HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-05-05 Strutural dimension assessory structure TOWN OF GROTON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Public Hearing - Tuesday, 5 May 1998 - 7: 30 p.m.
Board Members (*absent) Others Present
Lyle Raymond, Chairman Joan Fitch, Recording Secretary
John Pachai Karl & Carolyn Becker, Applicants
Mary Decker Stan Shockey
Mary Adams Leland Cornelius
Steve Thane
The Public Hearing was opened at 7*30 p.m. by Chairman Lyle Raymond,
L. Raymond: Well, let's sort of have a roll call introduction around the table first here. I'm Lyle
Raymond, and I'm Chairman of the Board of Zoning Appeals. I live on Old Stage Road.
S. Thane: Steve Thane, a member of the Zoning Board of Appeals. I live on Old Stage Road also.
M. Decker: Mary Decker and I've been on the ZBA for awhile, and I live on Tallmadge Road in
Groton.
M. Adams, Mary Adams. I live on the Old Peru Road in Groton.
J. Pachai: John Pachai -- I live on Cedar Lane.
L. Raymond: John is Vice Chair. So if I fall under the table or something, John will carry on .
Nothing will stop . All right, why don't first of all I'll read the -- we have to do this official -- read the
Notice of Hearing into the record :
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 on Tuesday, May 5, 1998 at 7:30
p. m. at the Town Ha 101 Conger Boulevard Groton, NY, for the purpose of considering the
application of Karl Becker, 3 Pleasant Valley Road, Groton, New York, for a variance under
Section 343.2(e) of the Groton Land Use and Development Cade relating to maximum building
and structure dimensions for detached accessory buildings or structures in a Low-Intensity
District; whereby the applicant has applied to construct a garage with 17 foot high side walls
that are limited to a maximum 12 foot height in this District by the Groton Code,
Lyle Raymond, Chairman
Zoning Board of Appeals
Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing b May 19M
Now that I've given the hearing announcement and sort of opened the meeting, the next order of
business for the members here is approval of the Minutes of the last meeting, which as you will recall
was on March 23rd, and it was the Decision Meeting where we decided the Clara Travis case. Does
anyone have any changes or notations they wish to make on those Minutes from March 23rd? All
right. Well, do I hear a motion to approve the Minutes?
J. Pachai: I so move.
L. Raymond: Second?
M. Adams: I second.
L. Raymond: Okay, Mary seconds. All in favor say aye. (All members present indicated in the
affirmative.) The Minutes of the meeting of March 23rd are approved. Now we'll go back to continuing
with our business here tonight. For the record, Mr. Becker has paid his fee as indicated by receipt
#3219 dated 5/ 5/ 98. Of course, without payment, we cannot proceed. That's why we have to do this
for the record. I do not see any correspondence that we have received from anyone other than Mr.
Becker on this case, so that's very quickly taken care of. So I guess the next order of business is the
presentation of the applicant's case. And with that, Mr. or Mrs. Becker, would you like to sort of
elucidate on what you've already given us perhaps? And any other details.
K. Becker: The reason I wanted 17-foot high side walls is I wanted to put up a two-story structure
for storage upstairs. It's mostly a matter of economics. Concrete is much more expensive than the
framing. That's pretty much my whole reasoning.
J. Pachai: I noticed you have a fairly tall boat, right?
H. Becker: Yes,
J. Pachai: Would that be why you need the carport to be --
K. Becker: Yes. So I can fit the boat in there .
J. Pachai: Right.
L. Raymond: Even without the second story, the minimum for that boat, looks like, would be --
K. Becker: It's all of 12 foot, if not more .
2
Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing 5 May 1998
L. Raymond: If not more, yes.
K. Becker: I have to take the top down and stuff like that just to get it in at 12 foot.
J. Pachai: You wouldn't have anything to support the roof of the car port if the garage itself
weren't taller than allowed.
H. Becker: That would be very expensive for anything that size . Not without expensive framing.
S. Thane: So the basic reason for having these large rooms, like the upper story is a 10-foot high
room, and it's basically to --
H. Becker: Well, 8-foot wall and a 10-foot ceiling.
S. Thane: To achieve that wall for the lean-to, correct?
H. Becker: For the shutoff of the side and to have storage upstairs.
L. Raymond: Now the lean-to is where your boat would go? Because I see the garage is 8 foot 4.
H. Becker: That's just a regular garage for a car.
L. Raymond: Okay.
J. Pachai: Do you plan on putting any services into the upstairs -- water or any kind of
plumbing, or anything?
H. Becker: Not really. Electrical, probably. I'll probably have lights and everything there. I have
all the feeds and everything over it at the side of the building.
J. Pachai: You're not going to be putting anything in that might in the future be -- wind up being
-- where there might be a conversion to a residence?
H. Becker: I don't foresee that in the future.
J. Pachai: You're not really putting any plumbing in, so that would rule that pretty much out.
H. Becker: Yes.
3
Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing b May 1998
L. Raymond: So from your perspective, there wouldn't be any other really feasible way, especially for
your boat, except to exceed the twelve-foot height limit?
H. Becker: Pretty much .
L. Raymond: Because I looked at your site and, unless there's some inhibition there, I mean storage
you want overhead could be added on the end, you could have a lower building and have it extend out
farther.
H. Becker: But at the same time, we're talking $6. 30 a square foot for concrete for a foundation.
L. Raymond: I remember; I sent you a letter indicating you might get some idea of cost. Would there
be inhibitions if you were to do that? I looked out there and, for instance, where's your septic field? Is
that out there beyond?
H. Becker: No, my septic is in the front of my house.
L. Raymond: In the front. Okay, so that grassy area beyond where the boat is now, as you go into
your yard, from there over to the boundary there's no inhibition in there actually in terms of spacing?
H. Becker: No, not really.
L. Raymond: If you were to have a different configuration. So you're not -- what I'm getting at here,
for the record, is that it is not space that is cramping you, rather it is a cost consideration that you're
thinking about here for that amount of space you need for the boat.
M. Decker: I think you have to consider the boat as being the object we're trying to store. Am I
right?
L. Raymond: Yes,
M. Decker: I mean to get that height, that's the only way you're going to --
L. Raymond: The main thing on that boat that requires the height is the mast, isn't it?
M. Decker: The mast, yes.
L. Raymond: Is it the mast that's the main thing that requires that height in the boat?
4
Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing 5 May 1998
H. Becker: Well, no, it's not a sailboat so it's not a mast.
L. Raymond: Oh, I see . I couldn't see what it was from the outside.
H. Becker: It's the antennas and everything they have now.
L. Raymond: Okay. I thought it was a sailboat, probably.
J. Pachai: I forgot what you call that.
L. Raymond: Okay, so this is not the type of boat that you could break it down to a lower height or
anything? There's no easy way to do that.
H. Becker: No.
M. Decker: No, it's all boat.
J. Pachai: Out of curiosity, what is the height of your home from the lower entrance?
M. Decker: That's what I was going to say. There's not gonna be much -- it's not going to be
higher than the house.
K. Becker: It's less than a foot. I think the Code at that time was 37 foot, so I'm thinking 36,
J. Pachai: So as far as looking out of place , I think it would look more out of place if it were --
L. Raymond: If it were spread out.
(Everyone talks at once; no way to get one conversation. )
J. Pachai: It looks like the other garages in the area.
L. Raymond: From the aesthetic point of view, yes, you're right.
M. Adams: Do any of the neighbors object?
S. Shockey: I'm a neighbor and I don't object.
5
Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing 5 May 1998
J. Pachai: There are a number of other non-agricultural detached structures that appear to have
side walls higher than 12 feet, too, so it's not out of line with what we see in the area.
L. Raymond: Yes. Actually, after writing up the hearing announcement which I based on George
Senter's information, which I should have checked, if you look in the Code under "height" it says that
the height is supposed to be measured from the highest point on the building; and that 12 feet is not
the side wall, it's for the highest point. It's here -- just for your information -- here it is, on page 8,
"Height - the height is the vertical distance from finish grade to the highest point of a pitched roof. "
And it says, "On a hillside lot, finish grade shall be considered as the average finish grade on the uphill
side of the structure. " Well, he's not on a side hill there, so that doesn't count. So actually then,
you're exceeding the requirement more than what I had said in the letter that I sent you according to
this thing here which I should have looked at first instead of relying on George Senter's thing.
Although I don't know if it would make much difference anyway, but just to clarify the record .
S. Thane: Well, if that's the case, do we have to amend his request? The purpose of the request
was to have a 17-foot high side walls on the garage to be constructed.
L. Raymond. Yes, and then a roof would be in addition to that right?
S. Thane: Yes. You want 17 feet --
L. Raymond: To the top side wall . We need to be specific in whichever we decide on this thing and
what we're talking about -- side walls, or the whole building. Another thing -- I looked in the record.
Did you ever consider attaching it in any way to the house by some kind of method?
K. Hecker: In some year, I had thought, that might be a possibility. But right now it's not --
L. Raymond: The reason I say that is because if you look under the regulations here, that's for a
detached structure. And it looks like to me if it was an attached structure in some way, then it
wouldn't come under those requirements. At least that's the way I read the Code .
S. Thane: Then it's part of the primary structure.
K. Becker: That's something I understood, but at this certain time I'm just trying to get a
structure up , you know, finished outside . I've got a lot of stuff out there; I'd like to keep it under cover
now and get it out of sight, but attaching it to the house would be even more expensive.
L. Raymond: Yes. Well, these questions are oriented to the idea that what we always try to do -- are
there feasible ways that you could achieve what you want without having to have a variance. Because,
6
Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing 5 May 1888
let's face it, a variance is an encumbrance on the property in a sense. It's there, it's in the record.
Someone else buys the place, if you ever sell it, it comes up -- oh , this place had a variance on it. It
didn't meet Code somewhere . Wonder what the reason for that is. So it may not be a big deal, but it's
nevertheless something that, if possible, it's always nice to avoid if you can find some other way to do
it. It's not just a mere stroke of the pen type of thing. So that's the reason for these questions. Unless
we have other questions, we're going to into our questions we've got to cover for the State requirement.
Well, wait a minute. We've got to close the hearing first if we do that, I guess. I can't jump ahead of
myself here. Is there anything else we want to ask? Do we think we have enough information? Seems
to be pretty simple. All right. Well, we shall close the hearing at 7: 45 p .m. . And by closing the hearing,
this means that we no longer will take comments and testimony. You're welcome to stay because we're
going to go into our regular meeting and make our decision. I assume you'll probably want to stay and
you're welcome . But you're supposed to be listeners from now on as we debate things here. This is the
official procedure and this is what we have to do .
All persons desiring to be heard, having been heard,
the Public Hearing was terminated at 7*45 p.m.
L. Raymond: So now that we've closed the hearing, let's open our regular meeting at 7:46, Now
we're ready to, I think, look at these questions that we need to satisfy for State requirements. Question
# 1 : Will it cause an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or create a detriment to
nearby properties? And, according to the manuals, as you guys probably know because you've probably
looked at them as well as I have, that usually means mostly affects on neighboring property values,
although it can mean other things.
M. Adams: I can't see where it's going to affect anybody.
L. Raymond: Certainly no neighbors have shown up and said it was going to, and they've had
proper notification.
S. Thane: As noted, with the current configuration of that lot, you can hardly see it anyway.
M. Decker: With full foliage, you're not even going to see it. You have to literally trespass to get
back in there to see what's happening.
J. Pachai: And considering the size of the house and the height of the building --
M. Decker: Yes, otherwise it would look a little askew.
L. Raymond: Should we word this -- we'll make this Finding No. 1 then -- shall we work that way in
consideration of the distance from the road and the size of the existing house therefore we find it will
7
Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing b May 1998
not have an undesirable impact on the character of the neighborhood . Is that satisfactory for a finding
for everyone?
J. Pachai: You also might want to add to that the size of existing detached structures.
L. Raymond: All right. In considering the distance from the road, the size of the existing
house, and heights of other detached structures in the neighborhood, we find it will not have a
negative affect on the neighborhood. I'm writing this up. Question No. 2 is whether the benefit
sought by the applicant can be achieved by some other method feasible for the applicant to pursue
other than an area variance? And we've asked the applicant why he wants it that way, and he's given
us some idea of cost estimates as to why he wants to build it that way. And we've also discussed the
space requirements and restrictions, if any, on the site, which apparently there aren't any space
restrictions, different configurations, so that's not the primary consideration.
J. Pachai: But the usage of a portion of it --
M. Decker: For the boat --
M. Adams. Storage of the boat --
M. Decker: It simply requires it to be. You can't cut the size of the boat.
L. Raymond: So how do we want to word that, then? Given the space requirements --
M. Decker: For storage of the boat --
L. Raymond: For storage of the --
M. Decker: That's basically why it's being built in this configuration . Otherwise, it's not storage
for the boat.
L. Raymond: That's one. And the other -- do we want to mention cost?
M. Adams, Prohibitive cost.
M. Decker: Well, I don't know if we could say prohibitive, but to get the storage it has to be that
kind of configuration, and that structure size or configuration also is going to blend with the
appearance of the house or anything else. It's just going to look out of sorts. We've already touched
8
Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing 5 May 1998
that somewhat on # 1 , but it's true, you'd be all out of balance. I mean with the size of the structure,
the house that you have there now, the height, you have to keep a garage somewhere .
J. Pachai: It's feasible but impractical.
M. Decker: But impractical. Yes, it's just not L. Raymond: Okay. So given the storage needs for the applicant's boat M. Decker: It's the size -- I mean it's the size of the boat that's really --
L. Raymond: Given the storage needs for the size of the applicant's boat, and comparative cost of
alternative structures --
M. Decker: And general appearance of the property as a total picture .
L. Raymond: Well, we've covered that I think in # 1 here on appearance. So this is another feasible
way for the applicant -- so, given the storage needs for the size of the applicant's boat, and the
comparative cost of alternative structures, this appears to be the most feasible method for the
applicant to meet his needs . Shall we say that?
S. Thane: Yes.
L. Raymond: No one will ever read my writing except me. All right. So let's go on to the third
question here: whether the requested area variance is a substantial one? And, well, there's not much
question. It's a substantial change from the 12 feet listed in the Code.
J. Pachai: In respect to -- and we've had this discussion before -- and in respect to dimensions,
yes, it's substantial. But we can also look at the word substantial --
L. Raymond: Granted, granted --
J. Pachai: As meaning substantial in respect to neighboring structures, that sort of thing. And
his property seems to actually cross into the Rural Agricultural District, as I see it. I might be reading
the map wrong, but --
L. Raymond: Well, it goes out 500 feet -- the Low Intensity zone runs out 500 feet from the road.
J. Pachai: Right. And from the --
9
Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing 5 May 1998
L. Raymond: Back from the road on each side. His property runs back -- the total lot is 300, 4009
475, well, almost the 500 point. It's not quite though .
M. Decker: Almost the 500 -- almost.
L. Raymond: It's not quite , though .
S. Thane: It says 350 and 100,
L. Raymond: Yes, that jibes with what's on here.
S. Thane: So he's still within the --
L. Raymond: He's all in the Low Intensity zone. The point you were making, John?
J. Pachai: Being that he is in close proximity to the Agricultural District and there are
agricultural buildings, detached buildings of such height it's not -- much greater height -- it's not
substantial --
M. Decker: In that respect.
J. Pachai: In that respect.
L. Raymond: Can we say that, though? Because yes, the Ag District is in behind it, but are there ag
buildings, though, that close or in that area?
J. Pachai: Yes, there is.
L. Raymond: They're off the road aren't they -- most of them?
M. Decker: Across the road there's one .
J. Pachai: There's one about where they 6 is in the area size M. Decker: 6. 57 -- yes, I was going to say.
L. Raymond: Oh, the one across the road.
10
Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing 5 May 19M
M. Decker: Yes,
L. Raymond: Yes.
J. Pachai: Parcel 45,
S. Thane: But aren't agricultural buildings exempt from this?
L. Raymond: Yes. That's right.
M. Decker: And it doesn't stick out like a sore thumb in other words because of the rest of the
surroundings.
J. Pachai: Given the height of the surrounding buildings, it's not substantial .
M. Decker: Substantial in measurement, yes, but not necessarily --
L. Raymond: But we're stating what we said in # 1 aren't we? All these things that fitted into the
neighborhood.
M. Decker: But it also supports #3 though . I would agree with that.
L. Raymond: So you think we should restate it there then in another way?
J. Pachai: Well, you could just refer to one if you want, or restate it, either way.
L. Raymond: All right. So question #3 is whether the area variance is substantial -- substantial in
terms of --
M. Decker: Dimensions only.
L. Raymond: Dimensions only --
J. Pachai: As compared to the other requirements.
M. Decker: That's right. I mean, basically, because that's it. Then the rest of it it's not
substantial to the surroundings.
11
Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing 5 May 1998
L. Raymond: In terms of dimensions, but is not when the character of the nearby neighborhood is
considered, shall we say -- put it that way? Or do you want to say surrounding, nearby surrounding, it
doesn't matter I guess one way or the other.
J. Pachai: And I think in your first sentence, where you indicate that it's substantial in respect to
dimension, I think we could say in the dimensions required by the Code.
L. Raymond: I gotcha. Good point, John.
J. Pachai: But in respect to the dimensions of the surrounding structures, surrounding detached
structures, it's not substantial.
L. Raymond: But is not when the -- maybe I should add that then -- but is not when other
detached structures in the nearby neighborhood are considered.
M. Decker: Okay. That's all right.
L. Raymond: Okay. That will be Finding #3, then. Question #4: Whether the proposed variance
will have an adverse effect on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. And
maybe, at this point, in answer to that, we should then do what we usually haven't had much
experience doing, and that is fill out our part of the Environmental Assessment Form, the SEAR form,
Mr. Becker filled out the first part, and we have to fill out the second part -- short form.
Chairman Lyle Raymond, Jr., then reads aloud Part U of the Short Environmental
Assessment Form. Negative responses were obtained to all questions in Part H.
Therefore, it was determined by the Zoning Board of Appeals, upon a motion made by
Member John Pachai, seconded by Member Steve Thane, with all members present
voting in favor, that the action, based on the information submitted, will not cause any
significant adverse environmental impact, resulting in a Negative Declaration.
All right, now that relates to Question #4 -- will it have an adverse effect on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood. And I see that when I look at things here -- like runoff
-- well, we covered runoff -- but noise, access for emergency vehicles, and so on, I don't see any
difference. Same thing as it is now. So Finding #4 is pretty simple -- We find no adverse effect.
Maybe we could say no adverse effect beyond what is already present. How about that?
M. Decker: How are you saying that now?
L. Raymond: We find no adverse effect beyond what is already present.
M. Decker: I wouldn't add anything else .
12
Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing 5 May 1998
L. Raymond: All right. Just no adverse effect, period.
M. Decker: Because that kind of gives you that question mark, and we don't want that. End it.
L. Raymond: What would I do without all these geniuses around the table here? That's what I like
about the team we have here. This is a real team effort. Well, Question #5 then is whether the alleged
difficulty for which an area variance was requested was self-created. As I look over the literature, I
define that as did the applicant knowingly set himself up by engaging in building such a way that he
couldn't easily accomplish what he wanted in any other way, even though it was known beforehand
that there were other ways of doing it. And that doesn't seem to be the case in anything we've heard
tonight. So we can say, no, it was not self-created. All right. Well, is there anything else we should
put down as findings? We've pretty well covered the bases here, haven't we?
S. Thane: We've got appearance, environment --
L. Raymond: Well, I take it that by the silence here we don't have anything else we want to add
then .
S. Thane: Should we add something like there was nothing from neighboring properties? There
was no -- do we need to add something like that? That there were no objections?
J. Fitch: You covered that in the beginning during the hearing where you asked if any other
comments had been received from anyone. And you said you'd received none.
L. Raymond: Okay. And in Finding # 19 did it have an impact on the character of the neighborhood,
which in most cases has to do with neighbors' concerns about property values, it's there too . On the
other hand, maybe it didn't say it explicitly enough for what you felt we should say?
S. Thane: No . I think what we have is fine now that I look at it.
L. Raymond: Okay. We don't want any uncomfortableness here with what we're doing. Okay. Well,
then I guess what we need here then, and it looks like we're at that point, is a motion that given the
findings that we have , that we would grant Mr. Becker his variance as requested. Does somebody want
to make that motion?
S. Thane: So moved .
L. Raymond: Okay, Steve makes the motion. Do we have a second?
13
Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing 5 May 1998
J. Pachai: Second.
L. Raymond: Okay, and we've got to do it roll call vote. Joan, do you want to call the roll?
J. Fitch: John Pachai,
J. Pachai: Aye.
J. Fitch: Mary Adams.
M. Adams: Aye.
J. Fitch: Mary Decker,
M. Decker: Aye,
J. Fitch: Steve Thane ,
S. Thane: Aye,
J. Fitch: Lyle Raymond.
L. Raymond: Aye. Okay, you've got your variance and we need a motion to close the meeting.
J. Pachai: I so move.
M. Adams: I second it.
L. Raymond: All in favor say aye. (All members present indicated aye.) Meeting closed at 8:06 p.m.
I, Joan E. F1tch, do hereby certify that in the matter of a Public Hearing held by the Zoning Board of
Appeals of the Town of Groton, County of Tompkins, State of New York for the purpose o considering
the application of Karl Becker, 3 Pleasant Valley Road, Groton, NY, for variance under Section
343.2(e) of the Groton Land Use and Development Code, that the foregoing is a true and accurate
transcription of said public hearing to the best of my ability.
�(:20t;x� 4 f4:5—,ow 00000dp
Jo E. Fitch
Recording Secretary
14