The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2020-10-13 Approved ZBA Minutes APPROVED 1 Town of Lansing 2 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting 3 Tuesday, October 13, 2020 6:30 PM 4 Via Zoom Meeting — Live on YouTube 5 Present 6 Richard Hayes 7 Peter Larson 8 Melanie Malone 9 Mary Stoe, Alternate 10 Judy Drake, Chair 11 Absent 12 Maureen Cowen 13 14 Other Staff Present 15 C.J. Randall, Director of Planning 16 Heather Dries, Code Clerk 17 18 General Business 19 Chair Judy Drake opened the meeting at 6:35pm. 20 21 Roll Call for Attendance: 22 Peter Larson-Aye 23 Richard Hayes—Aye 24 Melanie Malone —Aye 25 Mary Stoe—Aye 26 Judy Drake - Aye 27 Chair Judy Drake enacted Mary Stoe, Alternate as a voting member due to Maureen Cowen's 28 excused absence 29 30 Read by Chair Judy Drake 31 PUBLIC HEARING: Electronically via conference call instead of a public meeting open for the 32 public to attend in person, on the following matter: All interested persons or representatives 33 thereof will be given an opportunity to be heard; send comments in writing to Town of Lansing, 34 Planning & Code Enforcement Department, 29 Auburn Rd, Lansing, NY 14882 or 35 tolcodes@lansingtown.com and your statement will be forwarded to the Zoning Board of 36 Appeals for their consideration. If you want your statement read aloud, please state that in 37 your letter or email. Meeting will be transcribed and posted on the Town's website at 38 https://www.lansingtown.com/town-docs 39 Any members of the public wishing to be heard by the Board may enter the meeting room at 40 the time of the respective Public Hearing at: Pagel of 11 APPROVED 41 https://us02web.zoom.us/l/83978909351?pwd=ZStCOHdUcOtNekJTL014NONPNXY5Zz09 or by 42 calling 1-646-558-8656 and entering meeting ID 839 7890 9351 and Password: 972234. 43 44 45 PUBLIC HEARING #1: 46 Consideration of an Appeal made by Applicant Jacobs Engineering on behalf of Cargill Salt Mine, 47 191 Portland Point Rd; Tax Parcel No. 36.-1-1 located in the Industrial (IR) Zoning District for an 48 Area Variance from Town of Lansing Code Section 270, Schedule II which requires a maximum 49 35' building height. Applicant is seeking a 20' Area Variance from the maximum building height 50 requirement to facilitate emplacement of a 600' x 180' prefabricated steel frame salt shed 51 structure atop the existing lower bulk salt storage pad. The Applicant is concurrently applying 52 for Site Plan approval; this is an Unlisted Action under the State Environmental Quality Review 53 Act for which the Town of Lansing Planning Board made a Declaration of Lead Agency on 54 September 28, 2020. The above referenced appeal and its supporting documents are available 55 for inspection at http://Ifweb.tompkins- 56 co.org/WebLink/Browse.aspx?id=46911&dbid=7&repo=Lansing 57 58 Motion to Open the Public Hearing for 191 Portland Point Rd. 59 Motioned by: Melanie Malone Seconded by: Richard Hayes (Seconded and Motion Carried) 60 Roll Call for Opening the Public Hearing 61 Peter Larson —Aye 62 Richard Hayes—Aye 63 Melanie Malone —Aye 64 Mary Stoe—Aye 65 Judy Drake—Aye 66 67 Variance request discussion with the ZBA 68 Applicant, Jacobs Engineering, on behalf of Cargill Inc., several members of their team- Darrin 69 Melberger, Colm Curran, and Melissa, were admitted to the meeting and discussed the variance 70 request. 71 72 Summary of discussion 73 0 Colm presented to us a rendering of what the salt shed would look like from several 74 points, including from the lake, from the other side of the lake, and from Cargill itself, 75 looking west towards the lake. 76 • They are using the average height rule. They are also working from the highest elevation 77 of the pad. 78 • Definition of maximum height- As of 2017-Vertical distance from the finished grade to 79 the highest point on a flat or mansard roof and the average height of a pitched, gabled, 80 hip or gambrel roof. On a hillside lot, finished grade should be considered as the average 81 finished grade on the uphill side of the structure. 82 • The salt would be stored up to 35-40 feet tall. They need more clearance inside the 83 building for the equipment used. Page 2 of 11 APPROVED 84 • The shed would help protect the salt from the elements, and prevent runoff into the 85 lake. It would also prevent salt dust from contaminating the air by keeping it contained 86 in the shed as it is dropping off the conveyor. 87 0 The color of the shed was discussed. Currently, tan/brown or forest green are being 88 considered, as the white color is opposed by so many. 89 • In response to the question if they could do this without going so high, it was explained 90 why they chose this design. 91 o The proposed roof would be membrane, similar to that of the Carrier Dome in 92 Syracuse. 93 o The pitch would prevent snow buildup, and this material would last about 50 94 years 95 o A flatter roof would be metal, snow would accumulate, and would need to be 96 replaced after about 25 years 97 No plans to install similar salt sheds on the other two pads in the foreseeable future. 98 The pads are tarped 99 100 Public Comments 101 There were no public comments on this matter. 102 103 Motion to Close Public Hearing 104 Motion by: Richard Hayes Seconded by: Mary Stoe (Seconded and Motion Carried) 105 106 Roll Call for Closing the Public Hearing 107 Peter Larson-Aye 108 Richard Hayes—Aye 109 Melanie Malone —Aye 110 Mary Stoee—Aye 111 Judy Drake—Aye 112 113 Board Deliberation 114 115 • This seems to be a very well thought out project 116 0 Reducing contamination is beneficial 117 0 The structure could be flatter, but it would cause more problems for Cargill longterm 118 • The building is comparable to the surrounding structures and does not hinder the view 119 from either side of the lake. 120 • If this were near a residential zone, it would be a different discussion. 121 • They would like to see a neutral color used 122 123 AREA VARIANCE FINDINGS AND DECISION 124 TOWN OF LANSING ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 125 Page 3 of 11 APPROVED 126 BACKGROUND INFORMATION 127 128 Applicant: Jacobs Engineering Variance No: 20-05 129 Cargill Inc. Zoning District: IR 130 PO Box 5626 Public Hearing 131 Minneapolis, MN 55440 Published on 10/7/2020 132 Mailed 600' Notices 133 Property Location: Cayuga Salt Mine, 191 Portland Point Rd on: 10/5/2020 134 Tax Parcel #: 36.-1-1 135 136 Requirement for which Area Variances are requested: Town of Lansing Code (the "Code"): 137 Section 270, Schedule II: Area, Frontage, Yard, Heights and Coverage Requirements. 138 139 RESOLUTION AND FINDINGS 140 141 WHEREAS, Jacobs Engineering, Applicants for Cargill, Inc., Owner, 142 applied for an Area Variance to facilitate emplacement of a 600' x 180' prefabricated steel frame 143 salt shed structure atop the existing lower bulk salt storage pad that is not compliant with the 144 35' Maximum Building Height in the Industrial (IR) Zoning District); and 145 146 WHEREAS, Applicant is requesting an Area Variance of 20' from the Maximum Building Height 147 requirement to facilitate placement of the salt shed; and 148 149 WHEREAS, on October 13, 2020 the Town of Lansing Zoning Board of Appeals (the "ZBA") 150 thoroughly reviewed and analyzed: (i) the information and evidence submitted by the applicant 151 in support of the requested area variance; (ii) all other information and materials properly before 152 the ZBA; and (iii) the issues and impacts raised for consideration by neighbors, the public, and 153 the ZBA; and 154 155 WHEREAS, a October 14, 2020 letter from Katherine Borgella, Tompkins County Commissioner 156 of Planning, pursuant to §239 -I, -m, and -n of the New York State General Municipal Law 157 determined the proposal has no negative inter-community, or county-wide impacts; and 158 159 WHEREAS,this application is classified as a Unlisted Action under the State Environmental Quality 160 Review Act for which the Town of Lansing Planning Board made a Declaration of Lead Agency on 161 September 28, 2020; so, upon due deliberation upon the foregoing, the application, and all 162 evidence and testimony presented to the ZBA; and 163 164 NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: 165 166 1.The Town of Lansing Zoning Board of Appeals ("ZBA") hereby makes the following findings with 167 respect to the specific criteria for area variances as set forth in Town Law§267-b(3)(b), and other 168 applicable provisions of law and of the Zoning Ordinance: 169 Page 4 of 11 APPROVED 170 a. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a 171 detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the area variance? 172 173 Yes _ No x Findings: This is already an industrial site. This building will not be out of 174 place in its surroundings. 175 176 177 b. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for 178 the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance? 179 Yes _ No x Findings: 180 181 c. Whether the requested area variance is substantial? 182 183 Yes x No _ Findings: It is substantial; looking at the average height of all buildings on 184 the site they are all substantial. 185 186 187 d. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on 188 the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? 189 190 Yes _ No _x Findings: This project will be trying to lessen the impact on the 191 environment by making improvements that reduce contamination. 192 193 e. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created? 194 195 Yes _ No x Findings: 196 197 198 2. DETERMINATION BASED ON THE ABOVE FACTORS (choose one): 199 200 It is hereby determined by the Town of Lansing Zoning Board of Appeals (the "ZBA") that the 201 following area variance is GRANTED AND APPROVED, with any conditions hereafter stated (if 202 any), it being further found and determined that (i) the benefit to the applicant outweighs any 203 potential negative impacts or detriment to the neighborhood or community; and (ii) such area 204 variance is the minimum necessary as adequate to grant relief and, at the same time, preserve 205 and protect the character of the neighborhood and the safety and welfare of the community. 206 207 DESCRIPTION OF SPECIFIC VARIANCE GRANTED: 20 foot area variance from the maximum 208 building height requirement 209 210 211 ARE CONDITIONS IMPOSED WITH RESPECT TO THE AREA VARIANCE AS GRANTED: 212 Yes x No 213 Page 5 of 11 APPROVED 214 STATEMENT OF CONDITIONS: 215 216 1. As variances are exceptions based upon exigent need or emergency, should applicant fail 217 to avail itself of the benefits of the above-described area variance within one year from 218 the date hereof, this approval and such area variance shall expire. In cases where 219 construction may be applicable, "avail itself of the benefits" shall mean a building permit 220 obtained (if necessary) and substantial construction as commenced. Said one-year 221 approval period may be extended for good cause by the ZBA if application for an 222 extension is submitted before the expiration of the then applicable variance period. 223 2. Comply with color selection of the Planning Board in Site Plan Review. 224 225 THE VOTE ON THE FOREGOING DECISION, DETERMINATIONS,AND RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN 226 OF LANSING ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS WAS AS FOLLOWS: 227 228 Motion by: Mary Stoe 229 Seconded by: Peter Larson 230 231 Peter Larson—Aye 232 Richard Hayes—Aye 233 Melanie Malone—Aye 234 Mary Stoe—Aye 235 Judy Drake—Aye 236 237 Dated: October 13, 2020 238 239 240 241 242 PUBLIC HEARING #2: 243 Consideration of an Amendment of an Appeal made by David and Holly Hardie, Applicants, on 244 behalf of Indian Landing, Inc., 34 Ladoga Park Road W, Tax Parcel #33.-1-59 located in the 245 Lakefront -with lake frontage (1-1) Zoning District for two Area Variances from Town of Lansing 246 Code § 270, Schedule II which requires a 10' minimum side yard setback and a minimum lot 247 area of .459 acres. Applicant is seeking a 4' Area Variance from the minimum side yard setback 248 and an Area Variance of .079 acres from the Minimum Lot Area requirements, respectively, to 249 facilitate compliance with Lansing Code § 270-44 requirement for replacement of a 250 nonconforming building and subsequent construction of a new 1,400 sq. ft. one-family dwelling 251 unit. This is a Type II Action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act 6 NYCRR 252 617.5(c)(16). The above referenced appeal and its supporting documents are available for 253 inspection at http://Ifweb.tompkins- 254 co.org/WebLink/Browse.aspx?id=46912&dbid=7&repo=Lansing 255 256 Motion to Open Public Hearing for 34 Ladoga Park Road W. 257 Motioned by: Peter Larson Seconded by: Richard Larson (Seconded and Motion Carried) Page 6 of 11 APPROVED 258 259 Roll Call for Opening the Public Hearing 260 Peter Larson-Aye 261 Richard Hayes—Aye 262 Melanie Malone —Aye 263 Mary Stoe—Aye 264 Judy Drake -Aye 265 266 Discussion of Variance request with the ZBA 267 0 Holly Hardie spoke about the property. It has been in her family since the 1950's. It is 268 co-owned with the Ruoff's 269 0 The cottage was falling apart, and beginning to rot underneath. 270 • The lot is too small, it was most likely platted that way. The house was already too close 271 to the lot line before it was demolished at the end of September. 272 • The Hardies are following flood plain, soil, etc., regulations. 273 • There is a tree on the north side of the property that they would like to preserve. 274 • They are going to make a substantial improvement to the area. The house will be more 275 energy efficient, above the flood plain, and will look much nicer. 276 0 The house will not be following the existing footprint, as they just want to square it off. 277 0 The house will not be encroaching the lot line any further than it already is. 278 • The porch will not be enclosed, so despite adding some space on each corner, the 279 square footage will not be increasing by much. 280 281 Public Comments 282 Lillian Babcock and her granddaughter were present to speak against the area variance. 283 • They believe that the Hardies should just move the house closer to the other side of the 284 property, where there is a lot of green space. 285 • The Babcock's house is also closer to the property line, and was grandfathered in. 286 0 They fear that this will just open it up for a larger building to be place there in the 287 future. 288 The Hardies countered. 289 • The would be create hardship to position the house towards the green space for a few 290 reasons. 291 o The foundation would be getting into the roots of the tree they are trying to 292 preserve. 293 o They were already asked to give up two trees over the summer, and making 294 them remove the tree would take away all the shade they would have in their 295 yard. 296 o They want to keep as much space on the other side as possible for the kids to 297 play. 298 o They also consider the space between the two houses unusable. 299 Page 7 of 11 APPROVED 300 Applicant had nothing more to add and was informed by the Chair that once the Public Hearing 301 was closed, they can only speak if asked a question from the Zoning Board Members 302 303 Motion to Close Public Hearing 304 Motion by: Richard Hayes Seconded by: Mary Stoe (Seconded and Motion Carried) 305 306 Roll Call to close the Public Hearing: 307 Peter Larson-Aye 308 Richard Hayes—Aye 309 Peter Larson -Aye 310 Melanie Malone—Aye 311 Judy Drake -Aye 312 313 Board Deliberation 314 • There is only about 12 feet between the two houses. 315 • There were questions regarding the footprint being the same on the southside and 316 whether they would still need a variance if that were the case. The only way they 317 wouldn't need a variance is if the footprint is exactly the same as the previous structure. 318 • Positioning the house differently on the property would not be possible due to the 319 septic system, which is being replaced as well. 320 0 The house will be about 10 feet from the tree, with enough room to drive a skid steer 321 between them. Any closer to the tree and the roots would have to be dug up. 322 • It is hard coming up with a reason not to approve it, because they are just squaring off 323 the house, not moving it closer. 324 Resolution and Findings Read by Chair,Judy Drake 325 326 AREA VARIANCE FINDINGS AND DECISION 327 TOWN OF LANSING ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 328 329 BACKGROUND INFORMATION 330 331 Applicant: David and Holly Hardie Variances No: 20-06 332 Indian Landing, Inc. Zoning District: L1 333 187 Storm Rd Public Hearing 334 Groton, NY 13073 Published on 10/7/2020 335 Mailed 600' Notices 336 Property Location: 34 Ladoga Park Road W on: 10/5/2020 337 Tax Parcel #: 33.-1-59 338 339 Requirement for which Area Variances are requested: Town of Lansing Code (the "Code"): 340 Section 270, Schedule II: Area, Frontage, Yard, Heights and Coverage Requirements. 341 Page 8 of 11 APPROVED 342 RESOLUTION AND FINDINGS 343 344 WHEREAS, David and Holly Hardie, Applicants, on behalf of Indian Landing, Inc., Owner, applied 345 for two Area Variances to construct a new 1,224 sq. ft. one-family dwelling unit that is not 346 compliant with the 10' Minimum Side Yard Setback and is not compliant with the .459 acre 347 Minimum Lot Area requirement in Lakeshore Zoning District(L 1 —with lake frontage); and 348 349 WHEREAS, Applicant is requesting an Area Variance of 4' from the Minimum Side Yard Setback 350 requirement and an Area Variance of .079 acres from the Minimum Lot Area requirement to 351 facilitate compliance with the Code § 270-44 requirement for replacement of a nonconforming 352 building; and 353 354 WHEREAS, on October 13, 2020 the Town of Lansing Zoning Board of Appeals (the "ZBA") 355 thoroughly reviewed and analyzed: (i) the information and evidence submitted by the applicant 356 in support of the requested area variances; (ii) all other information and materials properly 357 before the ZBA; and (iii) the issues and impacts raised for consideration by neighbors,the public, 358 and the ZBA; and 359 360 WHEREAS, this application is classified as a Type II Action under 6 NYCRR Part 617.5 (c)(17) (such 361 that no further environmental review is required) and this matter also does not require General 362 Municipal Law §239 -I, -m, and -n referral as the items are excluded per an Inter-Governmental 363 Agreement between the Tompkins County Planning Department and the Town of Lansing dated 364 December 17, 2003; and; so, upon due deliberation upon the foregoing, the application, and all 365 evidence and testimony presented to the ZBA, 366 367 NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: 368 369 1.The Town of Lansing Zoning Board of Appeals ("ZBA") hereby makes the following findings with 370 respect to the specific criteria for area variances as set forth in Town Law§267-b(3)(b), and other 371 applicable provisions of law and of the Zoning Ordinance: 372 373 a. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a 374 detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the area variances? 375 376 Yes _ No x Findings: The new structure is not getting any closer than the previous 377 structure was to the lot line; it is just being squared off. 378 379 b. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for 380 the applicant to pursue, other than area variances? 381 Yes x No Findings:They have looked into moving the structure in different directions, 382 and potentially changing the size of the house. Preserving a tree and yard are meaningful reasons 383 for the final site chosen, relocation of the entire structure would create more change and need 384 even more variances. 385 Page 9 of 11 APPROVED 386 c. Whether the requested area variances is substantial? 387 388 Yes No x Findings:The structure is not moving any closer to the property line; they 389 are seeking permission to square off the structure. The only other option is to decrease the size 390 of the entire structure to make it smaller than its prior footprint, which is not deemed 'required' 391 given the lack of adverse impacts on the neighborhood and the neighbors' general support for 392 the improvements to the building and neighborhood, but this remains possible. 393 394 d. Whether the proposed variances will have an adverse effect or impact on 395 the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? 396 397 Yes _ No x Findings: They are building in almost the same footprint. The new 398 structure will be an improvement to the area, including compliance with the Flood Damage 399 Prevention Local Law. 400 401 e. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created? 402 403 Yes _ No x Findings: They did not construct a new building without Town permission. 404 Further,the lot and building have existed for decades and have been undersized since zoning was 405 created. 406 407 2. DETERMINATION BASED ON THE ABOVE FACTORS (choose one): 408 409 It is hereby determined by the Town of Lansing Zoning Board of Appeals (the "ZBA") that the 410 following area variances are GRANTED, with any conditions hereafter stated (if any), it being 411 further found and determined that (i) the benefit to the applicant outweighs any potential 412 negative impacts or detriment to the neighborhood or community; and (ii) such area variances 413 are the minimum necessary as adequate to grant relief and, at the same time, preserve and 414 protect the character of the neighborhood and the safety and welfare of the community. In 415 balancing impacts with the variance application, the placement largely within a prior footprint 416 and minimal impact on the character of the community tilt the balance in favor of granting this 417 variance, including as all but one factor favor granting the same. 418 419 DESCRIPTION OF SPECIFIC VARIANCES GRANTED: Area Variance of 4' from the Minimum Side 420 Yard Setback requirement and an Area Variance of .079 acres from the Minimum Lot Area 421 requirement. 422 423 424 ARE CONDITIONS IMPOSED WITH RESPECT TO THE AREA VARIANCES AS GRANTED? 425 Yes x No 426 427 STATEMENT OF CONDITIONS: 428 429 1. Issuance of Floodplain Development Permit. Page 10 of 11 APPROVED 430 2. As variances are exceptions based upon exigent need or emergency, should applicant fail 431 to avail itself of the benefits of the above-described area variances within one year from 432 the date hereof, this approval and such area variances shall expire. In cases where 433 construction may be applicable, "avail itself of the benefits" shall mean a building permit 434 obtained (if necessary) and substantial construction as commenced. Said one-year 435 approval period may be extended for good cause by the ZBA if application for an 436 extension is submitted before the expiration of the then applicable variances period. 437 438 THE VOTE ON THE FOREGOING DECISION, DETERMINATIONS,AND RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN 439 OF LANSING ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS WAS AS FOLLOWS: 440 441 Motion by: Richard Hayes 442 Seconded by: Peter Larson 443 Peter Larson —Aye 444 Richard Hayes—Aye 445 Melanie Malone—Aye 446 Mary Stoe—Aye 447 Judy Drake—Aye 448 449 Dated: October 13, 2020 450 451 452 Any other business deemed necessary: 453 The Board discussed the remaining 1.5 hours of required training for this year. 454 C.J. is working something out with Guy for a training that would address Defusing Heated 455 Meetings 456 We are looking at possibly having two sessions. The planning board would also do this training. 457 They are aiming for November 91" & 101n 458 459 Chair Judy Drake adjourned meeting at 8:04 PM 460 461 Minutes executed and transcribed by Heather Dries Page 11 of 11