Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-09-02 TOWN OF GROTON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Thursday,, September 2,, 1993 : 7 : 30 P . M . SUSQUEHANA VALLEY FARM CREDIT, 276 TOMPKINS STREET, CORTLAND, NEW YORK,, OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT TOWNLINE ROAD,; GROTON,, NEW YORK ,, SECTION 352 . la2 VARIANCE APPLICATION BOARD MEMBERS PUBLIC PRESENT ( *Denotes Members Present ) Otis & Heidi Jackson Colleen Pierson Lyle Raymond,, Chairman* George Senter Mary Decker * Donald Scheffler Nial Smith* Robert Walpole David Ofner* John . Pachai * L . RAYMOND Opened the Zoning Board of Appeals public hearing at 7 : 40 p . m . by reading the public notice ( a copy is attached ) . An application to place a mobile home on said lot was denied on 7/29/93 by George Senter ,, the Code Enforcement Officer . Rea'son` . being under Article 3 ,I Section 352 . 1 that 200-foot frontage is required for a lot in the Town of Groton,, and the survey indicates that there is only 25 feet shown ,, which is not sufficient frontage . Subsequent to the denial of the Code Enforcement Officer,, Mr . Walpole filed a variance request with the Zoning Board of Appeals . He asked for a variance with Section 352 . 1 code on land use regulations . He indicates this relates to 200-foot continuous road frontage that is required . The variance is signed by Robert Walpole . Company maps were provided to show where lot is located . In regard to correspondence ,, we have received a fairly lengthy letter from Mr . Brian Bartlett ,; 363Munson Road , Groton,, New York,, addressed to the Chairman of the IZoning Board of Appeals . He had written this letter in lieu of his attendance at meeting . He is submitting this as an owner of property adjacent to that owned by Susquehana Valley Farm Credit . He indicates his contention that this variance should not be granted . It is his understanding that the ZBA had a session on October 29 , 1992 , where an interpretation was given concerning road frontage for this property,, which, at that time , was part of a larger parcel of 75 acres that has since been divided into two parcels--one of 20 acres owned by Randy Allen and the other of 48 acres which is the parcel in question at tonight ' s hearing . The interpretation of 10/29/92 ' s meeting ,, the road frontage for the entire 75-acre parcel was deemed to be 221 feet from the property ' s northwest corner to the southeast of Munson Road . Mr . Bartlett concludes that the parcel owned by Mr . Allen then must include this 221 feet road frontage since he hasn ' t heard of any other session ( s ) which granted a variance to allow a building permit with road frontage less than 200 feet . He concludes that if all of this is ,, in fact , true that it follows that there is no legal access to the property in question . He feels that the property owner ,, Susquehana Valley Farm Credit ,, was fully knowledgeable about the interpretation given at the 10/29/92 meeting ; and ,, therefore , concludes that this problem is a self-inflicted hardship . This concern was brought forth at the 10/29/92 meeting of the ZBA . Mr . Bartlett included in his letter quotes from the minutes of the ZBA that indicates that if the lot was divided,, it would not be a conforming lot and ,, therefore ,, would not have sufficient Zoning - Board - of - Appeals ,, - Thursday,, - September - 2 ,, 1993 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Page - 2 footage . He quotes that the Chairman of the ZBA,, myself ,, as saying yes ,, this has been planned but at the time we held the session ,, it has not been subdivided and what they do in the future is their problem . Mr . Bartlett included a sketch with his letter to further aid in explanining of his point of view . He also enclosed a copy of a letter of intent given to him by Mr . Otis Jackson, who is to be the prospective buyer . He indicates ( according to this information ) that Mr . Jackson plans a business venture of an unusual nature meaning noise ,, traffic, etc . ,, but says that he has been informed that Mr . Jackson ' s plans for a gravel drive would partially involve his property ( Bartlett ' s ) and indicates that he was given the opinion that the road was not abandoned properly and that the Town would have to maintain it . According to the letter of intent by Otis and Heidi Jackson,, two major reasons were provided for purchasing the 48 . 7 acres on Townline Road in the Town of Groton . The first reason being that at some point in the future ,, they would like to build a retirement home on this property . The second reason is to hold something called " action pursuit games " between 15 to 20 times per year . This would be an all-day event ,, tightly-controlled games . All games would be in the woods and go totally unnoticed by anyone in the area . The only noticeable change from current conditions ,, according to this document , would be a private gravel drive extending from Munson Road along Townline Road ( abandoned ) 20 feet wide , approximately 500 feet long , with small parking area hidden behind the treeline . That concludes the type of information that we received in terms of correspondence . Usually the next order of business is a statement given by the applicant requesting the variance . In this case , Mr . Walpole ,, who is representing Susquehana Valley Farm Credit . Since he has not shown up for reasons that I am not sure of ,, I guess all we can do then is indicate such and turn to Mr . ' and Mrs . Jackson,, who are present . L . RAYMOND : Do you have any statement/clarification on this to help move this proceeding along ? 0 . JACKSON : Basically,, I thought being at this proceeding would be to see if I would be granted a variance since I don ' t have the 200 feet . L . RAYMOND : You applied for the variance? 0 . JACKSON : Well , the Susquehana Land Company . L . RAYMOND : The Land Company is to be granted the variance . OK . O . JACKSON : So,� if a gravel drive was put in , then the surveyors could be there next week to flag out the 5-foot wide ,, as the survey indicates ,, by 410 feet long ,, which would give us access to the 48 . 98 acres . The reason for the gravel drive - is .that I -am : a hunter and I want to get back in there with my pick-up truck ands eventually,, build our home on that acreage ,, and basically,. I thought about paint balls ,, but what I am doing now is pulling back on that idea in the near future . I want to make sure that the people understand what paint balls are . * * *Robert Walpole entered meeting at 7 : 50 p . m . and was brought up-to-date from Lyle Raymond .' . L . RAYMOND : OK, Bob . One of the things I want to verify with you is that this is still Susquehana Valley Farm Credit . Is that correct ? Zoning Board of - Appeals , - Thursday,, - September 2 ,, - 1993 - - - - - . . . . . . Page - 3 As the owner of the property applying for the variance? R . WALPOLE : As of 3 : 30 this afternoon ,, ownership transferred . L . RAYMOND : It did? To Mr . and Mrs . Jackson? R . WALPOLE : Title has not transferred yet . Land contract has closed . L . RAYMOND : OK . So the application is still valid,, correct? R . WALPOLE .* That is correct . L . RAYMOND : The application then is for ,, you said,, a mobile home? That is what the application states . R . WALPOLE *& I am not applying for a mobile home but for road frontage . L . RAYMOND : Well ,, something is a lie here then because the permit application says construction-type mobile home . R . WALPOLE : All right ,I mobile home . We were turned down because of not having enough road frontage . The question why we are here is because of a variance to the road frontage only . L . RAYMOND : Yes . I understand that . R . WALPOLE : As a matter of reference for that , it was my understanding even before when we didn ' t meet the road frontage ,, why did we have to apply for the Town permit ? Why couldn ' t we come directly to the ZBA? The last time we had that indication was that if there was a question in reference to that ,r why couldn ' t we apply directly with the ZBA? L . RAYMOND : Our understanding ,, overall ,, is that it can ' t be done that way . It ' s not the procedure . That ' s all I can say Bob . I checked it . An ' appeal has to be based on a denial or action by the Code Enforcement Officer that is appealed from . A person cannot come just like that to the ZBA . In terms of Mr . Bartlett ' s letter ,, he alleges this lot was set up with knowledge that the lot didn ' t have full frontage .. R . WALPOLE : At the time we became the agent ,, there were plans up at the Town Planning Board that we wanted to make it a 3/1 subdivision . At that time ,, we were informed that the Town of Lansing had abandoned their share of the road . I still have the preliminary plans here . At that time , we had a contract with Allens . He came in here and later on passed a variance . September 29 , the Town of Groton abandoned the balance of it . It left a 25-ioot strip after we became aware of the abandonment so we could gain access to this property . Town of Groton came in after Town of Lansing . L . RAYMOND : You were not aware at the time that you did this that the Town had abandoned it ? R . WALPOLE : Even after Bartlett ' s closing , we were unaware of any abandonment . We started research . That ' s when the Town of Lansing re-abandoned the dirt road . Town of Groton came in after Town of Lansing . The abandonment from the Town of Groton took place December 1992 after this thing was started . From the planning standpoint ,( you Zoning Board of Appeals ,, Thursday,, September 2 ,1 1993 Page 4 revert . After selling Allen ' s property,, we should have transferred to the center of the road after learning bout this . L . RAYMOND : Yes . R . WALPOLE : But in order to gain access to this property,, you can ' t land-lock it . L . RAYMOND : Groton Planning Board did not approve subdivision ,, right ? R . WALPOLE : It didn ' t need subdivision approval . Our intentions were for three units . Now for one person just to build one house on 48 acres . The guy cannot get a building permit unless the Town of Groton passes the theory of flag lots . If so,, we would not be here today L . RAYMOND .& In reference to the road abandonment ,, we did a little research ourselves, which turned up the fact that it didn ' t make any difference whether the Town passes the abandonment or not if a road has not been used the previous six years , state law,, not Town law,, indicates that it is officially abandoned anyways . R . WALPOLE : There could have been a chance where the other road was not abandoned . At the time ,t we were looking only at the road frontage . I ' ll tell you how we found out about the abandonment . / We were working with the Town of Lansing Planning Board ( Carl Davis ' property and other developments ) when the abandonment came up . I received paperwork from George Totman on it . That is when we became aware of it . L . RAYMOND : But if a road had not been maintained ,, according to the state law,, it is still an abandoned road . R . WALPOLE : It is still a right-of-way . Under New York State law up until the Town officially abandons it . L . RAYMOND : That ' s the legal research you found? R . WALPOLE . Given by our attorneys . Even if the Town had not abandoned it or used it , the Town did not have the right to re-do it . They have not barricaded it . After abandonment , it goes back to original owner . L . RAYMOND : Does anyone have any questions for Mr . Walpole? J . PACHAI : There is nothing in the abstract where the right-of-way was shown if ,, in fact ,. that the town does not maintain the right to turn it back . There are different meanings of abandonment . R . WALPOLE : The Town does a series of roads,, right Colleen? If I remember right there were six? C . PIERSON : Nodded in agreement . D . OFNER : You said the Town of Lansing had gone into the complete abandonment action and has restored the property to the owner . The right-of-way that the Town of Groton has is one-half of a road . Do you feel that a 200-foot right-of-way of one-half of a road abuts that property?- - Re WALPOLE : I do not understand your question . Zoning Board - of Appeals , Thursday,, September 2 , 1993 - - - _ Page - 5 D . OFNER : This one-half of a road that you are still saying is valid is to be used as a frontage . R . WALPOLE : Let me clarify something . When this property was listed, there was no abandonment of the road either in the Town of Lansing nor in the Town of Groton . The property was listed August 1991 . Town of Lansing abandoned September or December 1991 . D . OFNER : Let me understand something . By the way,, I am a little hard of hearing . When the property was purchased by the land company,, they were not aware that it was an abandoned road? R . WALPOLE : They were not aware of any abandonment at that time . Either Town of Lansing or Town of Groton . D . OFNER : Was not abandoned? R . WALPOLE .& That is correct . D . OFNER : But no action had been taken? R . WALPOLE : That is correct . D . OFNER : Then they bought it and Lansing subsequently abandoned the road and following that ,, Town of Groton abandoned the road . R . WALPOLE : That is correct . L . RAYMOND : Gave a synopsis of a previous court case . The Supreme Court ruled that even if it had been a town highway at one time ,, it had abandoned within the meaning of Highway Law 2051 . 1 found it interesting ,I Bob,( in terms of your legal research in regard to this report that we have here . R . WALPOLE : I have the same copy . I do not understand what role this plays ( ? ) L . RAYMOND : All this says is that under the State law,, it indicates that it is abandoned . It ceased to be a highway . R . WALPOLE .* Well ,, then your Town attorney is giving the Town Board bad advice . Unless the Town Board passes a Board resolution, it is not abandoned . How come the Town of Scott had to rebuild a road? L . RAYMOND .* Those circumstances have to be brought up that :eappl ted. to . the Town of Scott obviously . R . WALPOLE : You ' re the one that brought this up . L . RAYMOND .* We are just trying to understand your interpretation . That ' s all . D . OFNER : I never really did get ' arx answer ' to my :question . I would- like to . clarify the situation . Does that so-called abandoned- strip . of road give you 200 feet of frontage? R . WALPOLE : No . There ' s none . D . OFNER : Just suppose we said you could build along the abandoned road, would you have 200 feet of abandoned road on that lot you ' re talking about ? Zoning Board of Appeals ,. Thursday,, September , 2 ,, 1993 . • . Page - 6 - R . WALPOLE : There would be 813 feet of abandoned road . D . OFNER : OK . That ' s what I wanted to be sure about . R . WALPOLE : Came to the Board table and presented a survey map for review . * **ZBA Members reviewed map at length . L . RAYMOND : Before anything else was said ,, he reminded the public and the Board that minutes were to be taken for record . Therefore , Mr . Walpole returned to his seat . before any remarks were made . D . OFNER : Then , what you are saying is that you have an 813-feet of a one-half road that belongs to the Town . . . . . R . WALPOLE : Let me clarify it further,, Dave . There is 813 feet of road frontage which after the Town officially abandoned on December 911, 199211E it then reverted back to the original owner . D . OFNER : This is the Lansing part ? R . WALPOLE : No . Well it also included the Town of Groton part . So the original owner eliminated all the rights of public use for that road , eliminate any liability from the Town of Groton or the Town of Lansing involving highways . It eliminated liability for the Town of Groton . If the Town had not abandoned the road ,, no matter what the State law says ,, there would have been 813 feet of road frontage for this one ' lot . J . PACHAI : Is there a date that can be referred back to indicate at a time a road ceases to be used and/or maintained? C . PIERSON .* I have lived up there all my life and I used to hunt ,, and I never seen that road open . M . DECKER : I do not ever recall it being open . C . PIERSON .* Highway Superintendant Leland Cornelius says he cannot ever remember it being open . L . RAYMOND : John has a copy of Section 205 of the Highway Law in reference to abandonment . A highway that has not been used or travelled for six years shall cease to be a highway and every public right- of-way shall not had not been used for such should be deemed abandoned as a right-of-way as well . This is in the State law here . R . WALPOLE : What types of action are being taken to barricade it ? I know the Town of Groton puts signs up for seasonal roads . There has to be some rules and regulations that apply . L . RAYMOND : Abandonment of roads is a question for the Town Board . R . WALPOLE .& I am here because we only have 25 feet . Has this road been " officially" closed or barricaded? Maybe we should do some more legal research . Zoning Board of Appeals ,, Thursday,, September 2 ,, 1993 - - . Page 7 L . RAYMOND : Are there other people here that wish to make any statements in regard to this gentleman over here? D . SCHEFFLER : I am here only because I received a letter . I have no objections . R . WALPOLE : I went to the Planning Board to discuss this with them who are in favor of flag lots . It is not our fault that the Town Board does not see the flag lot situation . L . RAYMOND : As people ,, members of the Planning Board ,; including members of this Board ( ZBA ) ,, are ,, in fact ,, in favor of flag lots but that doesn ' t Fake away what the Town law says--we do not have any jurisdiction over that . So,, we are charged to act accordingly . In terms of the type of questions we have to answer in regard to an area variance ,, we have to ask a stated series of questions that the State requires us to ask in terms of area variances and in terms of the Groton code . One of these has to do with the self- inflicted type of thing . Correct me if I am wrong Bob,, is it your interpreta- tion that you feel that this was not a self-inflicted hardship because you were not aware of certain things that were going on when you started this process ? R . WALPOLE : I don ' t think that this is a hardship case . . It ' s common sense . You have a 48-acre parcel of land with a 25-foot strip of land leading to it . It does not meet the legal road frontage . If this is the question where a person cannot build a house up here ,, that we do not meet 200 feet of road frontage ,, then we have a problem . This is a common sense question . We have made a variance before with less road frontage . We are talking 25 feet . The road is abandoned ! It ' s gone ! We might have screwed up ourselves when we sold the 22 acres to Mr . and Mrs . Allen . Now what we are doing is leaving a 25-foot strip which would lead us to gain access to the property . N . SMITH : That 25-foot strip--was that taken off the Allen property? R . WALPOLE : No . That is the 25-foot of the old abandoned part of the road in the Town of Groton . Technically that 25-foot strip of Town ,, County,, and Village highways -'goes to a center line . N . SMITH : So that 25 feet is deeded in with the 48 acres? R . WALPOLE : That ' s correct . It ' s a piece of old property . Technically,, we are trying to correct this problem because of the abandonment and because of the Town of Lansing . I don ' t think it was done intentionally if that ' s what you ' re asking . L . RAYMOND : We are required under State law to ask this question . R . WALPOLE : I would like to state for the record from a common sense standpoint „ We have so many laws in the State of New York that no one knows what they all are . Let ' s look at with a little common sense . If we had the flag lots which the Planning Board tried to get approved from the Town Board where the Town Board refused to even look at it ! L . RAYMOND : Yes ,, we understand . That is clear . Zoning board - of - Appeals ,, - Thursday,, - September 2 ,0 1993 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Page 8 D . OFNER : We are restricted as Lyle said on specifics and certain procedures . Even though someone like you may not agree with it , and you think it is common sense, there are other things that we think are common sense ,, but we have to act only within the limitations and the directives in the laws that we have been provided with . I appreciate your concern that it may sound stupid, but we can ' t use that . R . WALPOLE : If I thought it was stupid ,, I wouldn ' t be here tonight asking for a variance . D . OFNER : It may not sound logical to you that we have to go in accordance with these specifics . R . WALPOLE : Why do you think I filed a variance David? D . OFNER : Well , we are also restricted with the amount of variance . R . WALPOLE : I understand that . All I am doing is filing for a variance of 25 feet . I understand you have a set of rules and regulations you have to follow . It doesn ' t make any difference to me how you go on this tonight . For the record , I am asking for a variance for a building permit for the 25-foot of road frontage . It ' s either yes or no . The only thing I ' m stating is that if you have a 48-acre parcel of land, the couple may want to build a $ 100 ,� 000 house or might build. a $ 5 ,, 000 house . That ' s not my - question . L . RAYMOND : Now,I we did seek some legal counsel , or I did as Chairman of the Zoning Appeals , concerning the situation in regard to the variance for the flag lot and knowing that the Town Board is not in favor of flag lots as part of the code ,, and the question I had was under what circumstances , legally,, could this Board say yes on a flag lot in a variance and not be exceeding their authority? Because as you may know, the ZBAs have gotten in trouble when they stepped beyond their authority, and this makes it very clear that we cannot set up flag lots in the zoning ordinance--that is the Town Board ' s authority . We can only interpret it . So we have to be careful ° on how far we go with this . The answer I received was that it would have to be demonstrated that however the variance was given that it was not a blanket type of situation as for others in the Town . In other words ,, some unusual circumstances would have to be demonstrated or we -.would be stepping over- our . bounds and overcoming the Town Board,, which we could be taken to task for . So,, what we have to look for is what unusual circumstance ( s ) apply here to tell some other owner in the Town if we gave you the variance . I am not saying yes or no . If we gave this to you, then some other owner says , " Well , you gave him one . Why cant you give us one? " Then it would have to be demonstrated that there are conditions in your situation that don ' t apply to anyone else . This is kind of one-of-a-kind . Can you answer that a little bit ? R . WALPOLE : Let me answer that with a Building Inspector question . You have 48 acres . If you are going to build one house in here ,, you are going to have one building permit issued for one house : Am I correct there George? G . SENTER : Nodded in agreement . Zoning - Board of Appeals ,, Thursday, September 2 ,, 1993 - . . . . . . . . . . Page 9 I R . WALPOLE : Would the variance be issued on the 48 acres for one house only? G . SENTER : Yes . R . WALPOLE : That should give you an answer to your question . L . RAYMOND : I am not sure I follow you . That would answer it by saying that is an unusual situation :? R . WALPOLE : I am not saying that it is an unusual situation . I mean . . G . SENTER : One house--one building permit . R . WALPOLE : For 48 acres ? L . RAYMOND : Yes . R . WALPOLE : The Town law only requires one acre and 200 feet of road frontage . L . RAYMOND : Yes ,; that is right . R . WALPOLE : I guess for the building permit with 25 feet of road frontage on a 48-acre lot would be asked . L . RAYMOND : I see what you mean . You are exceeding the requirements by the rest of it . M . DECKER : I think what Bob is saying is that 48 acres would have to have something " special " about this variance to substantiate it . One house , one building permit for 48 acres is in itself when your normal building size lot is one acre . That is what he is relating to,, I think . Right ? D . OFNER : I think we are talking about apples and oranges . Because we are talking about two different things--one is area and one is frontage,, and I don ' t think they have any relationship to each other . R . WALPOLE : Well then ,, let ' s go back to the question that I originally filed a variance for . I am asking . . we only got 25 feet . Only that question . Then we ' re not talking apples and oranges . D . OFNER : Thank you . L . RAYMOND : Twenty-five feet for 48-acre . . . . . . . D . OFNER : That 48 acres--we are talking about frontage--that ' s what we are talking about ? L . RAYMOND : Yes . That ' s right . Frontage for what ? I understand what Bob is saying . D . OFNER : There is no relationship between frontage in any documentation that I have ever seen that gives trade-off on area vs . frontage . L . RAYMOND : But one possibility is we could possibly put it into that framework as a condition for granting a variance for that if we were to go that direction . I am not saying we are going in that direction . I am looking at both sides of the coin here . We have gone over all of the negatives . We want to look at some of the positives . We are suppose to balance here for different aspects of this thing . Look at all sides . Zoning Board of Appeals , Thursday, September 21, 1993 Page 10 D . OFNER : So that is the basis for your variance is going to be that the lot • itself exceeds the minimum size lot ,, and therefore, you feel that you are eligible for a variance because you exceed the total ? L . RAYMOND and No . . . . no . . . ( Raymond ) " I am not saying we are eligible for a R . WALPOLE : variance . I am asking for one . " ( Walpole ) L . RAYMOND : I don ' t think he is saying that either , David . He is only saying what circumstances that would not apply say to other parts of the Town if we grant the variance , then how do we tell others of the Town that they can have one flag lot here and not anywhere else? The advice we got from the attorney said that the only way we could grant a variancesI if one was to be granted ,, is that certain circum- stances would have to be shown to other people in the Town that this is not a blanket opening for granting variances for flag lots . The Town Board taken us to task for that because they have not opted for flag lots . J . PACHAI : The Town Board meeting September 9 , 1991 , the flag lots were brought up and discussed . Proposed regulation ( whatever it was ) was read . It was found, basically, not to be acceptable as written and the Town Board felt that it did not like the principle of the flag lot . That ' s not saying that they said we should grant a variance for every flag lot request that comes along . My interpretation of what they said was that they want each case to be judged on its own merits . The second thing that I look at is the change of the law where we have five points to consider . I think that ' s a key word itself--consider . It doesn ' t mean that one point is shallow for the possibility of granting the variance but is the essence of this that it is a balancing approach between the benefit of the applicant and detriment to the community . I just think we should keep those two things in mind . L . RAYMOND : Good point . Do we have any other questions from the members? Do we have any questions from the public here? OK . If not ,, then I will close the hearing and thank you all for your input and for coming tonight . We , as the Board now, have this information . As such,, we have to decide whether we are going to make a decision tonight or whether we want to use 62 days that we are given by law to consider this and perhaps seek further information . Are we going to wait on this one to seek further information and delay on making a decision? ZBA members seemed to be in agreement of the above suggestion from L . Raymond . L . RAYMOND : ( Clarification for David Ofner ) David,1 we were discussing here whether we want to make a decision tonight or if we want to delay since we have 62 days to make a decision and maybe seeking further guidance and/or information to help us out . It seems many questions have been raised here tonight . I don ' t know if we are going to resolve in tonight ' s meeting . D . OFNER : Yes ,I we will need some assistance . Do you want to vote for closing the meeting and . . . L . RAYMOND : Well ,I we have closed the hearing already,, and we are just discussing whether if it is the consensus of the Board to see further guidance on this because of everybody concerned including Bob and the fact that a lot of questions were brought up tonight . So,� lets do that ,( and we will , therefore , indicate at a date to be announced when , a decision will be made . Zoning - Board - of - Appeals ,( - Thursday - September - 2 ,( - 1993 - - . . - - - - . - Page 11 N . SMITH : Because of the construction going on next week,( that is not going to interfere with our decision one way or the other ,( is it ? R . WALPOLE : Absolutely not . Meeting was closed at 8 : 40 p . m . I ,( PENNY L . BOGARDUS ,, DO CERTIFY that in the matter of a public hearing held by the Zoning Board of Appeals for the Town of Groton,( County of Tompkins ,( State of New York,( for a Variance Application by Susquehana Valley Farm Credit ,( Robert Walpole as Agent ,( 276 Tompkins Street ,, Cortland ,, New York,( of property on Townline Road,( Groton ,, New York,I to vary Section 352 . la-2-Insufficient Road Frontage of the Town of Groton Land Use and Development Code ,( that the aforegoing transcription is the minutes which I took from shorthand notes in addition to an audio tape on September 2 ,( 1993 ,( is a true and accurate copy to the best of my ability . P L . ARDUS r' September 2, 1993 Mr. Lyle Raymond, Chairman Zoning Board of Appeals Town of Groton Dear Mr. Raymond: Due to my inability to attend your session scheduled for Thursday, September 2, I hope that you and the other board members will accept this letter in my absence. I submit this as an owner of property adjacent to that owned by Susquehanna Valley Farm Credit upon which a ruling for a variance to Section 352. 1a2 . insufficient road frontage • may occur. It is my contention that this variance should not be granted. It is my understanding that at your session on October 29, 1992 an interpretation was given to resolve the question of road frontage for this property. At that time, Susquehanna Valley Farm Credit owned a parcel of approximately 75 acres which has since been divided into 2 parcels: one of 20+ acres owned by Randy Allan and the other of 48+ acres in question at this evening's meeting. In the interpretation given, the road frontage for the entire 75 acre parcel was deemed to be 221 '+ from the property's NW corner to the south edge of Munson Road. Given these facts along with the subsequent division of the property, the parcel owned by Mr. Allan must include this very road frontage since I have heard of no other session which granted a variance to allow a building permit with road frontage less than 200'. If all of this is in fact true, then it follows that there is no legal access to the property in question at this session. I understand the ramifications of the information I am offering. The fact remains, however, that the property owner (S.V.F.C.) fully knew the interpretation given at the October 29 meeting and I would deem this problem as a self•infllcted hardship. This very concern was brought forth at the October meeting and was addressed at that time: Ofner. Whatever they want to do on it and however they want to divide, if they put a house there.....if any divisions are made to this, then the lot will no longer be nonconforming. Raymond: Yes. It's been planned but they haven't done it. What they do in the future is their problem. (Emphasis added) I have enclosed a sketch of the area in question to further aid in explaining my point of view. The question may arise as to why I am concerned with this although my property is not directly i affected. I have also enclosed a copy of a " Letter of Intent" given to me by Mr. Otis Jackson (the prospective buyer}. Although I see no legal value to this letter, his intentions do concern me. Not only does he plan a business venture of an unusual nature, meaning increased noise, traffic, et cetera, but he has informed me that his plans for a "private gravel drive " would have it be partially on my property. When I voiced my opposition to this, he gave his opinion that the road was not abandoned properly and that he would, if needed, "hire some high priced Syracuse lawyers to fight the town, Mr. Walpole, and whoever else to get the road opened up again to where the town would even have to maintain it " . I, for one, give this statement as much legal credit as I do the enclosed " Letter of Intent " . I only submit it with my letter to show my concern for the type of situation I, as well as my neighbors, will have to contend with. Therefore, I felt a need to express my view on the legality of the variance in question tonight. I apologize for my absence due to my work schedule. Hopefully I will be able to attend future sessions on these matters if any are scheduled. Respectfully submitted, Brian C. Bartlett 363 Munson Road Groton, New York 13073 We have two major reasons in wanting to purchase the 48 . 7 acres on Townline Rd . in the town of Groton . Our first reason is that we at some point in the future would like to build our retirement home on this property . Our second reason for purchasing this property is to hold Action pursuit games between 15 to 20 times per year . This would be an all day event with tightly controlled games . All games would be in the woods and go totally un - noticed by anyone in the area . The only noticeable change from current conditions would be a private gravel drive extending from Munson Rd . along Town Line Rd . ( Abandoned ) twenty feet wide , aprox . fivehundred feet long . to a small parking area hidden by the tree line . If you have any more questions please feel free to ' contact : Otis & Heidi Jackson 842 West Groton Rd . Groton N . Y . 13073 Home phone : 898 - 9964 Work phone : City of Ithaca 272 - 1631 ( Otis ) Itaca Bldg . Center 277 - 3421 ( Otis ) N . E . Dairy Herd Improvment 257 - 1272 ( Heidi ) I A i 1 of 9uA� fku�ry ( 7SAeeE heca pl TuW� LJ ROAD ✓fluty 6heH Cwlr ) i I I I 1 i 1 u�soid ROA2> Drsf fj — � - + /96 . yS Ko/�D \I TwN LINE ROAD \ �q G \ F fi TOWN OF GROTON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Thursday,, September 2 ,, 1993 : 7 : 30 P . M . SUSQUEHANA VALLEY FARM CREDIT , 276 TOMPKINS STREET,, CORTLAND,. NEW YORK,, OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT TOy4NLINE ROAD,, GROTON, NEW YORK , SECTION 352 . la2 VARIANCE APPLICATION BOARD MEMBERS PUBLIC PRESENT ( *Denotes Members Present ) Otis & Heidi Jackson Colleen Pierson Lyle Raymond ,, Chairman* r George Senter Mary Decker* Donald Scheffler Nial Smith* 'V Robert Walpole David Ofnev% * Johr. . Pacha:i Le RAYMOiQD Opened the Zoning Board of Appeals public hearing at 7 : 40 p . m . by reading the public notice ( a copy is attached ) . An application to place a mobile home on said lot was denied on 7/29/93 by George Senter ,, the Code Enforcement Officer . Rason being under Article 3 ,, Section 352 . 1 that 200-foot frontage is required for a lot in the Town of Groton ,, and the survey indicates that there is only 25 feet shown ,, which is not sufficient frontage . Subsequent to the denial of the Code Enforcement Officer ,, Mr . Walpole filed a variance request with the Zoning Board of Appeals . He asked for a variance with Section 352 . 1 code on land use regulations . He indicates this relates to 200-foot continuous road frontage that is required . The variance is signed by Robert Walpole . Company maps were provided to show where lot is . located . In regard to corresr.-,ondence ,, we have received a fairly lengthy letter from Mr . Brian Bartlett ,, 363 :Munson Road , Groton , New York,( addressed to the Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appe(lls . :. He had written this letter in lieu of hi .. attendance - at meeting . He is submitting this as an owner of property ad;j.acent to that owned by Susquehana Valley Farm Credit . He indicates - his contention that this variance should not be granted . ItTis- h1s understanding that the ZBA had a session on October 291, 1992 ,, where a:i concerning roan ironLage for %nis prucl?erty,, which , at: that time ,, was part of a larger parcel of 75 acres that has since been divided into two parcels--one of 20 acres owned by Randy Allen and the other of 48 acres which is the parcel in question at tonight ' s hearing . The interpretation of 10/29/92 ' s meeting ,, the road frontage for the entire 75-acre parcel was deemed to be 221 feet from the property ' s northwest corner to the southeast of Munson Road . Mr . Bartlett concludes that the parcel owned by Mr . Allen then must include this 221 feet road frontage since he hasn ' t heard of any other session ( s ) which granted a variance to allow a building permit with road fronta[tZure , than 200 feet . He concludes that if all of this-is, iri fact hat it follows that there is no legal access o the property stion . He feels that the property owner ,, Susquehana Valley Farm Credit ,, was fully knowledgeable about the interpretation given at the 10/29/92 meeting ; and ,, therefore ,, concludes that this problem is a self-inflicted hardship . This concern was brought forth at the 10/29/92 meeting of the ZBA . Mr ' a tt rtt included in his letJ. ter quotes from the minutes of the/ `SBA t iat indicates that if the lot was divided "I it would not be a n �n�conforming lot and ,, therefore ,, would not have sufficient zoning boara or Appeais , 'xnursaay / bepcemoer G , 177J rayC footage . He quotes that t h irman of the ZBA / myself ,, as sayin , yes , this has been pla d�a he time we held the session m a not been subdivided and wha- they do in the future is their problem . rtlett included a s etch with his letter to further aid in ' xplaining of his point of view . He also enclosed a copy of tter of intent given to him by Mr . Otis Jackso o is to be the prospective buyer . He indicates ( according bTh1 s informa- tion ) that Mr . Jackso la a business venture an unusual nature me g of , tra ic , etc . ,. but says that he has been inforn7ed= r�k7E. �p an( a gravel drive would partially involve v - d nd�, s = that he was given the opinion that the r-.oad�w no a andoned properly and that the Town would have to C � J1�J maintain it . According to 'the letter of intent by Otis and Heidi Jackson / two major reasons were provided for purchasing the 48 . 7 acres on Townline -Road in .the town . -of--- Groton . The first reason being that at some point in the futures they would like to build a retirement home on this property . The second reason is to hold something called " action pursuit games " between 15 to 20 times per year . This would be an all-day event ,, tightly-controlled acimese All games would be in the woods and go totally unnoticed by anyone in the area . The only noticeable change from current conditions according to this documents would be a private gravel drive extending from Munson Road along Townline Road ( abandoned ) 20 feet wide ,, approximately 500 feet long ;, with small parking area hidden behind the treeline . That concludes the type of information that we received in terms of correspondence . Usually the next order of business is a statement given by the applicant requesting the variance . In this case ,; Mr . Walpole ,, who is representing Susquehana Valley Farm Credit . Since he has not shown up for reasons that I am not sure of ,, I guess all we can do then is _ indicate such and turn to Mr . and Mrs . Jackson , /.! ^ ^t PPLSsWri L . RAYMONDo Do you have any statement/clarification on this to help move this proceeding along . Oe JACKSON : Basically/ I thought being at this proceeding would - be to see if I would be granted a variance since I don ' t have the 200 feet . Le RAYMOND : You applied for the variance? Oe JACKSON : Well ,, the Susquehana land company . L . RAYMOND : The land company is to be granted the variance . OK . Oe JACKSON : So , if a gravel drive was put in ,, then the surveyors could be there next week to flag out the 25-foot wide ,, as the survey indicates ,, by 410 feet long / which would give us access to the 48 . 98 acres . The reason for the gravel drive is that I am a hunter and I want to get back in there with my pick-up truck and ,, eventually/ build our home on that acreage / and basically/ I thought about paint balls / but what I am doing now is pulling back on that idea in the near future . I want to make sure that the people understand what . paint balls are . * * *Robert Walpole entered meeting at 7 : 50 p . m . and was brought up-to-date from Lyle Raymond . Le RAYMOND : OK,. Bob . One of the things I want to verify with you is that this is still Susquehana Valley Farm Credit . Is that correct?