Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Dock Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sodus Point Zoning Board OKs Variance for Dock Extension at 8331 South Shore
Summary
The Zoning Board unanimously approved a special permit and area variance allowing an L-shaped dock extension at 8331 South Shore despite the property’s 116 feet of frontage falling short of the 150-foot requirement cited in Code 86-23.
The Village of Sodus Point Zoning Board unanimously approved a special permit and area variance on Sept. 9 to allow an L-shaped dock extension at 8331 South Shore.
The applicant (listed in the agenda as Vince Myerly; a representative identified in the hearing as Mrs. Myerly) told the board the family are "lifelong sailors and Sodus Bay is a sanctuary for them," and said the new dock would permit them to continue using their sailboat as they age. The application notes 116 feet of shoreline frontage where Code 86-23 requires 150 feet for multiple docks; the requested work would add a 30'x4' and a 31'x6' L-shaped extension to create a second dock. Board discussion included dimensions for the existing and proposed structures; one board member summarized the sizes as "8 ft wide for existing dock, 4 ft wide for the L shaped extension which would be 30 ft from the existing dock and 35ft long."
Board members noted the Army Corps of Engineers, the Planning Board and neighbors had indicated approval or support for the project, and treated the application as a special permit under Code 86-23. Chair Tom Johns read the relevant code provision aloud during the hearing and members debated whether approving this request would set a precedent. Lynn Carlyle moved to accept the variance as listed; Sue Bassage seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Voting record: Tom Johns—aye; Mark Ketcham—aye; Steve Nesspor—aye; Lynn Carlyle—aye; Sue Bassage—aye.
The board emphasized that this approval reflected specific site conditions—limited congestion and clearances to neighboring docks—and discussed that future similar requests in more congested areas might be treated differently. The board did not specify conditions beyond the application details and did not record any additional follow-up required of the applicant.
