Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-10-21Road frontage interpretation TOWN OF GROTON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Monday, 21 October 1996 Board Members ('absent) Others Present Lyle Raymond, Chairman G . Bruce Davison, PLS Mary Decker Jean True Mary Adams John Pachai The Public Hearing was called to order at 7:45 p.m. by Lyle Raymond, Chair. L. Raymond: The payment for the Variance of $25 has been received. I want that recorded. Also, payment for the advertisement of $ 17. 71 is also received. I will read the public notice into the record. 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 Monday, October 21 , 1996 at 7:30 p. m. for the purpose of considering the application of Glenn Munson, property at 15 Walpole Road, Groton, New York, for a variance of Section 342.2 Land Use Regulation, proposing 102' road frontage, required is 150' of the Town of Groton Land Use and Development Code. All interested persons will be heard. Lyle Raymond, Chairman, Zoning Board of Appeals. Dated 7 October 1996 Now I wish to enter into the minutes some remarks which I think are necessary to go through for the record, and maybe for everyone's information. First of all, there was a clerical error in the Public Notice in that it is not Section 342 .2 which considers lot sizes in the Rural Agricultural District that is involved. Rather, the proper citation should have been Section 276 on Flag Lots under the Land Subdivision Regulations of the Groton Code. Ample evidence that this is the correct citation is in the Planning Board Minutes of September 19, 1996 and the fact that the Planning Board was dealing with the Planning Board, not the Zoning Officer, at the time. This is important, because an appeal for a variance under Section 342 . 2 would have been based upon a permit denial for building construction from the Zoning Officer, no construction permit was requested. In the absence of a permit denial, the Zoning Board of Appeals has no authority to act on a variance request under Section 342 . 2 . In fact, all appeals of variances must be based on permit denials from the Zoning Officer, with one exception. This is when subdivision approval is requested, and a lot in the subdivision does not meet requirements under the Code. The applicant came before the Planning Board in regard to Code provisions for flat lots. In Groton, our Town Board has chosen to place Flag Lot Approvals under the Subdivision Regulations. So this allows an applicant to request a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals without having to go through the Zoning Officer. And I want to make sure that we have this clarified by reading Section 277. 6 of the Town Law which is Application for Area Variance under Subdivision Review. Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary where a plat contains one or more lots which do not comply with the Zoning Ordinance Regulations, application may be made to the Zoning Board of Appeals for an area variance pursuant to Section 267b of this Article without the necessity of a decision or determination of an administrative official charged with the enforcement of the zoning regulations. In reviewing such application, the Zoning Board of Appeals shall request the Planning Board to provide written recommendation concerning the proposed variance. In respect to the request from the Planning Board for our recommendations, George Totman, the Chairman of the Planning Boarc), provided a letter dated October 4, 1996 and it was to Glenn P. Munson, the applicant. It says, Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals October 21, 1996 Dear Glenn: On September 19, 1996 the Town of Groton Planning Board rejected your request for the above-referenced subdivision because of insufficient road frontage. It was suggested that you make application to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a variance. Sincerely yours, George Totman, Chairman of the Groton Town Planning Board Also, in addition, Section 407 of the Groton Code requires notification of the County Planning Department if the variance request involves a parcel within 500 feet of a County or State road or a municipal boundary. This variance request does involve a parcel within 500 feet of State Route 38 and the Groton Village boundary. The County Planning Department has been notified and it has authority to determine if the variance would have a significant impact. The Planning Department has already responded to the variance request, as follows, and I'm going to pass around the letter to the members here from the Planning Department dated October 18, 1996. It says: Mr. Lyle Raymond, Chairman, Board of Zoning Appeals, Town of Groton. Regarding Zoning Review Pursuant to 239-1 and -m of the NYS General Municipal Law. The action involves an area variance for Munson, 15 Walpole Road, TM #221 -3-2.2. Dear Mr. Raymond: This letter acknowledges your referral of the proposal identified above for review and comment by the Tompkins County Planning Department pursuant to 239- 1 -m of the NYS General Municipal Law. 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. Please inform us of your decision so we can make it part of the record. Sincerely, James Hanson, Jr. , Commissioner of Planning. There is no other correspondence that has been received on this, so at this point I think we'd like to proceed with the applicant's representative who is Mr. Bruce Davison, and ask him if he wants to explain what it is that the applicant wants to do and why he's requesting a variance . B. Davison: Mr. Munson is in need of disposing of the house parcel that sits within this 14-acre parcel on Walpole Road for personal reasons -- a divorce settlement I should say. He just basically wanted to have a lot around the existing house and improvements -- septic, well, etc. -- to sell off that house parcel and maintain ownership of the balance of the 14 acres behind it. There are no immediate plans in mind . There was no significant monetary difference between selling it as a house lot or as a house lot with the 14 acres. But possibly in the future, the balance of the 14 acres could have some value. So he would prefer to request a variance to sell a portion , two acres, with 102 feet of frontage, which would leave a flag lot area. L. Raymond: That would be the pole . And, for the record here, the reason that you have included two acres is because this is an application under the Flag Lot which , in Groton, requires twice the acreage that would be for a normal lot. So you've got to have two acres, not one acre. B. Davison: Yes. L. Raymond: And also that this cannot include the pole. B. Davison: Correct. L. Raymond: And you have outlined it in this way. B. Davison: Yes, L. Raymond: Okay. The house is, I notice, well back from the pole so it's not in the pole -- B. Davison: The only thing in the pole is a portion of the driveway. L. Raymond: Again, it is not allowed under our Flag Lot Ordinance to have the house in the pole part. 2 Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals October 21, 1996 B. Davison: All improvements, the well and septic, are here. J. Pachai: And the setbacks see to be okay from the boundaries. L. Raymond: Yes. Was there any reason why the lot was outlined in this particular way`? You've got lots of land -- there are other ways you could outline two acres. B. Davison: They're both reasonably shaped . We didn't want to make a long skinny lot. We didn't want to take any of the Route 38 frontage -- that's a fairly steep bank there. To the west is low, flat wetlands that is not feasible for access. J. Pachai: Where does the creek run? B. Davison: By the old railroad. L. Raymond: Does everyone know where the old railroad is that he's talking about? It's shown on the map there. So the property runs up to and abuts the railroad? B. Davison: Right. It's no longer a railroad ; there is no railroad track there. J. Pachai: It seems to me by placing the frontage for this property, for this proposed lot, here, it makes better use of the land because at some point in time you have the frontage on 38 which would allow for additional -- and it also makes more sense for the community to keep that frontage available for possible development. So it works out to be better for the community and better for Munson if that isn't used because it's possible frontage for the future when economic conditions change such that it's worth building. The same way over here . You've got at enough for at least two lots here of frontage . L. Raymond: Along Walpole Road. That's on the opposite side of CoWs piece from where this is here. I'm just doing this for the record so --- J. Pachai: That leads me to one of the questions I had, and that was serious consideration given to the purchase of 50 feet, or 48 feet, from -- - B. Davison: The Cotes and the Prints were quite adamant about not giving up any of their land. L. Raymond: So there's no way you can purchase enough to make it 150? B. Davison: No. L. Raymond: Of course, in this case, and again for the record, we're dealing with something a bit more complicated than just the 150, because they applied for a flag lot. And the flag lot in our Code has got to be at least 20 feet and no wider than 50, So this 102 exceeds the 50 to qualify for a flag lot which is, in my opinion, ridiculous. And I don't mind putting that in the record. J. Pachai: And the question relative to the 150 feet, extending to 150 feet by either buying something from either Cote or Prinz was -- L. Raymond: To satisfy not the flag lot, but the regular lot sizes. B . Davison: It's also financially not logical-- M. Decker: In this particular situation. L. Raymond: Now, of course, since this exceeds the 50 feet, one could go to the stratagem of only taking 50 foot of that part and making it the pole . And then you'd have a little piece left over which would be just left there . M. Decker: It would be totally useless . 3 Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals October 21, 1996 L. Raymond: But, nevertheless, that would have made it legal for the flag pole and that would let the Planning Board proceed. M. Adams: What was the reason why the Planning Board rejected it? L. Raymond: Because it doesn't meet the requirements for a flag lot. M. Decker: And we can give a variance . L. Raymond: The flag lot -- and actually I want to clarify what's going to happen here because it's different from other variances. What's going to happen is that if we reject the variance, then it stops. But if we give the variance , then they go back to the Planning Board and the Planning Board is the one who gives final approval on the subdivision because it's a subdivision requirement. They only said they couldn't go any further because this frontage doesn't meet the requirements for a flag lot subdivision. And if we should give one , then , as I said, they will go back to the Planning Board and the Planning Board will then say, okay, well that part's taken care of, is there anything else we want to consider in giving this subdivision, and so they'll approve it and then that will be it. J. Pachai: Well, it almost seems like that was an oversight on the part of the Boards in the drafting of the Ordinance because that's kind of an arbitrary -- L. Raymond: Without getting into the politics of how that came about, nevertheless that seems to be the way that's written at the moment. And that's what we have to deal with . J. Pachai: How long has the structure been there that's on that property? B. Davison: You'd know better than I would. I think it's been there 10 or 15 years anyway. J. Pachai: I remember seeing it there five years ago at least. L. Raymond: Yes. But even if it had been there before the Zoning Ordinance was passed, which would make it a non-conforming use , in which case then you can do what you want, nevertheless that would be negated by the fact that they're breaking out from a lot the new lot which means it would no longer be non-conforming. So there's no way to get around it in that way, even if it had been there that long. J. Pachai: Are there any plans for that lot as far as changes in the structure or additional construction? B. Davison: No. L. Raymond: That's why no permit was asked for from the Zoning Officer, J. Pachai: I don't have any more questions. L. Raymond: I guess I don't. Mary, Mary, do you have any further questions? M. Decker: Everything is situated on the lot as is proper. The pole is over-sized -- better that than the other way. It's the better part of the whole thing. And the way it's set up, this could be utilized at a later date . L. Raymond: We have one observer here . Does this lady have any questions you want to raise? J. True: No, L. Raymond: Colleen was here and she should be down the hall with the Town Board meeting; so she could give you your change -- but I can give it to you if you want to . I'll give it to you and then get it from her. I'm not worried about it. Okay, unless there's any further questions here, I don't really need to adjourn the hearing because I think we got all the information we're going to get. So I'll close the hearing at 8 : 10 p .m. and by closing the hearing, it means that we, as a Board, will then sit down and 4 Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals October 21, 1996 move into our decision phase. You folks are welcome to sit around and listen in on it, but the public hearing part is over as far as input. Okay. B. Davison: Okay. The public hearing was closed at 8: 10 p.m. The decision meeting was called to order at 8: 13 p.m, by Chairman Lyle Raymond. L. Raymond: The ZBA meeting was convened at 8: 13 p.m. We have these questions that are in our Zoning Ordinance , and that the State requires that we ask in all area variances. Some of this is going to be for the record, but -- any changes to be produced in the character of the neighborhood or detriments to nearby properties if the variance is granted? Does anyone have any opinion on whether we're going to cause any changes in that neighborhood if we grant that variance? J. Pachai: I see it as staying the same, myself. M. Decker: It may even enhance it. L. Raymond: Okay. M. Decker: But at this point -- L. Raymond: It will remain unchanged or may even enhance the neighborhood . That' s what they're talking about here . Unless anybody has anything further on that, we'll go on to number two then . Can this outcome be achieved by some other method feasible to the applicant other than an area variance? And that's the one where under the administrative guidelines here which I had sent to Glenn , that they say the courts like to have dollar amounts listed in there as to whether the applicant is going to be harmed to a significant extent if they can't go this route , or if they try some other alternative . What did we hear in the public hearing? M. Decker: That they had attempted to purchase the 50-foot and that could not be accomplished. L. Raymond: We did hear, however, that there is road frontage available -- M. Decker: It's available , but -- L. Raymond: The large parcel -- it does have the road frontage in two other places. However, there are significant physical barriers/hindrances there. One of them has a steep bank along Route 38, and the other one has a creek in, I assume, a flood plain, inbetween there and where he would have frontage to get to the frontage on the other part. But, theoretically, the frontage is there . M. Decker: It's there , but it -- L. Raymond: It's there, but it doesn't seem logical, that's true . In terms of financial impact, Mary, as a realtor, what's your opinion on that? M. Decker: What do you mean, financial impact? L. Raymond: Whether they -- because actually, what they could do is not subdivide at all . They could just sell the whole tract as one piece and then you'd have the frontage and you wouldn't have to worry about all of this . M. Decker: True, but L. Raymond: Or, if you take that out, what's the financial impact one way or another in your opinion? 5 Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals October 21, 1996 M. Decker: I'm going to say right now that the excess land probably doesn't mean a whole lot value-wise . This is boggy down in here; this would need fill. But there is that possibility there . If I were this gal, I wouldn't want the extra land as it would be a burden . J. Pachai: And a liability. M. Decker: Yes, right. Economically, it doesn't make sense . To me, this is the logical way to break it apart and actually leave, long range, and put more value into the property than where it stands right now. L. Raymond: And still meet the intention of the Town Zoning Ordinance. This is in a Rural Agricultural District area and so, therefore, the intent of keeping it in a rural nature would still be maintained as far as I can see. Even if they sell off say frontage on Route 38 and over on the other part and put a house on either one of them, it's not going to change the rural nature of what's already there. J. Pachai: In respect to the changing part, achieving the same ends through some other method, no matter how you look at it -- and we're looking at it in the sense that -- M. Decker: It's a better use of the land. J. Pachai: A better use and makes this property possibly more valuable to not have the swamp and everything else, and additionally, you can look at it from the perspective that the owner of the property might even be taking a pretty good loss if they had to do that because, in the future, these two parcels being on a State route may appreciate considerably, although right now they're - - M. Decker: But that's right now. J. Pachai: So it's not a feasible approach in my mind to do it any other way short of fudging the lines that enclose the property around to accomplish the two acres some other way. And I really don't see any problem with it the way it is. L. Raymond: So if you were to do an official appraisal, Mary, of the whole lot, the whole thing, and put a value on it as to what it might sell for, and then look at this and say well, what would this lot sell for in comparison to those two -- M. Decker: You're not going to gain a bunch of dollars because it's simply like taking one of those 5-acre parcels of land and you're up front is the road frontage that counts, and the land behind it you will gain a few dollars in comparison, but 10 acres for a 5-acre piece of land -- you can get the same thing for an acre up front. L. Raymond: So if you were advising your client, you would advise them in this direction probably. M. Decker: Definitely. Make the best use out of what you've got to work with . At least I'm with John -- this probably gives value to this house right here much more than -- I mean, you've got a decent piece of land. This is not anything to brag about back in here . It's work to develop it and you've got to invest money. L. Raymond: So Mr. Munson, actually, because he's still the owner until it's transferred, so in that sense then he is going to enhance the value of this over taking it to the whole tract because people would rather have this than they would the whole tract? Is that what you're saying? M. Decker: I would say certainly. M. Adams: Definitely, M. Decker: It would sell faster. I mean , excess land that isn't anything specific doesn't do -- very few people are interested in owning anything that basically doesn't have a value. And they say well , if I'm going to get taxed on it it's a burden if it's not a financial -- 6 Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals October 21, 1996 J. Pachai: And I would say that the assessment value of this acreage probably exceeds its market value . M. Decker: Probably. Could be, could be. J. Pachai: The minimum assessment value, I think, is $300 an acre or something like that. That's about as low as the assessment goes. M. Decker: Right. J. Pachai: What would you estimate? M. Decker: $ 100 to $ 150 max. L. Raymond: And if you were to extend the lines on this thing -- let's say you took one of these lines, came out here, and cut up through here, split this -- so you can get 150 up there and you wouldn't have to have the frontage here , and you'd have this odd-shaped lot -- M. Decker: You'd be devaluating this. I mean, you have some basic value , future value here. You're just going to throw it out. L. Raymond: That's what I wanted on the record . M. Decker: Common sense is to deal with what you have to deal with and make it work after trying all the options, and that's the way to go. L. Raymond: So we've concluded then , as far as #2 is concerned, that this is, given all of the options, including the financial ones, that this is probably the most feasible way to resolve this situation . Okay. Number three -- is the requested area variance substantial? And you look in the guidelines that I have here and, just to refresh ourselves, it says the more substantial the variance, the more likely the impact on surrounding properties. They go on here to say that in the end -- where the issue of substantiality occupies a gray area, the courts will defer to the judgment of the Board. And we're the Board . J. Pachai: Being that this falls inbetween the maximum for the flag lot and the minimum for a standard lot, there is really no way to gauge substantiality. M. Decker: That would be my feeling. It's kind of a moot point because we're above - - L. Raymond: We're too much in one respect and not enough in the other. J. Pachai: In reality, substantiality doesn't have any bearing on this. L. Raymond: I like that. In our opinion, whether it's substantial or not doesn't have a bearing on this case because of the complications vis-a-vis the Code. Well -- number four -- would the variance have an adverse effect on the environmental conditions of the neighborhood or the district? J. Pachai: And to extend that out because in this case I think it's significant, although on the physical or environmental conditions -- in the case of the physical conditions, this 102 feet is not adequate to put a road through plus have houses on each side . So it's not like you're eliminating the possibility of having a roadway through here if somebody wanted to develop going from Walpole Road to Route 38. That's not feasible . Because there has been a residence on there and will continue to be, and there's no plans for changing that, the idea of having a structure there, having a well and septic there, that exists as it is. And the 2 -acre parcel is large enough to contain that package. I just don't see how it will be any different than what it is now. There's no other reason or use for that land . L. Raymond: And probably the use of the frontage for the other portions of that large parcel will be the same, regardless of whether you took this chunk out of it or not. Sometime in the future, somebody will probably sell some of that frontage off anyway. So in terms of effect on environmental 7 Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals October 21, 1996 conditions, in that sense, it doesn't make any difference. It won't make any difference one way or the other in that regard. M. Decker: And giving it a definite boundary would, in my estimation, make it more valuable than it was. L. Raymond: So we can say then, in summary, that in our opinion, if this variance were granted, it will not have an adverse effect on the physical environmental conditions in the neighborhood . Okay, the fifth question here, the last one -- was the difficulty self-created? We don't necessarily -- it says in the thing here that it doesn't preclude us granting a variance, but nevertheless it's for us to consider. Did they self-create? I don't think it is. Because that section of frontage we're dealing with here was not something that -- that's a given. That was there. They didn't create that. M. Decker: It was right from day one . J. Pachai: For the last 10 to 15 years. Given the circumstances, even if it were self-created it wouldn't have any impact on our decision. L: Raymond: In my opinion, at least as I interpret it, self-creation usually refers to the fact that someone had deliberately set up a lot with that amount of frontage knowing probably in advance that it didn't meet the requirements, and then comes in and says I want a variance . Which means it was self-created, they knew it, and then they come in and want a variance for it. J. Pachai: And because they are going for a subdivision, if you look at it as this lot being created as a part of a subdivision, with this amount of frontage, it's still not -- it has no deleterious effect. It actually is beneficial. L. Raymond: And, in fact, it is not going to really change the intent in the Zoning Ordinance of a flag lot because you still have a pole , and you still have the two acres in the interior that it connects to . J. Pachai: So you're allowing a utilization of what would otherwise be unusable property. M. Decker: There's no other method to get around it. L. Raymond: Okay. We've gotten through our questions here then, so now we're down to deciding whether we want to grant this variance or not, or grant it with any conditions that we might want to put on it. I'm saying this for the record. I don't think there are any conditions to put on it, do you folks? Frankly, I'm inclined to say we ought to grant it. J. Pachai: I agree. M. Decker: I agree. M. Adams: I can't think of any conditions or why you would need any. It's pretty self-explanatory. I see no reason why it shouldn't be granted . L. Raymond: We can say, then, that after duly considering the questions that we're charged to ask, it appears to us that, on balance, the needs of the Town as well as the applicant will be met best by granting the variance . M. Adams: Well said . L. Raymond: Who wants to make a motion here? I guess the Chair can make the motion. M. Adams: I'll second it. L. Raymond: Okay, all in favor? (All members present indicated they were in favor.) We have no nays and we have no one who is withholding their vote, so it's passed. He's to get his variance , but he's not done with it yet because now they take the variance and go back to the Planning Board because theyre looking for a subdivision approval and they can now say to the Planning Board that 8 Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals October 21, 1996 they have been given the variance so now they can look at whatever they want to for the subdivision. And I suspect they will approve it, fast. Okay, so are we closing the meeting then? M. Decker: I make a motion that we adjourn. J. Pachai: I second. L. Raymond: All in favor? (Every member present was in favor.) The meeting was closed at 8 *30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Joan E. Fitch Recording Secretary 9