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

MINUTES of the March 16, 2023, Town of Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals. Streamed live on YouTube and Zoom.

Chair Zurofsky called the meeting to order at 7:01PM.

The Board Members stood for the Pledge of Allegiance.

The secretary did roll call attendance.

PRESENT: ABSENT:
Sam Zurofsky, Chair Harley Davis
Clayton Haugen, Vice Chair
Charlie Fischer
Ken Stephens

ALSO PRESENT: Kiera Power, Board Secretary

APPLICATION REVIEW:

• PUBLIC HEARING
ZBA 2022-01 AV (Fence) – Zain Eisenberg
S/B/L 59.15-1-19 – 512 Upper Cherrytown Rd. | S/B/L 59.15-1-17 — 516 Upper Cherrytown Rd.
Applicant seeks a variance for a fence that does not comply with the Town Code’s current fence height requirement.
The board initiates SEAF II for Mr. Eisenberg’s application. The board discussed each question in the left column, each answer was a unanimously selected as “no, or small impact may occur.” Therefore, it was determined that the proposed action will not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts. Role call vote was taken.
4 Ayes, 0 Nays, 0 Abstentions. Motion Carried.

Chair Zurofsky signed the SEAF determination, and motions to initiate Mr. Eisenberg’s Public Hearing. Mr. Stephens seconded the motion.
4 Ayes, 0 Nays, 0 Abstentions. All in favor. Motion Carried.

Ms. Fischer states that the fence will protect the cottage from snowplows hitting the home. She believes a fence is more aesthetically pleasing than a guardrail. She believes variance should be granted.

Ms. Donohue disagrees, she believes the fence is displeasing, and she does not appreciate that the fence in the front does not match the fence in the backyard. Additionally, she is concerned with how deep the fence was placed and whether it touches the waterline. Her concern is that the fence could interfere with her property. Mr. Eisenberg interjects and states that there is a house between her property and his.

The board recognizes that they have all read Mr. Fornell’s letter and that it has been placed in the record.

Chair Zurofsky motions to close the Public Hearing, Mr. Stephens seconds the motion.
4 Ayes, 0 Nays, 0 Abstentions. All in favor. Motion Carried.

The board clarifies future variances are independent from this application and not guaranteed should this variance were to be granted. The following questions are discussed:

“The Town of Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals hereby makes the following findings with respect to the specific criteria for area variances as set forth in the of the Town’s Code local law § 140-12
1. 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.
a. Yes No [X]
b. Finding: The board sees no significant difference between a 4’ and a 6’ fence in this location as it relates to neighborhood character, or nearby properties.

2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance.
a. Yes No [X]
b. Finding: The benefits of shielding the property from snow and headlights and providing privacy to the bedrooms would not be achievable by other means such as landscaping or a shorter fence. This is because the existing home is so close to the road, there is not a suitable location for landscaping, or enough distance for a shorter fence to provide adequate privacy.

3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial.
a. Yes [X] No
b. Finding: The board finds that an increase of fence height from the allowed 4’ to 6’, is significant. While the length of the fence is modest, the height increase affects the entire length.

4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district.
a. Yes No [X]
b. Finding: The board finds no adverse impact on physical or environmental conditions.

5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created, which consideration shall be relevant to the decision of the board of appeals but shall not necessarily preclude the granting of the area variance.
a. Yes No
b. Finding: Two members of the board feel the difficulty is self-created, two members believe it is not. Despite the split, all members agree on the following: 1. The lot in question is a pre-existing, non -conforming lot with an existing home located such that the benefits sought by the applicant were meant to address conditions that existed prior to the applicant’s acquisition of the lot. 2. Although the lot is pre-existing and non-conforming, the current standard is for a 4’ fence, and the need for a 6’ fence was not created by any external forces that came to bear after the applicant purchased the property.

Determination based on the above factors:
It is hereby determined by the Town of Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals the request for an area variance is granted.

The variance shall only apply to the 6’ fence that was existing at the time of application. The existing fences address the difficulty that the applicant sought to remedy. Any future fences shall remain subject to current Town of Rochester Zoning Laws.

The board finds that there is no detriment to the community in granting this variance, there is only benefit to the applicant, and even some potential benefit to the town in so far as the fence reduces the need for the town to install guard rails. “

The board clarifies this variance is for the existing length and height only, any new fences will not be covered by this variance. Chair Zurofsky motions to adopt the variance, Mr. Fischer seconded the motion. Decision on Determination:
4 Ayes, 0 Nays, 0 Abstentions. All in Favor. Motion Carried.

• ZBA 2023-02 UV – Engracia Jamieson
S/B/L 60.3-2-39.100 – 879 Samsonville Rd
Applicant seeks a variance for proposed 12’ x 24’ gardening storage shed. Parcel is +/- 2.5 acres.

The board assesses if the shed poses any health and safety issue. They believe Ms. Jamieson will be scheduled for Public Hearing in April.

OTHER MATTERS:
– Approval of December Minutes
The board votes to approve the December minutes with the condition that mistypes will be corrected.
4 Ayes. 0 Nays. 0 Abstentions. All in favor, motion carried.
– Approval of February Minutes
The board votes to approve the February minutes.
4 Ayes, 0 Nays, 0 Abstentions. All in favor, motion carried.

ADJOURNMENT:

Chair Zurofsky motions to adjourn the meeting, Mr. Fischer seconds the motion.
4 Ayes, 0 Nays, 0 Abstentions. All in favor, meeting adjourned.

Respectfully Submitted,

Kiera Power, Secretary