are in support of the fence. I have spoken with David Lawrence who maintains the road and had stated that the fence is in no way an impediment to plowing or road work. I have put the fence in a position that is placed behind trees and painted in a way that is not offensive to anyone.
Although the fence was out of compliance, the result of the fence has helped ease the mental and emotional anguish tremendously.
So, in short, I have tried to meet all the requirements for this variance. It is not a cosmetic fence that is being requested but a fence that helps mitigate the anguish that has been caused by the influx of large vehicles traveling the road on a regular basis. Due to the topography and the sudden drop off of the ground from the road surface, the fence is 6’, but in actuality, it is only 4’ off the road surface.
So, I am asking the board to take all these conditions into consideration. If this is not a compelling enough request then I don’t know what would be.
Thank you for considering all the factors that go into this request. I am happy to answer any questions that you may have.
Sincerely,
Jeff Shapiro
Chair Psaras opened the Public Hearing.
Mr. Gary Johnson of Stone Ridge, NY commented the road “has been a nightmare” and the HOA has tried installing speed bumps and the dust is still a problem.
Mr. David Lawrence of Accord, NY commented his support of the fence and believes it is a great idea.
Chair Psaras read the following public comment letters:
November 30, 2021
Letter of support for Jeff & Hinako Shapiro
We the home owners of Raycliff Homeowners Association are in sole support of the fence erected at 62 Raycliff Dr. The fence is aesthetically pleasing and in no way hinders maintenance of the road.
Respectfully,
“Good morning, absolutely add my name to the list. Raycliff is OUR road and no one on it objects to your addition. Have a great day and I’ll see you both in the Spring.” Eve Levy
“You’re welcome to add Richard and my names. You did a really nice job on the fence, Jeff, and I hope it has served the purpose of cutting down on the dust for you and Hinako.”
Scott & Richard
“Your fence is gorgeous”
Rob Berman
Chase Brock
Eric Dietz
“Of course you can add my name. Your fence doesn’t bother me at all. I am more disturbed that your laundry might be covered in dust from cars rushing back and forth.” Glory
“Please do. Your fence couldn’t be a nicer addition to the road! And important to control dust since other methods are too expensive for the road association to manage.”
Kirk Lawson
James Braun
“Of course add Gideon and my name to the list. I can’t understand why they would object .
Miriam and Gideon
**Homeowner’s contact information can be provided if necessary for validation of this letter.
Mr. Jeff Shapiro
62 Raycliff Drive
Accord, New York 12404
Re: Street Fence
Dear Jeff,
I am writing you as both a neighbor and an Architect, the fence that you installed at the street is both non offensive or intrusive. The fact that you set the fence back so that in reality it meets code requirements from the road was both sensitive to the neighborhood and acknowledge the basic essence of the code. We all live on a dirt road and in the summer the road gives off a certain amount dust that we all find problematic; I understand completely this installation. I do hope our local DOB allows you to keep the fence as is.
Best Regards.
Martin Ross Fetner
Chair Psaras noted for the record Mr. Lawrence and Mr. Shapiro share ownership of property.
Chair Psaras spoke about his site visit to the property. In some areas the fence measured at 8 feet from the ground to the top of the fence. He read the height determination letter from the Code Enforcement Officer.
Mr. Fischer made a motion to close the Public Hearing. Ms. Bressler seconded the motion.
All in favor. Motion Carried.
5 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstentions
A conversation occurred among the Board members regarding corner lots and where the front and side yard would be considered.
Ms. Christiana stated the side and front yard can be designated by the owner in relation to the location of the house in reference to the yard.
Chair Psaras asked Mr. Shapiro if there is commercial activity at the property, as there is a ceramic studio listed at the address according to Google. Mr. Shapiro stated it is an artist studio and he brings his items to events to be sold but does host sales at the studio on his property, as well. Chair Psaras pointed out the landscaping portion of section 140-15 of the Town Code – the section is different for commercial and residential properties.
Mr. Stephens asked if a 4-foot fence was sufficient. Mr. Shapiro stated it was not, in reference to the last meeting, and cited the character of the property sloping downward from the road.
Ms. Vinton asked about the feasibility of the road being paved. Mr. Shapiro stated it is a forty-year-old road and he is amenable to paving the road, but more than half of the residents want to keep it as a country road. Paving just the area in front of his house would not make a difference, as the trucks would still drag the dust from the other unpaved portions.
Ms. Christiana suggested keeping a two-week period open for written submittals from Mr. Shapiro and Mr. Lawrence regarding the previous subdivision of the lands, as well as to conference with the Code Enforcement Officer regarding corner lots.
Mr. Fischer made the above motion. Ms. Vinton seconded the motion.
All in favor. Motion Carried.
5 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstentions
Chair Psaras clarified fence height allowances as 4 feet in the front yard, 8 feet in the side yard, and both must be 20 feet from the road.
New Applications:
21/686 – Judith McMahon – Area Variance
207 Schwabie Tpk., Kerhonkson, NY/SBL: 67.2-1-25/ R5
o Parcel is in the R-5 zoning district
o Parcel is +/- 5.1 acres
Applicant proposes erection of a garage and does not meet 50ft setback for the side yards
Judith McMahon was present on behalf of the application.
Ms. McMahon stated the intent of the project to the Board.
Ms. Bressler asked if there were any other areas to put the garage or if the size could be reduced for the structure to be considered in compliance.
Ms. McMahon stated the garage is a standard size for a two-car garage. Moving location of the garage would require extensive excavation, fill, driveway extension, and disturbance of many trees on the property. Ms. McMahon added it would be additional expenditure, as well, but Chair Psaras stated this would not be a consideration for making a determination.
Chair Psaras read the portion of the code describing the Area Variance process.
Ms. McMahon stated there was a lot line improvement done on the property from 2015 for the neighboring parcel, but the sale of the neighboring parcel fell through, and they are currently in litigation proceedings regarding the sale. This added land would directly impact the building of the garage, as it would meet setbacks.
Mr. Stephens made a motion to set the public hearing for March 17, 2022. Ms. Bressler seconded the motion.
All in favor. Motion Carried.
5 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstentions
22/016 – Marc Grasso/CRAM LLC/Honeycomb Hills – CEO Appeal
Beehive Rd., Accord, NY/SBL: 68.3-1-27/R5
APPLICATION WITHDRAWN PRIOR TO MEETING.
OTHER MATTERS
Ms. Christiana stated if the emergency order from the Governor was extended, the March meeting would be a hybrid model, allowing those who wish to dial in to do so.
Either way, the next meeting will occur in person.
Mr. Fischer made a motion to accept the December 13, 2021 minutes. Chair Psaras seconded the motion.
All in favor. Motion Carried.
5 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstentions
ADJOURNMENT:
Mr. Fischer made the motion to adjourn the meeting. Chair Psaras seconded the motion.
All in favor. Motion Carried.
5 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstentions
Respectfully Submitted,
Nicole Knapp, Secretary