• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

TOWN OF ULYSSES BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES Wednesday, June 21, 2017 Approved: July 19, 2017 Present: Chair George Tselekis, and board members Andy Hillman, Bob Howarth, David Means, Steve Morreale, and board alternate Cheryl Thompson; Environmental Planner Darby Kiley. Public in Attendance: Mel Russo, Nancy Cool, Fred Cuafell, Joep Bor, Durga Bor, Judith Abrams, Sherman Kelly, Lucy Keeler, Robert Cooper, Nancy Cusumano, Steve Sturdevant, Dan Clement, Tracy Seaman, Pat Seaman, Karen Springer, Chris Hyde, Ken Kearl, Bob Sprole, Vera Vico, Rob Lynch, Lorren Hammond, Dolores Higareda, Nancy Almann, Sally Yates, Adriana Diaz, Gail Mott, Greg Subtelny, Erica Ingleich, James Dunn, M. Lasshorn, Caryn Sheckler, Frost Travis, Rebecca VonBergen, Amanda Kirchgessner, John Vico, June Dunn, Dale Strok, Mike Strok, Chris Burdick, Diane Lynn, Jason Demarest, Carl Mazzocone, Jason Chace, Noy Davis, Brian Davis. Call to Order: 7 p.m. Mr. Tselekis began by saying the evening’s public hearing notices were published in the Ithaca Journal on June 15, and many written comments were submitted to and received by the Town, all of which will be part of the record. The hearing will remain open until members of the public have made their comments. Public Hearing: Appeal by Kenneth and Patricia Kearl for area variance(s) under Section 212-54 Lot Area and Yard Requirements of the Town of Ulysses Zoning Law. This is for the purpose of constructing a 10 ft by 18 ft accessory building, where the distance from the lakeshore would be 13 +/- feet, and 40 feet is the required setback for accessory buildings. The property is located in the LS-Lakeshore District at 1513 Taughannock Blvd, Town of Ulysses, Tax Parcel Number is 18.-1-19.8. Mr. Kearl said he has a 25 to 30-foot wide area by the waterfront where he recently installed a concrete pad to accommodate the proposed storage shed. The pad is located at 385.5 feet elevation, which is two feet above Cayuga Lake’s mean high water mark. He is requesting the variance because a cliff prevents him from meeting the setback requirement. The building will serve as a storage shed for lake equipment, like canoes and life vests, and he intends to build a dock as well. Mr. Tselekis reported the Town received correspondences regarding the project (please see written comments included as supplemental documents to these minutes). Mr. Sprole – an immediate neighbor to the north – addressed the Board in support of Mr. Kearl’s proposal. He has no objections. Board of Zoning Appeals 2 June 21, 2017 Ms. Higareda, of Bradley Street, said the purpose of the lakefront setback is to buffer against fluctuations in the lake level. It is really questionable that someone would propose a building 13 feet from the lake, she said. The BZA began its review. Mr. Means asked about the precise location of the building on the concrete slab. Mr. Kearl said he intends to place the building on the slab’s southwest corner. Further, during the spring’s excessive rains, the patio area did not flood, he said, but he would be willing to anchor the proposed building to the patio as a safety precaution. Mr. Howarth asked how close the lake level had come to flooding his property during heavy April rains, and Mr. Kearl said there was some erosion but the lake levels remained roughly 8 to 12 inches from breaching his property. Mr. Howarth reintroduced accepted minutes from the BZA’s August 19, 2015 meeting, where Board members reviewed a similar proposal from Mr. Kearl. In that meeting, Mr. Howarth stressed the high likelihood of severe flooding over the next several years, and noted the occurrence of two 100-year floods over the last 20 years. The proposal poses a high flood risk, and Mr. Howarth cannot support it. Asked if he had a response to the BZA’s previous concerns posed at the August 2015 meeting, Mr. Kearl said there is a 5- percent slope on the patio itself, and he could use pressure-treated wood to build the structure up higher. Part of the concern in 2015 was he did not have a concrete patio in place, but he does now. The storage shed could then be anchored to the patio. If there’s potential for a 100-year flood, that is my risk, Mr. Kearl said, adding that he plans to pursue a DEC permit to install rip wrap along the shoreline to limit erosion. Mr. Morreale said there were also previous concerns with potential pollutants being stored in the shed, posing a contamination risk in the event of flooding. Mr. Kearl said he would ensure no such contaminants would be stored in the shed. Mr. Means noted the BZA had suggested Mr. Kearl have the concrete pad engineered, and it appears that job was well done. He did not feel the concrete pad was going anywhere, and said constructing the shed slightly higher and adding anchors would be favorable. Mr. Kearl said he had previously proposed two buildings on the parcel and was told to consolidate both into a single building and install it on a pad. I followed that advice, he said. Mr. Hillman asked if Mr. Kearl planned to build the storage shed large enough to accommodate a future sauna, as proposed in 2015. Mr. Kearl said yes and that he intends to add a breaker board to control lighting for the future patio and dock area. Responding to a question from Ms. Thompson, Mr. Kearl said he looked at the height of his neighbor’s dock to determine the elevation of the concrete pad. Mr. Hillman also cited hardening of the shoreline as a previous concern with Mr. Kearl’s proposal. It is a larger concern considering Mr. Kearl plans to add rip-rap to the shoreline, he said. Additionally, electricity was not discussed under the previous proposal for the storage shed. Mr. Kearl said the concrete pad is already installed; there is no further hardening. Further, the installation of a water barrier along the property’s lakeside edge does not constitute hardening and should not be under consideration, he said. As for electricity for the storage shed, he reiterated that power will be needed for the future dock. Mr. Morreale felt hardening is an appropriate consideration for the BZA because it has environmental impacts. Mr. Hillman again offered that it sounded like the future plan was for a combination storage shed and sauna, to Board of Zoning Appeals 3 June 21, 2017 which Mr. Kearl said a sauna by the lake is not a bad thing and would enhance the lakefront experience. Mr. Howarth MADE the MOTION, and Mr. Hillman SECONDED the MOTION as follows: The BZA reviewed the record and weighed the benefits to the Applicants against the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood if the variance is granted by considering the five statutory factors. Benefit sought by applicants is to build an accessory located 13 feet instead of 40 feet from the mean high water line: 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 variances. There are no structures along the lakeshore in the vicinity of the property, so the accessory building would create an undesirable change in the neighborhood. Also the structure may contribute to further shoreline hardening. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some other method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than area variances. A cliff limits how far from the lake the building could be located, however the applicant could store items closer to the house. 3. Whether the requested area variances are substantial. The area variance for the setback - 13 ft as opposed to 40 ft - is substantial. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The applicant noted that the patio did not flood during high lake levels during this past year, however as noted in our 8/19/15 decision, the additional structures along the lakeshore have an adverse impact on the physical conditions. Specifically several floods have occurred in recent decades to levels well above the proposed floor level on the proposed structure and the site is within the FEMA designated flood zone as documented in the minutes of 8/19/15 meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty is self-created because the applicant is choosing to build the building along the shoreline. 6. Considering all of the statutory factors set forth above, the Board of Zoning Appeals concludes as follows, the accessory building may have a negative impact on the character of the neighborhood, the cliff limits other location options along the shoreline but there are options closer to the house, setback variance is substantial, the construction of a building along the Board of Zoning Appeals 4 June 21, 2017 shoreline will adversely affect the environmental and physical conditions, and difficulty is self- created. Therefore the benefits to the applicants do not outweigh the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood. For the reasons set forth above, and upon the evidence, law and facts, it is the opinion of the BZA that the appeal for an area variance be denied. The vote was as follows: Mr. Tselekis AYE Mr. Hillman AYE Mr. Howarth AYE Mr. Means NAY Mr. Morreale AYE Result: Variance denied Mr. Kearl said he disagreed with the decision and that the intent of the shed is to keep recreation equipment out of sight.

Load more

  66

Copy Link