Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5-20-2026TOWN OF GROTON ‐ MINUTES OF ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS WEDNESDAY, MAY 20, 2026 AT 7:00 PM THE TOWN HALL, 101 CONGER BOULEVARD ZBA Members Present:Also Present: Chair Moody opened the meeting and read the public notice, which was duly published in the Town’s legal paper, the Ithaca Journal, on May 13, 2026. After hearing that the Town had not received any correspondence regarding this project, he opened the public hearing and asked the applicant, Barrett Holmgren, about his project. Mr. Holmgren ‐ The variance application is to request a variance for the location of a ground- based solar installation on my residential property. I thought it might be helpful to review in contrast the Town of Groton’s code for large-scale systems and how that compares to this small- scale system. Section 367.5 for large-scale installations in the land use code, for installations over 4,000 square feet in size. Paragraph C of section 367.8 states that large-scale solar installations shall be located in lots with a minimum size of five acres. Paragraph F of section 367.8 states that all large-scale solar installations shall be enclosed by a fence that is six to eight feet in height. And then paragraph B of the same section 367.8 related to setback states energy system fencing shall be 75 feet from the side and back lot lines of a property owner's lot, and energy system panels must be at least 25 feet from the fence to the closest edge of the panel. The front lot line shall be 150 feet from the center line of the road to the fence. Those are the rules and regulations for the large-scale system. Now, for the small-scale system, the requirements and regulations are in 366.3. And a little bit on the page before that, it lists the size as small scale, in contrast to large scale, which was 4,000 square feet or larger; small scale is 4,000 square feet or smaller. This array is less than 400 square feet, as opposed to 4,000. The small-scale solar energy systems regulations in 366.3 state that a small-scale solar energy system shall be subject to the following requirements: height, a ground-mounted solar energy system shall not exceed 20 feet in height, setback, solar energy system fencing shall be 75 feet from the side and the back lot lines of the property zoned lot. And energy system panels must be at least 25 feet from the fence to the closest edge of the panel. The front lawn line shall be 150 feet from the center line of the road to the fence. You may not have caught it, but the wording for that setback for a small-scale system is exactly the same. It's been copied and pasted for that of a large-scale system. And whereas a large-scale system, which requires a special use permit, things like that, with lots of regulations, mandates the need for a fence. This small-scale system does not state a need for a fence but yet the wording, being copied and pasted for a large-scale system, thinks that there's a fence. It honestly makes no sense in terms of what's required for a fence when there isn't one. I understand that a Board of Appeals is required by the state to answer five questions. I've written down five answers to these five questions. Number one, can the benefit be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant without acquiring a variance? As mentioned on the application form, the current setback regulations require that, well, fortunately, my property is at least two acres, but if it were one acre, it couldn't even fit at all. But given my property and the map you've seen of it, the current setback regulations require that the array be pretty much in the dead center of my property, damaging the view of my south side windows and likely harming the Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 2 May 20, 2026 effectiveness by the shade from the trees I planted on the south side of my property. Further, I want to avoid roof damage from a roof-mounted system, as it is less than two years old. Question #2: Will it cause undesirable change in the neighborhood character or nearby properties? In the proposed location, the top of the array will be barely visible from Cortland Road, almost 500 feet to the south, and the array facing south, the west side of the array, which would be the profile view, will be visible almost exclusively only down my driveway to the vegetation that I have growing on the west side of my property. Trees, lilac shrubs, widespread and thickly growing Canadian goldenrod that grows to some six feet tall. Number three, is the request substantial? Well, yes, as it will pretty much determine whether or not to be able to have a solar energy system production, and the time, they fulfill their desire to provide for and encourage energy production installations that allow constituents to be self-sufficient. Number four, will it have detrimental physical or environmental effects? No, as it will not pollute or harm the existing wetland. There is no wetland, and it's just not going to pollute anything. Number five, is the variance request self-created? No, as in my opinion, and hopefully the board will agree regarding future zoning amendment, the need has been created by requirements that hopefully will be revised in the future as related to small, so very small scale solar installation for a home as opposed to the rules that exist for a large scale system. When I was submitting the building permit application, when I knew that would be a variance issue, my recollection is that the clerk explained that she had looked in the minutes for when the board had passed these regulations, and the concern was for fire truck access to the panels. I really don't know what that has to do with being 75 feet from the side and that kind of thing. But nevertheless, if that was a concern, the array location that I propose is right next to my driveway and couldn't have any better access for a fire truck. And I also recall hearing that when it was mentioned to the board that the requirements I stated were fairly onerous for a residential homeowner like myself, the response was, well, the person in that situation can just apply for a variance. So here I am paying the money and appearing before you all to apply for the variance. Chair Moody ‐ Asked for clarification on all the setbacks. The front lot setback is met at over 150 feet from the center of the road. The back yard setback is also met at 75 feet, but the side yard setback is roughly 29 feet. He asked the clerk for the side yard setback for the zoning district. Clerk Cargian ‐ Read section 342 of the Land Use Code for area regulations in the Rural Ag zone. The minimum side yard depth for a detached accessory building or structure is six feet and eight feet for a primary structure. With no one else wishing to be heard, Member Moll made a MOTION to close the public hearing, seconded by Member Gaines. Unanimous. A MOTION to approve the minutes from January 14, 2026, was made by Member Gaines and seconded by Member Siebe. Unanimous Member Moll questioned the applicant and was told that the energy output and number of panels for the project will be 7.5 kW, using 18 panels with no battery storage. Member Moll drove by the property and asked if the neighbors had spoken to the applicant about the review. Mr. Holmgren stated that the neighbor to the north has a home set way back into the woods, and when the trees are fully leafed out, he can’t see his home at all; therefore, he surmised that the neighbor could not see his property. None of the neighbors had approached him regarding the project. Member Siebe recalled the creation of the large-scale solar regulations, but could not recall the small-scale discussions. He recognized the requirement within the code states a 75-foot setback and 25 feet from a fence, which was to allow fire apparatus to get around a solar site. When you Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 3 May 20, 2026 consider a building-mounted solar energy system, there is no site plan review and only an 8-foot setback, which seems to contradict. He asked the applicant if there was another feasible alternative on the site or if there was something structural preventing him from putting it on the south side, so it would not be such a drastic variance of 71%. Member Moll countered that moving the array to the south would put it in the other neighbor’s line of sight, and it would be visible from the road. Keeping it where it is keeps it as unobstructed as possible from all. Mr. Holgren answered that he has only had the property for two years and has planted trees on the south side so that when those trees grow, they will shade the panels, causing a loss of efficiency if the array were on the south side. Members Siebe, Moll, and Moody all discussed the substantial percentage of change to the code that this variance is seeking and possible alternatives. Member Moll noted that she has an array and did not want to place it on the metal roof of her building, as it would cause damage to that roof. On a very small lot, the setbacks make it very difficult to comply without a variance. The zoning board has the authority to grant a request when the code lacks reasonableness, whether intentional or unintentional. They concluded by answering the questions and voting. 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 variance. • Discussion: The size and placement were appropriate for the area • Answer: NO 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some alternate method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. • Discussion: The board agreed that although there were alternatives, such as placing it in the center of the property or on the south side, those alternatives were not optimal for the neighborhood. • Answer: NO 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. • Discussion: The request is substantial. However, the code, as it is written, is unreasonable for a lot of this size. Rooftop placement causes roof damage. • Answer: YES 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or zoning district. • Discussion: • Answer: NO 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self‐created, which consideration shall be relevant to the decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals, but shall not necessarily preclude the granting of the area variance. • Discussion: All Board Members agreed that it was self‐created but would not be a detriment to the neighborhood or the Town of Groton. • Answer: YES Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 4 May 20, 2026 RESOLUTION #5 - 2026 ‐ GRANT AREA VARIANCE FOR 615 LICK STREET MOVED by Member Moll, seconded by Member Siebe RESOLVED, that the Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals has considered the request for an area variance presented by Barrett Holmgren, 615 Lick Street, and determined that the benefit to the applicant far outweighs any contradiction in the code or possible detriment to the neighborhood or community; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, that the Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals hereby grants the requested variance from Section 366.3 (b) of the Town of Groton Land Use and Development Code with the condition that the array be placed no less than 29 feet from the northern side lot line as is shown on the plot plan. Ayes ‐ Gaines, Siebe, Moll, Moody Nays ‐ Resolution Passed There being no further business, Member Moll moved to adjourn, seconded by Member Gaines, at 7:40 pm. Unanimous. Robin Cargian, RMC Groton Town Clerk