The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1994-01-27 Deciion meeting Gleason Subdivision TOWN OF GROTON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS THURSDAY , JANUARY 27 ,, 1994 ,, 7 : 30 P . M . ( * Denotes Members Present ) BOARD MEMBERS PUBLIC PRESENT John Pachai , Vice-Chairperson * Roger Gleason Nial Smith * DeForest Hall David Ofner * George Totman Mary Decker Lyle Raymond ,, Chairperson ,, did not represent the ZBA because of conflict of interest ( personal ) but was present at this meeting . John Pachai ,. Vice-Chairperson,, opened the Zoning Board of Appeals decision meeting regarding ROGER GLEASON ,, 307 OLD STAGE ROAD , GROTON , NEW YORK, OF PROPERTY ON LICK STREET-VARIANCE TO SECTION 352 . la2- INSUFFICIENT ROAD FRONTAGE-TAX MAP NO . : 1-121-21 . 2 . J . PACHAI : The public hearing was held on Thursday,, December 30 , 1993 , at 7 : 30 p . m . . This public hearing was closed , and the decision meeting started thereafter . The decision was to adjourn the meeting and reconvene giving Mr . Gleason sufficient time to consider the options that were presented to him in respect to achieving a 200-foot frontage on the lot in question . Mr . Gleason. has not withdrawn his request for the variance ,, therefore , . .. prefers not to follow through on the option that was offered to him at the last meeting to withdraw his variance request . After talking with his attorney and after meeting with the Groton Planning . Board ( GPB ) ,, he still wishes to follow through with his request . Now,. what we should do is reflect back to the public hearing and come up with some findings . One concern included the proximity of the house ,, which is approximately 800 feet from the edge of the school house property . At this time ,, we would like to ask Mr . Gleason if he does or does not wish to withdraw the request and his reasons for his decision . R . GLEASON : I met with the GPB Thursday night and discussed with my attorney the situation . What came up was by having a total of five lots in a one-year period of time ,, I would be required to go to the Health Department and have perc tests done in addition to a water and sewer plan . This would cost a lot of money to have this done . Based on this ,, I decided I did not want to go with that fifth lot and going back to the original four . J . PACHAI : That has no bearing on our situation when we are dealing only with the fourth lot and rotating it as an option . D . OFNER : It was my understanding that we were not talking about an additional lot but realignment of the lot . R . GLEASON : When I met with the GPB in June 1992 was for four lots which ended by the school house . The lot that we are involved in ended up with different dimensions that what was previously perceived before . We modified them and GPB approved for three lots . Since then ,, I wanted to do something with the other two lots . I decided to add the fifth lot since I had to have a survey,, etc . done . Town of - Groton . Zoning - Board - of - Appeals ,, Thursday#, January - 27 ,, - 1994,, . 7 : 30 - p . m . . . . . . Page - 2 But by adding the fifth lot ® it would be an economic hardship . Water and sewer development specifically . I just don ' t have the money to do that . After talking with John,, he suggested I ' take the one lot and just turn it around . My attorney recommended that I do not take that option because any lot that has to have or will have a chunk taken out of the corner will not be a saleable lot . I would like to get a variance on lot D or No . 4 . However , as another possibility,, this right-of-way could be in error . Maybe we should get an interpretation of it . There is something in the ordinance about town roads/streets . . J . PACHAI : The right-of-way could be reduced to 50 feet and increasing the frontage on Lot D by pushing all three of these lots up 10 feet . When you take the 84 . 2 feet , it is at the centerline of the street . When you bring that back to the edge of the right-of-way,, that will be increased somewhat . There is no indicator where that dimension is from and to . As it gets deeper ,, it widens . There are some dimensional concerns . Particularly this would be a local street . Mr . Gleason may sell the whole property at one time and may not want a cul-de-sac . It is not feasible to have a through-street from Lick Street to .Route 38 or from 41 Old Stage to Clark Street . That reduces the >re_quirement2of the minimum right-of-way to 50 feet . D . OFNER : Has this been approved via ; GPB as a legal development? We do not have the power to make it shorter . J . PACHAI : Nobody is saying that we can . I was reading from the subdivision regulations in respect to the required footage . D • OFNER : We do not know what is going to happen as far as future use . We do not have the power to change a subdivision which this right-of-way is a part of . J . PACHAI : We aye not,., able to change, the subdivision . We can , have Mr ® Gleason go back to the GPB if_�_weset, _ it asA a condition: D . OFNER : i4aybe we should have this go back to the GPB . J . PACHAI : We are not discussing at this point whether or not if it is within our authority to make the change but we can make a suggestion . This block of lots still belongs to Mr . Gleason . The three lots are part of an approved subdivision . He wants to add Lot D to the subdivision . The subdivision is being denied until a variance could be gained by Mr . Gleason or the' lot reconfigured so , it `could wind :"-up being a legal lot . D . OFNER : All we can do is take it as it is . N . SMITH : I feel by reducing this back to 50 feet may effect any future housing development . I do not think it would be advantageous . J . PACHAI : Commented on a letter from Tompkins County Planning Department referencing cluster housing . I think it is time to start looking for some findings . Town - of - Groton Zoning - Boar- d - o€ - Appeals ,, - Thursday - January 27 , - 1994 ,, - 7 : 30 - p : m : - - - - - Page - 3 J . RACHAI : Do we agree with Roger Gleason by going to the GPB and have them approve a reduction of the right-of-way so the lots can be pushed up to gain more road frontage is not a viable option? Do we eliminte this as an option? Members said yes . FINDING N0 . 1 . FINDING NO . 2 : The same option we presented to Mr . Gleason as before at the public hearing . Rotate Lot D ( 4 ) so the frontage will be on Old Stage and would increase the size of the lot by approximately . 15 acres and create a notch,, excluding the roadway,, to be 50 some odd feet by 130 feet . Mr . Gleason ' s attorney does not feel that it is a good option because it would reduce the cost of sale or devalue the property . Nial Smith was in agreement with Mr . Gleason ' s attorney as far as it would reduce the sale value of the property . David Ofner was in favor of this option . John Pachai had a 50/50 view of the Finding . D . OFNER : It would never be accepted as a domicile . The situation is 82 feet so it is not a useable lot . I feel it is a viable option . This situation is referred to as " creeping develop- ment " . You ' re in business but you want to cut some corners . I am not saying it is criminal-- it ' s just not good business . If cost is a variable in this Finding ,I what is the amount ? J . PACHAI : What are the pros and cons of this option? Costs affects Lot 5 only . D . OFNER : I feel the Finding is not financially damaging . J . PACHAI : I agree on some extent . I am still up in the air with this Finding . N . SMITH : It looks to me the man will lose money by turning or rotating the lot . J . PACHAI : It seems that at some point in the code,, it states that it is desirable to have these lot lines when perpendicular to the street and to have some consistency in the development . D . OFNER : We are only talking 10 feet . Why don ' t we just take the 10 feet and go . It is insignificant distance . J . PACHAI : This option is undesirable because of the odd situation . N . SMITH : Lot D is desirable as it was originally presented . J . PACHAI : FINDING No . 3 : The lot being considered for variance is approximately 10 feet short of the Town ' s 200 feet requirement for frontage based on the map and explanation provided by Mr . Gleason . FINDING N0 . 4 : The 184 . 2 feet originally stated as frontage on the application is actually the width of the lot along the center line of Lick Street . The actual frontage dividing the lot from the public right-of-way is approximately 190 feet . FINDING NO . 5 : We received no formal recommendation by the GPB . After discussion with the Chairperson George Totman,, it was his opinion that the GPB felt the variance should be granted . Since there was not a quarum at the meeting ,, this was strictly his opinion . By law,, we have to ask for a recommendation from the GPB,, but they do not have to provide one ( and one was not given ) . FINDING NO . 6 : The so-called schoolhouse lot is not available for purchase . Town - of - Groton - Zoning - Board of - Appeals ,, Thursday ,; January - 27 ,, 1994,E 7 : 30 - p . m . - - - - - - - Page - 4 J . PACHAI : OK ,, now the balancing act . Detriment to the community vs . benefit to the applicant . J . PACHAI : 1 . Q . How substantial is the variance requested in comparison to the code? ZBA MEMBERS : A . Five percent insignificant . J . PACHAI : 2 . Q . What would the effect be on population density, traffic , public facilities ,, the environmental and physical conditions? ZBA MEMBERS . A . No more than a conforming lot . J . PACHAI : 3 . Q . Would allowing the variance produce a substantial change in the character of the neighborhood or substantial detri- ment to adjoining properties? ZBA MEMBERS : A . No more than a conforming lot would . J . PACHAI : 4 . Q . Can the practical difficulty be overcome by the applicant through some other means? ZBA MEMBERS . A . The options are not equitable with degree of variance requested . J . PACHAI : 5 . Q . In view of the way the difficulty arose and in view of the above factors ,, will the interests of justice be served? ZBA MEMBERS : A . Yes . J . PACHAI : Overall , it seems the detriment to the community, if any, is negligible . The benefit to the applicant is reasonable . ZBA Members agreed . N . SMITH : Made a motion to grant the variance on this particular lot . D . OFNER : Seconded the motion . VOTE : ALL IN FAVOR ; MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY . J . PACHAI : Made the motion to close the meeting . D . OFNER : Seconded the motion . VOTE : ALL IN FAVOR ; MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY . Meeting ended at 8 : 32 p . m . Submitted by Penny Bogardus PUBLIC SIGN- IN SHEET C' !kOWN/ ILLAGE ( Circle one ) ZBA -- � ( Circle one ) . ning Board d DATE : TIME : Town Board ----- ------------------------- - - ------=-------NAME ----------------------------- ( please print and sign ) ADDRESS --------------I----------------- --- ------------ ----------------------------- 1 . o 42r 6 ) 3 . 4 . 5 . 6 . 7 . 8 . 9 . 10 . 11 . 12 . 13 . 14 . 15 . 16 . 17 . 18 . 19 . 20 . Comments : j . 0 I ql 0 r IOU WV PIwo KI It, v UNDEWWUND t1TIUTY I ' 00 TEST STA* onto I . da if LE4 EM?I �D . v " .. e o o . ® A IWN f IM SET W LOT C 5 80 -oc 1: -a 4Z5.3 TUTA � OQ AS NOTED -�� UTILITY QOLIM y - 0 � q . N INW ° I at I 5 F3cic c00 E: A S .3TarAL �Z ... o e LoT 'i3. " 1 .95 Ac'eEs- Ot $ hj g IS113 p ° 3 be•co f p _ AZ5.3 TOTL A a Ir to ManlotZI . Z 5u8.TO ; PU8L%C 1•IWY, eI4µT4j 0 `n UTILITY EASEMERTS OC ESWeD I l9 C . J � to6,. , 8D*OO P`t> 425.1 LOT TDYL`S . r A a1 , 55 Act �T wl m Q W �' g 5 80-00 E -Q 4ZS53 TWA& x � 0,pnoe o op I trcueeAY (e . o ) , . . • • <0 � Portion of Lands of Roger W. G leoson e Doc k Street Town of Groton - Tompkins County New York - 4ME1DFD 7h3 /5Z �C. �4, 8I NOTE: ANY RBVIS16NS TO THIS MAP MUST COMPLY Wrni SBCnON 72DP, KENNETH A. BAKER . SUBDIVISION 3 OF THE NEW YORR STATB BDUCATION LAW. PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR' . SURDRAWN SURVEYED: � /�t<i /9 B � SCALE: I D` I QO ' doe NO.: 1754 „n®oe000 I herebycertify to 0®,0®°gb•0� AE no® 0moe��@` NA ®�®o that I am a licensed land surveyor, New York State License No. 049415, and that thisM map correctly delineates an actual survey on the ground made by me or under my direct supervisiFfoun, that it was prepared in accordance with the current code of practice for land `title Survs adopted by the New York State Association of Professional Land Surveyors; Q m C and that d no visible encroachments either way across property lines except as shown hereon. ®°A er® LAN® MAN • SIGNED : �� / o0p00oo°a0000aoe®° SATED : �/30/9Z