Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-10-07 TOWN OF GROTON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Thursday,. October 71( 1993 ,, 7 : 30 p . m. VARIANCE APPLICATION OF SUSQUEHANNA VALLEY FARM CREDIT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT TOWN LINE ROAD, GROTON, NEW YORK,, SECTION 352 . la2 BOARD PUBLIC PRESENT * Denotes Members Present ) ( To listen only--not a public hearing ) Lyle Raymond ,, Chairman* Fran Casullo , Esq . ,, Town Attorney Mark Decker * George Senter ,, Code Enforcement Officer David Ofner * Robert Walpole Nial Smith * John Pachai * L . RAYMOND : Started meeting at 7 : 42 p . m . Following the public hearing ,, we decided to seek further guidance to clarify questions that Iwe had before making a decision here tonight . We have consulted with our Town attorney in asking for a report from him about legal inter- pretations concerning some of the questions that were raised during the public hearing . After he gives his report ,; the Board will make the decision . We do not have to necessarily accept the attorney ' s interpretation . For the record,. Mr . Casullo is not ,, in any way whatsoever ,, involved in making a decision . He is here to give legal interpretations . Some of the questions that were raised include the following : 1 . Does this necessarily entitle the applicant to a variance based on a non-conforming lot? 2 . Road abandonment ? Applicant states that he did not know about some of the road abandonment proceedings . He also felt that he had been land-locked by the legal action taken by the Town for the road abandonment . 3 . Barricade? Indicated that Town had failed to barricade the abandoned road properly,r which in applicant ' s opinion,, perhaps negated claims of abandonment .. 4 . Right-of-way? Does its existence count for road frontage? Does the Board agree with what has been brought forth with the above questions to be addressed? D . OFNER : What I have to say relates to flag lots . Does it apply here? It is not in the ordinance . It ' s a remark in the proceedings . L . RAYMOND : You ' re indicating from the minutes of the Town Board proceedings on flag lots . D . OFNER : I thought an effort was made by the Chairman of the Groton Planning Board about flag lot approval . L . RAYMOND : So the question you are addressing to Mr . Casullo is what effect would flag lots have in approving or disapproving this variance? D . OFNER : That ' s correct . Town of Groton - Zoning Board - of - Appeals ,, Thursday,, October 7 ,, - 1993 ,i 7 : 30 : p : m : - - - - - - - Page - 2 F . CASULLO : What I will do first is try to answer the question concerning flag lots . Groton Town Board ( GTB ) has not approved the concept of flag lots . I am not too familiar with the configuration that Mr . Walpole ' s proposed property would fit the description of a flag lot . If you do grant the variance allowing this ,, I am not saying you can or cannot do it . Just keep in mind that you would be creating something that the GTB has not deemed appropriate for the Town or deemed acceptable yet . I do not think it would be illegal to accept it as a flag lot to do a variance . Although , I do not know that the GTB would like something like that . You would be doing something that the GTB has not felt desireable for the Town .. _ I don '.t think you would be bound not - to create a flag lot variance . The variance here would be for the lack of road frontage . J . PACHAI : Referring to draft of hearing minutes [ on -this case ] ,, we do not want � to make a blanket approval . F . CASULLO : I am not saying that you cannot do that . All I am saying is that be mindful where the GTB stands with that . D . OFNER : There are communities in the area in which their zoning ordinance has provided for flag lots . Certain dimensions have to be met . We have no dimensional material provided for our flag lot codes . If we were to approve flag lots , would that be, .in effect ,, to make or amend a Town ordinance? F . CASULLO : If you approve this variance ,, you will not be approving flag lots . You will be approving a variance that in this one particular instance would create a flag lot . Frankly, this is going to have to be an issue for the GTB to examine . You will not be allowing flag lots . L . RAYMOND : Someone has requested a variance for not enough road frontage-- this is the issue . F . CASULLO : I have been asked to discuss the issue of concept of abandonment of Town highways or roads . I only speak on the law . You people are far more versed on the facts of the situation than I am . I will be just telling you what the law is about abandoned roads and that you go from there . What I do say should not sway you into making your final decision . Referred to Section 2051 of the Highway Law . If the road has been non-used or " abandoned for a six-year period " ,I it is deemed abandoned . If the road is not being used or a thoroughfare for a six-year period , it is deemed abandoned . I think where the problem comes in is when the people say the Town did not officially abandon:= this road until December 1992 . That is not important . I will quote directly from the statute that applies in this situation right from Section 2051 of the Highway Law : " Directs the Town Superintendent as an incident of his duties officially acclaim what has already taken place , namely the abandonment . If this road has not been used for six years , it is abandoned . His duty in this respect is merely ministerial ,, and he has no discretion in the matter . " What that is saying is that it is just a formality for him to bring the certificate before the Board . It ' s a ministerial act . The following is the key sentence : Town of - Groton - Zoning - Board - of - Appeals ,, - Thursday,, - October 7 , 1993 ,E 7 : 30 p : m : - - - - - - Page 3 " The abandonment of a highway for six years non-use is not affected by the fact that the Town Superintendent has not filed the prescribed certificate of abandonment . " So regardless of the fact that the Town Superintendent did not come before the Board until December 1992 saying when this road is officially being abandoned is merely ministerial . If the road has been abandoned for six years ,, it is abandoned . It is unapplicable . L . RAYMOND : What about the question about a barricade being put up? F . CASULLO : You do not need a barricade . If you look at it ,i is that a thorough- fare anymore? Is that road being used as a thoroughfare? Is it being maintained? If there is any question, have the person who is interested in knowing this information go before the Town officials and ask '.the status of the road . You do not have to put barrels for a barricade . It may be helpful but not required . J . P,ACHAI : You can say that the public hearing did-, .not have to beoheld . Basically,, the demand for relief is to re-open the road . F . CASULLO : Reason for the public hearing is give the citizens knowledge that there is going to be an official abandonment of this road . Then the public has the opportunity to say yes or no .that the road has been used or not used [ during such a time ] . L . RAYMOND : Is the Board satisfied with what the Town attorney ' fias provided for us so we may start making a decision? F . CASULLO : I just want to add one thing about the right-of-way . If there is ever a variance that is going to allow a right-of-way that is granted ,+_ that .- the. right-of-way shouldn ' t be maintained by the Town . The Town should not be responsible for the maintenance , rather the variance owner . Jack Fitzgerald handled the abandonment . As far as I am concerned ,, once they abandoned that road, - that ' s it . M . DECKER : It goes back to the original owner . L . RAYMOND : To add to the legal aspect and for the record ,, I did talk with an attorney in the Department of Transportation ' in Albany in the Legal Affairs Department . Her name is Patricia Dietrich . She indicated to me that the state law indicates that if a road has not been used for six yearslis abandoned was. put in there_ to stop Towns from abandoning roads. before they had not been used . for :six years,;_- I just thoughT that was an interesting J remark which adds to what Mr . Casullo has already told use F . CASULLO : Just keep in mind that you are dealing with an abandoned road . L . RAYMOND : Thanked Mr . Casullo for his report . Asked the Board how they wanted to start the decision making process: J . PACHAI Expressed concern about a lot should not be created when it does not meet the road frontage requirements . D . OFNER : Our discretion—J._s .how will it be used? [ Referring to Section 307 of Groton code that " A lot may be reduced or altered only if the resulting lot meets the minimum area,, frontage, and yard requirements prescribed by these regulations . " ] Town - of - Groton - Zoning - Board - of - Appeals ,, - Thursday, - October - 7 ,, - 1993 , 7 : 30 - p . m . . . . . . Page - 4 J . PACHAI : The reason for denial of permit application was for not enough road frontage . L . RAYMOND : I think what we are trying to say here is not the creation of a lot but rather creating a lot with the idea that you are going to use it for something that requires adequate road frontage under the Groton code . In other words , it is not the creation of the lot but what the lot would be used for once it is created . ** * The ZBA members took time out to research the definition on non-conforming lots . L . RAYMOND : Quoted from Page 54,, Section 307-Lot Dimensions from the Groton Land Use and Development Code Book . J . PACHAI : It seems like a non-conforming lot was created . L . RAYMOND : How is Section 307 enforced? D . OFNER : There is no municipality review until someone steps forward . L . RAYMOND : The permit application was denied because a mobile home was to be placed on a lot that did not meet the 200-foot road frontage require- ment . There ' s another thing to look at here . When somebody puts in an application for a permit on a lot that doesn ' t have adequate frontage , George denies it , and they can appeal it . And what is the very first thing we look into? Don ' t we look to see when that lot was created and to see whether it was grandfathered or not? Isn ' t that our policy? Was this lot created after the zoning ordinance? Yes ,, that ' s clear . ** * ZBA members took time out to review map about the 25-foot road frontage that was part of the deed verified by Mr . Walpole . L . RAYMOND : So what we are dealing with is a lot that was created after the zoning ordinance was passed . I am handing out a sheet or list of questions we must ask for granting area variances ( Attachment A ) that could be used as guidance to help us with our decision . D . OFNER : Do we have to go through each of these steps? L . RAYMOND : We have to provide an answer and/or comment to each of these requirements . M . DECKER : I think we are trying to make this too difficult . Referring to the reiteration of flag lots--lets deal with what we have [ a . non-conforming lot ] . L . RAYMOND : Referred to Number 1 from the List of Requirements . How substantial is it ? J . PACHAI : How substantial is the detriment to the community? L . RAYMOND : How do you want to deal with substantial ? Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals , Thursday,. October 7 ,; 1993 , 7 : 30 p . m . Page - 5 FINDINGS ( referring to questions that must be asked ) . NUMBER 1 FINDING . The requested variance is substantial in comparison to the frontage requirement . NUMBER 2 FINDING . No adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions ,, etc . NUMBER 3 FINDING : No substantial or undesirable change in neighborhood . NUMBER 4 FINDING . No--benefit sought by applicant cannot be achieved by some other feasible or reasonable method . NUMBER 5 FINDING . Yes , difficulty was self-created by applicant by creating lot on abandoned road with knowledge of implications for road frontage . NUMBER 6 FINDING . If this variance is granted ,. it will create an absence of any means to enforce Section 30 of the Town code ,, which relates to the creation of lots that do not meet the Town requirements . L . RAYMOND : So are we going to deny the variance? L . RAYMOND .* Made the motion to deny the variance . D . OFNER : Seconded the motion . D . OFNER : Made the suggestion that the voting be done individually . So with this suggestion,, the vote was as follows : L . RAYMOND : Voted " NO " in granting the variance . M . DECKER : Voted " NO " in granting the variance . N . SMITH : Voted "NO" in granting the variance . D . OFNER : Voted " NO" in granting the variance . J . PACHAI : Abstained vote for reason of conflict of interest . [ Appeal currently pending for variance relating to road frontage . ] VARIANCE DENIED . Meeting ended at 9 : 17 p . m . Submitted by Penny Bogardus REQUIREMENTS FOR GRANTING AREA VARIANCES NYS Town Law 267 -a Town of Groton Land Use & Development Code, Section 427 ( Combined Requirements) 1 . How substantial the requested variance is in comparison to the requirement . ( Town code includes " in comparison to the requirement . " ) 2 . Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood or district : increase in population density , intensity of development, or generation of traffic on existing public facilities . (Same for State Law & Town Code , except Town Code lists specific examples in second part) 3 . Whether the proposed variance will produce a substantial or undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a substantial detriment to adjoining or nearby properties . (Same for State Law & Town Code , except that Town Code uses "substantial " and state uses "undesirable . ") 4 . Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some feasible method , reasonable for the applicant to pursue , other than a variance . (Same for State Law & Town Code , except that state uses 'feasible " and Town Code uses "reasonable . ") 5 . Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created ( that it was will not necessarily preclude the granting of the area variance) . - - NYS Town Law . 6 . Whether the manner in which the practical difficulty arose and considering all of the above factors , the interests of justice will be served by allowing the variance . - - Groton Code 427(5) , ATTACHMENT A Town Justices (607 ) 898-5273 Groton . Supfisor (607) 898- 5102 Arland L. HeHron Torn of Teresa M. Robinson Alton I. Alexander Code Enforcement Office 607 898-4428 �A`+'�0�4I Town Clerk (607) 898-5035 ( ) pF GROIN Colleen D. Pierson George E. Senter , Sr. .. a tti O o�` �( `�a Superintendent of Highways (607) 898-3110 3F y g s g C T E n ` I& Leland E. Cornelius 1817 o oe S � �, , z3 Councilmen 4p, sC.E 6t4 Ellard L. Sovocool OUti Gordon C . VanBenschoten Donald E. Cummings Carl E. Haynes L E G A L N O T I C E TOWN OF GROTON PLEASE TAKE NOTICE . that the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Groton , County of Tompkins , State of New York , will meet at the Town Hall , 101 Conger Boulevard , Groton , New York , on Thursday , October 7th , 1993 at 7 : 30 PM for the purpose of rendering a decision on the application of Susquehanna Valley Farm Credit , 276 Tompkins Street , Cortland , New York for a Variance to Section 352 . 1a2 of the Town of Groton Land Use and Development Code , regarding insufficient road frontage for property on Town Line Road , Groton , New York , for which a public hearing was held on September 2 , 1993 . Lye Raymond , Chairman Zoning Board of Appeals Dated : 23 September 1993 P . O . Box 36 0 101 Conger Boulevard o Groton , NY 13073 - 0036 TOWN OF GROTON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TUESDAY,, SEPTEMBER 71, 1993 ,, 7 : 30 P . M . JOSEPH AND LINDA WILBUR,, 396 LICK STREET., GROTON., NEW YORK,, FOR ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE GROTON LAND USE & DEVELOPMENT CODE. SECTION 352 . 1 . c-MINIMUM SIZE DWELLING REQUIRED 840 SQ . FT . FOR ENVELOPE OF STRUCTURE AND SECTION 352 . 1 . a-DIMENSION REGULATIONS-FRONTAGE OR PRINCIPAL FRONTAGE 200 CONTIQUOUS FEET MINIMUM ( PER DWELLING UNIT ) * ZONING BOARD PUBLIC PRESENT ( *Denotes Members Present ) * Lyle Raymond ,, Chairman George Senter * Mary Decker Fran Casullo, Esq . * David Ofner Joseph & Linda Wilbur * John Pachai * Nial Smith L . RAYMOND * Opened the Zoning Board of Appeals ( ZBA ) public hearing at 7 : 35 p . m . by reading the legal notice ( Attachment A ) . This hearing is not a variance request by actually a hearing on an alleged violation . The beginning of this thing . started off when a resident wrote a letter ( Helen Douglas ) to the code enforcement officer ( CEO ) ( Attachment B ) . When the CEO receives such things ,, a procedure is set forth . Basically,, what the CEO,, in this case ,, George Senter ,, does is to check into the alleged violations . Mr . Senter has a stated period of time for which he must do this and report back according to the code . He did report back and sent a letter to me dated August 4 ,, 1993 ( Attachment C ) . I should have stated that Helen Douglas ' s letter is dated July l ,, 1993 . The minutes of the Town Board for April 1987 into May 1987 have to do with the hearing that they conducted on a variance request at that time . I need to explain that at that time ,, the Town Board was administering the mobile home ordinance . Since this had to do with a moveable structure ,, it was considered appropriate that they deal with it under the mobile home ordinance . Since that time in 1987 ,, the Town Board had the mobile home ordinance transferred for administra- tive purposes to the Board of Zoning Appeals ,, so the ZBA now administers both the Land Use Code and the Mobile Home Ordinance . So that ' s the change that took place . The Town Board acting in their capacity dated May 12 ,, 1987 ,, said " RESOLVED,, that the Town Board does hereby deny Mr . and Mrs . Joseph Wilbur ' s request for a variance to reside in a 5th wheel recreation vehicle on their property on Lick Street . " I then sent a letter to Mr . and Mrs . Wilbur ,, as the code requires ,, indicating which sections of the code that they were alleged to be in violation of and indicated that they have to reply within 15 days . Or ,, if no answer is received,, to go ahead with the public hearing anyway . I will not read the whole letter here because it restates pretty much what has already been said . The Wilburs then responded August 191, 1993 . Penny,, for your records ,, my letter to the Wilburs was dated August 12 ,, 1993 . Anyways ,, the letter reads as follows : Dear Mr . Raymond : We have received your letter dated August 12 ,, 1993 . We have read your letter ,, Mr . George Senter ' s letter ,, and Mrs . Helen Douglas ' s letter ,, as well as the attached documentation regarding the previous decision . We can Town - of Groton Zoning Board of - Appeals4 Tuesdays September - 7s 1993,, 7 : 30 - p . m . - Page 2 understand that you feel we are in violation of the codes mentioned,, Section 352 . 1 . c and Section 352 . 1 . a and that a variance had not been granted for us to reside in the 5th wheel recreation vehicle on our property . What our lawyer did not cover at the time nor in any of the documentation you have sent is the fact that we are using a " recreational vehicle " on our property . As a recreational vehicles it complies with health concerns , fire concerns , I and recreational dwelling information as we preceded . It is " not " a mobile home nor is it a residential structure . Mrs . Douglas was correct in her assessment of our 5th wheel being a recreational vehicle . We are sorry that the items she disagrees with seems more to be the consideration of eye sores than anything else . For that , we apologize and will attempt to clean up . With regard to the residence ,, we realize that we cannot classify the recreational vehicle as a residence . It is a vehicle . We license it . We move it from place to place,, and a residence does not move . It would not be known to you necessarily that the 5th wheel recreational vehicle that is on our property is " not " . The vehicle originally in use at the time of the variance determination . From what we read in regard to recreational vehicle use ,, we are not in violation . We request that you dismiss the complaint at this time , and you have our permission to send a copy of our letter to Mrs . Douglas . We accept your complaint and empthasize with her displeasure . " 'that ' s the completion of our case in terms of documentation that I received . The way we conduct the hearings is after the state- ment of the case , which I just completed in . reading the correspondence,, we then ask the applicant or the violator or whoever is before us to state his or her case. .and see if anyone opposes,, then the Board undertakes their case . With that ,, I assume you are Mr . and Mrs . , Wilbur ? Yes . Do you have a response to all of these letters and other correspondence? L . WILBUR • Stated her case by reading from her notes ( Attachment D ) . L . RAYMOND : May we obtain a copy of your letter for the record? L . WILBUR Nodded in agreement . J . WILBUR * The question that nobody has answered in these hearings is : " How do you classify a mobile home over a camper trailer? " And when you can classify that then say that our camper trailer is a mobile home and is violating New York State laws and County Township laws , then I will very gladly agree with what you ' re trying to say . Until then ,, I don ' t feel that we have violated any New York State zoning law or any County zoning law or any Town zoning law . L . RAYMOND : We are not trying to say anything ,, sir ,, at this moment because we are only here to hear the alleged violation . That ' s all . J . WILBUR : That is what I am saying and that ' s what I ' ve said . You read the previous document where the previous document required a variance . It never verified that question . And that ' s the question . Until the Zoning Board or this hearing board can prove me wrong from what is in these zoning books ,, I do not see why we are even here for this discussion . Town - of Groton Zoning - Board of Appeals ,. Tuesday,, September 7 ,, 1993 ,1 7 : 30 p . m . Page 3 L . RAYMOND : OK . When Town Board had this before ,, they made a determination,, of course ,, as you know . J . WILBUR : Their determination was a violation of . They did not grant a variance . Plain and simple and fact . L . RAYMOND : OK . OK . J . WILBUR : There was no proof one way or the other what the wrong was or who was wrong or who was right . Re-read your variance right there . L . RAYMOND : You say that you are using this as a camper for camping and/or recreational purposes? J . WILBUR : That ' s right . L . RAYMOND ; What recreational activities do you engage in there? J . WILBUR : I go all over New York State to work and that ' s a camping vehicle that I use on the job . I use it as pleasure camping and anywhere else I want to go . D . OFNER : I would like to clarify that . First place , I would like to say that I am not aware that we were talking about mobile homes at this time ,, are we? it doesn ' t seem to be part of the issue . L . RAYMOND : The issue was just opened by Mr . Wilbur . D . OFNER : OK . Reference your camping vehicle or whatever you call it . You do have a permanent home somewheres ,, is that right ? J . WILBUR : The home is right at the address that everybody ' s bitching about . D . OFNER : Pardon me . Do you have a permanent home ? A place that you call home ? J . WILBUR .* 396 Lick Street . D . OFNER : What is that? Describe that to me . J . WILBUR : That 2 . 5 acres with a dwelling on it ,, a 32 x 28-foot garage on it ,, a barn on the back side of that ,, and a fenced-in pasture ,, and a garden . D . OFNER : I ' m just talking about the place where you live . The dwelling . J . WILBUR *& The dwelling is the house that started in 1969 and finished in 1973 . D . OFNER : Now,, you are also camping around the country but maintain a home . J . WILBUR : Right . I have for the past 20 years . D . OFNER : You are the only person who lives in that home? J . WILBUR : No . My family lives there . Now I bet you ' re asking what consists of a family . I have a daughter that lives there with us . D . OFNER : And you are now living with your daughter? J . WILBUR : She lives with us . The point is that you ' re getting into a pod Town - of Groton - Zoning - Board - of - Appeals , Tuesday, September 7 , 1993 , 7 . 30 p . m : - - - - Page 4 of peas that you want to keep right on going . L . RAYMOND : I think what David is asking is what structure are you living in as a home . J . WILBUR : I don ' t have to clarify that . L . RAYMOND : You don ' t? J . WILBUR : No . I don ' t . Because my address clarifies that ,, and the zoning law that we ' re arguing about is not about clarifying whether I live in that home or I live in THAT 5th wheel or live in a tent in the back area . L . RAYMOND : Well ,, the code does . . J . WILBUR : No ,, the code does not . L . RAYMOND : No . The code does say that it can ' t be two structures on the same property . J . WILBUR : It ain ' t a structure ! How do you classify construction then? L . RAYMOND : That ' s what we ' re trying to clarify,, sir . J . WILBUR : OK sir . You better start cleaning this whole Town up . Because I can sit right here and give you 25 different places that are in the same violation that I am in and they were mentioned before in the Town Board meeting ,, and I was told to shut my mouth because they worked out this deal . D . OFNER : I don ' t think you gave me a clear answer ,, sir . J . WILBUR .& I don ' t intend to . D . OFNER : Oh . Then you will not describe to me . . . J . WILBUR : It ' s a four-bedroom house . D . OFNER : Yes ,, I know . I ' ve seen it from the road . J . WILBUR : OK,, then why are you asking me for? D . OFNER : Because sir ,i it appears from your description of your abode , that your primary abode , is the recreational vehicle that you use not only in your movements . I still don ' t understand what recreation you do carry on at your lot and other places around the country . J . WILBUR : You mean a person can ' t just go out and camp out ? He ' s gotta have a permit to build a bon fire in his back door yard? You mean he ' s gotta have the permission from this Town ,, this community,, to say he can go out and sleep in a tent in the back door yard? Or sleep in his 5th wheel if he wants to sleep there 365 days in the year in the tent? Is that what you ' re trying to say? ' Well . . . that ' s what you have said ' D . OFNER : Sir . My impression from your presentation is that that vehicle is the primary structure or object that you use as your home . J . WILBUR : No , I have not stated that . I told you what my home was . I told you what my address was ,( and that is what my home is . Now,, you ' re turning it around and twisting it to what you want it to ' say . Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals , Tuesday, September 7 , 1993 ,E 7 : 30 a . m . Page 5 D . OFNER : No . I ' m sorry . . . L . RAYMOND : OK . OK . I think this dialogue on this particular aspect here is that Mr . Wilbur has stated what he wants to state ,I and if you are satisfied with that statement for the record Mr . Wilbur . . . J . WILBUR : His question . . . what difference where I stay . I am not at home 365 days out of the year . I ' m out on the road about 300 days of last year between here and Florida . My residence according to my New York State driver ' s license is 396 Lick Street and that 396 Lick Street has nothing to do whether it is a 5th wheel or my house or my garage '. L . RAYMOND : OK . Is that your statement for the record? J . WILBUR : Yes ,, that ' s my statement ' L . RAYMOND : OK . Then , does anyone else have any further questions for Mr . Wilbur an Mrs . Wilbur? J . PACHAI : I would like to know if Mrs . Wilbur also considers his on-the-road . . . First of all ,, let me clarify this . We are here because we are part of the Board and are obligated to ask certain questions to at least try to clarify the issue at hand and ask questions typically in an effort to appease the person who is being cited to try to find a way to give them a variance . It ' s not a matter of being against . I can understand how you feel . Please don ' t feel that every question is meant to hurt rather than help . L . WILBUR : Sometimes I go on the road with him and when at home ,+ I am in the house . L . RAYMOND : Anyone else? OK . We do have our Town attorney here with us ,, and Mr . Casullo, do you have any clarification for the record on the interpretation in regard to residence in the way Mr . Wilbur has been describing ? F . CASULLO,� ESQ . Well . Let me put it this way . A lot of what Mr . Wilbur is saying ,( I just do not know . I got into this situation far late . I believe in 1987 . As far as the two sections of the code that are cited "I if indeed a recreational vehicle is being used as a residence , those two—the frontage and the square footage-- codes have to be met . If they are not ,, you have two options as you guys are well aware . We either apply for a variance or you simply cannot do it . It appears in 1987 ,E the Wilburs applied for a variance . For whatever reason ,, the variance was not granted . I am looking very quickly at the record here ,, and it appears to me that back in 1987 , they acknowledged that they were using the RV as a residence for at least four months of the year . L . RAYMOND .* Yes . I saw that too . F . CASULLO� ESQ . : Now,, I don ' t know if that is still in existence . If that is istill true ,, yes ,I you are in violation . I think the only thing that Mr . Wilbur may not be seeing here , and I am certainly not trying to make this difficult for him . I think that just letting this matter go on for six years is pretty clear that everyone is trying to work an acceptable resolution . I think what Mr . Wilbur is seeing here is a couple things . One,. this Board cannot act until a complaint was lodged by a resident of this community . It is your duty as a Board once you receive a complaint along with the CEO Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals ,, Tuesday, September 7 , 1993 ,E 7 : 30 p . m . Page 6 receiving this complaint ,, it is incumbant upon Mr . Senter and to yourselves ,, as a Board, in whole ,, to act upon that complaint . You wouldn ' t be doing your function if you were doing anything less . That is what I think you are doing tonight . You have to look into it ,, and if indeed,, there is a violation ,, then you have to rectify it . No one is saying you have to impose a penalty . You just have to rectify the situation or else there would be no need for a code . There would be no need--would have people in this Town do what they want ,, but apparently the majority of the people in this Town wanted a code . They want this Board . They have a mechanism,, . and that ' s what we ' re doing here tonight . Secondly,, what I think, and more importantly,, from my point of view,( what Mr . Wilbur is failing to see here is the reason the Town is taking a stand is the potential liability that the Town could face if God forbid if there was ever a fire or some sort of other accident in that recreational vehicle if it is being used as a residence . The Town faces a significant liability issue ,, and he may not want to accept that ,, but it ' s there . L . RAYMOND : OK . Mr . Wilbur,, did you want to address the Board? J . WILBUR : Yes . His statement about fire code . This Town is suppose to be a great Town for fire code ,, but that recreational vehicle has a higher rating for fire code than any place in this Town has , and it ' s a federal fire code ,, and now here we go again talking codes . The point is we still have not answered the zoning code . F . CASULLO,, ESQ . : I ' m not talking about the fire code . I think,, in all due respect ,, I may have not made myself clear to the point where Mr . Wilbur understood me . I am talking liability that may even come from the Wilburs themselves . I mean if they are in a situation where the Town should have cleared up and something happens to somebody,, the Wilburs themsleves could bring an action . The RV may be a fine ,, very good fire prevention . That is not the point I am making . The point I am making is if there is an accident ,, I ' m not saying there ' s a fire code ,, I ' m saying there is a potential for the Town to be liable because the Town is not following its ordinances or its rules and regulations ,, especially since you have been put on notice by a resident who is filing a complaint and has been checked out by your CEO . That is my point . L . RAYMOND : Rebuttal Mr . and Mrs . Wilbur? J . WILBUR : The question is is that he is harping on zoning laws . Here ' s the camping zoning law,, and you won ' t even take time to read it . Yet ,, you ' re standing here considering I am violating 200-square footage and everything else because you ' re going to the mobile home law . If you can classify that as a mobile home . Well ,, then ,, alright , I am in violation . But until you can prove to me a camping trailer becomes a mobile home,, I cannot see I have been in any violation of any zoning law . L . RAYMOND : I think to clarify here some of the questions that I and other Board members had whether or not it ' s a camping trailer . That ' s not the issue . We all know it ' s a camping trailer . Our concern is how it is being put to use . And that makes a difference . J . WILBUR : That ' s what I ' m saying right here . Your zoning law reads there is no time limit on camping . Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals , Tuesday,, September 7 ,, 1993 ,, 7 : 30 p . m . Page 7 L . RAYMOND : I understand that . We are just asking what use it is being put tok and you ' re saying that it is being used for camping ? And not as a residence? J . WILBUR : That ' s right . My residence is 396 Lick Street and there ' s a house there and there ' s a garage and a barn . M . DECKER : Can you tell me ,, Joe , how many or how much time ,t days of the year when you ' re back in Groton,, New York,; at 396 ,, do you reside in the house when you ' re at this locality? J . WILBUR : That ain ' t their question . M . DECKER : That ' s my question to you . J . WILBUR : I don ' t know . I don ' t keep tracks of records of it . Like I said ,, I was on the road 275 - 300 days last year ,, which I can go get a trucking logging book to show that . M • DECKER : Out of those 300 and some odd days ,, you remained in the house at that time the RV was with her . J • WILBUR : I don ' t see the point here until they can prove the camping law wrong and change the camping law to a mobile home law . That ' s my question and has been my question for the past seven years . As I brought up seven years ago,, the people are doing the same thing but only doing it six months out of the year ,, and I was told to shut my mouth because . . L . RAYMOND : Well ,, we aren ' t going to second guess the Town Board . They are a different board than we are . All we have is what is in the record . F . CASULLO,, ESQ . I am very confused right now . I may have it wrong . I am looking at the Town of Groton Land Use & Development Code that was adopted September 10,, 19900 L . RAYMOND : Yes ,, that ' s the new version . The previous version was adopted in 1972 , J . WILBUR : You have to go back to 1983 . I have the 1983 one . F . CASULLO,, ESQ . Can you tell me where the camping provision in this 1990 . . L . RAYMOND .& I don ' t know . F . CASULLO,, ESQ . I think that ' s a start . . J . WILBUR : I have the 1983 , * * *PUBLIC AND BOARD MEMBERS TOOK TIME OUT TO RESEARCH SECTION ON CAMPING . L . RAYMOND : We are trying to find the definition for recreational camping . He may be correct if there isn ' t one in here . F . CASULLO,� ESQ . I found recreational cabins . J . WILBUR : Oh yeah ,, you ' re going to find a lot of other things ,, but you ain ' t gonna find no time limit or nothing * * * PUBLIC AND BOARD MEMBERS CONTINUED RESEARCHING FOR A DEFINITION . Town of Groton Zoning - Board - of Appeals ,, Tuesday,, September - 7 , 1993 ,E 7 : 30 - p . m . - - - - - Page - 8 L . RAYMOND : I think it ' s time that we need to clarify this kind of stuff here . OK . I find only group outdoor recreation . This is the one for 1990 . J . WILBUR : The original one is 1983 . L . RAYMOND : We realize that . J . WILBUR : The point is ,, this is the one I used and now being penalized for it . I ' ve been doing it since 1973 . L . RAYMOND : There is no listing for recreational camping under the current one . Not at all . J . WILBUR : According to everything that everybody else has said because I was doing it in 1973 , I ' m a grandfather clause anyway . That ' s j what I tried to bring up to the Town Board six years ago and they didn ' t even want to listen to it . I L . RAYMOND .* Yes ,, I understand . The record shows it . According to the record of the Town Board meetings ,, apparently they didn ' t j accept your claim that it was recreational camping . So the real question is not whether it ' s a recreational vehicle but what it was being used for ,, and you say,, to clarify for the record . . . . . J . WILBUR : When you can clarify to me that I am wrongly using it for recreational camping ,, then you ' ve got me ,, but until you can clarify that ,, I don ' t see where the Zoning Board or the Town Board has any grounds to even be . L . RAYMOND : We do have a definition of a dwelling unit here . I i J . WILBUR : OK . Let me ask you something . How do you classify camping ? i L . RAYMOND : Well ,, we don ' t have to . We can do it the other way around and classify a dwelling unit ,, and if it meets the requirements I of a dwelling unit ,, then it ' s not a camper . J . WILBUR .* Hey now . . . . no . i L . RAYMOND : Gave the definition of a dwelling unit : " A dwelling unit is / a structured design ,used for living quarters including provisions for cooking and sleeping . " Does that have provisions for cooking and sleeping in it? J . WILBUR : A tent does too . L . RAYMOND .* A dwelling unit has its own kitchen . Does it have its own kitchen? J . WILBUR : A tent has its own ktichen too . L . RAYMOND : This is Section 116 . 03 . Does it have its own bathroom? J . WILBUR : A tent can too . Hey, I ' m being honest about it . It meets all with what you are trying to say,, but I can put a 55-foot tent out there and meet all those specifications and still be camping . I Town - of - Groton Zoning - Board - of - Appeals , Tuesday, - September - 7 ,, - 1993 , - 7 : 30 - p . m . - - - - Page; - 9 J . PAC'RAI : If the items are part of ,, permanently attached to it ,, you can find / a way to . I L . RAYMOND : Yea . J . PACHAI : By the same stretch of the imagination or the stretch of what can or can ' t be done on the extreme , we could look at the camper and stretch things and have that be something that it is obviously not . i i J . WILBUR : OK . Let ' s turn this around . They have tax assessed me for it ,, and the tax assessor says it can ' t be tax assessed because it ' s on wheels ,; it ' s moveable ,, and I license it . L . RAYMOND : What the tax assessor decides is a whole separate question from what we ' re doing . . Let ' s look at the definition of a mobile home . ( Lyle read from page 2 of the Mobile - Home Ordinance -;code .boak . ) They cross over . They both apply in many respects . V . WILBUR : If you ' re going to - cross-over things ,, why don ' t you put that j right in your camping rules . See ,, that don ' t specify that in the camping rules . L . RAYMOND : Well the camping rules , sir , are not in the present code . I ' m sorry . i D . OFNER : I have a question here . i L . RAYMOND : OK . I ' ll take one or two more questions from the Board because I think everything that needs to be said has been said . D . OFNER : When you leave here and you go to your lot ,, where do you go? I J . WILBUR .* 396 Lick Street . i I D . OFNER : I mean do you go to your camping vehicle? J . WILBUR : Well ,, it ' s out on the lot ,, camping now,, yes . / D . OFNER : You ' re camping now? J . WILBUR : Yea , not on 396 Lick Street . j I D . OFNER : You ' re camping on your property? J . WILBUR : I didn ' t say I was on my property . I said I ' m camping and thatlz all I said ,, and I ' m not on 396 Lick Street . D . OFNER . You own two lots though , is that right > J . WILBUR : Well ,, you ' re answering your own question so you must know . So,, must be . D . OFNER : So,, you ' re on another lot then . ( ? ) I J . WILBUR : I guess . L . RAYMOND : What ' s the address for the other lot by the way? J . WILBUR : That man knows where the other lot is . I , Town - of - Groton . Zoning - Board , of - Appeals ,, - Tuesday,, September . 7 ,, - 1993 ,, . 7 : 30 • p : m : — Page 10 L . RAYMOND : Mr . Wilbur ,, I think this answered the question . OK,, unless someone else has any further questions ,, I think we should close the hearing and move into our discussion about what we are going to decide about this . The hearing is officially closed at 8 : 13 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, State of New York,, County of Tompkins ,, for Alleged Violations by JOSEPH AND LINDA WILBUR of 396 Lick Street , Groton , New York, ! of the Groton Land Use and Development Code ,, Section 352 . 1 . c and Section 342 . 1 . a ,, I dice transcribe the hearing from note dictation in addition o an audio tape and the foregoing is a true and exact copy to the best of my ability . i Penny L . ardus I i i I I I I i i Town of - Groton - Zoning - Board - of - Appeals ,, - Tuesday,, - September 7 ,, - 1993 ,, 7 : 30 - p : m . - - - - - - - - - - - HIGHLIGHTS FROM BOARD DISCUSSION FOLLOWING HEARING L . RAYMOND : We have ,, in a sense,, two scenarios . We ' ve got the scenario that is alleged by the Town Board five years agog and we have Mr . and Mrs . Wilbur ' s sketch of the way they see it . Is that a fair summary of where we are at here? Board members nodded in agreement . L . RAYMOND : We are looking at evidence to support either one . Secondly,, how does that fit into the code requirements ? The Wilburs are using a variation of a code that precedes this one . Board members reviewed previous documentation that was provided at hearing . M . DECKER : Mentioned minutes of April 14 ,, 1993 ,, where the attorney was speaking on their behalf ( Town Board minutes ) . A construction worker who is laid-off during winter and takes the camper with him on job sites in summer . J . PACHAI : That still does not document ,, to me ,, that they have been living in it since May of 1987 . In 1987 ,, they were living there four months of the year . They are claiming they are not living in it ,, and it should be proven that they have not or have been living there . D . OFNER : It was my impression at the first time I was exposed to this that the permanent structure is being used primarily by the daughter and the family of the daughter as their home . At that time , there is also a mobile home ,, which we understood was the abode of the parents while they were not moving around . Is that the way you understood at the time ,, Lyle? L . RAYMOND .& Yes . N . SMITH : To be a recreational vehicle that is licensed doesn ' t necessarily mean it has to go anywheres . You could set it on your lot 365 days out of the year and doesn ' t have to go anywhere . Since it is licensed,, it is not a violation to have it sit there 365 days out of the year . L . RAYMOND : How do we define a dwelling unit? Now,, we have definitions of dwelling units in the code book . How do you define camping out? We need to have them ( George Totman-Planning Board ) define a lot of this stuff a lot better than what is in here now . Because this type of question is difficult to answer with the way the code is written now . L . RAYMOND : Brought up accountability issues ,, the Planning and Town Boards should update this code instead of the Zoning Board taking authority . Also litigation concerns were expressed . M . DECKER : Expressed liability concerns . Emergency vehicles responding to,, in this case ,, 396 Lick Street . J . PACHAI : One thing we don ' t want to do for sure is set a precedent ,, and at the same time , we really do need to look at this case as it stands by itself ? Regardless of how we feel ,, we need some Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals ,, Tuesday,, September 7 , 1993c 7 : 30 p . m .- 2 _ sort of proof that they are living in it year-round as a permanent residence . Sewage operations were discussed with campers and/or RVs . J . PACHAI : As I read this ,, I do not see it as a mobile home . In a way,, I think it should read as a mobile home ,, but it does not . ( He was referring to page 2 of definitions of the Mobile Home Ordinance book . ) L . RAYMOND : Asked everyone to refer to Page 16 of the code book for classifying use . D . OFNER : It appears to me that these people are not camping and that it is their home . Gave his view on camping . L . RAYMOND : The evidence lies outside the code . Discussion was also brought up about giving the responsibility of evidence to the CEO and take it to Town Court . L . RAYMOND : OK . Lets make a finding that the code is deficient and that we make a recommendation in the finding that the Town Board consider amending the code to resolve these questions about recreational use . Given that ,, we will dismiss with a condi- tion pending future Town Board action . D . OFNER : I can ' t see Town Board taking over the responsibility . My reaction is that they are making it their home . Discussion was brought up about removing the vehicle . They do have the right to move it around . How is it being used is the concern . J . PACHAI : Asked to move for a 5-minute recess . D . OFNER : Expressed concern about moving the vehicle from the one lot he owns to the next . See-saw . L . RAYMOND : Granted a five-minute recess at 9 : 05 p . m . Discussion was resumed at 9 : 12 p . m . J . PACHAI : I think we should brainstorm our finding ( s ) and then from there worry about resolving . It seems that we are trying to come up with a final action . Lets look at the findings as they stand : One of those being the Wilburs have been using the 5th wheel as a shelter,, excluding all definitions , where they are doing it year-round on the tax parcel indicated . . D . OFNER : I don ' t see anyone challenging the issue that they are using this as their primary dwelling . L . RAYMOND : Refer to Page 17 ,E Section 131 . 1 When does camping no longer become camping ? Residential activities ? So why don ' t we dismiss the complaint on the basis that the vehicle has been moved ,, but if put back in place and the CEO finds it being used for longer than a month ,, then it meets the requirement of the code and then referred to Town Court ? Town of - Groton Zoning Board of Appeals ,, Tuesday, September 7 , 1993 ,0 7 : 30 p . m . - 3 L . RAYMOND : If they are camping there for more than one month ,, then it becomes a permanent structure . The CEO can monitor it . Somebody want to -make a motion? M . DECKER : Yes . D . OFNER : We should address the issue of camping . FINDINGS That the plaintiff claims that the use of the vehicle is for camping . Section 131 , , , Residential Activities ; Section 131 . 1 of the Town of Groton Land Use & Develcpment Code states that the occupancy of housing accommodations on a permanent ( longer than a one-month basis by a household makes it a dwelling-page 17 of code . L . RAYMOND : Based on the above finding ( s ) ,i we make a motion then to . . . J . PACHAI : Wants to make a third finding that the recreational vehicle is no longer at 396 Lick Street . L . RAYMOND : OK . We have three findings . What ' s next . Do we want to make a motion to dismiss based on conditions? D . OFNER : OK--with conditions . L . RAYMOND : OK . What conditions? M . DECKER : Like what ? To monitor? It ' s no longer on the lot where we can prove . L . RAYMOND : Why not ? We are setting .criteria ,, given the evidence . - M . DECKER : So,; we are going to hand it back to the CEO who is going to have to monitor it . L . RAYMOND : We will give him the basis on which to monitor it according to Section 131 . 1 . J . PACHAI : Makes a motion to dismiss under the condition that the Wilburs do not use the recreational vehicle at 396 Lick Street as a permanenet housing accommodation as defined by Section 131 . 1 . L . RAYMOND : Any discussion on the motion here? Board members did not direct any discussion . OK . So the motion stands as John has stated . M . DECKER : Seconds the motion. VOTE : ALL IN FAVOR ; MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY Meeting adjourned at 9 : 26 p : m . Submitted by Penny Bogardus