HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-03-17 Lack of road frontage TOWN OF GROTON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Monday, 17 March 1997
Board Members (*present) Others Present
*Lyle Raymond, Chairman Jessica Ryan
*Mary Decker Matthew Empson
*Mary Ames Judy & Edward Muzzy
*Steve Thane Fred Burdick & Jo D . Smith -Burdick
Joan Fitch , Recording Secretary
Lyle Raymond Chairman, opened the Public Hearing at 7:30 p.m* by reading aloud
the Public Notice in its entirety:
Public Hearing - 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, March 17, 1997
at 7:30 p. m. for the purpose of considering the application of Jo Diane Smith-Burdick,
40 Sharpsteen Road, Groton, New York, for a Variance to Section 342. 2.a.2 of the Town
of Groton Land Use & Development (Code), pertaining to lack of road frontage for a
second residence at 40 Sharpsteen Road, north of Route 34B (Peruville Road). A l l
interested persons will be heard.
Lyle Raymond, Chairman
Zoning Board of Appeals
L. Raymond: The application fee is recorded here and has been paid for the variance dated
2/28/97. The tax map number is 35- 1 -25, The purpose of the request is to put a mobile home in back of
the property. Justification for the request is not enough road frontage . This is signed by Jo Diane
Smith-Burdick and also , I believe , the denial has to be here somewhere . Here we are. Here is the
original permit application she made out to George Senter, the Zoning Officer, George Senter indicates
he denied it on February 28, 1997. The reason give is that it does not meet frontage requirements in
342 . 2 . a. 2 . So that makes us legal for holding the hearing, I believe . We have two communications here .
One is dated March 14th and is to Mr. George Senter, CEO of the Town of Groton, from the Tompkins
County Department of Planning that indicates that pursuant to Section 239- 1 and -m of the NYS
General Municipal Law, that the request for a variance on road frontage , Smith-Burdick property, 40
Sharpsteen Road, Tax Parcel 35- 1 -24. 112 -- (LR reads letter; letter is attached to these minutes for the
record) . I might add, as chair of this Board, that it was my interpretation that this really was not an
action that came out of the Department of Planning anyway, because if you read the Zoning Code, it
indicates it has to be within 500 feet of a Town line , 500 feet of a County or State road, or a park, or
something like that and, to my knowledge, this property does not meet any of that criteria. So this is
just a perfunctory letter here that actually doesn't have much bearing on what we're talking about
tonight. We also have a letter here from Jo Diane Smith-Burdick, 2/28/97, addressed to the Town
Board of Groton, stating as follows (LR reads letter in its entirety; letter is attached to these minutes for
the record) . And we have the tax maps here and other information . I think that pretty well takes care
of the information we have received on this case in terms of formal communications. With that, I
think that we will open the hearing. The first order of business would be to ask the applicant if she
would like to add to any of the things that have already been stated in the letters and communications
that we have received.
J. Smith-Burdick: I have a map that's drawn out that shows where things are going.
M. Decker. You mean where you're going to put the house?
L. Raymond: Okay, so the road is over here and so you're going to the west of your house. Can
everyone see here?
1 1
Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals March 17, 1997
J. Pachai: So there is 60 feet between the well and the property line . Then there's 175
written in here .
J. Smith-Burdick: It's 175 feet from my well. . .
L. Raymond: But 60 feet to the property line.
J. Smith-Burdick: Right. To the property line.
J. Pachai: Are there any right-of-ways or easements back here; you know, NYSEG or -- I
know that there's going to be some right up along the road . But is there anything back this way?
J. Smith-Burdick: You mean like their little posts or whatever they have?
J. Pachai: Yes.
J. Smith-Burdick: I think there's one right about -- at the end of my property or right on the line.
M. Adams: There's nothing in back of you.
J. Pachai: I noticed how, when I drove by, how the trees were cut It almost looked like one
of those gas lines.
J. Smith-Burdick: And then this is what I took pictures of, standing where the property would be
from here. And this is -- the only view actually that you're going to see. This side is brush. All the
neighbors on this side can't see. My neighbor over here can't see. The only home that's going to be
affected will be the Muzzy's house .
M. Adams: Do any of the neighbors object?
J. Smith-Burdick: I have this from my one neighbor. I've spoke with the Muzzy's about my
intentions and they are here and can answer for themselves.
L. Raymond: Okay. So you're entering this into the record?
J. Smith-Burdick: Yes,
L. Raymond: Okay, so I'll read it into the hearing record here. This says "Board of Zoning
Appeals, March 13, 1997. Jo Diane Smith-Burdick has talked with me about adding a second residence
to her property at 40 Sharpsteen Road, Groton. I have no objections of her wanting to put a mobile
home on her land . She's also inquired about buying some of my land to add to hers so she would have
enough road frontage to meet the required amount she would need, and I do not want to sell any of my
land . Thank you. Alan Wilkinson . "
J. Pachai: So the new dwelling would have its own septic system and share the well, is that
how it will be — not that it's our concern necessarily. It's really the Health Department's. But
sometimes placement plays a role in the options.
L. Raymond: And you have a total of how many acres in your properly`?
J. Smith-Burdick: Approximately 4 . 25 acres .
J. Pachai: I have one more question . Approximately -- I guess I could guesstimate it by a
previous dimension, but approximately how far back would the dwelling be from the road?
J. Smith-Burdick: It's 155 feet from here to the well.
J. Pachai: Okay. Plus approximately 197 feet . . .
2
Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals March 17, 1997
J. Smith-Burdick: 197 feet from here to the home . Now looking at this, and this, what are these two
-- one is obviously the trailer. What is the J. Smith-Burdick I think that's to the septic tank.
L. Raymond: Oh, the septic field.
J. Smith-Burdick: I called the Health Department and said this is what we have now -- and he's
going roughly by the same septic we have now.
J. Pachai: Okay,
S. Thane: Will there be a driveway?
J. Smith-Burdick: That's one thing we're proposing is to put one like at -- my driveway comes up
here and also I have some driveway there . We could either put a driveway up here -- it looks better on
paper -- or we could put a driveway up along this way, or run one that comes over here.
L. Raymond: How much do you have between this last building and the other property line over
there?
J. Smith-Burdick: I'd say there's got to be --
L. Raymond: Quite a bit there.
J. Pachai: It almost looks like there's more on this side .
M. Decker: Yes.
L. Raymond: Well, this map is not to scale .
M. Adams: No, this is not to scale, so --
J. Pachai: And the hard line is just indicating where the brush is here .
L. Raymond: Actually, as I recall, there's a hill in here, too.
J. Smith-Burdick: That's the best part of this right here. It goes up this hill and the people on this
side are not affected.
L. Raymond: And the property in the back here -- that's just farmland?
M. Decker: That's woods and meadow.
S. Thane: And we're really not anywhere near this property line, are we? Your property is
way back. It's about 350 feet to there, so you're not even close.
J. Smith-Burdick: No, this goes way up the hill.
L. Raymond: Not much beyond this further.
(All talk at same time - unable to pick one conversation.)
M. Decker. You've got another 350,
J. Pachai: The homes on either side of you are -- if I remember right, the house to the south
of you, which would be over here, is pretty much the same distance from the road -- maybe a little bit
back farther than yours, but pretty much the same distance from the road?
J. Smith-Burdick: If I look out my porch, I can see this house.
3
. • 1 1 1
Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals March 17, 1997
J. Pachal: Okay, then the one on this side is farther back. But there's maybe 25 foot
difference in the distance from the ---
M. Adams: You've put a lot of work into this, haven't you?
J. Smith-Burdick: Yes, I have .
L. Raymond. Oh, this is a second letter --
M. Decker. There's another letter that needs to be put in -- Muzzy's.
L. Raymond: This second letter I'll put in the hearing record. "Town of Groton, 3/ 17/97 , We are
not against the proposal for the second dwelling at 40 Sharpsteen Road, Groton, NY. We are concerned
with the possibility of sewage contamination of our well water. If we could be guaranteed that no
contamination would occur, we would be more than willing to support the proposal. Judy A. Muzzy and
Everett P. Muzzy." And, again, it's dated 3/ 17/97, Do others here want to see these letters?
J. Smith-Burdick: I've been trying to find other options besides this.
L. Raymond: Okay. So we have yet a third letter here — you've loaded us down with letters.
This is on the letterhead from Adelman & Associates Real Estate, 2333 North Triphammer Road,
Ithaca, NY. And it's addressed to the Zoning Board of Appeals, Groton, NY, and dated March 17, 1997.
"Dear ZBA Members: I've been working with Jo Diane Smith-Burdick for the last few months in an
effort to find an affordable housing situation for her daughter, Jessica, who is sixteen years old and a
junior at Groton High School. Jessica's son, Zachary, was born last August. The parameters I've been
working with are that Jo Diane is determined to allow her daughter every opportunity to finish high
school so that she may pursue her dream of becoming a nurse . Therefore, any housing situation found
needs to be the financial responsibility of Jo Diane and Jo Diane's husband, Fred . While laudable in
concept, the reality is that Jo Diane and Fred would not qualify for a second mortgage, or even a rent
payment in addition to their current debt based on their combined income . Because Jo Diane does not
wish her daughter to quit school to get a job to support her living situation, she is pursuing a variance
to allow her daughter and grandson to live on her property until such time as she becomes financially
independent. I've been impressed with Jo Diane's levelheadedness, thoroughness, and perseverance in
researching possible options for her daughter and grandson. Sincerely, Beth Brennan, Licensed
Salesperson with Adelman & Associates Real Estate . " I'll pass this around for the other Board
members to see. According to the letters then, especially the last one we received, it looks like that you
have pursued most of the other options that would be available to you for doing this without, say,
having to have a variance . One obvious option which could be considered, I suppose, would be to build
on to your present residence. Is there any comment on that?
J. Smith-Burdick: Yes, I have talked with a contractor, and being a double-wide it's harder to add
on to that. If I ever decided down the road that I want to sell that and build a house -- some people I
know have single-wides and they've added on a 12x25 kitchen -- a lot of people don't want to buy them
because it's more of a hassle. And as far as costwise, it's going to cost me more to get a couple more
rooms and a kitchen setup than to put in a home in the back.
L. Raymond: So you'd have to enlarge the septic system -- the whole works -- in order to
qualify for that.
M. Adams: Are you the Muzzy's? How far is your well from where they're septic tank's going
to be? How many feet, do you know?
J. Smith-Burdick: I'm not sure .
M. Decker. Don't we have that measurement here?
M. Adams: Not their well . See, they're worried about their well.
M. Decker: 175 feet I think -- isn't this what --
4
Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals March 17, 1997
M. Adams: Oh, I thought that was from here to there.
M. Decker: That's from 60 to here -- but I think it says 175 feet from the Muzzy's well.
M. Adams: I just had a new septic in and it was supposed to be 100 and -- I mean the Health
Department did it -- it was done legally.
M. Decker. I don't think you have to worry about that, but the Health Department could tell
you that anyway.
J. Pachai: It's well beyond what would be required by the Health Department.
(Applicant speaks from audience ; cannot hear.)
L. Raymond: Actually, officially as far as this Board, we don't have anything to do with that,
just to be sure that you have met the legal requirements of the Health Department. And it's up to the
Health Department after that.
J. Pachai: And also, we try to keep in mind what the regulations are to the best of our
knowledge so that we don't say you can do something and then have the Health Department turn
around and say you can't. But we can't guarantee what the Health Department's going to do as that is
way out of our jurisdiction .
L. Raymond. And our expertise, as well . We've already heard from the Muzzy's here; does
anyone else here want to make a statement on this situation, Nope . Does anyone else here on the Board
have any further questions. Yes? John -- I know you do -- you always do.
J. Pachai: Sorry folks. What I'd like to know is what would your intentions be after your
daughter, say, graduates from high school? How long would you -- would you plan on leaving the
dwelling there --
J. Smith-Burdick: Okay -- in other words it makes sense, there's no question about that because you
have the septic and considerable investment. I was just curious as to what your intentions are because
oftentimes people will do something similar to what you're doing for their parents as what's called
elder housing, but then they plan on removing that or converting it back to a garage or whatever change
to bring it -- bring the property back to its original condition .
J. Smith-Burdick: One of the thoughts that I had, if she decides she doesn't want to live there no
longer, is if my mother ever needs a place to stay, I would like to have that option to help her out. But
for her wanting to go to school to be a nurse, I can't see her leaving there . But I just want to have the
opportunity to help her out. Outside of taking care of a child, trying to have a place, plus pay for college
-- I just want to do what it takes to make everybody happy -- whether it's planting pine trees, putting up
a fence, whatever is proper so they don't have to look over and see my place . And we like to have our
privacy. We will do whatever necessary to make the neighbors happy.
L. Raymond: And you happy.
J. Smith-Burdick: And as far as extra noise, traffic, and stuff like that, that shouldn't be any
different than what it is now.
L. Raymond: One question I would have -- just for the record, mostly. Did anyone at anytime
during the permit process mention to you the possibility of something called a flag lot?
J. Smith-Burdick: No .
L. Raymond: Okay. Does anyone else have any further questions here? Steve? John? Mary?
Mary?
J. Pachai: All set at this end.
5
Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals March 17, 1997
L. Raymond: Okay. I don't see that what we have is probably most of the information we're
going to get, so there's no point in adjourning the hearing to another time . We might as well close the
hearing don't you think? Okay. So we close the hearing at 7: 57 p .m.
The public hearing was closed .
L. Raymond: By closing the hearing, we will then, as a Board, get together and consider all
this information, and any other relevant information that we have , as to how we want to act on this .
You folks are welcome to stay around and listen to us jawbone on this thing and see how we come up
with it. But the hearing part is closed and so we're officially not supposed to be hearing any more
information from outside after this. Supposedly it was all given during the hearing.
The decision meeting was called to order at 7:59 p.m. by Chairman Lyle Raymond.
L. Raymond: To shortcut other discussion at the moment, it's my personal opinion as Chair
is that the critical question may be how we consider the provision for flag lots in our ordinance vis -a-
vis what they want to do here . For background , when this first came up, I immediately thought of the
flag lot option and I said well, I'm not going to schedule a hearing on this until I have a chat with
George Senter to find out more about this. I did, and George indicated to me that he — and it's not
George's words, but let me put it this way -- there's apparently confusion over the interpretation of the
flag lot provisions in the ordinance . And I want to be fair to everybody here in terms of how we're
dealing with that. And the confusion is enough so that George Senter, for some reason, did not feel
that this qualified as something to offer for a flag lot. And I think that is probably the critical
question of all here what we're going to deal with here. The secondary question, in my opinion, is in
addition to that is if there's an option available , and we're going to discuss this further, on the flag lot ,
then we have two options. We can give them a variance or we can do the flag lot. And then the question
would be, which is better for them? which is better for the Town? and the future all the way around.
M. Decker: We haven't handled a flag lot in a situation like this so it's going to be something
that's going to be --
L. Raymond. Well, we did Glenn Munson.
M. Decker: Right .
L. Raymond. Slightly different. But we have had a, so -- yes?
S. Thane: Is it prudent to create a flag lot? Should we be getting into that sort of a position
of creating a flag lot?
J. Pachai: I don't believe that since there is a law in place that lays out procedures, no
matter how unclear they have to be, I believe we should be looking in the direction of the referral to a
Planning Board as opposed to creating a flag lot --
L. Raymond: We can't create one .
M. Decker: The Planning Board can . We can't. The Planning Board can. We can't. But we
can refer.
S. Thane: I'll amend that -- then is it a good idea for us to refer?
L. Raymond: So the question is if we feel this is the correct route to go, then should we -- then
what we have to do then is deny the variance, but then refer them to the Planning Board as an option.
M. Decker. I think we have to weigh those two things out. That's our job right now is to
weigh it out.
L. Raymond: That's right.
6
Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals March 17, 1997
J. Pachai: And just to clarify -- in a sense we could allow a flag lot by virtue of allowing a
variance for insufficient frontage . But I agree with Lyle that that lot would have to be pre-existing. In
other words, they would have had to subdivide it and turn the paperwork into the County and then
they would come back to us and, which is not the right way to do things, but it's feasible but not the
case.
M. Decker: But that's not the case, really. That's not the case, so we shouldn't be even
brought into it.
L. Raymond: Mary, now we think we've gone over this before, but, for our meeting record here ,
you're in the realty business. How is it looked at in terms of a lot that is available and has a variance
versus a lot that legally meets its frontage. Does that make a difference in sale price or anything?
M. Decker: I guess it depends on maybe the background of the person — I look at it from a
different point because that's my background here. I shouldn't say this, but if the realtor isn't really
looking into the research and knows what goes along with a lot that does require a variance, or
substandard -- and that's what a variance means -- they might not take it to heart. It depends on where
they are coming from. I try and shy away from anything that's not normal because you're just
developing the problems that go with it. So you've got to keep that in mind .
L. Raymond: The fact that they have a variance indicates that there has been a problem in the
past already?
M. Decker: Well, there has been a problem already and you've got something that's
deficient. So, therefore , I never classify that lot as being as valuable or as worthy. Again, if you make
that known to your prospective buyer and it doesn't matter to them, and they understand it, that's one
thing. A lot of the times it's not brought forward, that's what I'm trying to say. So it all depends on the
background of the realtor.
L. Raymond: So you're saying that a buyer sometimes gets a lot and finds out later that --
M. Decker: I've seen it happen . And then they have to try and cope with it. They have to live
with it. And that's tough. You're buying a problem to begin with . But if people don't realize it ,
probably they're getting it at a deal on a price. That's what you have to worry about. I 've had people
come to me afterwards and say, but, gee, I bought it cheap. And whenever you buy anything cheap, you
want to be aware of its background. That goes with the territory.
L. Raymond: So what we'd say -- what I 'm getting at here, obviously, is that if we felt that a
flag lot could be created it they went to the Planning Board, then that would be a legal lot.
M. Decker: It would be a legal lot. A flag lot, I'm going to say, is still not as valuable as a
front lot -- but it's a legal lot.
L. Raymond: That's right.
M. Decker: You don't have the negatives following it and causing you the hassle afterwards .
That's what I'm trying to tell you, and it's a far better end result.
L. Raymond: Yes. Yes. So in terms of the applicant and the Town both -- 'cause we're supposed
to balance these off in terms of the neighborhood, the applicant, and the whole works --
M. Decker: I feel the reasoning -- and she's done everything by the book -- she had to
substantiate her cause and she did just that.
L. Raymond: Now in terms of a flag lot, if — to clear up the confusion as to how this is to be
applied - - and I think the reason sometimes there's confusion is because it's new and as you mention ,
like a new ship that has to have a shakedown cruise . And we're in that. But for the benefit especially
of the two new members here, we have authority as the Zoning Board of Appeals to interpret the
Zoning Code where there is a problem in how it's to be interpreted. So that was one of the reasons why
I decided we might as well go ahead with the hearing tonight, and allow us a chance, perhaps, to clear
7
Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals March 17, 1997
this out in terms of what George Senter -- he can get some direction as to where he's to go henceforth .
That's what we could do. Have you folks all looked at the provisions in the Code on the flag lots?
Maybe we want to go back and go through that again.
M. Decker. I think we probably need to review those --
L. Raymond: In the first part of the Code , the definitions, the first ones here — we might want
to look at here . Mary, you can look at mine if you want.
M. Adams: Okay.
L. Raymond: Well, the first thing that I'm looking at here is the minor flag lot subdivision on
page 9 . It says -- subdivision of land during a two-year period that results in one or two flag lots, one or
more of which is less than five acres. Well, it would seem to me, am I right, that this case would fall
under that wouldn't it? It's less then five acres.
M. Decker. Yes. Under that one .
L. Raymond: It's got 4 on the whole lot and they could create a flag lot of less than five acres
then.
J. Pachai: And then I think you would want to look at --
L. Raymond. And then 276, Let me turn to 276.2 on page 36.
J. Pachai: Minimum two acres .
L. Raymond: Yes. Minimum area shall be twice the area of conventional lots --
J. Pachai: With a pole width of 20 feet --
L. Raymond: I don't know if the Town Board has actually passed on it yet. We had the hearing.
J. Pachai: Yes, I believe they did pass on it.
L. Raymond: They did pass on it? Did they pass that last week, Joan? Is that in the minutes?
J. Fitch: I just took the hearing; I didn't take the vote at the end of the meeting. I was gone
by then.
L. Raymond: You were gone by then. I left before the whole meeting was over.
J. Pachai: It passed.
L. Raymond. You stayed and it passed? It doesn't matter in this case, anyway, for the distance
-- 20 feet, you see -- maximum of 50, If it passed, it can be anything up to the 100. So I guess what we're
looking at, to recapitulate here, are we interpreting this correctly then? that they could have a small --
a minor subdivision that is less than five acres and then has got to be at least two, and our
interpretation is that they would have the two acres in the back of their four acres.
M. Adams: Yes.
M. Decker. It looks and it sounds very good. This says 4, 14 and somebody says 4,25; this
says 4. 14.
L. Raymond: The pole's going to be 50 foot wide -- she said she had 50. Let's look at the map .
J. Pachai: Let's start out with calculating with the 20' minimum width . The pole could not
be more than what is in excess of four acres -- . 14.
8
Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals March 17, 1997
L. Raymond: All they need is an acre for the present house , and that would leave all the rest of
the lot.
M. Adams: Depending on how it sits.
L. Raymond: It would probably take more than an acre, but it probably wouldn't take a full
two acres either. So they got more than two acres available .
J. Pachai: So I retract what I just said regarding the . 14 .
(Quiet discussion occurs between J. Pachai and M. Decker -- not audible to secretary.)
J. Pachai: We're probably being too quiet--
J. Fitch: You're right -- I can't hear you .
S. Thane: Is there a problem with running a driveway over the top of a leach field?
J. Pachai: There is no leach field here.
M. Decker. Not here , but this is what she's looking to be.
L. Raymond: That's just a sketch at the moment because it's not installed . That's only
proposed.
M. Decker: Yes, it's not there, but you're right, you wouldn't want to.
L. Raymond: Well, there's the possibility of running one --- she could run one on the other
side, too.
S. Thane: I think you're right. You could run it up here and curve it.
M. Adams: I think, myself, we should look into that aspect rather than a variance, with
everything we've got to work with .
L. Raymond: Now, the other aspect of this thing is that with the variance they can have them
all on the same lot. We suggest they go to the Planning Board and have the flag lot. Then it's got to be
surveyed.
M. Decker: It's got to be surveyed off.
L. Raymond. The reason for that is because, which I think is foolish, but anyway it's in the
Code. Under the minor --
M. Decker. subdivision --
L. Raymond. subdivision regulations, it says they have to have a licensed surveyor set the lot
out and so the lot would have to be deeded separately. Now there will be a cost to that -- more cost than
it would cost them for the variance .
M. Decker: That's what I'm thinking.
L. Raymond: All they have to do is have it surveyed and show the Planning Board they have a
deed and a survey.
J. Pachai: I believe it does have to be filed . And that adds a little extra expense to the
survey costs.
L. Raymond: I checked with a surveyor. And the person I checked with is Bruce Davison who
appeared before our last meeting because of the Glenn Munson flag lot. And so I called Bruce over to
9
Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals March 17, 1997
Cortland, and I said , well if you have a very simple case -- let's assume this lot has no problems with
the deed or boundaries, or anything, just a very simple case, and you just need to put a drag line in it ,
what are we talking about in terms of cost? And he said probably $500 to $600.
J. Pachai: And for the mylar he usually gets another fifty or so .
L. Raymond. And so that would not appear to me, in my own opinion, to be insurmountable
probably for them.
M. Decker: At this point it wouldn't. You can separate it and still have it stay in mom ' s
name because she's a minor.
L. Raymond: Yes, she'd have two lots in her name .
M. Decker. She'd just have two lots in her name .
J. Pachai: The deed wouldn't have to be updated, unless she had to get a mortgage.
M. Decker: Well, it would still be on her land. The survey could set there until she decided to
do some transferring. So there would be that prospect.
L. Raymond. So to sum this up, if we feel that this is the way to go and our interpretation of
the Zoning Ordinance is that this lot certainly, in our opinion, would be eligible for a flag lot, then we
could refer them to the Planning Board for that type of thing.
M. Decker: But I feel we need to substantiate why we feel the need to go in that direction.
L. Raymond. Well, this is another little thing here I want to mention. I think there's the
confusion for our Zoning Officer. When I talked with him, he indicated that he wasn't sure that we
were supposed to use the provision in the Zoning Ordinance to create new flag lots. And, in all fairness
to George, I am kind of confused, in turn, by this because it's under the Subdivision Ordinance and how
to heck would you have a flag lot unless you did create a new one? Because this is the only way you'd
have a subdivision . But I just wanted to mention that for the record . And that's another reason we
need to say that our interpretation is -- yes, you can create a flag lot, in our opinion, where it meets all
the criteria and, therefore, this should be something that the Planning Board should be taking care of.
That's where the interpretation comes in .
J. Pachai: Exactly .
L. Raymond: And in all fairness to George, he's trying to do his job, and I think we can give
him some direction that from henceforth he will have something better to stand on.
J. Pachai: The only place I think that might come into play is if somebody ever wanted to
buy that property.
M. Decker. Then they're probably going to have to put their own supply on their own -- but
there are shared .
L. Raymond: There are shared water supplies -- I'm pretty sure there are. All the Health
Department's concerned about is how far it is from the septic field .
M. Adams: Volpicelli's share the same well. Same thing.
L. Raymond: So we want to get down, then, to our findings.
S. Thane: One more question -- I'm not against exploring the idea of flag lots, but what is it
about a variance that we don't want to do? Is it just setting precedents that we don't want to do?
L. Raymond: No. That's pretty much why I asked Mary. What we're supposed to do is balance
what's best for the applicant and for the Town.
10
Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals March 17, 1997
M. Decker: And for the Town .
J. Pachai: The other thing is one of the questions we had to answer is can the outcome be
achieved by some other method, and a variance is considered a last resort.
L. Raymond. This is why I ask, for the record mostly, if they considered building on. And it' s
also, because I had talked with them before, and she brought it into the record, that they tried to buy
land from the neighbor so they would have enough frontage . And they couldn't do that. And that was
all to answer that question, are there other means besides a variance? We're supposed to explore the
alternatives and, as you can see, the State and the government has a pretty strong hand in exploring
the alternatives.
S. Thane: If we deny the variance and recommend to the Board the flag lot, and the Board
turns it down, can they come back and ask for a variance?
L. Raymond: My opinion is that the Board's not going to turn it down. But there is one more
thing here on 276 that perhaps we should look at -- 276. 1 . Possibly, George Senter may be looking at
this part. And I agree -- that might be a little scary the way the language is written . Because the way it
starts out, as you can see, it says there's got to be unreasonable property, partial limitations , affected
by unusual topographic location or extraordinary topographical conditions. In this case, this lot
probably does not meet any of those. But the question is -- it doesn't say and. It says or at the end of
the line -- or is devoted to such use that it is impossible, impractical, or undesirable for the subdivider
to fully conform to the requirements. And I think that's the opening that the Planning Board can act
on. And we, in turn, can say it's our interpretation that this lot would meet that requirement. And I
guess it was good we had a chance to bring this out. I think that frees the Planning Board, in our
opinion. Since we made that determination, the Planning Board also, as well as the Zoning Officer,
you see, can go by our determination . We have quite a bit of authority, Steve. That was what was
intended . So if you consider that it's impractical or undesirable for the subdivider to fully conform ,
then they can go ahead with the rest of this. And that's part of our interpretation that this lot would
meet that requirement. So, my own opinion is that I would find it, given that interpretation , unlikely
that the Planning Board would find some reason that they would have to turn it down. But I could
always be surprised. And I certainly would be. I have talked with George Totman , the Chairman, and
George has indicated, to no one's surprise probably, that he'd be very favorably inclined to consider a
flag lot proposal on that. He was only concerned, again, about interpretations and whether they can
legally go ahead with it.
J. Pachai: I believe in looking at 276.2 through 276.9 there's no question this would,
providing they stay within the dimension regulations, that they certainly meet all of these
requirements .
L. Raymond: Yes, yes. So we now are supposed to officially list our findings and then our
conclusion of what we're going to act on. And I guess we can say our findings are that ( 1) in the case at
hand, that it is eligible for consideration as a flag lot under the Groton Code; (2) that this is possible
because the ZBA has determined that the flag lot provisions of the Code are to be interpreted in this
way; (3) this interpretation is made under the ZBA's authority to interpret provisions of the Code. So
we have three findings and so the next thing is, once we determine this — oh, wait a minute here. I
guess we say it's eligible for consideration as a flag lot. That already states that we've looked at it. Or
should we restate that we've looked at the dimensions and so on to know that it's eligible . Or is that
enough just to say that we've determined it's eligible , which assumes that --
J. Pachai: All we might want to do is specify we have reviewed Section 276 --
M. Decker: 1 thru 9, or whatever it is - -
L. Raymond: All right. I'm going to put that under the ZBA's authority to determine
provisions of a code in this instance --
J. Fitch: Is this a continuation of that last part?
11
Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals March 17, 1997
L. Raymond: Yes, it's a continuation of number three, and this is Sections 276. 1 thru Section
276. 9, and the definition of a minor flag lot subdivision. I guess that's it, and the definition of a minor
flag lot as in the definition section. How's that?
M. Decker. How many sentences we got there? Four or five?
L. Raymond, We have three findings. In the case at hand, ( 1) this lot is eligible for
consideration as a flag lot under the Groton Code, (2) this is possible because the ZBA has determined
that the flag lot provisions of the Code are to be interpreted in this way, and (3) this interpretation is
made under the ZBA's authority to interpret provisions of the Code . In this instance , Sections 276. 1
thru Section 276. 9. So the other thing we need to do then would be to refer them to the Planning Board .
We can do that in our decision, maybe, rather than in the findings. Or should we do this in the
findings? Because our decision will be that we're going to turn down the variance with a
recommendation that it be referred to the Planning Board for consideration as a flag lot.
M. Decker: That would be our final decision .
J. Pachai: That would go under the tests.
L. Raymond. Maybe we better put it under findings then. Finding #4 then is that the applicant
should apply for a flag lot to the Groton Planning Board .
J. Pachai: That sounds like a conclusion .
L. Raymond: Yes, it can be a finding or a conclusion. Maybe we should say we are rejecting the
variance under these circumstances .
J. Pachai: We still have to find out the five topics.
L. Raymond: No, we don't. Because if we reject the variance, especially under this, why do we
need to deal with that?
M. Decker: We don't have to deal with the five to show how or why we rejected it?
L. Raymond. Because the main one we're rejecting it for is, well, okay, we can put that in there
because this is an obvious alternative to a variance . That's the main one . The rest of them are going to
be irrelevant just about.
J. Pachai: But my feeling is, since we do have to consider all of them, we should have
findings that relate .
L. Raymond: I gotcha.
J. Pachai: Therefore , it seems that the neighbors don't have a problem.
L. Raymond. But the business about the neighbors and so on, whatever, would also come up
under the subdivision , because they're going to have to do the thing with the Planning Board and do
the same thing we just did.
M. Decker: But I don't see where that should be scary or take away any of the good feeling
that is already generated here. I don't think that should look any different to them.
L. Raymond: Maybe then we should then add #5 that this finding is in response to whether an
alternative exists to a variance .
M. Decker: I think that's all going to be done, I hope, when we do a -- I think we have to
answer —
L. Raymond: Well, John was saying that maybe we better be quite detailed here .
12
Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals March 17, 1997
S. Thane: I think we don't have to worry about being obvious.
J. Pachai: Once we lay out the findings, then we can worry about going down and answering
the questions and spelling out how our findings. --
L. Raymond. All right. So we will not put #5 in the findings then -- this last statement, is
what you're saying? All right. I'll just take that out and set it aside . Okay, so now we come to the
conclusions, which is our decision. All right. Number One then is that we're going to reject the
variance request due to the fact that an alternative exists.
J. Pachai: I'm concerned about procedural. Maybe I'm out in left field.
L. Raymond, No, you're often right, John, so ---
J. Pachai: My feeling is typically, although this may not be the typical case, we discuss the
evidence, we come up with findings, and then we go through the State-dictated tests for granting an
area variance and, using those findings, plug in our response to the five questions asked. So, at this
point -- and then we make our decision from there . At this point, we have the evidence , we've had the
discussion, we've got our findings -- well, we're working on our findings.
L. Raymond: I see what you mean . I think it's a bit of overkill , but nevertheless, in this case,
because I think the main question is where there's an alternative that exists, then I think that's going
to be the one that's going to --
J. Pachai: I agree, but at the same time, it's a balance. Any one of these things -- any one of
the five tests could be basically a negative, if you will. But the other three or four could outweigh those
two. And we've had cases where that's happened. It's wise, for the record, to do it.
M. Decker: You're saying do the normal procedure . You say this is what we found --
L. Raymond. Okay. If you want to do it the long way, go ahead and do it.
M. Decker, Well, no, but we're jumping through hoops and going a little backwards here.
L. Raymond. That's true, that's true .
J. Pachai: In the discussion, and in the evidence, it seems to me that there was no -- and I ' m
repeating something I mentioned earlier -- but I don't know if was taken in the same light or in the
same purpose — that changes in character in the neighborhood, and that sort of thing, it seems that
there is no evidence of any problem.
M. Decker: Right .
L. Raymond. All right. So we must make this #5 then in the findings? I scratched the other
#5. Are you following this, Joan? We have four findings, and then we'll make this # 5 in the findings.
J. Pitch: This is going to be verbatim, so you're going to get both of them anyway.
J. Pachai: I would include along with that the measurements from wells and so forth -- the
absence of right-of-ways through the property, also make this a reasonable candidate -- the property a
reasonable candidate to have a dwelling placed on the back portion of the property.
L. Raymond: I don't know. Was that necessary?
M. Decker. I don't know if all that is necessary. Number one, the main reason why is
because we have X-number of feet in road frontage per single-family residence.
L. Raymond. Yes. And actually that was the core of the hearing's request.
13
Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals March 17, 1997
M. Decker. That's the core of the variance request right there . So, # 1 we are insufficient in
that footage there. You could have 5 acres back there. I still feel that we're doing along the lines of a
flag lot rather than allow another residence to go on. This sounds very real and we could live with it
probably, but maybe the next one wouldn't be quite so --
J. Pachai: I'm just trying to provide a basis of findings for the responses to our tests.
M. Decker. Yes, but I think that's going to be answered, though, I mean because of all those
that's why we can look into this flag lot provision as a way to ---
J. Pachai: But it seems at this point we might as well just go down through our tests.
L. Raymond: All right.
M. Decker: And just put straight across answers.
L. Raymond: So if we do that, I'll make #5 here a finding -- will there be an undesirable
change in the character of the neighborhood?
M. Decker. No .
L. Raymond: No undesirable change identified in character of the neighborhood. And so # 6
then — we've already answered -- is there another way to meet needs without having to ask for a
variance? And so the sixth finding then -- is the requested variance a substantial one? That's a gray
area.
J. Pachai: If we consider it dimensionally, 150 feet minimum in a rural area, that will
leave you with 102 for a balance, and so 30% --
L. Raymond: It's quite a bit.
J. Pachai: would be substantial if we look at substantial from a dimensional point of view.
L. Raymond: From a dimensional point of view for regular lots. It's substantial for that only .
Right. So the answer is yes, there will be a substantial change in diminishment, I guess.
M. Decker: Yes,
L. Raymond: Of frontage -- in terms of a regular lot with 150 foot frontage . Is that okay, Joan?
J. Fitch: Yes -- I'm just concentrating on your conversation .
L. Raymond: Okay. All right. And so J. Pachai: Lyle?
L. Raymond. Yes.
J. Pachai: One more response .
L. Raymond: For which one?
J. Pachai: For is the variance substantial .
L. Raymond: Yes,
J. Pachai: I just want to make sure that it's understood that in this case, looking only at a
dimensional consideration, that other things in other variance requests may be applied to things
other than dimension . How can I say that?
14
Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals March 17, 1997
L. Raymond: But where does this do that? I don't understand . Well, the next question is will
it have an adverse affect on the neighborhood in terms of traffic, drainage, and so on? And I'm willing
to say no, or minimal. How do we want to word that.
J. Pachai: No more than any typical dwelling.
L. Raymond: Does not, let's see -- adverse affect -- does not exceed any typical of dwelling,
shall we say, in the neighborhood?
J. Pachai: Right ,
L. Raymond: And, lastly, of course, was the situation self-created? And the answer was no .
They didn't purchase the lot knowing that it didn't have enough frontage and then go out and get a
variance .
M. Adams: No, they didn't know that.
J. Pachai: From that perspective.
L. Raymond: All right. So have we satisfied all the questions in here that we're supposed to
ask about a variance? Now, can we go to the conclusions?
J. Pachai: Yes,
L. Raymond: Yes, John? I want to make sure you're on board with us here.
J. Pachai: Yes, I am. I just jumped the gun and we should leave it in the hands of the
Planning Board.
L. Raymond: Yes. We've determined that it is eligible to be considered as a flag lot, and that's
all. And it's up to the Planning Board to handle it. Because they'll be going over all the same stuff. So ,
the conclusion is that ( 1 ) the variance is denied due to the fact that ZBA findings show that a feasible
alternative is available that does not require a variance . So, #2 -- it is recommended then that the
applicant apply to the Planning Board for a flag lot. How's that, John?
J. Pachai: I was expecting a full minor flag lot subdivision.
L. Raymond: All right. For a minor flag lot subdivision , then .
J. Pachai: There's a reason for that.
L. Raymond, Okay. One final thing we have to do is -- well, one is that I've just discovered that
we've been doing things a little bit wrong. We should have been making out the SEAR thing. Well, if we
deny it we don't have to, so we'll eliminate that. The second thing is we are supposed to show a roll call
vote on this and so I guess it means a "yes" that we agree with these two conclusions, and so Mary
Decker?
M. Decker. Yes,
L. Raymond: Steve?
S. Thane: Yes.
L. Raymond: John?
J. Pachai: Yes.
L. Raymond. Mary Adams?
M. Adams: Yes.
15
Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals March 17, 1997
L. Raymond: And also "yes" for me.
J. Pachai: Do we need a motion?
J. Fitch: You should have a motion to deny the variance .
L. Raymond. All right. I guess I'll make a motion that we deny the variance with the
inclusion of the recommendations as stated. Anyone second it?
J. Pachai: I'll second it.
L. Raymond: John seconds it. And we've all said "aye" already, so it's carried. The meeting is
concluded at 8: 53 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
?oanE. Fitch
Recording Secretary
16
1
I3J � D � C 0 S /ar � f� f �J �J �r° ® i-psi/ !Uy 120
Town Juwices (607) 898-5273 Town Of Groton Su visor (607) 898-5102
AN,and L. Heffror, Teresa M . Robinson
Alton I . Alexander
Town Clerk (607) 898-5035
Code Enforcement Office (607) 898-4428 cop, C#��� Colleen D. Pierson
George E. Senter, Sr. p E p 1 C ..q
o ( s
• g . .. � Superintendent of Highways (607) 898-3110
Fax Number (607) 898-3086 $ -� / E R E C T E D
.
f 8 f 7 atLeland E . Cornelius
f ' • ` d Councilmen
Ellard L . Sovocool
Mo U qS Gordon C . VanBenschoten
04
Daniel J . Carey
Donald N . Palmer
PUBLI C HEARING
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 , March 17 , 1997 @ 7 : 30 p . m . for the purpose of
considering the application of Jo Diane Smith — Burdick , 40
Sharpsteen Road , Groton , New York for a Variance to Section
342 . 2 . a . 2 of the Town of Groton Land Use & Development ,
pertaining to lack of road frontage for a second residence at 40
Sharpsteen Road , north of Route 34B ( Peruville Road ) .
All interested persons will be heard .
Lyle Raymond , Chairman
Zoning Board of Appeals
? 01 Conger Boulevard o
J Groton , NY 13073 - 0030