Zoning Board of Appeals

MINUTES CITY OF CANANDAIGUA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS November 16, 2022 PRESENT: Joseph Bader, Chair Roger Brazill Carol Henshaw, Vice Chair John Roberts Susan Haller Ryan Wilmer Julie Harris ALSO PRESENT: Richard E. Brown, Zoning Officer CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Bader called to order the regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals at 7:00 P.M. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chairman Bader asked if anyone had any corrections or additions to the Regular Meeting Minutes of October 19, 2022. Mr. Roberts moved to approve the minutes as submitted. Ms. Henshaw seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote (7-0). REVIEW OF APPLICATIONS: ITEM 01 Application #22-256A: 28 South Main Street, C LAKE PROPERTIES LLC, seeking a Use Variance necessary to operate a professional office in the C2-A zone district. In accordance with §850-38 of the Zoning Ordinance, offices are not permitted on the ground floor in this zone district. No one was present to speak to the application. Mr. Brown said the applicant’s attorney reached out to him today to request that the application be adjourned until the next scheduled meeting on December 21, 2022. They are requesting more time to arrange for testimony that shows the property has no economic viability for permitted uses under the zoning law. Chairman Bader opened the Public Hearing and asked if anyone was present wishing to speak. No one came forward. Mr. Brown said no written comments were received. Chairman Bader said the Public Hearing will remain open for the application to be presented at the meeting in December. Chairman Bader requested for the applicant to return with figures and evidence of attempts to lease that show that any permitted use will not yield a reasonable return. A professional opinion alone is not enough. Mr. Roberts agreed. Mr. Brazill asked for actual dimensions of the space. Chairman Bader asked if there were any other requests. Hearing none, he called for a motion. Mr. Wilmer moved that the board Table the application to allow the applicant more time to provide evidence of economic viability as demonstrated by competent financial evidence. Mr. Roberts seconded the motion, which carried with a vote (7-0) Zoning Board of Appeals November 16, 2022 Page 2 of 4 Ryan Wilmer Voting YES John Roberts Voting YES Roger Brazill Voting YES Julie Harris Voting YES Susan Haller Voting YES Carol Henshaw Voting YES Joseph Bader Voting YES ITEM 02 Application #22-313A: Pier #1, Boathouse #17, THOMAS POST, seeking an Area Variance necessary to demolish the existing boathouse and construct a new boathouse with a total length of 40 feet. In accordance with Schedule 1 of the Zoning Ordinance, the maximum length of a boathouse is 32 feet. Thomas Post presented the application. He recently purchased a very deteriorated boathouse. He has applied to the Planning Commission and received approval to demolish it and build a new structure. The current boathouse is 35 feet in length. The proposed boathouse is 37 feet long with a 3-foot platform, for a total length of 40 feet. The boat well would be a length of 26 feet. Behind this would be a 10 by 10-foot changing area. The boathouse is on the south side of Pier 1, with no significant obstructions to the open water to the south. The adjacent boathouses are 35.85 and 39.05 feet. He will not extend beyond the length of his neighbors’ boathouses. Chairman Bader opened the Public Hearing. Patrick Walsh, Boathouse #2, Pier 3, spoke in support of the application. John Bennett, Boathouse #15, Pier 1, spoke against the application. Having a deck on a boathouse is a privilege. He allows guests to tie up to his deck. But, if the variance is granted, that will no longer be possible. They will also lose their view to the west. One challenge they currently face is accessing their boathouse on a windy day. They must come in at a 45-degree angle. This would be difficult if their neighbor is allowed to build a 40-foot structure. Pamela Post, the applicant’s wife, provided additional letters of support. She noted that 32 feet is the maximum length permitted for a new boathouse. Their existing boathouse is 35 feet, so they would lose 3 feet if they demolish and are denied a variance. Mr. Brown noted that several written comments have been received. The following people submitted letters of support:  Jared Haims, Boathouse # 11, Pier 1  Robert/Mollie Coe, Boathouse #20, Pier 1  Ron/Sheila Raymond, Boathouse #29, Pier 1  Joe Cunningham, Boathouse #19, Pier 1  Dave Lucchesi, Boathouse #20, Pier 2  John/Susanne Litzelman, Boathouse #21, Pier 2  Robert/Tracey Fuller, Boathouses #27 and #29, Pier 3 The following people submitted letters in opposition of the proposal: Zoning Board of Appeals November 16, 2022 Page 3 of 4  Daniel Palmeri, Boathouse #13, Pier 1  John/Judith Bennett & Janet Hillenbrand, Boathouse #15, Pier 1  Robert Randall, Boathouse #18, Pier 2 Jadon Hoffman, Boathouse #2, Pier 2, submitted a comment. He does not support the entire application, but supports the demolition and rebuilding. Tyler Tichenor, Boathouse Association President, also submitted a comment. He is in favor of rebuilding, but is not concerned with the size of the new structure. It will not impact access to other properties, since it faces the south end of the lake. Chairman Bader asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak. Hearing none, he closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Wilmer asked if the applicant would consider reducing the size of the changing room to 10-foot by 8- foot. Mr. Post explained that he chose the size in order to be aligned with the neighbor. Mr. Brazill asked if the floor plan could be reversed so the boat well would be adjacent to #15, Mr. Bennet’s boathouse. Mr. Post said this would not be ideal because the water in the western bay is deeper, and more suited for a boat. He feels parking and tying a boat off in front should not be allowed because it is inconsiderate to other boathouse owners. Chairman Bader is concerned with the placement of the boathouse, relative to the alignment with neighboring boathouses. Mr. Post pointed out the misalignment of the boathouses on the Pier. His existing boathouse sits back approximately one and a half feet from an adjacent boathouse on one side, and approximately two feet back from the adjacent boathouse on the other side. Mr. Brazill asked about eliminating the 3-foot deck. Mrs. Post said it is helpful to have for stepping on and off the boat and for launching a kayak. Chairman Bader led the board to the five-part test. This is a request for an Area Variance and the board will be weighing the benefit of the variance to the applicant against the detriment of the variance to the neighborhood. Beginning with question #1: Show that the granting of the variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or create a detriment to nearby properties. Chairman Bader noted that the neighbors on either side of the applicant’s boathouse have differing views. He does not feel granting the variance would be a detriment for either neighbor. Mr. Bennett allowing his guests to tie their boat to the front of his deck, is a privilege. Losing that privilege does not constitute a detriment. Mr. Wilmer agreed and noted that this application differs from others that have been submitted, based on the distance to the Pier. Regarding question #2: Show that the benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some other feasible method that would not require a variance. Mr. Roberts said there is no other feasible method. Zoning Board of Appeals November 16, 2022 Page 4 of 4 Chairman Bader said the only option would be to reduce the length to comply with the current ordinance. Regarding question #3: Show that the requested variance is not substantial. Chairman Bader believes an increase from 32 to 40 feet is substantial. Mr. Brazill said the length is not substantial, relative to neighboring boathouses. Regarding question #4: Show that the proposed variance will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. Mr. Brazill feels the proposal would be an improvement on the Pier. Chairman Bader noted that without the variance, the applicant has the option of allowing the existing structure to remain. Regarding question #5: Show that the alleged hardship is not self-created. Chairman Bader believes the hardship is not self-created because the boathouse is a pre-existing, non- conforming, 35-foot structure in poor condition. Chairman Bader asked if there were any other comments or questions. Hearing none, he called for a motion. Mr. Brazill moved that the board Approve the application as submitted and presented for the following reasons: #1. The granting of the variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood create a detriment to nearby properties. #4. The proposed variance will not have an adverse impact on the environmental conditions in the neighborhood. Mr. Roberts seconded the motion, which carried with a roll call vote of (6-1): Ryan Wilmer Voting YES John Roberts Voting YES Roger Brazill Voting YES Julie Harris Voting YES Susan Haller Voting YES Carol Henshaw Voting YES Joseph Bader Voting NO ADJOURNMENT Mr. Roberts moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:00, seconded by Mr. Wilmer and carried by unanimous voice vote (7-0). _____________________________ ______________________________ Richard E. Brown, Secretary Joseph Bader, Chairman