HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-09-27 Assessory structure height TOWN OF GROTON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Public Hearing " Monday, 27 September 1999 - 7 : 30 p .m.
Board Members (*absent) Others Present
Lyle Raymond, Chairman Joan Fitch, Recording Secretary
John Pachai Robert Eckert & Lynette Bush, Applicants
Mary Decker Mark Gunn, Town CEO
Steve Thane Al Thayer, Jr. , Builder
The Public Hearing was opened at 7:40 p.m. by Chairman Lyle Raymond,
L. Raymond: I will read the Notice of Hearing into the record. We're opening the session at 7 : 40 PM .
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 September 27, 1999 at 7:30 p. m.
at the Town Hall, 101 Conger Boulevard, Groton, NY, for the purpose of considering an appeal
for a variance by Robert Eckert, 125 Old Peruville Road, Groton, New York to exceed the
maximum permitted height for a detached garage in a Low Intensity District. The appeal
specifically relates to Section 343. 2(e) of the Groton Land Use and Development Code which
limits the height of detached accessory buildings or structures in a Low Intensity District to 12
feet
Lyle Raymond, Chairman
Dated: 17 September 1999 Zoning Board of Appeals
We have just determined that the fees have all been paid, for the record here, both for the appeal and
for the cost of the advertising which we just received a check for from them. We'll introduce ourselves;
we have already a little bit here, but I'm Lyle Raymond. I'm the Chair of the Zoning Board of Appeals
here in Groton.
S . Thane: I'm Steve Thane, member of the Zoning Board of Appeals.
M. Decker: Mary Decker, member.
L. Raymond: And one member is going to arrive he says, his son says, in maybe about a half an
hour. So he may pop in here, and that's John Pachai. So as I said earlier, we're down one member.
The primary purpose of this Hearing is to hear an appeal to construct a building with dimensions that
are not allowed in a Low Intensity District. This district includes the Hamlet of Peruville , where the site
of the proposed structure is located .
Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing 27 September 1999
On August 19th , the applicant, Robert Eckert received approval from the Groton Town Planning for a
boundary change to consolidate two adjacent lots into one to create one conforming lot from two non-
conforming lots. This also eliminated having the site of the proposed structure, a garage, from being
split between two separate deed lots . One of the former non-conforming lots had been used for a
community hall in the past, which is gone .
On September loth, the Code Enforcement Officer received an application for a Building Permit to
construct a garage on the site of the combined former lots. The permit was denied on September 13th
when it was learned that the proposed garage would exceed the maximum allowed height of 12 feet in a
Low Intensity District, as stated in Section 343 . 2(e) of the Groton Land Use and Development Code .
On September 14th , the applicant, Robert Eckert, filed an appeal for a variance from the building
dimension requirements of the Code with the Zoning Board of Appeals. This action is what brings us
here tonight for a Public Hearing on this appeal .
The principal task for the members of the Zoning Board of Appeals at this Hearing is to hear testimony
from the appellant and any other interested parties on this appeal. We will ask questions to ensure
that the ZBA members understand the nature of what is being proposed, and the reasons why a
variance is being requested.
The Zoning Board of Appeals must consider two basic things in deciding upon an appeal for a variance
from area or dimension regulations. These are: ( 1 ) the benefit to the applicant if the variance is
granted, and (2) any harmful effects on the health , safety, and general welfare of the neighborhood if
the variance is granted. Essentially, the ZBA is charged with weighing or balancing these two interests
with each other.
At the close of the Hearing, the ZBA will either reconvene to make a decision in this case or, if deemed
necessary, defer its decision until a later date as provided for in the Law. The decision meeting is open
to the public, but no further testimony will be heard after the close of the Hearing. And that's the end
of the Chairman's remarks. As far as communications received, we've received one letter. This is from
the Tompkins County Department of Planning. For the benefit of the folks listening here, any permit or
application for an appeal on a site that is located within 500 feet of a State road, a county road , or any
other public property or land or whatever requires that we also notify the Tompkins County
Department of Planning. The Department of Planning then issues a statement indicating whether they
find that this is going to in any way affect these roads or whatever. And we've received a response from
the Department of Planning in Tompkins County, that says: "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
2
Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing 27 September 1999
proposal as submitted will have no significant deleterious impact on inter-community, 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 that we can make it a
part of the record. Sincerely, James W. Hanson , Commissioner of Planning. The date on this is
September 22, 1999.
Okay, and with that, and the communication received and everything, we will open the Hearing. And
usually the first order of business is to hear from the applicant in their own words as to what it is that
you're trying to accomplish , and why it is you think that you need to exceed the 12 feet. Do you have
anything you want to say beyond what's on your application?
R. Eckert: No, I just want to get my truck in there.
L. Raymond: Yes?
R. Eckert: My van, because I don't want it out in the front yard. I want to put a garage door in ,
overhead. Power garage door. The truck's 11 feet.
L. Raymond: It's 11 feet high , and it says on the application here that you need to have this 18
inches above the door for the opener. It wasn't clear to me what you mean by that. Is it 18 inches
above the truck?
R. Eckert: Yes.
L. Raymond: Or 18 inches above what?
A. Thayer: My name's Alan Thayer. Thayer's Contracting. Okay, you got a header. We only need
11 foot to get the truck in.
L. Raymond: Yes.
A. Thayer: To put a garage door opener in, we need 18 inches more . So we got to have 12 and
1 /2 feet minimum.
L. Raymond: Okay. So 12 and 1 / 2 is what you're asking for minimum?
A. Thayer. That's minimum. That's above our header.
3
f
Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing 27 September 1999
L. Raymond: Okay, that close to the underside of the roof, or you've got to put the roof on too ,
right?
A. Thayer: That's under the roof.
L. Raymond: So you need another what? Half foot or so for the roof?
A. Thayer. And if you've got to put any sheetrock or any insulation , or anything in there, you
need at least another six inches, so 13 foot.
L. Raymond: Yes,
A. Thayer. So if you add this, it's 13 feet. All we need is 13 feet. But wood dimensions come in 2
foot, so that's where we come up with the 14 foot height.
L. Raymond: Oh , okay. So it would be 14 feet. What we're interested in is how much over the 12
feet allowed in the Code . Okay, so 14 foot would be the actual dimensions that you're asking for.
R. Eckert: It's easier putting up the . . .
L. Raymond: Yes. Were you aware of the 12-foot limitation when you planned your garage?
A. Thayer. I don't know if he was ; I know I wasn't and I've been building for the Town of Groton
HUD jobs, new houses here for 20 years and I was never aware of this.
L. Raymond: Yes, it's stated very clearly in the Ordinance in all the zones; we have a copy if you
want to look at it. In fact, I have the one here for the Low Intensity District. Would you like to see it?
There's a little black mark where it indicates where the maximum height is. In fact, that height
limitation is incorporated in all of the zones actually in the Town.
A. Thayer. Can I borrow your glasses so I can read it?
L. Raymond: Sorry about that.
S. Thane : So the variance is for 14 feet?
M. Decker: Which was 2 foot above --
4
' Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing 27 September 1999
L. Raymond: Above the 12 . Is there, you know, any way that you knew of that you could avoid
having to go the 14 foot and meet the Code without it?
R. Eckert: Only if I get a smaller truck.
L. Raymond: Well, is that a possibility? Getting a smaller truck. Do you need R. Eckert: I play in a band and that's what I load all my stuff in.
L. Raymond: So the equipment you have requires a truck of that height?
R. Eckert: Oh, yes. I have it stacked clear to the ceiling and all the way to the back door.
L. Raymond: Oh . I see. Okay.
R. Eckert: If anything, I could use a bigger one .
L. Raymond: Well, we sent you a letter here. Lynette, you probably had a chance to read it if he
can't. We're required to ask is there any other way that you can do this without having to have a
variance, because that's always a good thing not to have a variance on your property anyway.
L. Bush: It's not a good thing to have a variance?
L. Raymond: That's right. It's not a good thing to have a variance encumbrance on the property. It
goes with the property, but if you sell the property in the future sometime , I guess, Mary, you're the one
here that can be asked, and say well if it comes up, how come this property's got a variance on it for
something that wasn't supposed to be there? It's not a big deal , but it's always nice to not have it. So
we're required to ask these questions as to whether there's some other way you could do this and meet
the 12 feet somehow. Now don't ask me how the 12 feet got in there; I have no idea.
R. Eckert : Where did they come up with that?
L. Raymond: I don't know, I don't know.
R. Eckert: I don't know how you'd get a `ju -van" (phonetic) or something like that in there . I've
got a commercial door.
A. Thayer, love got the same problem with my garage .
5
Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing 27 September 1999
L. Raymond: Oh, do you?
M. Decker: It's because you usually don't run into those high a structures in Low Intensity, see .
You'd see that kind of structure out in Agricultural which is probably not a restriction out there.
L. Raymond: Yes it is.
M. Decker: It is?
L. Raymond: Yes . It's incorporated in every zone. If you look in there , you'll find it's 12 foot in every
one .
R. Eckert: How would you get your tractor in there?
M. Decker: I was going to say, that's something that's come about of a little more recent, because
our L. Raymond: Well, if it's a farm building, you see , that's a different category. That's a whole different
category so it wouldn't count. That doesn't count. We were talking about residential garages and stuff
like that. Accessory buildings they call them .
M. Decker: Accessory,
L. Raymond: Yes, yes. So that wouldn't matter. The 12 foot probably, I might guess, was copied
from other zoning ordinances which is more or less M. Decker: the common thing L. Raymond: the common thing to do , so they just incorporated it into this one here.
M. Decker: What is the size of, I mean, what are the dimensions overall, just may I ask that of the
garage that you're building?
R. Eckert: 52 by 52.
M. Decker: Yes, 52 by 52 and 14 high, right?
L. Raymond: Yes. One of the other things we do have to consider as we have seen from the letter
that this is zoned Residential. And it not zoned Rural Agricultural , it is zoned as a Low Intensity
6
Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing 27 September 1999
Residential . And it states in the preamble to that in the Code that the intention, obviously, is to keep
things looking residential in the area. So, therefore , if there is a building going to be proposed and put
In there that obviously you wouldn't normally see in a residential area, or was not considered
compatible with what a residential area was considered to be , then we have to consider that as well .
R. Eckert: The siding -- it's going to look just like my house .
L. Raymond: Okay, Yes. But it is a pretty big building M. Decker: Big building.
L. Raymond: He's got 52 - -
M. Decker: 52 by 52 by 14 -- it's a biggy.
L. Raymond: Yes, that's a biggy. It's pretty big for a residential area.
R. Eckert: I want to clean up my whole yard, and I'm blind and I want to make sure I can get
around in there .
L. Raymond: Oh I understand that part, yes. But that' s a commercial-size garage almost rather
than a residential size garage .
M. Decker: Right. And how many doors? I'm trying to visualize this thing.
A. Thayer: There's one big door on the front and - -
M. Decker: 14? What's your width? And you said it's going to be an automatic door, so R. Eckert: The door is 12 foot by 14 foot high .
S. Thane: 14 by 12 is what's on the plan there .
L. Raymond: Okay,
R. Eckert: It's not like you're going to be bring tractor trailers in.
M. Decker: Okay. Well that's what I was --
7
Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing 27 September 1999
L. Raymond: Yes, yes. Or whether this thing could be easily turned into --
A. Thayer: It can't; with the layout of the ground you couldn't get a tractor trailer to the garage.
It hasn't been set up that way at all . It's just for his own personal use . The driveway's going to come
around to the front and there's parking for her car and for his truck in there.
L. Raymond: Yes. Actually, this is pretty simple. This seems to be pretty straightforward .
A. Thayer. The other thing I could mention as far as talking about looking out of place because
it's so big -- we put the trusses on only a 4: 12 pitch and that only puts the trusses at 14 foot. It puts
the peak of that garage only 2 and 1 / 2 feet taller than the peak of his house .
L. Raymond: Okay, that's a good point.
M. Decker: So it's going to be L. Raymond: And I notice that where you've dug back in there that the back part of the garage
obviously is barely going to be above the level of the ground.
M. Decker: I would say basically that when you look at it with that retainer that you've got back
there, where your treetops and some toys up there on top of the bank, that could be about level .
R. Eckert: That wall back there is 12 feet high .
L. Raymond: It is?
R. Eckert: Yes,
M. Decker: Okay, okay.
L. Raymond: So you're going to go two foot above that for the 14.
M. Decker: So basically it's going to be kind of sitting right in a little , you know, it's not going to
be sitting out in the open looking like a big bear.
L. Raymond: Yes, that's true .
A. Thayer. Then there's a big bank along that side too .
8
Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing 27 September 1999
L. Raymond: Yes that's right. I saw that.
M. Decker: Right, right, yes.
L. Raymond: So it's not going to stick right out in the open up in the air like that.
M. Decker: Not, not like you'd imagine that.
L. Raymond: Well, the main consideration when they ask us if it's going to cause undesirable
change in the character of the neighborhood is whether it's going to have any impact on neighboring
property values if somebody wants to sell their property next to where it is and, you know, the buyer
comes in and says well, gee, I don't know. I don't know if I want to buy this house that's got this
commercial-looking garage next door over there, and that's not what I was looking for.
A. Thayer. We're not building it as a commercial garage, though . We're building it with vinyl
siding and everything --
R. Eckert: Basically, it's going to .look like a house , a big house .
L. Raymond: Good .
R. Eckert: Like next year, Lynnette and I were talking about getting the house done the same as
the garage .
L. Raymond: Oh, I see. Okay, so it'll be R. Eckert: It will look all really nice.
L. Raymond: Right, right, yes, okay.
R. Eckert: I want to wait until next year because they're coming through and raising everybody's
taxes.
L. Raymond: As far as the roof goes, it's going to be what, a typical very low M. Decker: Very low pitch .
A. Thayer: Just a peaked roof.
9
Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing 27 September 1999
M. Decker: With a 4: 12 , it's going to be a low pitch .
S . Thane: Did you say it was a hip roof?
M. Decker: No.
S . Thane : Gable end?
A. Thayer. No M. Decker: No.
A. Thayer. It's just a plain M. Decker: No, it looks like -- a 4: 12 is going to be like a double-wide . That kind of low, low-slung
roof.
S . Thane: With a gable in the front?
A. Thayer. Yes, just a standard - - -
M. Decker: The eaves are going to go to the road like this?
A. Thayer, Here's his house , this is the garage . Now the peak is going to --
(At this point, four people were carrying on two separate conversations, so it was impossible
for either the tape recorder, or the steno, to separate them. Some was lost.)
L. Raymond: All right. So the peak is going to be how high above the ground level?
A. Thayer: 23 foot.
L. Raymond: Twenty feet high? So when you were talking about 14 feet, you were only talking
about the walls?
A. Thayer. Right.
L. Raymond: So the peak is going to go up a lot higher than that. It's going to go up almost twice
as high.
10
Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing 27 September 1999
A. Thayer: No, 9 feet.
L. Raymond: Nine feet.
A. Thayer: Just take the house, like the house is 18 feet, the peak is at 19 feet here.
L. Raymond: And then the road is going to - - the door is going to be on this side under the eaves?
A. Thayer. Right,
L. Raymond: So the road goes along here .
A. Thayer. Yes,
L. Raymond: So this will be parallel? The peak will be parallel to the road?
A. Thayer: Right.
L. Raymond: The same way the road goes.
A. Thayer, When you look at this building, you're only going to be looking at 14 foot. You're not
going to be looking at the main gable .
L. Raymond: Okay, I get what you mean .
A. Thayer: This gable's going to be facing toward the dirt, and this gable will be facing towards his
house .
L. Raymond: You can be 14 here and 23 up to here.
A. Thayer. Right. And the house -- the existing house is like 2 and 1 / 2 foot shorter.
M. Decker: So where are we going?
A. Thayer: You're only concerned by the wall.
M. Decker: I 'm not sure about that.
11
Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing 27 September 1999
A. Thayer. The same as the house .
M. Decker: You're right. It's got to be .
A. Thayer: We could go like this and make it like 30 feet tall .
L. Raymond: The attached structure 12 feet, and well M. Decker: Got to be because it doesn't make sense any other way.
L. Raymond: Height, height. Here we are . Height is the vertical distance from the finish grade to the
highest point of a pitched roof. Highest point of a pitched roof, not the wall. It's right in here . On a
hillside lot, the finished grade shall be considered as the average finish grade on the uphill side of the
structure . All right. Now that makes a difference. If we say the average finish grade on the uphill side
of the structure , for God's sakes he's only got --
S. Thane: Two feet?
L. Raymond: Yes,
S. Thane: The building is six feet away from that wall , that retaining wall. I'm not sure you can
consider the top of that wall as the finished grade in the back.
L. Raymond: It says average finish grade on the uphill side . Here, Mary, do you want to read this?
M. Decker: Yes,
L. Raymond: Yes, Height,
S. Thane : You see, the finish grade is here alongside the building, not on the top of this wall .
This wall is six feet away from the back of the building.
L. Raymond: Oh . Oh, okay. I assumed that the wall was part of the building .
A. Thayer: No , no.
L. Raymond: So the finish grade is the same all way around?
R. Eckert: Well I did that so we wouldn't get water in it. My basement gets water in it.
12
Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing 27 September 1999
L. Raymond: So there is no average finish grade on the uphill side.
S . Thane: No . So what is the finished height of the building - - to the top of the gable?
L. Raymond: It would be 23 feet.
A. Thayer. The gable isn't facing the front of the road; it will be facing the other way toward the
house . Looking at it from the road, the only thing you'll be seeing is 13 feet. The building's going to
look like it's only 13 feet tall. The roof starts 13 foot from the ground .
L. Raymond: But it does put a little different picture on there from what I originally had in mind .
With that gable roof -- well, that's just something we'll have to -- see, we're supposed to look at
whether the requested area of variance is substantial as well. So , yes, well, and you indicated that
when you started planning this you were not aware of the 12 -foot limitation?
A. Thayer. Not until I came down and applied for the building permit and Mr. Gunn told me .
L. Raymond: Had you started the structure before you applied for the building permit?
R. Eckert: Oh , no.
L. Raymond: You hadn't? Okay.
R. Eckert: I didn't even get the dirt taken out then .
L. Raymond: Okay, all right. So you knew when you applied for the building permit there was a 12-
foot limitation?
A. Thayer, No, actually when I came down here and applied for the building permit and
everything, then Mark called me.
L. Raymond: Then he informed you?
A. Thayer. Yes,
L. Raymond: At that time you hadn't turned any dirt or anything and you knew it was a 12-foot
limitation .
13
Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing 27 September 1999
R. Eckert: I thought I told Mark how big the structure was going to be and then he said he didn't
think there was a problem at all. So then I asked him if I needed a building permit to move the dirt,
and he said not for dirt work.
L. Raymond: So you needed to excavate anyway, no matter what height it was and put the
retaining wall in. It didn't matter how high it was for that. Yes.
R. Eckert: Then we found out it was too high .
L. Raymond: Unfortunately, it's not our decision on it, but the courts and the law assumes that if
you are a resident of a district, or you purchase property in a particular zoning district that you make
yourself aware of the regulations in your district. So it's assumed that you would know that you had a
12 -foot limitation if you were going to plan say for a garage or something like that in the area. The
reason why we have to do that is because you may have seen in the letter I sent you that we have to
ask whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. In other words, did the individual plan to carry out
something that that individual knew or should have known was not allowed . And it's assumed that
because you were in that district you would have known about that or would have checked on it. We
have to ask these questions; the law says we have to ask these five questions . Well, here's John
Pachai (the time was 8:05 p .m. ) . Now we've been going over in some detail what they are proposing to
do, and I assume you have visited the site as we all have .
J. Pachai: Yes,
L. Raymond: And what we determined is that he is building a, proposing to build a garage within
the site that has been excavated . You saw the retaining wall?
J. Pachai: Yes.
L. Raymond: Okay. The building will be away from that wall. That's just a retaining wall to hold
the soil back.
J. Pachai: I saw the pins, and I saw that too . But I saw the pins that represented where the
corners of the building were going to be. The only thing that confused me a little bit there is the
dimensions on the application were 52 by 52 , I guess . And it seemed to me that it was a little bit more
elongated than it was wide .
L. Raymond: It is.
J. Pachai: Has that changed maybe since I've been out there , or maybe I just didn't see it right?
14
Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing 27 September 1999
R. Eckert: The wall you mean?
J. Pachai: No, the structure .
R. Eckert: It's square .
J. Pachai: Square? Okay. It must have been just an illusion then. The pins for the building just
seemed to be farther apart along the road than they were from the front to the back.
A. Thayer: I don't know. I didn't put the pins in.
J. Pachai: Okay.
A. Thayer. All I know is . . .
L. Raymond: This is Mr. Thayer who is the one constructing the building. We just learned and they
just explained to us -- Mr. Thayer did with the drawing here -- that the building that is proposed will be
a gable-roofed building. The gable roof will run parallel to the road, so like this is the road here, and
the 14-foot sides down here at the eaves will make 23 feet high at the top of the gable . And Mr. Thayer
points out that this will only be -- what did you say? 2 . 5 feet higher than his house , or lower than his
house? which one?
A. Thayer. Higher.
L. Raymond: Okay, Higher. Two and one-half feet higher than his house , and they intend to make
the siding and other things visually on the building compatible with the house in terms of looks. This
is where we're at so far here .
J. Pachai: Thank you for bring me up to date .
L. Raymond: Okay,
J. Pachai: Wasn't sure if you were going to do that or kick me out the door.
L. Raymond: Well, Joan should have a good record here. She should have this down twice on the
machine . So we pretty well finished, actually, with some of the questions here unless Mary or you or
John , you've got some questions you've thought of that you want to ask that we hadn't thought of.
15
Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing 27 September 1999
J. Pachai: I have one , it's only indirectly relevant, and that is, it's an awfully large structure for
just someone's personal garage .
L. Raymond: Yes, we've mentioned that already.
J. Pachai: And I was just curious and more as a warning than anything else, that if it were to
evolve into a place of business, the CEO would have to cite you or shut you down or whatever and that
sort of thing until it was all resolved .
A. Thayer. I don't want to intrude or anything, but I'm quite sure you're going to have to realize
that Bob's not going to be setting up any business.
L. Raymond: Well not Bob, but we have to look down the road at other new owners. That
building's going to be there permanently and there will be other owners sometime someday in the
future . And we have to look at that. We're not worried about you .
A. Thayer: He needs room to wander around in there in terms of falling.
L. Raymond: Understood .
A. Thayer. That's what this whole purpose and thing is all about.
J. Pachai: And it's just a concern because a lot of times -- I just didn't want anybody to not
realize what future problems could occur regardless of who . . (members speaking over Mr. Pachai ;
couldn't hear what was said . ) It's better to know up front.
R. Eckert: I'm not moving.
L. Raymond: We're not so worried about you as we are anytime in the future . Because a building,
once it's built, can be there for an awful long time as you know. It's a permanent structure. And if it's
built as good as I expect Mr. Thayer's going to build one, it will be there for a long time.
S . Thane: And just to be clear, you're asking for a variance that's nearly twice the height as cited
in the law. And the law says 12 feet and this is going to be 22 and one-half.
L. Raymond: Is there a different style roof that can be put on that to keep the total height down?
A. Thayer: Like I said, this is going to be only, as you're looking at it from the road , only going to
be 13 feet from the road anyway.
16
Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing 27 September 1999
S. Thane: Well that's what the wall would be .
R. Eckert: Yes. I didn't want the roof to peak way up in the air over the house .
A. Thayer. The only other thing is we could put a flat roof on that which would really take away
from the looks of it.
M. Decker: It wouldn't look good .
L. Raymond: That would look more commercial probably than the proposed one .
M. Gunn: For my own clarification, if I might -- the local Ordinance says finish wall height.
L. Raymond: The vertical distance from the finish grade to the highest point of a pitched roof. Right
here in the definitions.
M. Gunn: But that's the definition of height. But if you go into the local Ordinance into the low
intensity district, it says finish wall height can be no greater than 12 feet.
L. Raymond: It says detached accessory building or structure, 12 feet.
M. Gunn: Right,
L. Raymond: But where does it say finished wall?
M. Gunn: Maximum building and structure dimensions.
L. Raymond: But what's it saying about finished walls? When it says maximum height, then you go
to the definitions and the height says from the grade to the highest point.
A. Thayer. Even the little hip roofs they sell up here are more than 12 foot tall.
J. Pachai: The gable on the wall, I mean, that's still a wall, regardless --
S. Thane: One of the things that makes it so tall is because it's so large. And in a low intensity
district you don't usually - -
M. Decker: Don't usually see that size of a building, right.
17
Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing 27 September 1999
A. Thayer, If you put a gable roof on it, that's more than 12 foot tall when you get done with it.
Eight and six, that's 14 foot.
J. Pachai: Most of those they start out at about 6 foot and then your door, there's only about a
foot and a half above your door.
A. Thayer: You can't even build a storage shed --
J. Pachai: You couldn't build a garage , even a garage .
A. Thayer. With even a garage you can't do that.
L. Raymond: They are almost assuming a flat roof building here in this 12 foot.
M. Decker: It really doesn't make good sense .
L. Raymond: I'd be willing to recommend -- as I stated earlier as to how that got in there , it probably
was copied from other zoning ordinances when it was standard to have 12 foot in there, because it's
right across the board in all of our zones, actually, including the ag zone. But it only applies to the
residential detached stuff here . Farm buildings are exempt anyway from all that.
J. Pachai: When we look at the existing structures that would be considered accessory buildings
along through there -- I mean there are garages, but there are also some barns which no longer serve
agriculturally.
L. Raymond: That was pointed out when we had the previous one there, across the road there.
J. Pachai: If they're not dramatically different in height -- they might be a little bit smaller, but --
L. Raymond: This is right down in the four corners there in the middle of the hamlet, though .
M. Decker: But the part that's going to be the - - the best part about it is the way it's tucked in.
L. Raymond: It's tucked into the hill on both sides.
M. Decker: It's tucked into the hillside . The hillside is going to be a saving grace.
18
Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing 27 September 1999
L. Raymond: Even though the building is going to be removed a little distance from the retaining
wall, still you would never notice that from the road , I guess. Well, we're getting into a discussion that
I think we probably need to do in our decision rather than the hearing here . What we need to do here
is make sure that we've asked.
A. Thayer: It's set back far enough so he'll have the driveway coming around . It has to be set
back far enough to do that.
M. Decker: Okay. This is the way I'm looking at it from the road . Whereabouts is your overhead
door going to be? I've got the roadside facing here.
A. Thayer, The overhead doors going to be right here .
M. Decker: Okay. Now where's your driveway going to be?
A. Thayer, The driveway will come around from this way, so you got to keep it back that far from
the road .
S. Thane : So the door faces the road?
A. Thayer, Yes,
J. Pachai: Excuse me. Even in the case of a, let's say, a stick-built shed . You're going to put that
at least six inches above grade, correct? Your floor's going to be? Let's just talk about your typical
minimum requirements to make a reasonable accessory structure , as shed, or whatever. You're going
to want your floor above grade for flooding, or whatever -- what, six inches or so?
A. Thayer, You've got four inches of gravel -- it would go on top of that.
J. Pachai: So, let's say, six inches from grade, six to ten inches. Then a door height is typically
84 inches, 82 inches.
A. Thayer: 82 . 81 and a half.
J. Pachai: And then you've got to have some sort of a lentil above that and that's going to be, on
a shed, at least six inches, right? So 82 inches, say 6 inches, and - -
A. Thayer: A double header, and trusses.
19
i .
Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing 27 September 1999
J. Pachai: Right. So , and with even a flat roof, you're going to want 6 --
A. Thayer. With the roof pitch .
J. Pachai: Let's say 6 inches plus an inch for your roofing materials and whatnot, so let's say 8
inches. You've got 14, 82, and we'll average that out and say 8, 12 , 14; that's 8 feet working with
absolutely bare minimums. And that's without having.
A. Thayer, And that's just a passage door too. It's not counting an overhead door.
J. Pachai: What I'm thinking in terms of is where would that height be if you took the bare
minimums that somebody would build at.
L. Raymond: Yes, and some of these SUVs are pretty high , too.
A. Thayer. Take a handicapped vehicle ; if you bought a handicapped van, it would be almost as
tall as what he's got now.
L. Raymond: Okay, good point.
J. Pachai: And your typical overhead door is what, 8 feet -- 8 or 99
A. Thayer, Seven, minimum.
J. Pachai: But then you've got to have a foot and a half.
A. Thayer. You've got to have 18 inches more if you're going to have an opener.
J. Pachai: So 8 and one half, plus for the concrete, that's 9 feet for a garage.
A. Thayer. Normal garage.
J. Pachai: Yes,
A. Thayer: That's for a regular car.
J. Pachai; I just wanted to --
L. Raymond: No, this is excellent.
20
Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing 27 September 1999
J. Pachai: Roll these numbers around . I mean , basically, I'm not sure it would be reasonable to
stay within the Code for any contemporary structure .
L. Raymond: Well, I think, -- this is the hearing part. If we want to get anything from them, we
better go into our decision meeting if we're going to do that. Do we have more questions for anyone? I
don't. I think I've learned all I need to know. What about you guys? You finished?
M. Decker: All set.
L. Raymond: Okay, we'll close the hearing at 8: 23 p.m. And, with the close of the hearing, we will
not delay our decision.
All persons desiring to be heard, having been heard,
the Public Hearing was terminated at 8923 p.m .
L. Raymond: We will immediately reconvene here to discuss what our decision will be on this . And
with this new state of affairs, this is no longer the Public Hearing, and so you are welcome to stay and
listen to our discussions and find out what we decide. We don't take any more input from the public
as you understand. You're just here to watch . Okay. So we're reconvened at 8:24 p.m. Now, the first
thing we've got to do, we need to do, is to clarify something before we go anywhere. And this is
something I discussed with Fran Castillo this afternoon, or this morning, and I want you guys to look
at what I discovered here. If you look at Section 341 , under Land Use Activities, the whole section we
should be pretty familiar with here, with the eating and drinking establishment in there , and tell me if
you find anywhere on that list an accessory building or a garage.
J. Pachai: We're talking use , not --
L. Raymond: No, we're talking about a building. Applying for a permit for a building.
J. Pachai: But these are activities.
L. Raymond: Yes, these are activities, yes. However, notice -- one-family dwelling units, two-family
dwelling units, multi units, ECHO units, mobile home parks, and so it's both use and whatever.
Whatever requires a permit.
J. Pachai: These are all uses of structures as opposed to what the structures are - - how theyre
constructed.
L. Raymond: Now even if you're talking about uses. Tell me if you find that use in there anywhere .
21
Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing 27 September 1999
S. Thane: There's nothing in here about storage, personal storage. There's something about
sales, but not about storage .
L. Raymond: It says in the zone here , detached accessory building or structure. Well, if you look at
the definition of an accessory building, it says a building, on page 4, a building or structure is one
which is incidental to that of the principal building located on the same lot or a structure other than a
building, the of which is incidental -- whatever. Okay, so it would appear that what ought to appear
on that list under 341 along with single-family dwellings, right, would be accessory building for
whatever it's used for. It's a use . And it's not there . There is nothing under there for accessory
buildings. It says the following table lists the land use activities permitted in the Town of Groton. Well,
one of the activities is to have a garage and accessory building and its not there.
J. Pachai: Well, activity is what you're doing in the garage, or what you're doing in the structure .
L. Raymond: All right, can you find it there? I don't find it anywhere.
M. Decker: It's personal storage .
L. Raymond: A garage . An accessory building, you'd think, should be in there .
M. Decker: I would think it should be in there .
L. Raymond: Accessory buildings J. Pachai: I don't.
M. Decker: You don't?
L. Raymond: What's the difference between that and a family dwelling unit?
J. Pachai: Because that's how the dwelling is used .
M. Decker: Well, what about personal storage?
S. Thane: There's one in here called sale and storage of lumber and building supplies, so they are
talking about storage in other parts of this Land Use Activities. Storage is an activity.
22
' Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing 27 September 1999
L. Raymond: They got in here recreational cabins, for instance . Well, they are supposed to apply for
a permit in an RA zone . I guess they are permitted, but anyway J. Pachai: I guess my own problem is there is warehouse facilities for storage and wholesaling,
but my only problem is almost every use here has storage within the structure whether or not its an
accessory structure or not. I guess I'm not --
L. Raymond: Churches, for instance , , require permits.
J. Pachak But it doesn't require a special permit for the church to have a storage area, does it?
Or are not churches allowed to store things.
L. Raymond: If you have a detached structure , accessory building structure, I would think so. After
all Mark is asking a permit for these people for an accessory structure . They had to apply for a permit.
J. Pachai: For a structure , but not for a use .
S. Thane : Can I jump ahead in your thinking? By bringing this up, what are you concluding?
L. Raymond: Well, when I discussed this with Fran this morning, I said, wait a minute, is a permit
required or not? Because there's nothing in the list here, and what I -- he's worried over that. And
what he suggested, and what I'm going to suggest, is that as the first order of business that we should
make a finding based on this and, given our authority to make interpretations, indicate -- and again ,
Fran suggested this as our attorney -- that it is inferred from the other language under the low
intensity zone when it mentions detached structures, and so forth , that a permit is required for an
accessory structure . In that way, if we give an interpretation, that confirms what Mark has essentially
already done . And then it should go to the Planning Board and to the Town Board to perhaps remedy
this. It just struck me today when I went through that list and suddenly I looked for accessory
structure to see where it matched, what it said under the zoning, and it wasn't there .
J. Pachai: I just find that an accessory structure could have almost -- if you take just the idea of
an accessory structure, it could be used for anything. And so how would you put that in Land Use
Activities? It could be used for a business to have sales in, or for storage .
L. Raymond: But if a permit was given for a garage and they're going to put sales in there, then that
means they've got to go back and get permission to use it for that. That's a change in use category.
It's a separate class of buildings here in the description of the zone: detached accessory building, or
whatever. It's clearly a separate category of structure, and in the definitions it also indicates that
23
• • Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing 27 September 1999
accessory is incidental to the principal building, but it's also obviously set apart as a separate detached
structure .
J. Pachai: I still think we're crossing over between use and area, essentially. The use and the
area elements of the Code.
L. Raymond: No, because we're dealing with buildings and I don't follow, because if you got to have
a permit for a dwelling unit or for a recreational cabin or for whatever here, and it seemed to me that it
should be defined in there, but --
J. Pachai: So basically what you're saying is --
L. Raymond: That accessory structure should be listed in this list under Section 341 . It's a
category, and as a use . It's a use, just like a dwelling unit.
J. Pachai: I think the only way to include it and have it be consistent, with the idea of use, is to
say accessory structures not, accessory structures in which activities not mentioned in the above
activities would be -- you've already got all these activities. And I betcha half of these activities could
be, or a third of them could be, performed in an accessory structure .
L. Raymond: Yes, but if somebody's going to build a new house, and they do build a new house,
what is the basis then for having to get a permit then in order to build a new house? Is it the use , or is
it the fact that a new structure is going up?
J. Pachai: It's the fact that a new structure's going up .
L. Raymond: Well what's the difference between that then and building an accessory structure or
garage?
J. Pachai. Well then since its not a use, why are we talking about putting it in uses as opposed
to it just being dealt with as a structure? In other words, for example , the wall height --
L. Raymond: Yes J. Pachai: Isn't, as I understand it, an area of consideration, as opposed to what goes on inside
those walls.
L. Raymond: But come back to the fact that what is the structure , what is the permit being
requested for? And what you could do to get around that, a little bit around the problem here with
24
n ,
Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing 27 September 1999
accessory structure, is to have added to 341 explicitly the name garage . And that would separate it out
from all the accessory structures shall we say. Garages should be in here . Residential garages or
something like that. It all could be in there and that would imply both use as a residential garage as
well as the fact it's a detached building . That would make a much stronger basis for Mark and for the
permit process.
J. Pachai: Then rather than just garage, you could say garage or other residential accessory
structure, or structure for residential use . But then you've got to define what those activities would be .
Because if we put it in that way, now we've taken care of garage . How do we take care of other
buildings for the lawn mower -- domestic use .
L. Raymond: As you know, if it's less than 100 square feet, you don' t need a permit anyway for any
of the structures. So if it's over 100 square feet then , supposedly, you're going to need a permit.
J. Pachai: But here again, even though you may not need a permit to build it - -
L. Raymond: Under what basis does the use of the permit if it's not listed in here for that use, for
the use for storage , for the use -- I don't mean to J. Pachai: I know. It gets a little nebulous L. Raymond: It gets nebulous --
M. Decker: Belaboring.
L. Raymond: Yes, that's what was bothering me today when I first came across it and I called Fran
and I said, hey, what about this you know and he began to get worried over this as well. But we can
do as we wish. And Fran's proposal, which I thought sounded pretty good because it corresponded
with what my thinking was beginning to develop into, was that the first order of business is to clarify
this, that it's inferred that a permit is required , or a garage or whatever kind of you know language we
want to use, and that will be our official interpretation which only ratifies what's already going on
anyway. And then it puts us on firmer ground and then the request should go to the Town Board and
the Planning Board to clarify this thing in the Ordinance.
J. Pachai: I believe that it is certainly inferred .
M. Decker: Yes,
L. Raymond: Yes, I think it is too, actually.
25
Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing 27 September 1999
J. Pachai: And I don't think it's a -- it's a part of the domestic whatever.
L. Raymond: Yes,
J. Pachai: Part of the program.
L. Raymond: So the first finding then , you agree -- the first finding should be that garages and ,
shall we say -- what would satisfy you , John? Garages and J. Pachai: Storage --
L. Raymond: storage or accessory structures --
J. Pachai: other accessory structures --
M. Decker: I think you have to put other accessory L. Raymond: Garages and other --
M. Decker: Residential accessory L. Raymond: Wait a minute . Residential accessory M. Decker: Right,
L. Raymond: Okay,
J. Pachai: Or you could say on top of that, or you could change that a little bit to say which
would be used for domestic activities --
L. Raymond: Residential out to cover that hadn't it? That will cover that. You probably can't read
my handwriting if you look over my shoulder here. Garages and other residential accessory structures
are -- let's see, how do we want to say that? It is noted perhaps that garages and other accessory
structures -- the ZBA takes note -- how about that. The ZBA takes note of the fact that garages and
other accessory structures are not listed under Section 341 . How about that?
M. Decker: Good .
26
I
Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing 27 September 1999
J. Pachai: Or the use of garages and accessory structures -- because we are, again, still talking
use when we're dealing with 341 .
L. Raymond: The ZBA takes note of the fact that garages and other residential accessory use
structures -- you want to put in there? No, just accessory structures, I guess -- are not listed under
Section 341 of Land Use Activities. All right. So then Finding # 2 is that this -- what's the effect on the
permit process? Number 2 is that it makes the permit process for -- am I doing this right? Rather
vaguely defined or something like that. Help me out guys. You've got some language here? Is not
explicitly defined? How about that? Or is not adequately defined.
M. Decker: Adequately -- I think that's a better word .
L. Raymond: All right. This means that the permit process for these types of structures is not
adequately defined . That doesn't mean to say it doesn't exist, it's just not adequately defined .
J. Pachai: Without belaboring this too much , in the first finding I'm stuck on this a little bit. I
see like residential uses of garages and other structures.
L. Raymond: Garages and other residential uses of accessory structures?
J. Pachai: Residential uses of accessory structures.
L. Raymond: All right, I can add that, sure .
J. Fitch: That means you're going to live in it?
L. Raymond: Now wait a minute , that's right.
J. Pachai: Well, that's why I used the word domestic before, but I was overruled.
L. Raymond: No, not necessarily.
J. Pachai: It's the idea of actually having the use L. Raymond: No, no, it's okay. Because if we use residential use of accessory structures, the word
accessory itself is defined back in the thing and says it's incidental to the primary residence. So we're
okay with that. So we should be okay on that. All right, I'll add that -- uses of. We've got it in there .
27
• ' Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing 27 September 1999
J. Fitch: Finding # 1 as I have it is "The ZBA takes note of the fact that garages and other
residential accessory structures are not listed under Section 341 of the Land Use Activities. "
L. Raymond: Right. And all we want to do is, after the word residential, add uses of.
J. Pachai: It's uses of garages as well --
L. Raymond: If we say garages -- it could be used in different ways. Wait a minute here , you're right.
We can define ourselves to death here, but anyway, the fact that --
J. Pachai: If we said it that way, then you could say it's okay to have a garage of any kind for any
use --
L. Raymond: That's right -- so we should say residential before them both then -- that residential
garages -- how's that? Residential garages and other residential uses of accessory structures. That's
okay. Use residential twice in there . That would do it. That makes garage not a commercial garage or
something else . How about that, John?
J. Pachai: Yes, that sounds close enough . I'd have to see it, but that sounds like - -
L. Raymond: Have you got that, Joan? Do you follow us here?
J. Fitch: I've got, '"The ZBA takes note of the fact that residential garages and other residential
uses of accessory structures are not listed under Section 341 of Land Use Activities. "
L. Raymond: You've got it.
J. Fitch: Okay.
L. Raymond: Okay. So Finding #2, then, would be 'This means that the permit process for these
types of structures is not adequately defined. " Okay, so our third finding, which is #3, the ZBA infers
from what, from language , from the statements listed in the Code, elsewhere in the Code, that permits
are required for these structures. Did we do that right?
J. Pachai: The ZBA finds that the Code infers --
L. Raymond: That's right, the ZBA finds that the Code - - you're right, John -- the Code infers from --
M. Decker: the language --
28
Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing 27 September 1999
L. Raymond: the language, or the -- yes, I guess that's right. From the language - -
J. Fitch: So you're taking out "statements" and putting in "language"?
L. Raymond: Yes, right at the moment. From the language used in what? What do they call these ,
descriptions of the district?
J. Pachai: 342 to 345.
L. Raymond: No, it's where they describe the zones. Wait a minute here . Here we are. No, that just
describes the-- All right, we'll use our own words. From the language used in the definitions of the
zones, maybe, or descriptions of the zones --
J. Pachai: 342 to 346 are the descriptions.
L. Raymond: Let's use the descriptions. Wait a minute , then . We don't want language . We should
say, 'The ZBA infers from the descriptions M. Decker: used in Sections 342 L. Raymond: used in Section M. Decker: Actually, there is low intensity -- I don't know L. Raymond: We could -- do we want to --
J. Pachai: We're doing this generally so that - -
L. Raymond: We're doing it generally because -- yes, for all of them it's the same thing, this 12 feet.
From the language used in 342 for all, not all. It may not be all .
M. Decker: Section 342 through 346 .
L. Raymond: All right, in Sections 342 through 346 that permits are required for, and use the
language they use in here, detached accessory buildings or structures. Is everybody happy with that
one?
J. Fitch: Would you please read it back in its entirety.
29
r
Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing 27 September 1999
L. Raymond: Okay. Finding #3. The ZBA finds that the Code infers from the descriptions used in
Sections 342 through 346 that permits are required for detached buildings or structures.
J. Pachai: You may want to change that because I just noticed that 346 is low intensity
industrial which doesn't refer to that.
L. Raymond: Oh, oh . Good thing you noticed that, John. This is why we have members on the
Board for everybody to check everybody.
J. Pachai: 345 does, 44 does --
L. Raymond: Just make that Sections 342 through 345 . How about that?
J. Fitch: Got it.
S. Thane: Read that finding again .
L. Raymond: Okay. Change that 6 to a 5. Okay. The ZBA finds that the Code infers from the
descriptions used in Sections 342 through 345 that permits are required for detached buildings or
structures. And that should seal it for our interpretation because we're the official interpreting body
here.
J. Pachai: But does it?
L. Raymond: All right. So then the next finding, Finding #4, and we've got to get into the business
at hand here tonight, all right?
J. Fitch: Either that, or provide our guests with sleeping bags.
L. Raymond: Well, they've stayed awake through all this so far.
S. Thane: Could I ask one question , just to make sure we're correct? On 346 it does not mention
the word detached building --
J. Fitch: 346 wasn't included .
L. Raymond: I took 346 out.
30
Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing 27 September 1999
S. Thane : I know. But I'm just making sure that we should throw it out. Make sure that it does
not talk about --
L. Raymond: That's Low Intensity Industrial .
S. Thane: Because the language we're using over here specifies detached buildings; and because
it's not mentioned in here, I just want to be clear that we don't have to include this one and have it
come back and bite us later.
L. Raymond: Well actually, the way we're doing that, all we're doing is using that as examples
anyway.
S . Thane: I think we have it right. I just want to make sure that we're covered, that's all .
J. Pachai: It talks about structures, but it doesn't refer specifically to detached S. Thane: That's right, it doesn't. So we're correct? Does it sound right?
J. Pachai: Those structures would probably fall under, you know -- whether it's a -- let's say a
bakery or a storage area for a bakery. That's going to wind up -- in that type of zone that's going to
wind up having to go through the permit process .
L. Raymond: We're not saying in Finding #3 that you're restricted to Sections 342 to 345 , We're
inferring from the language there that they are required --
S. Thane : Because there is a thing in here called minimum size buildings or structures. But
you're right, we are not restricting it to those .
L. Raymond: I don't think so . I don't think that language restricts it. We are using that as
examples why permits are required.
S. Thane: Yes,
L. Raymond: But I always stand to be corrected by my betters around here .
J. Pachai: You know, it says it's permitted, but where does it say that a permit's required, now
that I look at it.
S. Thane: Okay, I'm sorry. I just wanted to make sure we were covered on that.
31
Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing 27 September 1999
L. Raymond: Well J. Pachai: Does it actually say that a permit's required in those sections? It describes that there
are specifications, but it doesn't say --
L. Raymond: But we're only inferring because it mentions these things . They wouldn't mention
them unless there's some permit process. Why mention them then if there's no permit required .
J. Pachai: It mentions a structure under 100 square feet doesn't need a permit.
L. Raymond: Well, yes -- it's true. You're right, John.
J. Pachai: This sort of thing needs -- for me, it needs to be something that I go home and sit
down and think about.
M. Decker: I'd go home and go to bed.
L. Raymond: I always re-think this stuff the next day.
J. Pachai: We can always put down that we want to re-visit it if something comes up. But at
least for tonight, for the purpose at hand, I think we probably S. Thane: Let's keep going.
L. Raymond: We've got to get to the case at hand here tonight. All right. Well let's just get kind of
explicit here, then, and use the questions that the State has here, as we have before, and say well, is
this, in our opinion, going to cause any undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or
create a detriment to nearby properties where the affects on the neighboring property values being the
most common consideration, but not necessarily limited to that?
S . Thane: My feeling is -- I stood in the road and kind of envisioned what this was going to look
like. And because of the hill behind it, and the way it's tucked back in behind it, even the height
doesn't seem to be a detriment.
M. Decker: I agree.
S. Thane: Even though we are asking for almost twice the height.
32
Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing 27 September 1999
M. Decker: Well, if it weren't sitting in the circumstances it's sitting, it would definitely be much
more meaningful. As it is, that's kind of a saving grace is the way I viewed it.
L. Raymond: Okay. So I've got to get this into writing here . Proposed structure --
J. Fitch: Is this Finding #4?
L. Raymond: Yes. The proposed structure, due to its site characteristics -- shall we say without
spelling it out - - does not cause any undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood .
J. Pachai: I would agree with that in the sense that along that stretch of the road there are
structures that are L. Raymond: Do we want to add that? Do we want to add that to that finding?
J. Pachai: I think that would have some value - -
L. Raymond: It would show better why we - -
S. Thane: A structure of this height is not incongruous with --
L. Raymond: Right. I'll make a second sentence for #4. A structure of this height is not
incongruous with other structures in the vicinity --
J. Pachai: Other accessory structures in the vicinity --
L. Raymond*. Other accessory structures in the vicinity. Okay, we got it. Now, the next question is,
is whether the benefits sought by the applicant can be achieved by some other method -- feasible for
the applicant to pursue other than an area variance . Well, you guys have all heard the testimony at
the hearing, of the applicant, the fact that it's 23 feet high at the highest point from the grade level, 14
feet at the walls. And the reasons that the applicant has given for wanting this type of a structure, as
he indicates that he wants to transport his band instruments, and he needs a vehicle that's quite
large, which means it's got to be quite high in order to accommodate these things . But then, as we
stated in the hearing and noted in the hearing, that's not our only consideration. Our consideration is
the fact that once this structure is built, it's going to be there for a long time probably, whether he's
there or someone else. So we explored with him the possibility of whether he could have a smaller
vehicle. We had a discussion led by John here of reasonable heights for vehicles, which seemed to
point to the fact that the 12 -foot limitation, given the evolution of vehicles today, is rather stringent
and probably is difficult for many residents to achieve, not just the present applicant. How's that for a
33
Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing 27 September 1999
mouthful here? So I guess it's back to whether the benefit can be achieved by the applicant in some
other method feasible, and I would tend to say that he's convinced me that it's not very feasible for him
to do it in any other way.
M. Decker: That's not stringent, that's stingy.
S. Thane: I would agree.
J. Pachai: Even if you were going to reduce the roof height and rotate the line of the roof and
then, through special framing bring the door height up into the dormer area, the wall, then you'd have
a substantial roof creating runoff towards the house L. Raymond: And the roof also would be M. Decker: This is much less offensive than it would be that way.
L. Raymond: That's right, if you turn it around the other way --
M. Decker: This is not going to be --
J. Pachai: I was thinking in terms of feasibility or reasonability as opposed to aesthetics in this
case.
L. Raymond: Yes,
J. Pachai: But I think L. Raymond: We also have to consider Question # 1 yet as to whether it's aesthetically pleasing for
the neighborhood , or fits the character.
S. Thane : And they also brought up the point that it can't be lowered any more; I mean, you
can't dig any more dirt out. They are already having a water problem.
L. Raymond: All right. So Finding #5 is that we - - how shall we word this? Shall we say, the
applicant has presented a convincing case to the ZBA that it is not feasible to achieve the desired ends
in any other way. How's that? Take out the has and just say the applicant presented a convincing
case that it is not reasonable to find another feasible method. All right, help me out, guys. The
applicant presented a convincing case that it is not reasonable to achieve a desired objective in any
other way. Period . Okay. You got that one , Joan?
34
Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing 27 September 1999
J. Fitch: Yes,
L. Raymond: So now we go on to Finding #6 .
J. Pachai: Do you want the site specifics in that?
L. Raymond: Do we want to?
J. Pachai: I'm not saying whether we want to - - should we? Do we really need to?
L. Raymond: Maybe it's not a bad idea to find out why the ZBA thought it wasn't feasible . We think
S. Thane: Well, the things we talked about were the height of present-day vehicles --
M. Decker: Considerations - - we haven't got to write a book on it.
S. Thane : Considerations were --
L. Raymond: Considerations -- I like that.
M. Decker: And just simply list them. You haven't got to write a book on each one . A little
common sense goes a long way.
L. Raymond: Would be - - increased height of today's vehicles --
M. Decker: The simple size of today's current vehicles.
L. Raymond: All right. Current size of today's vehicles -- I guess.
J. Fitch: That's redundant -- size of today's vehicles.
L. Raymond: Considerations were the size of today's vehicles and , shall we say, the specific needs of
the applicant.
J. Pachai: That's a very strong point.
35
• Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing 27 September 1999
L. Raymond: Okay. And maybe we should go into the specific needs of the applicant. What are
those needs which require a vehicle that cannot be accommodated in a 12 -foot high garage . All right,
that's it. So Finding #5 is kind of a long one here . The applicant presented a convincing case that it is
not reasonable to find -- wait a minute -- oh, oh -- it's not reasonable to achieve the desired objective
in any other way. Considerations were: the current size of today's vehicles and the specific needs of the
applicant which requires a vehicle which cannot be accommodated in a 12-foot high garage .
J. Fitch: You don't need "current" and "today's. "
L. Raymond: Okay. The size of today's vehicles. There, we got it. Take current out. All right, just
keep plowing on here. Finding #6 is whether the requested variance is substantial . Yes.
S. Thane : Yes it is.
L. Raymond: There's no doubt about it. We can just say yes it is.
M. Decker: According to the standards, but the standards are archaic . So , therefore -- those
standards have to be revised, but we have to use them because they are here today.
L. Raymond: Is that all we need to do for #6 is just say the requested variance is substantial. And
that's all we need to say, I guess. All right. Now, this business about having an adverse affect on the
physical and environmental conditions of the neighborhood - - it's time to fill out a SEAR form. And
then, if there's anything else besides SEQR -- somebody's got to read them off and we've either got to
agree or disagree on them. Okay, so we will do this and if somebody will volunteer to do the reading
tonight - -
J. Fitch: I will read them if you would like.
L. Raymond: Oh , you want to read them? Great.
Board Secretary Joan Fitch then reads aloud Part 11 of the Short Environmental
Assessment Form. Negative responses were obtained to all questions in Part H.
L. Raymond: That means we go back to Finding #7. Are there any adverse impacts not listed in that
pretty extensive list that we can think of? It was pretty comprehensive there. Noise was mentioned ,
but I don't see what difference it makes. The ZBA finds no adverse environmental impact. So Finding
#8 --
S. Thane: Do we need to just add according to Part II of the environmental --
36
Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing 27 September 1999
L. Raymond: We could, we could . According to Part II of SEAR. All right. I've added that. So
Finding #8 has to do with this alleged difficulty whether it was self-created . And we learned in the
testimony at the hearing that Mr. Eckert learned of the 12-foot limitation from Mr. Gunn when he was
involved with the permit application. He wasn't aware of it before that time . But he was informed and
indicated that the permit application was made out before they turned any dirt or whatever. So in that
way he was informed from the permit officer. Is that the way you guys --
S. Thane: That's the way it happened .
L. Raymond: So, therefore , he went ahead to do this and there was a question about the height of
the thing, and Mr. Gunn, when he found what the actual dimensions were, said no I can't approve
this. And that's what brought us here tonight. So is it self-created in that sense, and in the sense
that the law does define it? As I found out when I went to a training session last year that it's
assumed that the resident who purchases property, or lives in a zone , is aware of the regulations in
their zone or at least should be or have taken the trouble to find out. And so that's not an excuse for
saying it was not self-created in that sense . So the thing was planned, but the fact that the 12 -foot
limitation as we understand it was indicated by Mr. Gunn and it was planned to be higher than that.
M. Decker: I think they planned the building and then they found out there were rules and
regulations.
L. Raymond: Is that your understanding?
M. Decker: Yes,
J. Pachai: Regardless, ignorance of the law is no excuse based upon what Lyle was saying. It is
self-created, there's no question. But that doesn't mean L. Raymond: That doesn't mean we have to turn it down .
M. Decker: That doesn't mean we have to turn it down .
L. Raymond: I think we're going to have to say yes it was self-created. Okay, the ZBA finds that the
alleged difficulty was self-created. Do we have any other findings we want to put in here or that pretty
well does exhaust it, doesn't it?
S. Thane: We've answered all the questions, right?
37
Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing 27 September 1999
L. Raymond: Yes, I think so.
J. Pachai: Accommodation of the disability has its own set of open doors in certain situations.
Do we want to go into that, or do you feel it's not necessary in this case?
L. Raymond: Is there provision in the Ordinance, that would be my thing, for this?
J. Pachai: Well, in the State statutes.
L. Raymond: But that's a separate -- isn't it - - that's separate . That's a separate law or regulation,
the Disability Law, from what our Code would be?
J. Pachai: All I'm doing --
L. Raymond: I understand what you're saying. I understand. But I'm not sure the Code -- I'm trying
to think of an analogous situation here .
J. Pachai: I just remember some case law where --
L. Raymond: Yes . I know what I'm thinking of. We're supposed to be considering, we're supposed to
only be considering the Land Use separate from any other indications of -- that's affecting, say, the
personal lives of the people who are going to be using it. The Code only deals with land use, per se .
Separate from that. That's not saying it shouldn't be considered, but it would be considered under
other laws and regulations probably from the State and whatnot that would , I assume, override Town
laws or whatever if that was true . And I'm not sure whether that is or not. But there is a whole
separate body of laws dealing with disabilities.
M. Decker: I'm sure there are . I'm sure there are . But I don't think --
L. Raymond: But I don't think our decision tonight can be based - - that's what I'm saying -- can be
based on that. I think we only can consider the land use .
J. Pachai: Well, we didn't have anybody here presenting any cases to the negative.
L. Raymond: No, that's true.
S. Thane: That's right.
J. Pachai: I guess that was my only reason for looking for more support.
38
� U f
Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing 27 September 1999
L. Raymond: No, I understand what you're saying. Are we ready for a vote, for a motion rather?
S. Thane: I think so .
L. Raymond: All right. Okay. Does somebody want to make a motion? I would suggest the same
motion we used for the Becker case which I have in front of me here because I had it all worked out for
that one . So I said why re-invent the wheel . I'll read it and then does somebody want to make a
motion and second and so on , then we'll do it. In the Becker case we said: Therefore, a motion was
made and approved that the applicant's appeal for a variance from maximum height limitations in the
Land Use & Development Code for detached structures in a low-intensity zone is granted as requested.
I'm assuming that we're going to make a motion on -- let me put it this way, I'm not assuming
anything. Does anyone want to make a motion on it?
M. Decker: I so move .
L. Raymond: All right. Mary makes a motion. Second?
S. Thane : I'll second it.
L. Raymond: Second by Steve . Okay, we have the statement I just read on the table, a motion made
and seconded. Are we ready to vote? Anybody have any further discussion on it? John or anybody?
Usually you do, John, but you don't. Okay, so we got a roll call vote we have here . Okay, Joan , do you
want to call the roll?
J. Fitch: Okay. Lyle Raymond.
L. Raymond: Aye,
J. Fitch: Steve Thane .
S. Thane: Aye.
J. Fitch: Mary Decker,
M. Decker: Aye.
J. Fitch: John Pachai .
39
Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing 27 September 1999
J. Pachai: Aye.
L. Raymond: Done . Okay, the meeting is over. We're closing the meeting at 9: 20 p.m. And Mr.
Eckert, you have your variance . It took a long time to get there didn't it?
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. Fitch, 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 Robert Eckert, 125 Old Peruville 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.
Joan E . Fitch
Recording Secretary
40
r • k
P�LEAS.E SlGiN W
2604 () � a�S ' �� frt va r f ` CeIW C.R.�
Date : �,,o a Z, z 9 9
NAME ADDRESS I
r4 �20
. 12i
5
6 i
7 I
8
9
I
10 I
11
12
F3 . -- - 1
14
M
16
17
Ll
L
20
� 1