HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-04-19 BZA Final Minutes
Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 6
April 19, 2023
Board of Zoning Appeals
Zoom Hybrid Meeting
Meeting Minutes
April 19, 2023
Approved: July 19, 2023
Board Members Present: Chair Stephen Morreale, Robert Howarth, Andrew Hillman, Cheryl Thompson,
David Tyler, Thomas Butler
Quorum Present
Others Present: Josh Stafford, Karl Klankowski, Marc Magnus-Sharpe, Earl Yonge, Carol Yonge, Penny
McGuire
Town Board Members Present: Rich Goldman
Town Staff Present: Niels Tygesen, Mollie Duell
Proceedings
Chair Morreale called the meeting to order at 6:59 PM at Town Hall.
Approval of Past Meeting Minutes
Approval of the January 18th, February 15th, and March 15th minutes was postponed.
Privilege of the Floor
Penny McGuire, who lives close to the existing CARS facility, shared concerns with the proposed addition
at the center. Discussion of the CARS proposal was postponed, and the applicant was not present.
McGuire noted the effects on the neighborhood and described the disturbances they have endured
through the years, including weekly ambulance noise, illegal roadside drug dealing operations, excessive
traffic noise from employees at various hours, and other disruptive behavior from residents of the
facility.
Old Business Items
Public Hearing: Klankowski Setback Variances, VAR2301-001
The applicant has proposed to construct a tram approximately 33 feet from the intermittent stream and
approximately 8 feet from the mean high-water elevation of Cayuga Lake. The property is located at
1375 Taughannock Blvd, Tax Map ID# 28.-1-5m in the LS zone. Ulysses Town Code (UTC) 212-47.E along
with UTC 212-124.B require a minimum setback of 50 feet from the mean high-water elevation of
Cayuga Lake, and UTC 212-47.I along with UTC 212-124.B require a 75 foot setback from the
intermittent stream along the north property line. The Board previously met on February 15th to review
the proposal, requested additional information be provided by the applicant, and postponed the
hearing.
Josh Stafford of Finger Lakes Tram briefly recapped the proposal. He noted his company has already
constructed about 10 trams in the area. The issue of classifying the stream located on Klankowski’s
property, which is about 25 feet from the proposed site, has been a recurring issue in coming to a
decision regarding the variance. No agency has been able to determine the status of the stream.
Stafford stated that the stream is not federally, state, or county recognized. Hillman asked Klankowski if
a stream was currently visible on the property, and the applicant described it as a small dribble.
Chair Morreale asked if any public had responded to mail notifications; Tygesen stated that no
correspondence had been made. No one at the meeting offered any comment.
Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 6
April 19, 2023
Butler stated the location of the proposed site is clearly a violation to town zoning code, but considering
the exceptionally steep grade, he expressed that the tram’s benefits to the applicant would far outweigh
the impact of the structure. Thompson agreed with Butler’s statement, adding that safety
considerations should outweigh appearance concerns when regarding the width of the structure.
Hillman agreed that the steep grades of the area can be inaccessible, but reiterated concerns about the
lack of clarity over the stream.
Klankowski noted that the stairs and shed are around 40 years old, as stated by the previous property
owner, and he plans to remove the existing stairs if the variance is granted. Howarth asked for details on
the bottom of the proposed structure, which Stafford described as a 4x4-foot wooden deck with hard-
wired electricity that would not be affected by water. Discussion ensued about the structural details at
bottom of the tram, possible alternatives, and the plans for an egress staircase in case of emergencies.
The Board considered relocating the end of the tram further up the slope, near the existing shed. The
Board further questioned the applicant about ground disturbance. Klankowski stated there were no
intentions to remove any trees outside of the proposed project site, and the steel posts being put into
the ground would be minimally invasive.
Board of Zoning Appeals Resolution No. 2023-002
Whereas, an appeal was submitted to the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) by Shawn Ritchie, FLX Tram,
applicant and representative of Karl Klankowski, owner, for property located at 1375 Taughannock
Boulevard (tax map # 28.-1-5), and which is approximately .67 acres in size; and
Whereas, the subject lot is zoned LS: Lakeshore zone and the proposed new construction is located
within the Ro: Rock Outcrop steep slope overlay; and
Whereas, the appeal includes three separate area variance requests from the Town of Ulysses Zoning
Code in order to construct a new 80-foot tram system within required setbacks; and
Whereas, the first area variance request is relief from 212-47.E and 212.167.A to permit the tram within
the 40 foot minimum required front yard setback; and
Whereas, the second area variance request is relief from 212-47.I along with 212-124.B to permit the
tram within the 75 foot minimum required setback from the lake; and
Whereas, the third area variance request is relief from 212-47 along with 212-47.I and 212-124.B to
permit the tram within the 75 foot minimum required setback from the intermittent stream; and
Whereas, all requested variances are a Type II action under the Code, Rules, and Regulations of the
State of New York Title 6, Part 617 (SEQR), Section 5.c.16 “granting of individual setback and lot line
variance…” and requires no further review; and
Whereas, the action does not require 239 review, per the Inter-Governmental Agreement made with
Tompkins County 24 November 2003; and
Whereas, notice of the public hearing was published in the Ithaca Journal on February 8, 2023, and on
March 2, 2023, was posted on the Town’s Public Legal Notice Board, was posted on the Town’s
webpage, and mailed to property owners within a 500-foot radius of the subject property; and
Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 6
April 19, 2023
Whereas, by considering the criteria listed in the Consolidated Laws of New York Chapter 62, Article 16,
Section 267-B.3.b, the BZA reviewed the record and weighed the benefits to the applicant against the
detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood if the variance is granted; and
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.
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.
3. Whether the requested area variances are substantial.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS,
Considering all of the statutory factors set forth above, the Board of Zoning Appeals finds the following:
1. The benefit to the applicant in the granting of the area variance to decrease the front yard
setback will outweigh the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood. The
height and steepness of the slope requires approximately 55 steps, which is quite demanding on
the owner. The tram provides a large benefit to the applicant.
2. The granting of the area variance to decrease the front yard setback will not create an
undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood and will not be a detriment to nearby
properties. Other trams exist in the neighborhood; this tram is a fair distance away from the
neighbor’s property. The removal of the staircase will improve the appearance of the property.
The agreed upon setback will be 12 feet from the Mean High-Water Line, rather than what was
listed in the application, which was 8 feet.
3. The benefit sought by the applicant to decrease the front yard setback cannot be achieved by
some method feasible for the applicant to pursue other than an area variance. There is no other
reasonable solution for the tram’s location.
4. The requested area variance to decrease the front yard setback is substantial. The decrease of
40 feet to 12 feet is significant.
5. The proposed area variance to decrease the front yard setback will not have an adverse effect or
impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The existing
stairs are closer to the Mean High-Water Line than the proposed tram that will replace these
stairs.
6. The alleged difficulty to decrease the front yard setback is self-created.
7. The benefit to the applicant in the granting of the area variance to decrease the setback from
the lake will outweigh the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood. The
height and steepness of the slope requires approximately 55 steps, which is quite demanding on
the owner. The tram provides a large benefit to the applicant.
Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 6
April 19, 2023
8. The granting of the area variance to decrease the setback from the lake will not create an
undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood and will not be a detriment to nearby
properties. Other trams exist in the neighborhood; this tram is a fair distance away from the
neighbor’s property. The removal of the staircase will improve the appearance of the property.
The agreed upon setback will be 12 feet from the Mean High-Water Line, rather than what was
listed in the application, which was 8 feet.
9. The benefit sought by the applicant to decrease the setback from the lake cannot be achieved
by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue other than an area variance. There is no
other reasonable solution for the tram’s location.
10. The requested area variance to decrease the setback from the lake is substantial. The decrease
of 75 feet to 12 feet is significant.
11. The proposed area variance to decrease the setback from the lake will not have an adverse
effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The
existing stairs are closer to the Mean High-Water Line than the proposed tram that will replace
these stairs. The tram platform is minimal, approximately 4x4 feet, and the installation methods
have been described as having minimal impact on the environment.
12. The alleged difficulty to decrease the setback from the lake is self-created, in that the applicant
is choosing to install the tram.
13. The benefit to the applicant in the granting of the area variance to decrease the setback from
the intermittent stream will outweigh the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the
neighborhood. The tram installation is approximately 10 feet further away from the stream than
the existing stairs which will be removed, and the trees will be retained.
14. The granting of the area variance to decrease the setback from the intermittent stream will not
create an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood and will not be a detriment
to nearby properties. The tram will be farther from the neighboring property than the existing
stairs which will be removed.
15. The benefit sought by the applicant to decrease the setback from the intermittent stream
cannot be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue other than an area
variance. The applicant has described difficulties in placing the tram further to the south.
16. The requested area variance to decrease the setback from the intermittent stream is
substantial. The tram will be 33 feet from the stream edge as opposed to the required setback
of 75 feet. Although the encroachment on the setback is substantial, the drainage will not be
toward the stream, which minimizes the impact. The tram will be further from the stream than
the current stairs, which will be removed.
17. The proposed area variance to decrease setback from the intermittent stream will not have an
adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or
district. The construction is farther away from the stream than the existing stairs, which will be
removed.
Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 6
April 19, 2023
18. The alleged difficulty to decrease the setback from the intermittent stream is self-created.
For the reasons set forth above, and upon the evidence, law and facts, the BZA hereby does grant the
area variance to decrease the front yard setback from the east lot line from Cayuga Lake from 40 feet to
12 feet, does grant the area variance to decrease the setback from the lake from 75 feet to 12 feet, and
does grant the area variance to decrease the setback from the intermittent stream from 75 feet to 33
feet for the proposed tram located at 1375 Taughannock Boulevard, subject to the following conditions:
Conditions of Approval:
1. The existing wood stairs will be removed within 6 months of installation of the tram, without
damage to the trees to the north of the stairs.
2. The setbacks from the lake line and from the front yard line has been agreed upon as 12 feet, rather
than the 8 feet that was proposed in the application. The applicant has agreed to this.
Motion: Thompson made a motion to approve Resolution 2023-002; Tyler seconded the motion.
Vote: Tyler, aye; Howarth, aye; Hillman, aye; Thompson; aye; and Chair Morreale, aye.
Motion carried.
New Business Items
Public Hearing: Magnus-Sharpe Area Variance, VAR2303-001
The applicant and property owner, Marc and Sharon Magnus-Sharpe, applied for a minor subdivision to
subdivide the existing 31.27 acre lot into two lots; one parcel approximately 12.52 acres and the second
parcel approximately 18.75 acres. The property is located at 5221 Cold Springs Rd, Tax Map ID #21.-1-
4.22, and is in the AR zone. Ulysses Town Code (UTC) 212-29.D requires a minimum 400 feet of lot width
at the front lot line. The subject lot has frontage along Cold Springs Road in two separate areas; one
along the northwest portion of the property is approximately 135’ in length, the second along the
northeast portion of the property is 350’ in length. During the Planning Board’s review of the sketch
plat, members requested confirmation whether the lot is considered non-conforming or conforming
from Legal and/or the BZA. Legal was consulted and it was suggested the BZA review the matter and
make that determination.
Tygesen stated that he interpreted the lot as non-conforming. Discussion ensued on what actions would
be taken if the lot is conforming or non-conforming. If conforming, a variance to decrease the frontage is
required. If the BZA considers the lot to be non-conforming, the Planning Board will make the next
determination on the proposal.
Earl Yonge, the previous long-time property owner, described the lot frontage requirements that existed
when he owned the land. Yonge stated that the lot frontage requirements were at one time less than
200 feet, and that the non-conformity of the lots pre-date the current laws. Yonge continued to reflect
on multiple changes in the frontage requirements through the years, and supported Magnus-Sharpe’s
proposal. Marc Magnus-Sharpe explained that they have owned the property since 2014 and have not
yet made any changes to the lot. The Magnus-Sharpes are currently trying to sell their home, but wish to
keep some land for future building, thus applying for a subdivision.