Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-12-29 - wea O � I � � TDNJ The Town Board o , ESECTIEQ la," Town ® f Groton SAW 0 any 101 Conger Boulevard Groton , N . Y , 13073 T014N OF GROTON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Tuesday , December 29 , 1987 , 7 : 30 p m APPLICATION of RONALD and PRISCILLA WIENS for a . request for a variance of Grot on Land Ilse and Development Code was filed on /- - �� al d said application requests a variance to per, ,of a dwelling on a non - conforming lot o ?i ) r_ o erty o � , ? it const. r4etion 1 p owned by `C� , GGr? , �; 0 ,.: on Locke Rd . , Town of Groton being a portion of Tax ? ;ap Parcel 221 - 50 _ , _ ning3 C j contai " acres of a 2 and i n ;, . ALL MEMEBERS of the Board Dresent viewed. the nroDerty = o public hearing i,= as veld b = and aLt r due notice a y j.. he Zoning Board of Appeals at 8 : 00 p . r7 . on Monday December 14 , 1987 to consider the application and at said hearing all those who desired to be heard were heard and their testimon,T recorded . ALL TESTIi,ONY having been carefully considered , the following, was noted : 1 ) The Board determined this was an existing non- conforming . lot .wi no adjacent property under the same ownership . th 2 ) Under Section 322 of the Groton Land Use and Develoment Code a variance is not required and any other zoning requirements re 1-7ill be determined between the Zoning Enforcement Officer andd the anplicants . DAVID OFNER made the motion that the Zoning that this is an existin the ing Board of Ai) neal. s has deter;;; ined accordance with Section � 322 uithoutlanvariance ;lot, of r AIRYd and can DECKEI, seQ e built pon in _ � onded the motion . MOTION VOTE : L . Raymond yes N . Sn: i. th ZrPs D . Ofner yes Motion carried , December 29 b7 1 ,o M . Decker ypS . 4yRaymondi rirman Zoning Board of Appeals TOWN OF GROTON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Tuesday , December 29 , 1987 , 700 p . m . APPLICATION of RONALD and PRISCILLA WIENS for a request for a variance of Section 351 of Pe Town of Groton Land Use and Development Code was filed on s/ 9 _ �' ' -/Ad said application requests a variance to permit cons uction of a dwelling on a non- conforming lot on property owned by 7' O R N on Locke Rd . , Town of Groton being a portion of Tax Map Parcel 221 - 2 - 4 and containing3, ay 'acres of land . ALL MEMEBERS of the Board present viewed the property and after due notice a public hearing was held by the Zoning Board of Appeals at 8 : 00 p . m . on Monday December 14 , 1987 to consider the application and at said hearing all those who desired to be heard were heard and their testimony recorded . ALL TESTIMONY having been carefully considered , the following was noted : 1 ) The Board determined this was an existing non- conforming lot with no adjacent property under the same ownership . 2 ) Under Section 322 of the Groton Land Use and Develoment Code a variance is not required and any other zoning requirements required will be determined between the Zoning Enforcement Officer and the applicants . DAVID OFNER made the motion that the Zoning Board of Appeals ha ; , determinedi, that this is an existing non- conforming lot of record and can be built upon in accordance with Section 322 without a variance ; MARY DECKER seconded the motion . MOTION VOTE : L . Raymond yes N . Smith yes D . Ofner yes M . Decker yes Motion carried , December 29 , 1987 . TOWN OF GROTON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Tuesday , December 29 , 1987 , 7 : 30 p . m . APPLICATION of JAMES and TANYA BRAYTON , 1462 Old Groton Rd . , for a request for a variance to Section 351 of the Town of Groton Land Use and Development Code filed on' /D �/ 7 - $ and said application requests a variance to permit construction of a dwelling on an existing non- conforming lot on property owned by JAMES and TANYA BRAYTON being�rtion of Tax Map Parcels 28- 1 - 39 . 2 and 28 - 1 - 39 . 3 and containing Z b .lacres of land . ALL MEMBERS of the Bord present viewed the property and after due notice a public hearing was held by the Zoning Bard of Appeals at 8 : 15 p . m . on Monday , December 14 , 1987 to consider the application and at said hearing all those who desired to be heard were heard and their testimony recorded . ALL TESTIMONY having been carefully considered and the following facts noted : 1 ) Two lots are involved ; a non- conforming lot of 90 foot frontage and a lot that does not have uniform rectangular dimensions of 1 . 95 acres which a dwelling now stands . 2 ) That both lots , although one lot lacks adequate frontage , have the required 1 � acre . 3 ) That the only feasible place to place a dwelling was on the east side of the present dwelling . a . Problems of the west side include but are not limited to : - problems with placing the 150 foot diameter circle required by the Health Department according to the tax map there was 200 foot frontage noted on Rt 222 , west side of present dwelling , and a statement from Mrs . Brayton and affirmed by Gary Wood , Zoning Enforcement Officer , that that is not correct the west lot requires more fill than the east side 4 ) Lot located east of existing dwelling is an existing non- conforming lot with adjacent land under the same ownerships 5 ) Expansion of existing non- conforming lot located east of the present ?dwelling can be to approximately 140 foot frontage due to the location of the existing dwelling . and driveway . 6 ) Existing driveway and garage cannot be relocated to the west of the existing dwelling . 7 ) When there is a non- conforming lot that does not meet frontage requirements and is adjacent to a lot of the same ownership , a variance has to be applied for to enlarge the lot . DAVID OFFNER made the motion to grant the variance requested by JAMES and TANYA BRAYTON of 1462 Old Groton Rd . to createa lot with 140 foot frontage based on practical difficulties of the house location on the adjacent lot of the same ownership with the condition that the side lot requirements for the existing dwelling are met ; NIAL SMITH seconded the motion . MOTION VOTE : L . Raymond yes N . Smith yes D . Ofner yes M . Decker yes Motion carried December 29 , 1987 . � . O� ...... �p°�°4 The Town Board ECT; 81 .7 o ° Town of Groto n s ... �etpra u NO 101 Conger Boulevard Groton , N . Y . 1 -3073 TOWN OF GROTON ZONING BOARD O .P A.I'PEALS Tuesday , December 29 , 1987 , 7 * 30 p . m . APPLICATION of JAMES and TANYA BRAYTON , 1462 Old Groton Rd . , for a request for a variance to Section 351 of the Town of Groton Land Use and Development Code filed on /D -- / 7 - 7 and said application requests a variance to permit construction of a dwelling on an existing non - conforming lot on property owned by JAMES and TANYA BRAYTON being" �p rtion of Tax Map Parcels 28 - 1 - 39 . 2 and 28 - 1 - 39 . 3 and containing V, 5 acres . of land . ALL MEMBERS of the Bord present viewed the property and after due notice a public hearing was held by the Zoning Bard of Appeals at 8s15 p . m . on Monday , December 14 , 1987 to consider the application and at said hearing all those who desired to be heard were heard and their testimony recorded . ALL TESTIMONY having been carefully considered and the following facts noted : 1 ) Two lots are involved ; a non-.conforming lot of 90 foot frontage and a lot that does not have uniform rectangular dimensions of 1 . 95 acres which a dwelling now stands . / cry That the only feasible place to place a dwelling was on the east side of the present dwelling . iN a . Problems of the west side include but are not limited to : problems with placing the 150 foot diameter circle required ^ / by the Health Department �(r - according to the tax map there was 200 foot frontage noted / on Rt 222 , west side of present dwelling , and a statement C' e, from Mrs . .Brayton and affirmed by Gary Wood , Zoning Enforcement Officer , that that is not correct , requi�"e's�more'f�i1l�tYia :t-he ea=st'Nsde= Lot located east of existing dwelling is an existing non - conforming lot with adjacent land under the same ownership . �+✓ ) Expansion of existing non- conforming lot located east of the present dwelling can be to approximately 140 foot frontage, 4;4e- �%U^�,�8- � '�'� � t o t h.e—l-ac a t i on-o f= t h e_e x- s t:�n �clwed..l-i n.g�nd-•-c1-ri�Earay� i-ng—d-ri-veway—a-nd—garage—cannot—be—r-e-l-ecated te�t-he—we•s-t- aN ��J4 � -oft-tre—e-�i-s�-i-r�•g—dwe�.�i-ng-r hr{ . °� ' / When there is a non- conforming lot that does not meet frontage ` ) ' o a lot of the same ojd requirements and is adjacent t ��� � �W ership , „ a variance has to be applied for to enlarge the%�lot 0 �Y.�A.A1T r/�A7 (A`� � -� J iflbZi� tr f�Rok7A66 �' S /dVFr ' 1A � Lr ?, Qfh ►Zg /i dw /4,6, 'm6 DAVID OFFNER made the motion to gran rthe variance requested by JAMES and TANYA BRAYTON of 1462 Old Groton Rd . to create a lot with 140 foot frontage based on practical difficulties of the house location on the adjacent lot of the same ownership with the condition that the side lot requirements for the existing dwelling are met , NIAL SMITH seconded the motion . ' MOTION VOTE : L . Raymond yes N . Smith yes D . Ofner . ' yes M . Decker yes Motion carried December 29 , 1987 . r TOWN OF GROTON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Tuesday , December 29 , 1987 , 79. 30 p . m . CLARENCE WHITE , 676 Peru Road , Town of Groton , violation of the Groton Land Use and Development Code , Section 312 , and Licensing and Regulating of Junkyard Ordinance and Section 1242 . 1 - of the N . Y . S . Uniform Fire Prevention Code by harbouring inoperable vehicles and other junk : MOTION by DAVID OFNER that the action on the violation of Section 312 of the Town of Groton Land Use and Development Code by CLARENCE WHITE be returned to the Zoning Enforcement Officer , Gary Wood , with the request that within 30 days he provide the Board with details of the conditon of the vehicles to determine if they are abandoned or otherwise inoperable and whether there is a bonafide farm operation . If Mr . Wood finds that Mr . White cannot verify these conditons asked for , he will be judged in violation and the Zoning Enforcement Officer is to take further action against him . Motion seconded by MARY DECKER , VOTE : L . Raymond yes N . Smith yes D . Ofner yes M . Decker yes Motion carried December 29 , 1987 TOWN OF GROTON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Tuesday , December 29 , 1987 , 7 : 30 p . m . JAMES JENSEN , 205 Chipmans Corners Rd . , Town of Groton , violation of the Groton Land Use and Development Code , Section 312 and Licensing and Regulating of Junkyard Ordinance and Section 1242 . 10 of the N . Y . S . Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code by harbouring inoperable vehicles and other junk : MOTION by MARY DECKER that upon the first visitation of the Board some attempt to shape up the place by removing some vehicles had been made , however since the meeting of December 14 he has not made any attempt to make changes ; therefore , the Board finds JAMES JENSEN in violation of Section 312 of the Town of Groton Land Use and Development Code and returns the citation to the Zoning Enforcement Officer for further action . NIAL SMITH seconded the motion . VOTE : L . Raymond yes N . SMith yes D . Ofner yes M . Decker yes Motion carried December 29 , 1987 � TOWN OF GROTON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Tuesday , December 29 , 1987 , 7 : 30 p . m . EDWARD MILLER , 927 Cobb Street , Town of Groton , violation of the Groton Land Use and Development Code , Section 312 and Licensing and Regulating of Junkyard Ordinance and Section 1242 . 10 of the N . Y . S . UNiform Fire Prevention and Building Code by harbouring inoperable vehicles and other junk : MOTION by DAVID OFNER on the violation by EDWARD MILLER of Section 312 of th Town of Groton Land Use and Development Code there has been some improvement to a degree , however , 4 vehicles are definitely in violation of the Ordinance ; therefore , the Board cites MR . MILLER in violation and returns the order to the Zoning Enforcement Officer": for further action . MARY DECKER seconded the motion . VOTE : L . Raymond yes N . Smith yes D . Ofner yes M . Decker yes Motion carried December 29 , , 1987 TOWN OF GROTON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Tuesday , ' December 2. 9 , 1987 , 7 : 30 p . m . MERLE and LOIS PLOSS , 12 Old ' Peruville Rd . , Town of Groton , violation of the Groton Land Use and Development Code , Section 312 and Licensing and Regulating of Junkyard Ordinance , and Section 1242 . 10 of the N . Y . S . Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code by harbouring inoperable vehicles and other junk : MOTION by DAVID OFNER that action on the MERLE and LOIS PLOSS violation be postponed for a period of six months to June 30 , 1988 at which time the Code Enforcement Officer is directed to review the status of the violation and report such status to the Zoning Board of Appeals for final action on the violation . This action is being taken to provide an opportunity of clean up of the property in fair weather . NIAL SMITH seconded the motion . VOTE : L . Raymond yes N . Smith yes D . Ofner yes M . Decker yes Motion carried December 29 , 1987 TOWN OF GROTON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Tuesday , December 29 , 1987 , 7 : 30 p . m . MRS . SANDY WILCOX , 20 Sharpsteen Rd . , Town of Groton , violation of the Groton Land Use and Development Code , Section 312 and Licensing and REgulating of Junkyard Ordinance and Section 1242 . 10 of the N . Y . S . Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code by harbouring inoperable vehicles : MOTION by DAVID OFNER that the citation of the violation of Section 312 of the Groton Land Use and Development Code by MRS . SANDY WILCOX be DISMISSED on the basis the vehicles observed are no longer there . NIAL SMITH seconded the motion . VOTE : L . Raymond yes N . SMith yes D . Ofner yes M . Decker yes Motion carried De cember 29 , 1987 u x TOWN OF GROTON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Tuesday , December 29 , 1987 , 7 : 30 p . m . MRS . EDWARD TRINKLE , 590 Stevens Rd . , Town of Groton in violation of the Groton Land Use and Development Code , Section 312 and Licensing and Regulating of Junkyard Ordinance and Section 1242 . 10 of the N . Y . S . Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code by harbouring inoperable vehicles : MOTION by DAVID OFNER that the citation of the violation of Section 312 of the Groton Land Use and Development Code by MRS . EDWARD TRINKLE be DISMISSED on the basis the vehicles observed are no longer there . MARY DECKER seconded the motion . VOTE : L . Raymond yes N . Smith yes D . Ofner yes M . Decker yes Motion carried December 29 , 1987 TOWN OF GROTON ZONING 'WBOARD OF APPEALS Tuesday , December 29 , 1987 , 7 : 30 p . m . ROBERT WILLIAMS , 762 Clark St . Ext . , Town of Groton , violation of the Groton Land Use and Development Code , Sections 312 and Licensing and Regulating of Junkyard Ordinance and Secton 1242 .oJO of the N . Y . S . Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code by harbouring inoperable vehicles .' MOTION by MARY DECKER that the citation of the violation of Section 312 of the Groton Land Use and Development Code by ROBERT WILLIAMS be DISMISSED on the basis the vehicles observed are no longer there . NIAL SMITH seconded the motion . VOTE : L . Raymond yes N . SMith yes D . Ofner yes M . Decker yes Motion carried December 29 , 1987 TOWN OF GROTON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Tuesday , December 29 , 1987 , 7 : 30 p . m . CHARLES VOLBRECHT , JR . , 163 Chipmans Corners Road , Town of Groton , violation of the Groton Land Use and Deveopment Code , Section 312 , and Licensing and Regulating of Junkyard Ordinance , and Section 1242 . 10 of the N . Y . S . Uniform Fire Preventon and Building Code by harboiuring inoperable vehicles and other junk : MOTION by NIAL SMITH that the citation of the violation of Section 312 of the Groton Land Use and Development Code by CHARLES VOLBRECHT , JR . be DISMISSED on the basis the vehicles observed are no longer there . MARY DECKER seconded the motion . VOTE : L . Raymond yes N . SMith yes D . Ofner yes M . Decker yes Motion carried December 29 , . 1987 O {f'f C/'ON'`roy /Lr' 4 The Town Board 1817 ERE TED '? Town of Groton o v ia. ouNt'� • w.. 101 Conger Boulevard Groton , N . Y . 13073 TOWN OF GROTON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Tuesday , December 29 , 1987 , 7 : 30 p . m . APPLICATION of JAMES AND TANYA BRAYTON , 1462 Old Groton Rd . , for a request for a variance to section 351 of the Town of Groton Land Use and Development Code filed on 10-17-87 and said application requests a variance to permit construction of . a dwelling on an existing non-conforming lot on property owned by JAMES and TANYA BRAYTON being a portion of Tax Map Parcels 28-1 -39 . 2 and 28-1-39 . 3 and containing 2 . 5 +- acres . of land . ALL MEMBERS of the Board present viewed the property and after due notice a public hearing was held by the Zoning Board of Appeals at 8 : 15 pm on Monday , December 14 , 1987 to consider the application and at said hearing . all• those who desired to be heard were heard and their testimony recorded . = , ALL TESTIMONY having been carefully considered and the following facts noted : 1 ) Two lots are involved , a non-conforming lot of 90 foot frontage and a lot that does not have uniform rectangular dimensions of 1 . 95 acres which a dwelling now stands . 2 ) That the only feasible olace to . place a dwelling was on the east side of , the ` present -dwelling ._ a . Problems of the west side include but are not limited to : problems . with placing the 150 foot diameter circle required by the Health Dept . -according to the tax map there was 200 foot frontage noted on Rt 222 , west side of present dwelling / and a statement from Mrs . Brayton and affirmed by Gary Wood , Zoning Enforcement Officer , that that is not correct . 3 ) Lot located east of existing dwelling is an existing non-conforming lot with adjacent land under the same ownership . 4 ) Expansion of existing non-conforming lot located east of the present dwelling can be to approximately 140 foot frontage . 5.) When there is a non- conforming lot that does not meet frontage requirements and is adjacent to a lot of the same ownership, a variance has to be applied for to enlarge non-conforming lot to the extent that additional frontage is available from adjacent lot before a Building Permit can be applied for . -lA- DAVID OFFNER made the motion to grant the variance requested by JAMES and TANYA BRAYTON of 1462 Old Groton Road to create a lot with 140 foot frontage based on practical difficulties of the house location on the adjacent lot of the same ownership with the condition that the side lot requirements for the existing dwelling are met , NIAL SMITH seconded the motion . MOTION VOTE : L . Raymond yes N . Smith yes D . Offner yes M . Decker yes Motion carried December 29 , 1987 . Lyle Raymond , Chairman Zoning Board of Appeals ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - 2 - December 29 , 1987 James and Tanya Brayton variance RAYMOND : It appears with what we have here from what we received in the hearing and subsequent information in this case that there is a number of facts : 1 ) we have two lots involved , a non- conforming lot of 90 foot frontage and another lot that does not - have a uniform rectangular dimension of 1 . 95 acres where, their house now stands . That is clear from the hearing and from what we observed , 2 ) it appears that both lots , althoug one lot lacks frontage it does have the requisite 1 acre . 3 ) as determined at the hearing the "-only feasible place to place a dwelling was on the east side of the present dwelling . There were problems with putting it on the west side . Although there was the requisite frntage there were problems with placing the 150 foot diameter circle required by the 1Health Department . There was also a problem with the driveway , it could not be relocated to the west side of .the house . According to the tax map there was 200 foot frontage noted on Rt 22 and a statement from Mrs . Brayton and confirmed by Gary Wood , that that is not correct . The west lot requires more fill than the east lot . 4 ) the lot on the east side is an existing non- conforming lot with adjacent land under the same ownership . 5 ) they can only get approximately 140 foot frontage because of the location of the existing dwelling . Referring to the last statement in Section 322 of the Zoning Ordinance ' two or more vacant lots of record . . . . . ' I have checked this out with Gary Evans , a Planner with the County Planning staff and he indicates what that refers to is that if you had a whole lot of adjacent lots set forth before the Ordinance was passed , you would have to put those lots together in such a way afterwards so that they meet the Zoning requirements . In some sense , this is almost rhetorical . The first part says the lot must not have continuous frontage with an adjacently owned lot . In talking with Gary Evans about this situation , it comes down to an interpretation by the Board of theOrdinance . It is clear about the continuous frontage and lot lines and it seems to me the intent of the Ordinance is the lots should . not have continuous lot lines . The question has :� been raised . as to what if this lot is put into separate, deeded ownership and therefore does it become a separate non-conforming lot , then it wouldn ' t have any adjacent lot ownership or do these requirements ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - 4- December 29 , 1. 987 James and Tanya Brayton variance that option . I think where . it is located it is something you don ' t see until you pass it . SMITH : What was the - frontage they would end up with ? OFNER : They aren ' t sure . DECKER : From 90 to approximately 140 feet . RAYMOND : They plan on adding SO feet to the 90 feet leaving the 8 foot side line required for the existing dwelling and it would be brought back into the property in such a way to get the 150 foot diameter circle required . OFNER : I just feel somebody who buys in the country should have more room . If you put the house and garage in , it will be pretty tight on the side line for a country lot . DECKER : It isnot always going to be in the family , one side or the other is going to sell and you have someone sitting on top of you . You don ' t realize it until you are ready to sell . It would' also reduce the resale value of both lots . RAYMOND : You were correct , David , when you mentioned sometime in the past to me about the practical difficulties . That even though , in a sense of things you have 140 feet which is short of the 200 feet normally required , there are matters of practical difficulties that have to be considered . That would appear to me to be one basis we could approve the 140 feet . The second factor is this non- conforming lot that is there . If we approve the 140 foot variance , it is implied that is our interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance that the non- conforming lot , because it is owned by the adjacent property owner , this is the only practical way for them to do this . If that non- conforming lot is .then sold to someone does that still require a variance ? Our interpretation is , yes , the non- conforming lot cannot be separated from the other property of the same ownership by that owner by selling it off and there - fore not require a variance . You cannot sell off the property if there is the opportunity to enlarge it . Selling does not remove the responsibility of enlargeing it . r" OFNER , DECKER & SMITH agree . DECKER : You still are not enlarging it enough to meet the requirements . kt. ; RAYMOND : That is the interpretation on how •< you treat a non- conforming lot , the + intent of the Ordinance is that would not be legal an ' g d should not be . OFNER : If you solo off a lot like that you would completely violate the intent of the ordinance . V ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS . 3 . December 29 , 1987 James and Tanya Brayton variance still hold as the intent of the Ordinance . That is the part where we have to do some interpretation ourselves . Interpreting it that way may be considered a loophole in our law . OFNER : If you transfer the property that would be the same as selling it and you can ' t sell . a non- conforming lot for building when the adjacent lot is of the samw ownership without making it conform to the Ordinance . RAYMOND .* We can ' t give a variance on something that is prohibited by the Zoning Ordinance . That is one of the factos here . It seems to me because our decision on the variance on this also involves our interpretation on what is required by our Ordinance for the non- conforming lot with another lot next to it that already has a house on it , that maybe we need to include that in the decision . OFNER : In general , the fact that there is a house on the adjacent lot does NOT RELIEVE IT FROM BEING CONSIDERED AS VACANT ' LAND THAT THE NON_ conforming lot could be expanded into . If this lot were 10 acres with ahouse on it you wouldn ' t exempt that either . This one is smaller than 10 but the expandable portion is less than what is required by the Ordinance . Individually , if you put a house on this lot right now and left the other one the way it is it would not look more dense than it is if you moved the line over . My .concern is you end up for ever having a lot that is very substandard and if you move the line over you would have one that is still substandard but not as extremely substandard . Anyone purchasing it in the future , if it passed out of the family , would have a piece of property somewhat nearer the standard than people might expect in the country . Probably there would never be anything built onto here but at least they would - have something more countrified, which is one of the reasons for living in the country . DECKER : I have to agree with David . It still covers this part of the Ordinance . The other thing is �.. it probably will not always remain in the family . I agree you have a substandard lot and you are making it a better substandard lot but it is Still substandard . OFNER : What would be worse is if you took the Ordinance absolutely literally , You would say they would have to erase the line and not have any lot there . You could have that option but I would not want';: to see vow► ^,�`,oy�y The Town Board o� / ERECTED Town of Groton ; , 181T � o '0a 0 u N,� ' vh� 101 Conger Boulevard Groton , N , Y . 13073 TOWN OF GROTON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Tuesday , December 29 , 1987 , 7 : 30 p . m . APPLICATION of JAAMES AND TANYA BRAYTON , 1462 Old Groton Rd . , for a request for a variance to section 351 of the Town of Groton Land Use and Development Code filed on 10-17-87 and said application requests a variance ' to permit construction of a dwelling on an existing non-conforming lot on property owned by JAMES and TANYA BRAYTON being a portion of Tax Map Parcels 28-1-39 . 2 and 28-1 -39 . 3 and containing 2 . 5 +- acres of land ." ALL MEMBERS of the Board present viewed the property and after due notice a public hearing was held by the Zoning Board of Appeals at 8 : 15 pm on Monday , . December 14 , 1987 to consider the application and at said hearing all those who desired to be heard were heard and their testimony recorded . ALL TESTIMONY having been carefully considered and the following facts noted . 1 ) Two lots are involved , a non-conforming lot of 90 foot frontage and a lot that does not have uniform rectangular dimensions of 1 . 95 acres which a dwelling now stands . 2 ) That the only feasible place to place a dwelling was on the east side of the present dwelling. ._ a . Problems of the west side include but are not limited to . -problems with placing the " 150 foot diameter circle required by the Health Dept . -according to the tax map there was 200 foot frontage noted on Rt 222 , west side of present dwelling , and a statement from Mrs . Brayton and affirmed by . Gary Wood , Zoning Enforcement Officer , that that is not correct . 3 ) Lot located east of existing dwelling is an existing non-conforming lot with adjacent land under the same ownership . 4 ) Expansion of existing non-conforming lot located east of the present dwelling can be to approximately 140 foot frontage . 5 ) When there is a non- conforming lot that does not meet frontage requirements and is adjacent to a lot of the same ownership, a variance has to be applied for to enlarge non-conforming lot to the extent that additional frontage is available from adjacent lot before a Building Permit can be applied for . -1A- DAVID OFFNER made the motion to grant the variance requested by JAMES and TANYA BRAYTON of 1462 Old Groton Road to create a lot with 140 foot frontage based on practical difficulties of the house location on the adjacent lot of the same ownership with the condition that the side lot requirements for the existing dwelling are met ; NIAL SMITH seconded the motion . MOTION VOTE : L . Raymond yes N . Smith yes D . Offner yes M . Decker yes Motion carried December 29 , 1987 . Lyle Raymond , Chairman Zoning Board of Appeals ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - 2 - December 29 , 1987 James and Tanya Brayton variance RAYMOND ,* It appears with what we have here from what we received in the hearing and subsequent information in this case that there is a number of facts : 1 ) we have two lots involved , a non- conforming lot of 90 foot frontage and another lot that does not have a uniform rectangular dimension of 1 . 95 acres where, their house now stands . That is clear from the hearing and from what we observed . 2 ) it appears that both lots , althoug one lot lacks frontage it does have the requisite 1 acre . 3 ) as determined at the hearing the ` on'ly feasible place to place a dwelling was on the east side of the present dwelling . There were problems with putting it on the west side . Although there was the requisite frntage there were problems with placing the 150 foot diameter circle required by the 1Health Department . There was also a problem with the driveway , it could not be relocated to the west side of the house . According to the tax map there was 200 foot frontage noted on Rt 22 and a statement from Mrs . Brayton and confirmed by Gary Wood , that that is not correct . The west lot requires more fill than the east lot . 4 ) the lot on the east side is an existing non- conforming lot with adjacent land under the same ownership . 5 ) they can only get approximately 140 foot frontage because of the location of the existing dwelling . Referring to the last statement in Section 322 of the Zoning Ordinance ' two or more vacant lots of record . . . . . ' I have checked this out with Gary Evans , a Planner with the County Planning staff and he indicates what that refers to is that if you had a whole lot of adjacent lots set forth before the Ordinance was passed , you would have to put those lots together in such a way afterwards so that they meet the Zoning requirements . In some sense , this is almost rhetorical . The first part says the lot must not have continuous frontage with an adjacently owned lot . In talking with Gary Evans about this situation , it comes down to an interpretation by the Board of the Ordinance . It is clear about the continuous frontage and lot lines and it seems to me the intent of the Ordinance is the lots should not have continuous lot lines . The question has. . been raised as to what if this lot is put into separate deeded ownership and therefore does it become a separate non- conforming lot , then it wouldn ' t have any adjacent lot ownership or do these requirements I ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - 3. December 29 , 1987 James and Tanya Braytom variance still hold as the intent of the Ordinance . That is the part where we have to do " some interpretation ourselves . Interpreting it that way may be considered a loophole in our law . OFNER : If you transfer the property that would be the same as selling it and you can ' t sell a non- conforming lot for building when the adjacent lot is of the samw ownership without making it conform to the Ordinance . RAYMOND : We can ' t give a variance on something that is prohibited by the Zoning Ordinance . That is one of the factos here . It seems to me because our decision on the variance on this also involves our interpretation on what is required by our Ordinance for the non- conforming lot with another lot next to it that already has a house on it , that maybe we need to include that in the decision . OFNER : In general , the fact that there is a house on the adjacent lot does NOT RELIEVE IT FROM BEING CONSIDERED AS VACANT LAND THAT THE NON_ cnnforming lot could be expanded into . If this , lot were 10 acres with ahouse on it you wouldn ' t exempt that either . This one is smaller than 10 but the expandable portion is less than what is required by the Ordinance . Individually , if you put a house on this lot right now and left the other one the way it is it would not look more dense than it is if you moved the line over . My concern is you end up for ever having a lot that is very substandard and if you move the line over you would have one that is still substandard but not as extremely substandard . Anyone purchasing it in the future , if it passed out of the family , would have a piece of property somewhat nearer the standard than people might expect in the country . Probably there would never be anything built onto here but at least they would have something more countrified , which is one of the reasons for living in the country . DECKER : I have to agree with David . It still covers this part of the Ordinance . The other thing . is '.. it probably will not always remain in the family . I agree you have a substandard lot and you are making it a better substandard lot but it is Still substandard . OFNER : What would be worse is if you took the Ordinance absolutely literally , You would say they would have to erase the line , and not have any lot there . " You could have that option but I would not went ,. to see ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS -4- December 29 , 1987 James ''and Tanya Brayton variance that option . I think where . it is located it is something you don ' t see, until you pass it . SMITH : What was the frontage they would end up with ? OFNER : They aren ' t sure . DECKER : From 90 to approximately 140 feet . RAYMOND * They plan on adding 50 feet to the 90 feet leaving the 8 foot side line required for the existing dwelling and it would be brought back into the property in such a way to get the 150 foot diameter circle required . OFNER : I just feel somebody who buys in the country should have more room . If you put the house and garage in , it will be pretty tight on the side line for a country lot . DECKER % It isnot always going to be in the family , one side or the other is going to sell and you have someone sitting on top of you . You don ' t realize it until you are ready to sell . It would also reduce the resale value of both lots . RAYMOND6 You were correct , David , when you mentioned sometime in the past to me about the practical difficulties . That even though , in a sense of things you have 140 feet which is short of the 200 feet normally required , there are matters of practical difficulties that have to be considered . That would appear to me to be one basis we could approve the 140 feet . The second factor is this non- conforming lot that is there . If we approve the 140 foot variance , it is implied that is our interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance that the non- conforming lot , because it is owned by the adjacent property owner , this is the only practical way for them to do this . If that non- conforming lot is then sold to someone does that still require a variance ? Our interpretation is , yes , the non- conforming lot cannot be separated from the other property of the same ownership by that owner by selling it off and there - fore not require a variance . You cannot sell off the property if there is the opportunity to enlarge it . Selling does not remove the responsibility of enlargeing it . OFNER , DECKER & SMITH agree . DECKER : You still are not enlarging it enough to meet the requirements . RAYMOND : That is the interpretation on hownyou treat a non- conforming lot , the intent of the Ordinance is that would not be legal and should not be . OFNER : If you sold off a lot like that you would completely violate the intent of the ordinance . ��►�'"p i ci'�r0 The Town Boardo � ERECTED Town of Groton ; , te » o 4 on, O�, S O U Mtn wn� 101 Conger Boulevard Groton , N . Y . 13073 TOWN OF GROTON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Tuesday , December 29 , 1987 , 7 : 30 . p . m . EDWARD MILLER , 927 Cobb Street , Town of Groton , violation of the Groton Land Use and Development Code , Section 312 and Licensing and Regulating of Junkyard Ordinance and Section 1242 . 1. 0 of the N . Y . S . UNiform Fire vrevention and Building Code by harbouring inoperable vehicles and other junk : MOTION by DAVID OFNER on the violation by ED14ARD MILLER of Section 31- 2 of th Town of Groton Land Use and Development Code there " has been some improvement to a degree , however , 4 vehicles are definitely in violation of the Ordinance ; therefore , the Board cites MR . MILLER in violation and returns the order to the Zoning Enforcement Officer for further action . MARY DECKER seconded the motion . VOTE : L . Raymond yes N , Smith yes . D . Ofner yes M .. Decker yes Motion carried December 29 , 1987 LykeRaymond , Chairman Zoning Board of Appeals ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - 2 - December 29 , 1987 Edward Miller DECKER : The two cars are still by the garage up on racks . RAYMOND : The main thing that bothered my was the 2 cars out front . Mr . Miller claims they are for sale and have been for quite a while . DECKER : There are cars out behind the house but they are not totally visible . The two in front by the garage are very visible where the grass is growing up around them . SMITH : I have a - question , he has been cited for a number of violations over the years , is this going to be the same thing ? OFNER : What happened previously was we gave him to December 31 , 1984 to clean up and then nobody followe dup on it . We have the ball now and have to do something about it . It ' s an instance of having to follow through with our conditions and eventually coming back to us to look at again . If they do not conform they will be cited again . RAYMOND : In this case it is rather clear nothing much has changed and returning itn,otojtthe Zoning Enforcement Officer for further action . /J ��OF Ggoy� p ,.• pici •. 10 '`% • The Town Board ERECTED Town of Groton � , , "0M 0 u Mtn ' w�. 101 Conger Boulevard Groton , N . Y . 13073 TOWN OF GROTON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Tuesday , December . 29 , 1987 , 7 : 30 p . m . JAMES JENSEN , 205 Chipmans Corners Rd . , Town of Groton , violation bf the Groton Land Use and Development Code , Section 312 and Licensing and Regulating of Junkyard Ordinance and Section 1242 . 10 of the N . Y . S . Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code by harbouring inoperable vehicles and other junk : MOTION by MARY DECKER that upon the first visitation of the Board some attempt - to shape up the place by removing some vehicles had been made , however since the meeting of December 14 he has not made any attempt to make changes ; therefore , the Board finds JAMES JENSEN in violation of Section 312 of the Town of Groton Land Use and Development Code and returns the citation to the Zoning Enforcement Officer for further action . NI AL SMITH seconded the motion . VOTE : L . Raymond Yes N . SMith yes D . Ofner Yes M . Decker yes . Motion carried December 29 , 1987 4LyRaymond , airman Zoning Board of Appeals ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS . 2 - December 29 , 1987 James Jensen RAYMOND : I -first, ..time I observed this property he had at least 4 or 5 unlicensed cars . Today I can ' t see how anything has changed . I noticed the one he called a tool shed , he still has others around there . Some are partly behind the barn and others along the side of the barn . It would be different if he put them all behind the barn . I can ' t see where he has done anything to improve the situation . OFNER : He stated he had 3 tractor trailer loads taken out . DECKER : He also stated he has allowed somebody else to use his barn for auto work ., He owns the property so he is responsible for the use and maintenance of it . OFNER : He classified the van body as a building . RAYMOND : I saw it today on the right hand side of the barn . You can see where the windows are full to the top . Even if we allowed that , he has other vehicles there . The classics are fine to retain as long as they are out of sight . SMITH : If he consolidated them behind the barn so they were less visible there would be no problem . OFNER : The purpose of the Ordinance is to keep tings from being cluttered . U� IC The Town Board ERECTED a Town of Groton do ! r �• A Co U Mir ' w�. 101 Conger Boulevard Groton , N . Y . 13073 TOWN OF GROTON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Tuesday , December 29 , 1987 , 7 : 30 p . m , ' MERLE and LOIS PLOSS , 12 Old Peruville Rd . , Town of Groton , violation of the Groton Land Use and Development Code , Section 312 and Licensing and Regulating of Junkyard Ordinance , and Section 1242 . 10 of . the V . Y . S . Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code by harbouring inoperable vehicles and other junk : MOTION by DAVID OFNER that __ ction on the MERLE and LOIS PLOSS violation be postponed for a period o = six months to June 30 , 1988 at which time the Code Enforcement Officer is directed to review the status of the violation and report such status to t: , a Zoning Board of Appeals for final action on the violation . This action is being taken to provide an opportunity of clean up of the property in fair weather . NIAL SMITH seconded the motion . VOTES L . Raymond yes N . Smith yes D . Ofner yes M . Decker yes Motion carried December 29 , 1987 4 e Raymond Chairman Zoning Board of Appeals ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - 2 - December 29 , 1987 Merle .;and Lois Ploss RAYMOND : I drove by the place today and there was no change since we were there the 13th of December . He does not have hardly any unlicensed vehicles , it ' s mostly old junk and machines . If`.1ewould just hxxxxta consolidate them , rather than have them spread out . I noted in a statement at the hearing that he is an older gentleman with a heart problem and I understood that his boys are not there a lot of the time . We had observed them moving some stuff , it ' s very difficult to move some of that in the winter time . I suggest that we give him 6 months to finish what we observed him doing . That will give the boys more chances to come to finish At . In which case we will review his case again after 6 months . OFNER : If that is the case we should return it to Gary Wood to monitor the situation , and then have him report back to us . I � M �4r�M The Town Boardo / ERECTED +� Town of Groton tetT o OUK w�. 101 Conger Boulevard Groton , N . Y . 13073 TOWN OF GROTON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Tuesday , December 29 , 1987 , 7 : 30 p . m . CLARENCE WHITE , 676 Peru Road , Town .'of Groton , violation of the Groton Land Use and Development Code , Section 312 , and Licensing and Regulating of Junkyard Ordinance and Section 1242 . . 1 - of the N . Y . S . UniTorm Fire Prevention Code by harbouring inoperable vehicles and other junk , MOTION by DAVID OFNER that the action on the violation of Section 312 of the Town of Groton Land Use and Development Code by CLARENCE WHITE be returned to the Zoning Enforcement Officer , Gary Wood , with the request that within 30 days he provide the Board with details of the conditon of the vehicles to determine if they are abandoned or otherwise inoperable and whether there is a bonafide farm operation . If Mr . Wood finds that Mr . White cannot verify these conditons asked for , he will be judged in violation and the Zoning Enforcement Officer is to take further action against him . Motion seconded by MARY DECKER , VOTE : L . Raymond Yes N . Smith Yes D . Ofner ves M . Decker yes Motion carried December 29 , 1987 Lyle Ra ond , Chair n Zoning Board of Appeals ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - 2 - December 29 , 1987 Clarence White RAYMOND : Gary Wood stated that he observed a Chevy van , a school bus , an axle with wheels and miscellaneous materials on the porch and piles of brush that he deemed in violation of the Groton Zoning law . We have a statement from Mr . White that the wagon wheel was used as an ornament ; the school bus and 2 vans , Mr . White demonstrated farm licenses for some of the vehicles . . These were certified as farm vehicles and David asked if Mr . White had a farm and he answered yes . We have a statement below that that four of the farm vehicles at the moment are just sitting there . I have been by since then and noted he moved the pallets from around the vehicles and also changed the location of the vehicles and also I feel some moves have been made to make the place look a little more shipshape in terms of materials in the yard . In my opinion I think the place looks better than before . I don ' t think it solves all the citations Gary Wood gave . I do feel there has been some action taken . Not all that we would desire , though . DECKER : I went by it yesterday morning and found the same thing . OFNER : I admit i looked neater but I have a concern . I see some vehicles here that you have to stretch your imagination to believe somebody is farming using a Chevy and a suburban van for farming . I think it is a subterfuge . That these are vehicles that have been registered as farm vehicles and it is quite obvious there is no farm and the vehicles are not farm vehicles . I think the fact they are registered as farm vehicles is a technicality . RAYMOND : In order to register as a farm vehicle , it is my understanding there is a statement given to the Motor Vehicle indicating what routes they are going to follow and you cannot deviate from those routes . This includes a provision you can go to one part of your farm to another on the road and there is also a provision , as I understand it , allowing you to go to the sanitary landfill . This is based on a statement to the license bureau with the understanding this is a bondafide farm in order to get farm licenses . OFNER : I understand what you are saying , the vehicles ould not travel very far , I was wondering if they would travel at all . I still stand by my impression and judgment that there is no farm there and what you cited explains what a real farm would have use for . The point is that ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - 3 - December 29 , 1987 Clarence White neither the vehicles or gasoline is subject to the taxes as vehicles that use the road are and pay for the road up keep through the sale of gasoline and other fuel and the roads are maintained for vehicles not used on foarms but used on public roads , so this exemption is provided . The farmer doesn ' t need the roads except when he is crossing them so therefore he gets a break . I think this is openly a move to put licenses on something that does not apply to the situation . These are vehicles that are salvagable for something but not used for any purpose . There is a van , a suburban and a 2 door , they ' re not used on 42 acres . For what ? SMITH : ;? It doesn ' t make any difference on how many acres you have whether you have a farm plate or not , in my knowledge of what a farm license is' for-:: If the Motor Vehicle allows you to license it then it is legal . OFNER : I cold come in with 15 vehicles on my lot , register them all farm vehicles , and you can ' t touch me . RAYMOND : Except you have to demonstrate to the license bureau that you have a farm . OFNER0 I have a farm , I grow artichokes and rhubarb . RAYMOND : I did not check with the license bureau as to what proof they want . I think they take the statement as it is given to them . SMITH : I license my vehicles as agricultural , they don ' t come out and check what kind of a farm I have . OFNER : What I am saying is if we approve of this , anybody could go in with a hundred vehicles and put them on a piece of property and license them as farm vehicles , we are opening the door for that and nobody could challenge them for it . I don ' t think that is the intent of the Ordinance . SMITH : You could have 100 vehicles sitting out there with regular license plates on them and nobody could, do anyting aout it , OFNER : I am not saying it is illegal but in this case it is circumventing the intent , RAYMOND : I think since Mr . White indicated he had gotten farm licenses , regardless of what the appearance of the 4 acre farm may seem to be , with,..only an inspection from the road , I think there is some reason here ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS -4 - December 29 , 1987 Clarence White to give him some benefit of the doubt . I would suggest we split our judgement in what you said , David , and what I am saying and that is , why don ' t we refer it back to Gary Wood , the Zoning Officer , under the stipulation that Mr . White will have to provide some bonafide evidence that he has a working farm to the zoning Officer and put a date on that , 30 or 60 days . Otherwise we would say he was in violation . SMITH : Does the Ordinance say what type of license you have to have on it ? I can ' t see why we have to specify . RAYMOND : It also says ' inoperable vehicles ' . SMITH : Are they inoperative ? RAYMOND : I don ' t know , we would have to ask GAry to ascertain that . OFNERa There are other details we were not made aware of at the time . RAYMOND : I would say to defer judgment and give it back to Gary Wood and suggest he investigate the question with Mr . White , OFNER : I think the intent of the Ordinance is if you on vehicles you have to license them . RAYMOND : The Ordinance says ' abandoned , unlicensed or inoperative vehicles ' , so it could be anyone of the three . It doesn ' t say inoperable and unregistered . In this case we could have a registered vehicle that was shown to be inoperable and it still . would be in violation of the Ordinance . OFNER : They are the 3 conditions that have to be met . RAYMOND : I think there is room for some reasonable doubt here on some of these questions that did not all come out at the hearing . However , we did hear enough at the hearing to feel that if some of the statements made cannot be verified therefore he would be in violation . vow► C fIC / D The Town Boardo EREC)D7Town of Groton .....ECou w.. 101 Conger Boulevard Groton , N . Y . 13073 TOWN OF GROTON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Tuesday , December 29 , 1987 , 7 : 30 p . m . ROBERT WILLIAMS1762 Clark St . Ext . , Town of Groton , violation of the Groton Land Use and Development Code , Sections 312 and Licensing and Regulating of Junkyard Ordinance and Secton 1242 . 10 of the N . Y . S . Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code by harbouring inoperable vehicles : MOTION by MARY DECKER that the citation of the violation of Section 312 of. the Groton Land Use and Development Code by ROBERT WILLIAMS be DISMISSED on the basis the vehicles observed are no longer there . VIAL SMITH seconded the motion . VOTE : L . Raymond yes N . SMith yes D . Ofner yes M . Decker yes Motion carried December 29 , 1987 6a yle Raymond , Chairman Zoning Board of Appeals vwM o . . .: icy' .., p The Town Boardo ERECTED Town of Groton ; ,� tet � o o �'ys7 � ouNt vm� 101 Conger Boulevard Groton , N . Y . 13073 TOWN OF GROTON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Tuesday , December 29 , 1987 , 7930 p . m . MRS . EDWARD TRINKLE , 590 Stevens Rd . , Town of Groton in violation of the Groton Land Use and Development Code , Section 312 and Licensing and Regulating of Junkyard Ordinance and Section 1242 . 10 of . the N . Y . S . Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code by harbouring inoperable vehicles : MOTION by DAVID OFNER that the citation of the violation of Section 312 of the Groton Land Use and Development Code by MRS . EDWARD TRINKLE be ' DISMISSED on the . basis the vehicles observed are no longer there . MARY DECKER seconded the motion . VOTE : L . Raymond yes N . Smith yes D . Ofner yes M . Decker_ yes Motion carried December 29 , 1987 LykeRaymiond / airman Zoning Board of Appeals , �,��._...i cir� The Town Board o ( ERECTED Town of Groton to » o o U Nth ' w�. 101 Conger Boulevard Groton , N . Y . 13073 .TOWN OF GROTON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Tuesday , December 29 , 1987 , 7 * 30 p . m . MRS . SANDY WILCOX , 20 Sharpsteen Rd . , Town of Groton , violation of the Groton Land Use and Development Code , Section 312 and Licensing and REgulating of Junkyard Ordinance and Section 1242 . 10 of the N . Y . S . Uniform Fire Prevention an ( Building Code by harbouring inoperable vehicles : MOTION by DAVID OFNER that thi:: citation of the violation of Section 312 of the Groton Land Use and Development Code by MRS . SANDY WILCOX be DISMISSED on the basis the -vehicles observed are no longer there . NIA SMITH seconded the moLion . VOTE : L . Raymond yes N . SMith yes D . Ofner yes M . Decker yes Motion carried December 29 , _ 1987 4LyyRaymond , airman Zoning Board of Appeals �p�qW iciro The Town Board ; i 1 ERECTED 1 T Town of Groton p 8 i� N4�LO � 01 101 Conger Boulevard Groton , N . Y . 13073 TOWN OF GROTON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Tuesday , December 29 , 1987 , 7 : 30 p . m . CHARLES VOLBRECHT , JR . , 163 Chipmans Corners Road , Town of Groton , violation of the Groton Land Use and Deveopment Code , Section 312 , and Licensing and Regulating of Junkyard Ordinance , and Section 1242 . 10 of the N . Y . S . I niform Fire Preventon and Building Code by harbouring inoperable vehicles and other junk : 'MOTION by NIAL SMITH that the citation of the violation of .Section 312 of the Groton Land Use and Development Code by CHARLES VOLBRECHT , JR . be DISMISSED on the basis the vehicles observed are no longer there . iMARY DECKER seconded the motion . VOTE : L . Raymond yes N . SMith yes D . Ofner yes M . Decker yes Notion carried December 29 , 1987 Ile 4yvlemo Raymond / ,, Chairman Zoning Board of Appeals ww► The Town Boardo1 ERECTED + Town of Groton ta17 o !`iy.S o U Mtn ' w.. 10t Conger Boulevard Groton , N . Y . 13073 TOWN OF GROTON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Tuesday , December 29 , 1987 , 7 : 30 p . m . APPLICATION of RONALD and PRISCILLA WIENS for a request for a variance of Section 351 of to Town of Groton Land Use and Development Code was filed on // 94/ . and said application requests a variance to permit const3uction of a dwelling on a non- conforming lot on property owned by k0 Gar? %MORN on Locke Rd . , Toowwn�of Groton being . a portion of Tax Map Parcel 221 - 2 - 4 and containing ,3, OY aeres of land . ALL MEMEBERS of the Board present viewed. the property and after due notice a public hearing was held by the Zoning Board of Appeals at 8 : 00 p . m . on Monday December 14 , 1987 to consider the application and at said hearing all those who desired to be heard were heard and their testimony recorded . ALL TESTIMONY having been carefully considered , the following was noted : 1 ) The Board determined this was an existing non- conforming lot with no adjacent property under the same ownership . 2 ) Under Section 322 of the Groton Land Use and Develoment Code a variance is not required and any other zoning, requirements required will be determined between the Zoning Enforcement Officer and the applicants . DAVID OFNER made the motion that the Zoning Board of Appeals has determined that this is an existing non - conforming lot of record and can be built upon in accordance with Section 322 without a variance ; ?f.4RY DECKF. P, seconded the motion . MOTION VOTE : L . Ravmond yes N . Smith yes D . Ofner yes Motion carried , December 29 , 19870 M . Decker yes 4yRaymond , irman i Zonng Board of Appeals