HomeMy WebLinkAbout1974-08-01 r t_. r . u�l 1 < y{ rc v . . Ik a, �' ^ t L "AtI r , "I'd bV '9t4 JIr It)b '�At. � 4 , , n' s 1 , : " .
d't 1 + I . r . y , 7t , rto. r !N cfit ) I;4 Allr '�t . I �I, l ,
a a
t a3 L 1. r 7 1i$1 x 1 1 1
♦�- Yrt �L. I� FlIll, fYi L�� IAt {ice, yl. ,m ' ' I
' b
' ,. 1 t YI r ip d4 J ° , t
jr, Ad AN r q p t i ' F t Old At I .
I `'kj� L AV IF ofL •� ,_ [ r1 , \ ) i,. I'd I .y I � ii ` •. !y A k , I.F r r } nv _ , N ,
F r �,rr• ,F :;J V f , f `yrit Arfl, , kt 'ti i� , 4 � ! ��. � _ u, , I ' t - ff lm r
1 1 •. -Ad I fi ' A S. t r "_r - , W y r t t i .
r r _ a{ .�1 , t.� lM' I AA , i \ 7H• Irt I l u. uSl �I'� 1 9 if , lrf7 , � . } ' }1 1
OF A
•I r r f J1'L 4!j ,, ,' .
f ." i - '"e t 4 tr lry l � t( if t Y a � A. id.,
1 I A, 4 ,� rt d1 ^t;,I26ri tal r 1' , fV�l 1 � +F7tytiy, Sd 1y \ I4 AN }. Ae� It At IMF ' t '. I lt , t .
a ,Al ,
• % n ,
a41 d ' j�t.illA IF I Imo.,/'per 'p / . . �.I] , x..� t 1., , , � 1 }Y IL �, 'F'L, OLVALrd ,11. . y .• r r A. 'I ' 1 ,.
- � 0 0 r�, ' ioWn ' Bpar1.1 tt• ".,t r ,r 'ill '` J f 4 ,t , � ¢ atNil "x r I, I , I. I, '
t e ,
Town of Groton 9 N o .yo 13473
I Yt
,' r } 7 .1 ' . 1'.,1:, � -did If u1 led li. 1° �'A. A }t ilti* ,i I .V ''tT ) ,I
xAN " " PLI ' r rcial , ; buV , Vidsiness: �th �RE ° ]''or the purpope 'I of A a1 Jowfin� comma
/ ;, , All` Ad
�t-Ir , o locate in _ thAV I
Q.'f ° ALI ! s ; hereby rre ch nge
e Town p
quest a " a
t , �J . d , f S 1 1 �t.. r S7 r c / .. I` R
t VAN. . � •,y` ) v . 3 ` . i� 1 ; ;t y itt.� 1 , A. I ALt.. .ti.1 �• , .
�1
. A, IN , f- .
in the zoning ordinance A I t %I VI >
;-r, ,r� e-� .' ylt Ar
.
, t , 1 > .
Ad. Athe aAdd ON
rea designated for -1chari[�(�7pj' e is as follows a All
' ' I . ' Ar . -
Ca u a County
' -property located East o, f ,,, 119 1,it of y g1. AV I
1. Y
1 IV AV Ad, I lI 'I. . - Y1 1 et r 1 t' tv�`1� !. !
1
linJ. � 9 , West ' of Chipman 'C. orners Roads and North of. South '
I - ` II y ' 1. r�4v ^� l:i � r� st r i }' ,,II I a tIIF IN l ,'r i" v lr -
lineI to Ad of Ju,l � an Brown propertyo .
At It5
` ^ ,,F A . . ' t . ty S . r' ,� L ^ Jtt '. t 1411 •t .a rl r\ P ,zr it. . g - -
Ad
Ahe property is now ` zone`d loIt intensity ; and ` agr'icul �;
�. tl
i ` r l : ' ,, rr .. • "' y1 r.. t ) 'l A 1 4 . . . r. s .t, ,° 4 IJ�
ural and must be changed to med�ium . intendsity to honor th FAAis'
; .1
) 1 4 t r i Y•
1 ,4 ,F 1 V m t.t rI IV b M 1 n` , v {F1A. r c 4r J1tbJt } �+ M.'. Qf# :�, 1 I a #.. ' 1
3 I. 'ra!• v �. a' ,ki '� 1f #e r< 1 t y. L. If I11 t t ' 9
irequegt ,
b+ r
} .. , t i rAd L
d
r. f} V L �,1 a tC. 1, r A �`lt t 1Nt ' ' I it J
', .N1�ME � ,,, DRES S , :.
. n ,A ,
jj
e S r t t . lt ft . r. f' t
1.. . .' p
.,dt ,4Iy1 : ♦ ,. . I o - .
Ad I
lr
!1. A r K . ,pI, ,.q ,f,',Of
1^VANw nr rl {{,,,, I D t t ;. I a. .
. .. - , '. 0 t F ' ' fy'VG3� r r��ea r Sr!I 1,} I } r FA:�1 t5�,_ rt„ J r1 AN
. ,F
r�wr
—e 1
1
wY ♦ . . .
U {' i
e . a. ' NO, ���y , At VION . `
1. _—�—
r - ;•� +-�tr7 . r t
I To
11
.1
„ III I .'• I l.• r . . ' ;�I i'Iv 11A ill' {� � 1rv. A., , I _:rY
/ WY
r
1 ... , 1 ,
AN
y
.^A A At I I I A .. I I I A _ _2 I k1d I jkf* t, I A I A I I I I A AV I Ad �A k I I L I � N A I' . I 11 I A I I 4 A I k A A. I A L � I A 11 I A
!
f �� t II
r •a ! rt ' i •i A• . . '. �� v:a! t ' r�tt yrr;00r, i_ ly "„WIN1 �i, t , 1i i.. =f , a AI 4
>, ^ _ S l P .
I , tiF ^ J 1
,
1 e 5 ' � ''�r..vc" f 1 ud ! � 4' '.I } (y ' r j �d1, T• u
• I t 5 , ' t. . y 4 t it , %,�♦ F,. , J, -.
. . _ " : ;VdFIAiFf
. r v I ' 4 7 � ' a' •
N It
It �C� vC" 1 . — l ' IN I`""�' rI At ` ."f.F • i . lAd I yt� Z. . r , J t . t
..+�' 11 j Y t Iv { 1 ' f .
Ad Z /&;��,,,4 e,40 Aid A ,
II �^ I r .:b tort vrrkI # of i r e :,,;
. I - '{' 11 1 . .OF rc}r1' 'i. 4. '. v^nave y t " �� i.,. AN i. v r I,.-., r.. + .L; ,1, , 11 .
•� . . ( r 1 .
1 • }, at ANNOL ,. .� � 1 v .. - I ` .�� .
.. lr', , ...�,",. _ 1 T1,' °,�II A a d`�'1��,W 1 YI Y�.tt Y � t � i , y A :F '
t Uh' t ALAI 1.' i t r 11 e. I. . , ', i3, �' I
j _ .xr f� ' '. A A. u1. '}
A. I, .I h Sy 4 , I. A .A f IF y � Id AN r } I.n` 1 1 t toA L r ',F I r I F. •I
AV
- � l _ k y
H - `�-�' I t , 1 t
Ad a
ds
t
� . '. .
, '
(� � ,v
: .
:. ; .
_ t _rA T{tf Ad I { I
_ - . . r I IF 1 VbL.}+ Iv M '!v�'C krF •'� t , ( 2', t .. 4 v p � �f . .
I,
We the undersigned are opposed to the use of the
land along route 38 , from the North town line to
th-& South itne of . the Munson property , for
anything other tha.Ti residential purposes .
9z
C .
golf
174
a
r.
X
P
oIt
"` QYca`"vfcr 4Tl-G rr.-•�nu tC+^---�-•-
C[ - - -I
1 w Y _
o 11 ;
GROT0N — court:case has: developed over J ��� ' . Ij
(' L —�
the: grant of a use variance by the Town Board of
Ll
Zoning Appeals- to . the: Lewbro' Cfl .allowing it toa � :
r
build a;•cement mix plant an agricultural lone:: : 1
driRoute 38 north of'thewillage .: GROT4N Following IV
a '
{ The "rmemba?rs of,the planting. board;:, Chair L <
man Joseph Wargo ; Richard Bell, Gordon Hoy public hearing on the applicatior.
' ? and. Mrs. .: Laura-Volpicelli ` the: zoning enfor -o of Jahn ` Lewl's' an'd . Melvin
cement office_ r' Dana Snell , the Lewbro Go prin grown ,, the ' Town Board of
~ ` cipals John Lewis; Mi Juanita Lewis, Melvim' _ Appeals decided to grant a
L ' -; ' H Brown an"Mrs; Shirley Brown and the Lewbro variance in cider . to .allow a
Co: itself have,been ordered to sho�N cause why.
J cement mixing plant : in an
agricultural district. i
the decision. of.the BZA'should not be reversed, : People Living in the
the building permit * cancelled and the company a surrpunding arena say t;lat the ' ?
required to 'stop construction and return the land'' plank should be in an industrial . i
to its. pre-existing condition. aria — not in an' agricultural ;+
•The. action. is brought by the .residental neigh= district ant hiave asked the i
bits who are trying to prevent Lewbro Co:. from l ga5�reme Gatir'. to reverse the
building acement -plant near them: Those Town Board of Appeals position . .
bringing the action''are Nicholas Magr ., firs: According to down , Lawyer i
Barbara ' Magro , ' Alfred Rohm; Mrs ' Mary } Ban Bucko; the Board of.
Rohm; Adrian Grant; Leslie-Palmer,; Robert
Moore, Mrs-. Judy Moore, John W. Evans and Ap sals, while having authority
to grant, the use • variance, did
Mrs:•Beverly Evans not, ,in this case, . follow the
The order claims "that the `proper prgcedural r ,
proper procedure -in which to act
:grounds were_not` followed by the:BZA in setting on. the matter . . Not it evidence
up' the required'.public hearing and granting the ' were (0 undue hardship if not
variance :For example , the.variance application approved,. ( 2) no practical dif•
was not prpperly filed it says. faculties involved and in addition
The order , aiso claims .the; action of°the BZA ( 3-) the land could; not be ,used as . 1
was illegal becaIll.use a zoning: change is 'involved, < W" ' zoned and yield a '•. reasonable r
It& not '.a use 'variance.. A zoning change is' , a return . r
' legislative ' action ..which„must come before the Lawyer Bucko will reserve
.y
,` *' • comments until further §tudy is' t town board; while a variance ' is an ; -ad
mirustrative action which comes before the BZA f possible: .<
as an administrative matter -' l
The order alsoaclaims the variance adopted by.too G-- =- -_ _... .
ttie BZA does. not contaiwany findings of the BZA
in support;of its action '
The order is scheduled to :be heard- in Cortland'
County Supreme-Court on oct_ 16
e . : - . .
s
r
r
SUBJECTS ZONE CHANGE ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON ROUTE 38 , NORTH OF
' THE VILLAGE
Much has been said about the fact that the proposed zone
change for the Shirley Brown and Juanita Lewis , Julian Brown �
Iproperty , Whatman , property , etc . , would be spot zoning ®
The Court of Appeals . has defined spot zoning ass
The process of singling out a small parcel of
land for use classification totally different
from that of the surrounding area , for the
benefit of the '- owner of such property and to
the detriment of others owners ® - spot zoning
is the very antithesis of planned zoning
In making the decision whether it is spot zoning or not , the
the area subject to the amendment , th
courts consider the size of h �
nature and use of the lands surrounding the new classification ,
the nature of the use permitted by the amendment , and the process
whereby the legislative decision was reached . I, will try to give
you some background on each of these points *
THE SIZE OF THE AREA RECLASSIFIED *
The relevant inquiry is not the size or ownership of the
area subject to the amendment , but "whether the zoning was accom-
plished for the benefit of the individual owner , rather than
pursuant to a comprehensive plan for the general welfare, of the
community ® °° Zoning amendment is not necessarily spot zoning ,
although it applies to a very small part of the land as attested
by decisions which have held up the reclassification of a single
corner lot from residential to commercial , and a similar re-
classification over 250 - by 300 foot parcel to permit the con-
struction of a shopping center * Although the size of the area
® 1�
I
subject to , a zoning amendment is not the sole factor° `considered
in determining whether the measure constitutes spot zoningo It
appears to . be the most important single factor . In those cases
where the court held spot zoning it did involve very small parcels
of land .
L�NDADJACENT TO THE AREA RECLASSIFIED
In determining whether a zoning amendment constitutes spot
zonings the court will consider the character of the area which
surrounds the parcel reclassified by the amendment . Most likely
to be found invalid is an amendment which reclassifies land in a
manner inconsistant with the surrounding neighborhood ® The Court
of ° Appeals did disapprove a zoning amendment which created an
industrial jurisdiction surrounded by residential uses . Spot
zoning has been held invalid , where one lot was changed from
residential to industrial because it did benefit the owner and
not the general community or in accordance with the comprehensive
plan .
CHARACTER OF THE FAMILIAR USE .
The essential connection between a zoning amendment and the
comprehensive plan may be found in the nature of the use permitted
by the amendment and the relation of thatluse to community needs .
Suburban development has created a demand for shopping centers .
This need cannot be met without land which is appropriately zoned .
Amendments which reclassify residentially zoned property to
permit the construction of shopping centers have been upheld on
the ground that they permit a use which is needed and which serves
_ 2 ®
A
J.
the comprehensive plan for the familiar development . In deter
mining whether the use permitted by zoning amendment will supply
existing needs , - the court may examine the whole zoning structure
of the community .
THE PLANNING HISTORY OF AN AMENDMENT .
The court is looking to see if planning boards have made
recommendations for any amendment creating new districts or j
relocating new districts or establishing new districts ®
cowel
In looking at the subject matter , the Board in reaching a
decision must follow these factors and= reach its conclusions based
on the above factors and evidence presented to it .
For instance , there have been statements made that the land is
not suitable for residential development because the land is wet , l
swampy and hilly ® There have been statements made that other
areas zoned industrial are not Crivailable and therefore . commercal
growth .is stymied .
The 701 Committee did state as follows on Page 97 , to wit *
It is also proposed that limited amount of
commercial and industrial development be
permitted throughout the town if certain
predetermined performance standards can , be
established .
It is a known fact that the Department of Environmental
Controlp State of New York , imposes conditions for dust , pollutio
of water , etc . These standards are greater than those that could
be imposed by the Town or controlled by, the Towne
As to planning history , the Town Planning Board recommended
the zone change . The Town of Locke and Cayuga County Planning
Board took no positions . The Tompkins County Planning Board
took no position and stated that the Town could act without pre®
judice .
i
As to the character of the use the Town should look to the
proposed change and effect on the parcel or parcels in questions
surrounding neighbor�-_ and ' community needs ® The Town Board has
the responsibility for changing the ordinance and land use
districtso It has the help of the Planning agencies , but the sole
responsibility lies with the Town to assess the needs of the
I community ® J
I
, I
et4.e