HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-08-11Front Yard setbacks TOWN OF GROTON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Thursday, 11 August 1994
Board Members (*present) Others Present
Lyle Raymond, Chairman Erik & Karen Hewitt
*Mary Decker George R Senter, Sr. , CEO
*David Ofner
*John Pachai
The Public Bearing was called to order at 8 p.m. by John Pachai, Vice Chair/Acting Chair.
J. Pachai: We're here to consider a variance request from Erik Hewitt. I 'll read the notice .
Legal Notice - 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 hold a public hearing at the Town Hall, 101 Conger Boulevard,
Groton, New York, on Thursday, August 11 , 1994 at 9 p. m. for the purpose
of considering the application of Erik Hewitt, 106 Bird Cemetery Road,
Groton, New York, for a variance of Section 352. 1 . d. , front yard setbacks
of the Town of Groton Land Use and Development Code. All interested
parties will be heard.
This was put forth by Lyle Raymond, Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals. I 'm John Pachai and,
being Vice Chair and with Lyle not being here, I will be filling in for him.
First of all, we want to indicate that we did receive from the Tompkins County Planning Department a
letter signed by James Hanson. It indicates that pursuant to Section 239-1 and -m of the State of New
York General Municipal Code that "The proposal , as submitted, will have no significant deleterious
impact on intercommunity, County, or State interests. Therefore, no recommendation is indicated by
the Tompkins County Planning Department, and you are free to act without prejudice . "
G. Senter. John, may I ask a question?
J. Pachai: Yes,
G. Senter: Why was that sent to the County? Is it 500 feet. . . . .
J. Pachai: It is not. I'm not sure why it was sent, unless that's a County road.
D. Ofner: It's very close to the line of the next County .
J. Pachai: Right. Actually, that may be the consideration . The property is 660 feet from the
municipal boundary, so I don't think that's a problem. And Bird Cemetery Road is a Town road. So
maybe it was just a procedural. . .
G. Senter: I just wondered, because I know it's 500 feet within a State highway, waterway, or. . . .
D. Ofner: Does the lot go to the boundary?
J. Pachai: No, there's 660 feet.
D. Ofner: How far back does it have to be to not be reviewed by. . . .
M. Decker: I thought it had to be 500 feet or less to be reviewed . But, basically, if somebody paced it
off as 660, maybe it was just a clearance . . . .
Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals August 11, 1994
J. Pachai: It's a precautionary matter.
M. Decker: That's what I'm going to say.
J. Pachai: Did everybody receive their packets on this?
(All acknowledged receiving the packet. )
J. Pachai: We'll start out with the applicant. Would you like to present any information, or tell us
a little about what's happening -why you want the variance?
E. Hewitt: I have a drawing here . There's an embankment and a line of trees. This drops off
considerably, (pointing on his map) probably about ten feet . Then there's a line of shade trees along
here . There's a septic system from an old house which is actually pretty new. I had it put in a few years
ago. There's an electric service pole here , a well here. My big problem is if I push the building back this
way, first off I 'm going to cover this up . So it's gone . I 've lost it. And I really don't. . . as far as the
aesthetics go, I like the trees. So I want to tuck the building right as close to the trees as I can . It's going
to be a brown tin roof, board and batten. I want it to blend in.
M Decker. Then it will blend in with what you already have .
J. Pachai: Now what do these lines represent.
E. Hewitt: That's the embankment. The drop off here. If I can get just 12 feet, 14 feet.
J. Pachai: I think you're asking for 12 feet.
E. Hewitt: It just leaves this in here without cutting the trees down . I 'm going to have to bring
more fill in . Putting it here is not good, it's also low. And also, if I wanted to break this up sometime,
that would not be good to have this building on that property. The 200-foot mark is right here at the
center of the driveway.
J. Pachai: It's all surveyed, then?
E. Hewitt: It has been surveyed.
J. Pachai: If I understand things right, you said the septic is fairly new.
E. Hewitt: I put that in probably a couple of years before the house .
J. Pachai: So it's only had two years of use . And it's basically a new system. Do you plan on
using that?
E. Hewitt: I would like to. It's going to be a garage, but I 'd like to have a bathroom and a sink.
J. Pachai: So you're actually looking at a savings of not having to put a septic in, not having to
almost put a basement depth footer. . . . this embankment, I was up there, is about five to six feet. By the
time he dropped back that twelve feet, I would say he would be at least eight feet. Over here , it drops
down and, as I recall from years ago when I was out there visiting someone who lived in that house,
that ground gets somewhat soggy. Now is there any other location you could put that?
E. Hewitt: Same problem if I go here -- I'll still have to bring in lots of fill if I go over that way.
I 've got a well here, and the same thing if you're talking about breaking this up, and this not being the
primary residence .
J. Pachai: And if you built it somewhere else on the property, I assume you'd have to put in a new
septic tank and a new well .
2
Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals August 11, 1994
E. Hewitt: And a new service pole, because the old service pole sits right here and the lines are all
in .
J. Pachai: I imagine having all that done would cost more that the structure itself. You said it's a
pole barn?
E. Hewitt: Right.
M. Decker: You may have close to ten grand, or you may have ten grand with the septic's pricing
today.
K. Hewitt: And the pole and well .
M. Decker: That's what I said . By the time you put in a septic, well, and pole , you're talking ten
grand.
G. Senter: How close is the house from the centerline?
E. Hewitt: It's about on the road. I 've got about eight feet of lawn there.
J. Pachai: That's the thing I noticed. His house, which is on one side of this, is maybe about eight
feet from the pavement.
D. Ofner: This is the large building?
J. Pachai: Yes . It's his home . Then the house down the road on the corner, on the opposite side
as your going back towards West Groton Road, is also . . . . it's closer to the road than this would be. By
my observation, there wouldn't be any change as you're going down the road. It's not like this would
stick way out compared to everything else . In fact, the structures on either side of it would be farther
back .
M. Decker: Yes. This would be farther back than either of those. That's right.
E. Hewitt: I still like the aesthetics. If I tuck it in there, I 'll push it as close as I can, but it will
blend in .
M. Decker: Right. And it won't stand out or look like a new structure , or anything that's out of
context.
J. Pachai: When it comes to front setbacks, we're concerned a little bit with aesthetics, but a lot
about safety. If this were on a corner, there'd be a real problem because of visibility, or plowing if it
were much closer than it is . Then it would be impossible.
D. Ofner. It would be impossible on a corner. In fact, the ordinance specifically applies to
corners .
J. Pachai: So we can't take the aesthetics into consideration. Would the Board like to ask any
more questions?
D. Ofner: This is specifically and only to be used for a workshop, right?
E. Hewitt: Yes . See , my problem right now, part of the reason I want to do this, is my garage is
attached to my living quarters. My insurance is a real big problem because they consider it a
commercial unit. Plus, it's dusty, dirty, and noisy and I just want to put a building up separate.
D. Ofner. So the large building will be maintained as a residence.
K. Hewitt: Our primary residence .
D. Ofner. And this will be for the work.
3
Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals August 11, 1994
E. Hewitt: The old garage would be used to keep my cars.
M. Decker. Your own personal garage. Then this will be the work garage then.
J. Pachai: This will be a safer situation out there because doing body work with all the
flammables that are involved in that - - it is probably better to have that operation away from the
house anyway.
D. Men So the large building will be maintained as a residence.
K, Hewitt: The primary residence , Right,
E. Hewitt: The old garage will be just for parking my car,
D. Ofner. The area for parking cars is it down here, along here?
E. Hewitt: Yes. You go down the driveway and there's an area back here along the side .
D. Ofner. Will you be using that, then, as the parking area?
E. Hewitt: I'll still be using that for parking cars because it' s already there . I don't want to have
it here, because there's adequate space down below,
M. Decker: Where you are currently using it for parking.
E. Hewitt: That's not a problem. There's plenty of space to put cars that will be out of the way. I
will not have them up next to the road.
D. Ofner: That would be one concern.
E. Hewitt: No, I want to use the parking area that I have now.
J. Pachai: Do you have any more questions? (No questions were indicated.) Okay, at this point,
if no one has any other comment or question, we will close the public hearing. Do we have a motion to
close the public hearing?
D. Ofner: I move that we close the public hearing.
M. Decker: I second.
J. Pachai: All in favor. (All indicated they were in favor.) You (speaking to the Hewitts) can stay,
but no further comments will be allowed , Everything is now on the table for consideration.
The public hearing was closed at 8: 16 p.m.
I. Joan E. Fitch, do hereby 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 regarding a
Variance Application by Erik Hewitt, pertaining to Section 352. Ld, front yard setbacks of the
Town of Groton's Land Use and Development Code, that the foregoing is a true and accurate
transcription of said public hearing.
Joan E. Fitch
4
Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals August 11, 1994
The decision meeting was called to order at 8: 17 p.m, by Vice Chair /Acting Chair, John Pachai.
J. Pachai: We will open the decision meeting relative to Eric Hewitt's request for a variance
based on his application for construction of a garage dated 7 /8/94.
D. Ofner. One item I didn't quite get, What is the distance that we are off?
M. Decker: Twelve feet.
J. Pachai: We're short twelve feet. We have 25 feet from the center of the road to the edge of the
right-of-way. And then we would have 30 feet from the outer edge of the right-of-way to the structure.
M. Decker: And we're saying we're 43 feet, so we're shy twelve feet, His already existing residence
and garage /business is approximately 8 feet from the road,
J. Pachai: And the house on the opposite side of the structure , down on the corner, in respect to
the road-to-house distance -- what would you say that is, distancewise? Did you notice that when you
went down to the corner,
D. Ofner: I didn't really pay any attention to it.
J. Pachai: I would say that it is no greater than 43 feet to the center of the road ,
D. Ofner. Why don't we just say that the houses on either side of it have a lesser setback?
J. Pachai: Shall we go from the top, or do you want a more general discussion?
D. Ofner: We have to go over the facts,
J. Pachai: Will allowing this variance change the character of the neighborhood?
D. Ofner: It doesn't add any more activity than present, and it doesn't have any shallower
setback as compared to neighboring properties,
J. Pachai: There is no change then?
M. Decker: No change,
J. Pachai: So we have no change in the activities in the neighborhood and, even though we'll
bring this up again later, the setback will be no less shallow than the houses surrounding it, Can the
benefit sought by the variance be achieved through some other means? In other words, without the
variance .
D. Ofner: Well , in the first place, you couldn't the garage any farther back, Maybe we should
indicate that it's shallow because of the peculiarities or uniqueness of the terrain,
J. Pachai: I guess what we have to consider at this point is is it worth changing the terrain? Are
there economic detriments or restrictions in constructing other than in that location. It seems to me
that Mr. Hewitt has indicated that to go back ruins the septic system so a new septic would have to be
put in ; to go toward the corner would restrict the well ; the other way would mean creation of a new
drive, So I would say that the benefit sought could be achieved by a lot of expense , but it wouldn't be
practical .
D. Ofner: I think we have to document the facts.
J. Pachai: And those are the facts that we got during the hearing. These are the ones I just
reiterated , Basically what we have to do is weigh the benefit to the applicant against the detriment to
the community. We're going to take the five New York State steps to do that. If this were a more
complex case , we might lay down a list of specific facts so we could keep things sorted out. Since this
only has a few facts surrounding it, I see no need to do that.
5
Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals August 11, 1994
D. Ofner: Even though there are just a few, I was under the impression we had to go through the
list of facts we were dealing with .
J. Pachai: The findings are going to appear as components of the considerations listed . So we
are going down through the considerations that New York State suggests we follow, and we're listing
the facts and findings under the headings to which they pertain.
M. Decker: And that will be part of our decision. We're going organizationally.
D. Ofner: Okay.
J. Pachai: So can the benefit sought be achieved by some other means practical to the applicant?
What did we find .
D. Ofner: You can't move it back. . . .
M. Decker: Due to the configuration of the land . And you have some of the already existing needs
to that building -- such as a well, such as a septic, such as electric -- which would be a very costly
$ 10,000 gesture to try to put the building someplace else and put them with the building. You've added
at least a $ 10,000 figure to the building. And these would be left useless.
J. Pachai: So the benefit sought could not be achieved without the variance due to the topography
and cost of replacing the existing services. . .
M. Decker: which are well, septic, and electric. And a $ 10,000 figure is not out of line .
J. Pachai: It would probably cost more than the structure itself.
M. Decker: It probably would. Because what is the size of the structure, 40 by 26? It's a pole barn
structure, so you 're talking more utility cost.
J. Pachai: Is the variance substantial? It's a twelve-foot variance from what's required .
D. Ofner: What's the total supposed to be?
M. Decker: The total should be 55 , and we're talking we have 43 . So again , on that word
substantial, using it in this context in comparison to other properties , I do not consider it to be
substantial.
D. Men Not substantial in view of the surroundings.
J. Pachai: Since we don't have to say yes or no in answer to this question, I would say relative to
the Code it is approximately -- and you have to look at the 30 feet versus twelve - - it's approximately a
third , or 55% which is substantial . On the other hand, relative to the neighborhood , to other setbacks
in the neighborhood, it's not substantial.
M. Decker: It's less. I think we should add that it is less.
J. Pachai: Relative to other setbacks, it is greater.
M. Decker: Deeper. Deeper sounds better.
J. Pachai: Okay. So are we square on how substantial this is.
D. Ofner: It's not substantial compared with the . . . .
M. Decker: He used the figure to begin with . I suppose you have to do that relative to the Code and
then relative to the situation we're dealing with .
6
Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals August 11, 1994
J. Pachai: Okay. Will there be an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions
in the neighborhood?
M. Decker: No change.
J. Pachai: No change . I agree. Now, was it self-created? Was the situation self-created. The way
I'm looking at this, when they bought the property there was a house there . The well, electric , and
septic were there as components of that house and were placed there by another person. Consequently,
that lot, because it had a structure on it when they purchased it and now they want to replace it, even
though it is a different type of structure , I would say from that perspective that it's not self-created .
D. Ofner: I always thought that the doing it yourself means that you cut some lines to make it
Impossible for you to meet the dimensions. When you talk about the use , actually it had a domicile
and now it has a garage , and if somebody wanted to tear it apart, you 're not using it for this but for
what the existing structure was. You change it. It would be more appropriate if it had been a garage
before and you're just replacing it. But he didn't do anything to change the dimensions at all. It was
nature that made those dimensions there. He didn't generate the problem.
M. Decker: Right.
J. Pachai: So we're saying no . So let's just let me run down this real quickly for Joan and for
ourselves. There's no change in the activities in the neighborhood. It will not change the character of
the neighborhood . In respect to aesthetics, the aesthetic character of the neighborhood, the setback is
going to be greater than other structures in the neighborhood . The second consideration was can the
benefit sought be achieved by some other means? We said no due to the topography and the cost of
replacing the existing services, those being well , septic, and electric . Is the variance substantial? We
said yes, relative to the Code which is 30 feet this 18-foot setback is substantial variance ; however,
relative to other setbacks in the neighborhood, it's actually deeper. So from that perspective it is not
substantial. The fourth item, adverse impact on the physical and environmental conditions of the
neighborhood, we see no change.
D. Ofner. In fact, one of the reasons is that he doesn't want to change the natural surroundings.
J. Pachak And five, was it self-created? No. Now, is there any reason to set any conditions if we
were to grant this variance?
M. Decker: We agree that where Eric is now parking is where he's going to continue to park. But
as people are . . . . we tend to take the shortest route to any place . And I just think that Erik would do
very well keeping parked over here , but if it were written in we would be sure that it was going to be
followed and if anyone parks up front they would be . . . . .
D. Ofner: In other words, the condition is that. . .
M. Decker: That this area be left open and used only as a drive.
D. Ofner. And not be used for parking purposes.
M. Decker: Right. Only for drive-in purposes. I take it we're going to enter right from the front.
J. Pachai: It might even be advantageous to him because all the stones flying up on the new paint
jobs, that could be a problem.
M. Decker: Just for protection then.
J. Pachai: Do you have a problem with that?
D. Ofner: Actually, I think it would be a hazard. . .
M. Decker: to have anything up front there.
7
Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals August 11, 1994
J. Pachaie I kind of jumped the gun on doing the conditions.
D. Ofner: And there isn't enough space to do it. . .
M. Decker: any other way. That the variance be granted with the condition that the now-existing
parking that Erik has be used.
J. Pachai: Okay. We've got the prospective condition. Anybody want to make a motion here?
M. Decker: Do we have to have a condition here, or just that the variance be granted .
J. Pachai: I would move that the variance be granted being that it meets positively most of the
considerations that we are required to take into consideration by law. I would also indicate that there
will be a condition to the granting of the variance , that being that there will be no parking in front of
the structure , between the structure and the roadway, and that the existing parking area for vehicles
will be used . Let's start that again. I move that we grant the variance conditional upon there being no
parking between the front of the building and the roadway, and that the now-existing parking area
used for the business continue to be utilized as the primary parking area. This is still just as wordy.
M. Decker: Just as wordy, but it makes more sense.
D. Ofnere I 'm sure that if he wanted to stop for a few minutes to make an appointment -- those
people wouldn't park there -- but I don't know how we can word it.
J. Pachai: I think we can call that standing instead of parking. If it's being parked there to make
an appointment, and Erik's going to be coming out and looking at it, it's not like it's just parked there .
Do you want to try to re-word that so it's a little bit cleaner? I don't think George is going to go up there
and cite him if he's got a car setting up there for ten minutes or a half hour outside the door.
M. Decker: If somebody's going to stop in there for an estimate , they're not going to be parking
there long. I don't understand what's being questioned. Actually, I think most people would pull down
around there .
J. Pachai: The only way I can see of handling that -- and you're not going to put a time limit on it
D. Ofner: If you say related to the structure, related to the processes.
M. Decker: Because the house is down here, so most people coming to the house would go here
anyway.
J. Pachai: I think if we just keep it the way it is. You 're not really parking if you 're giving an
estimate. It's not being parked there .
X Decker: For a very short period of time .
D. Ofner: Maybe parking for or awaiting service, or awaiting . . . .
J. Pachaie Storage of vehicles in service . . . . I think that's what you 're trying to say, right?
Storage of the vehicles that are in service . Storage as opposed to actually having to be serviced. Let's
attempt this again. No parking of vehicles. . . .
D. Ofner: But as you say, Mary. . . .
J. Paehah Parking (storage) of vehicles in service. . . .
M. Decker: It's so complicated .
J. Pachaie Why don't you word it?
8
Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals August 11, 1994
M. Decker: I did, but I didn't go detailed enough for David .
J. Pachai: I think if we just leave it no parking. . .
M. Decker: No parking in front of the building, between the building and the road. That takes in
any kind of parking for any reason . This won't be long-range parking. I don't see that it's going to be a
hassle myself. Keeping it simple usually works best.
J. Pachai: What does the stenographer say?
M. Decker: What did we have down, Joan . Or what do you have in reference to that condition
when we started?
Steno: You started out by saying that you were making a motion based upon the condition
that there will be no parking between the structure and the roadway, and that the existing parking
area will be utilized for the business vehicles. The next attempt was. . . there will be no parking between
the front of the building and the roadway, which is another way of saying it. . . .
M. Decker: And that they were just going to use the existing parking lot.
Steno: And that the existing parking area is to be utilized by the business vehicles.
J. Pachai: Let's go with the original motion. Okay. We have the motion. Do we have a second?
D. Ofner: Second .
J. Pachai: All in favor? (All indicated they were in favor. ) It's unanimous. I move that we close
the meeting.
D. Ofner: Second.
J. Pachai: All in favor? (All indicated they were in favor.) We 're done at 8: 45 p. m.
J. Pachai: Now, relative to the minutes of the Zoning Board of Appeals dated June 28, 1994 we 're
going to open the business meeting at 8 : 50 p .m . We have before us what is a corrected, or partially
corrected set of minutes dealing with the Munson appeal and decision meetings. Does anyone have
any additional changes they would like to make relative to these minutes? (No one indicated any
changes.) Does everyone agree that they are accurate . Do we have a motion?
D. Ofner: I move that we approve the editing to the minutes as provided by Lyle .
J. Pachai: Okay.
M. Decker: I second that.
J. Pachai: All in favor? (All indicated they were in favor. ) Is there any other business? Do we
have a motion to close the meeting?
D. Ofner: I move that we close the meeting.
M. Decker: I second.
J. Pachai: All in favor? (All indicated they were in favor. ) The meeting is closed at 8 : 53 p.m
Respectfully submitted,
Joan E. Fitch
Recording Secretary
9