Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout8_2_05 Front yard setbacks TGZBA OWN OF ROTON ONING OARD OF PPEALS Minutes of Public Hearing/Meeting – Tuesday, 8 August 2005 – 7:30 PM Groton Town Hall – 101 Conger Boulevard – Groton, NY Board Members Others Present (*absent) Lyle Raymond, Chairman Joan Fitch, Recording Secretary Patricia Gaines Gary Coats, CEO Geraldine Rapp Steve Thane, Vice-Chairman Thomas Tylutki Applicants/Public Present Frank Kennedy, representing Mona E. VanSluis, Applicant. PH UBLIC EARING Mona E. VanSluis, Applicant/RO – 493 Holl Road – TM #29.-1-8.100 – Proposed Front Deck The Public Hearing was opened at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman Lyle Raymond who read aloud the Notice of Public Hearing as duly published. Proof of Publication has been placed on file for the record. Chairman Raymond advised the applicants that the required fee had been paid by the applicant. Members of the ZBA in attendance were introduced by the Chairman. The applicants were requesting a variance to site a front deck closer to the road than is allowed by road setback requirements. Section 342.2 of the Groton Land Use & Development Code requires a minimum yard depth of 30 feet from the road in a Rural Agricultural Zoning District. Chairman Raymond acknowledged that there had been no communications received from anyone regarding the appeal. Chairman Raymond recognized Gary Coats, Town of Groton Code Enforcement Officer, who stated he had stopped by the site quite some time ago when he observed a pile of lumber there, and he knew that no Building Permit had been obtained. A small amount of construction had been started, and a Stop Work Order was issued. The applicant/owner did come in to complete the proper paperwork, and nothing has been done (for over eight months) since that time. The proposed deck would come out from the home a distance of 10 feet, making the distance from the front line 19’4” to the edge of the road. The proposed deck would go along the front of the home a distance of 30 feet, all as shown on the sketch accompanying the application. Frank Kennedy, representing the applicant and also a resident of the home, affirmed the statement on the sketch which stated there will be no cars parked between the deck and the road. Chairman Raymond asked Mr. Kennedy the purpose of the deck, and Mr. Kennedy responded that it was to come in the front entrance of the home without tracking in mud, etc. from the front. The only thing at the front door is a “concrete ramp” which is not very safe, and from which many falls have already occurred, so the proposed deck would cover this and be safer. He and the applicant were also looking to enhance the appearance of the home. The owner would also like to have a deck so she could sit outside. Eventually, they would like to have a roof over the proposed deck. Mr. Kennedy stated that the parcel’s well is located within 8 feet from the front of his home where the flowers are. Chairman Raymond reviewed the measurements given on the sketch. He noted that the structure was “grandfathered in” and is non-conforming; Town rules require that a non-conforming structure is Page 1 of 4 Town of Groton ZBA Public Hearing/Meeting Minutes 2 August 2005 not supposed to be added to in any way, regardless of the distance from the road, making two problems for the appellant: (1) adding on to a non-conforming structure, and (2) the fact that the deck would be less than 30 feet from the road. Chairman Raymond asked Mr. Kennedy if the problem of tracking into the home couldn’t be solved by a concrete walkway, and Mr. Kennedy responded they could do that. This would require no variance. In response to Geri Rapp’s question, CEO Coats stated that although they cannot add onto the structure in the front or sides, they could do so on the back. Mr. Kennedy responded that there was already a deck on the back that needed repair and is not used as it is a safety concern, but this would not be the main entrance. Chairman Raymond then advised that a deck of less than 100 SF would not require a permit, so what if a paved walkway was installed up to the front door with a small roof over a 10-20 foot square patio- like “stoop” (e.g., 9’ by 9’)? Mr. Kennedy was amenable to this suggestion, also. Chairman Raymond asked him if he was authorized to make decisions for the owner/applicant, and he stated he was. CEO Coats interjected that the construction of a small roof attached to the structure would still make a variance necessary as it would extend the pre-existing non-conformance; a sidewalk, he stated, is not considered a structure, but the roof is. Member Rapp asked about using an awning; CEO Coats stated that anything that’s attached to the residence and makes a pre-existing non-conformance worse, would not be allowed. Future concerns were discussed, including possible widening of Holl Road. Chairman Raymond advised Mr. Kennedy of the options: put in a paved walkway and a step in front of the house (with no variance required), or have the Zoning Board of Appeals simply proceed with considering the variance, as requested; if granted, there could be conditions imposed. Mr. Kennedy stated he would like to “try for the variance.” With everyone being heard who wished to be heard, Chairman Raymond closed the Public Hearing at 8:12 p.m. D/D ISCUSSIONECISION Chairman Raymond proceeded with the required questions (balancing test), with the responses being given by the ZBA members, after a brief discussion of each, as follows: 1. Can the benefit be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant without requiring a variance? Response: Yes, partially, but safety from roof runoff would not be addressed. 2. Will it cause an undesirable change in neighborhood character or nearby properties? Response: No 3. Is the request substantial? Response: Yes, it’s very substantial as the request was made; not only is it on a non-conforming structure, but would also be within the 30-foot setback from the road. 4. Will it have physical or environmental affects? Response: As shown on Part II of the Short Environmental Assessment form, completed by the Code Enforcement Officer, the proposed action will not cause any adverse physical or environmental impact if built as requested. 5. Is it self-created? Response: No. Chairman Raymond commented that this did not seem to be a “bad situation,” but the applicant would be building within the road setback. Perhaps the Board could consider a modification of what was requested. Member Steve Thane stated that the purpose of the request was really to “provide a Page 2 of 4 Town of Groton ZBA Public Hearing/Meeting Minutes 2 August 2005 covered walkway to the front door.” He suggested paring down the original request, and provided various size options. He also felt that the existing ramp was a safety issue. Page 3 of 4 Town of Groton ZBA Public Hearing/Meeting Minutes 2 August 2005 At the conclusion of the Board’s discussion, a motion was made by Member Tom Tylutki to grant the variance for construction of a front deck closer to the road than is allowed, with the following conditions: (1) proposed structure shall not exceed 7 feet, measured from the face of the building toward the road, (2) the proposed structure shall meet all other setback requirements, and (3) there shall be no parking between the new structure and the road. The motion was seconded by Member Rapp, with the vote recorded as follows: Ayes: Chairman Raymond Nays: None Member Gaines Member Rapp Member Thane Member Tylutki Motion carried This becomes Action #2 of 2005. Adjournment Chairman Raymond adjourned the meeting at 8:47 p.m. Joan E. Fitch Recording Secretary E-mailed on8/17/05 Page 4 of 4