Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-11-29- Front Yard Setback TOWN OF GROTON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Meeting Transcript " Monday, 29 November 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 Glenn Morey, Supervisor-Elect Steve Thane Tyke Randall, Councilman-Elect The Meeting was Called to Order at 7*45 p.m . by Chairman Lyle Raymond. Approval of Minutes - 27 September 1999 Meeting L. Raymond: We'll convene at 7: 45 . And the first order of business is to approve the Minutes from the last meeting, which occurred on September 27th . Does anyone have any changes or whatever in the Minutes to make? If not, do we have a motion to approve? S. Thane: So moved . M. Decker: Second . L. Raymond: Seconded. All in favor? (All members present indicated in the affirmative) . Approved . Okay, the Minutes are approved from the last meeting. I didn't have any changes either, so that's not something to worry about too much . And if John had any, well , he's out of luck. Old Business - Eckert Decision - 125 Old Peruville Road - TM # 36- 1 -59 - Front-Yard Setback L. Raymond: Okay, now. Old business here . I wanted to mention and clarify how we're going to go about this tonight because there may have been a question . And I'm going to give you copies of the Opinion of Counsel from the Counsel's Office in the Department of State . The reason I raise this is I talked with John and we were discussing how we get information . And we , as you know, closed the Public Hearing. We didn't adjourn it. And so there was a question that arose in my mind, and somewhat with John, as to whether maybe we should have adjourned the Public Hearing and then continued it tonight for further input. But the type of input we were going was not going to come, as you know - - we were going to consult further with Jerry Stern , which we did. And John was going to talk with Rick Case and that's why I wish he was here tonight because he had information from Rick Case which we're not going to have if he doesn't come . And also, I consulted with Mark Gunn . And so the question was, should that have been done in the Hearing, or is that something that we could do . Well, I went through my files from my training sessions, and the reason I had this out is because, and I Page 1 of 32 1 Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Transcript 29 November 1999 want it in the record, down here at the bottom in the last paragraph it pretty well solves the situation . It says that the record that the ZBA stands on here can come from a whole variety of different sources of which the Public Hearing is only one. It says, as you notice there, that " . . . expert opinion submitted orally or in written form. . . " is another alternative . Well , that's what we did by going to Mr. Stern and Mr. Gunn and so on. And also, " . . . through personal observations and knowledge of board members." So any new information we bring into our Decision tonight is of that nature . And so I think that this pretty well clarifies it and I just wanted to have it in the record that we recognize that and that we're hopefully doing it in the right way. Those training sessions come in pretty handy when you get all this stuff. Well, what we're here tonight for is to make a Decision on the application for a variance by Mr. Eckert, And I spent quite a lot of time cogitating here on how we might go about this. And what I finally did, with a lot of extra work, was type up kind of a -- well, it's similar to like an environmental impact statement and the first thing you do is develop a scope of the things that you're going to look into before you discuss them -- all the pieces that you want to put into this. And so I took each one of the five questions that the State requires us to do, and I found that, as you know, two of them were the main ones that got really complex. And so the first one was the character of the neighborhood and whether any harm would come to the neighborhood , and that kind of stuff. So what I did was I went and typed out, and I'm going to pass these out to you , every darn thing I could think of that might be a factor that we might want to discuss. So this is a "Scoping" it says at the top . This is a scoping document on the character of the neighborhood . And as you can see, I thought of everything we discussed at the Public Hearing and put them all in here . So it comes out quite a number. And what I want to do is just kind of go over these and then we'll come back and think about them and discuss them, and also whether you folks think that anything should be added as we go through this. There maybe some others that I didn't think of that we ought to be discussing or, as we go through this, some of these may not be as important as we think they are. I don't know. But as you can see, I started out with going back to basics and went back to the purpose of the Low Intensity District as it's spelled out in our Code, which says that "residential characteristics are dominant" and that "predominantly residential land use is considered appropriate. " And most importantly, "substantial restrictions are needed, " but it says on "non-residential development to achieve desired developmental patterns. " So that's what we're supposed to be aiming for there . Well , then I got thinking about the previous variance that we have dealt with on this same case. And , which as you know, was based to a large extent on the setback into the hillside . That's why we gave the variance. So it didn't overwhelm the other neighborhood residential structures by being a lot higher than the Code allowed . The size of the structure , as you know, the dimensions, were noted . We did. But we didn't really deal with them because it wasn't encroaching on the public domain and it was not the primary purpose of the requested variance at that time anyway. So as you folks already know, the granting of the height variance was kind of stretching the limits of our authority because it was a lot over what the Code mentioned. And this seems to hold true, it seemed to me, notwithstanding recent proposals that have Page 2 of 32 Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Transcript 29 November 1999 been advanced to increase the height limits on accessory structures. Nevertheless, the height that Mr. Eckert's garage wants to be built seems to be, nevertheless, a lot more than what you might say is ordinary. So what does that mean? Well , one implication I got, and maybe you folks got some others, was that it wouldn't take much of a further change in the situation to tip the balance towards an unacceptable impact on the residential character of the neighborhood, given the fact that we had stretched our authority by giving the variance in the first place . Now if I'm on the wrong track, I want you folks to catch me up here. Now the ZBA doesn't have any authority, as well all know -- just to restate it, to rewrite the purposes of the Code by using variances. The variances got to fall within reasonable limits while still maintaining the purpose of the zoning district as defined in the Code . So anything beyond this exceeds the ZBA'a authority. The Town Board has the sole power to establish what the Code allows and, again , we've got to be careful about that. And that goes back to when we get to the question about substantial. And that's why the State has it in there I think. As to how far can the ZBA go without ending up, in effect, creating a new zoning code which is not our authority to do anything about. That's the Town Board . Now we get down to the thing here, and once I had got through that part, I looked at the requested encroachment, and I guess that's what you have to call it, of ten feet upon the public domain. And the public domain, obviously, is the Town domain . And it raises questions that we didn't deal with in the previous variance. Now the first question is the size of the desired building which necessitates an encroachment upon the public domain and , two, whether this changes the impact upon the character of the neighborhood . And for reasons already stated, we didn't really didn't deal with the size part before. Now, the proposed garage or storage building - - yes - - S. Thane: When you keep saying size , you're talking about the dimensions, not the height? L. Raymond: Yes, that's right. That's why I go right to f -- that's not the height. S. Thane: Not the height. L. Raymond: That's not the height. Yes, you're right. Probably should say dimensions. S. Thane : I just want to make sure . L. Raymond: This is just a discussion paper anyway. But thank you , you're right. Proposed garage/storage -- and I phrased it that way because in the Hearing, Mr. Eckert indicated it was more than a garage. It was for other purposes as well as that. And the size is 52 by 52. and we can check that in the drawings, but that I did and that's what it is. Well, what can we say about that? All right, folks. You may have a lot to say, and more than I did here . But the first thing that occurred to me was that this is very large in comparison to other garages in the neighborhood . Page 3 of 32 Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Transcript 29 November 1999 M. Decker: The last time, when John and I were sitting here conversing, it becomes a primary instead of an accessory structure . It really does . L. Raymond: Yes. It was your remarks in the Hearing, Mary, that caused me to state what I did here. That it is larger than the principal building as defined in the Code, which is Mr. Eckert's house . And this accessory structure is supposed to be incidental, the term that the Code uses -- to the principal building as defined under what accessory buildings are . And if you look at, again, the principal building, that's also defined in the Code. And it's defined, I found interestingly enough , as generally the largest, most valuable , and most conspicuous building on the lot. Well, the proposed structure, it seems to me, is going to be larger than the house it is supposed to be accessory to . And how this relates to the residential character of the neighborhood , if it does at all, is a question we need to deal with here. Maybe it's not a question ; I don't know. I'd like to hear what you folks think about that. And I wish John was here . Now, moving this structure ten feet farther away from the excavation set into the hillside will increase the visible effect of its proposed height in relation to the surrounding neighborhood. Now, it begins to decrease or negate the basis for the granting of the previous height variance because that was dependent -- and I went back and checked the wording of our findings on that, and that was stated quite explicitly that it was based on being set back into the hillside where you didn't notice the height so. So it does begin to, and I use the word begin because I don't know how far it goes. And I've raised a question how significant is this anyway? Is it even worthy of consideration? Maybe the ten foot going out isn't even worthy of being considered . I don't know. I just thought for the record we should indicate that we did think about this and what direction we go in is what we got to get at here . Now on the next one here, moving a -- and I think this is something John mentioned, maybe. That moving a 52-foot long wall of this structure closer to the road , will it change the residential character of the neighborhood sufficiently to take a serious note oP? S. Thane: Yes. L. Raymond: An analogy I came up with here was whether you had a large semi-trailer rig parked at a distance away from the road , or you park it out near the roadside. Well, it has a very different impact on the visible part of the neighborhood , rather than say if you had a regular passenger car parked away from the road and then parked it out by the road, you'd have a much smaller visible impact on the character. I don't even know if this stuff, folks, is even important enough to put in here . These are just things I thought of, and catch me up if it's not. Now, lastly, I'd like to mention here that the Code Enforcement Officer informs me that he has received complaints about the size of the excavation from nearby landowners. However, these people do not Page 4 of 32 Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Transcript 29 November 1999 wish to be formally recognized by making these complaints a matter of the Public Record. So, for this reason, the identity of those making these complaints is not available for the Public Record . As currently proposed, as we well know -- and I have the engineering drawings -- the excavation is to be increased beyond its present scope . So those are the things I came up with . Now, do you folks have any other things we ought to be talking about in terms of character or residential impact here? M. Decker: I wish we had Rick Case here , or his thing, because what I was trying to get at here by just, you know, the schematics of it, the road doesn't run straight with the building. L. Raymond: That's correct. M. Decker: So if you bring this up , you know, this ten feet, bring it up , doesn't the road kind of go around this way? Where is this going to be? This is going to be tremendously close isn't it? L. Raymond: No . I was there , and I think I mentioned it during the Public Hearing, that I was there with Mr. Eckert and Lynette. And we did some measuring. M. Decker: And bring this up - - L. Raymond: Yes. This one here is not ten feet. This one here is only about eight, little over eight. And it encroaches only about 8 foot, but the road gradually, as you say, pulls in. And so that as you do, why the 30-foot right-of-way also pulls in, like this, so that the further corner over here is the one , I understand, that is the ten-feet encroachment. M. Decker: Well, yes, that's what I'm saying. L. Raymond: Yes, but the rest of it is not. M. Decker: Yes . But that's it. This is -- where this is going to come in here L. Raymond: That's the ten foot. That's the ten-foot encroachment. M. Decker: Okay, okay. L. Raymond: And it gradually diminishes as you get over here. It goes down to about eight or so because the house is oriented the same way, by the way, to the road . Page 5 of 32 Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Transcript 29 November 1999 M. Decker: Well, he wanted to bring this up - - so this is the house right here . L. Raymond: Well -- M. Decker: If you bring it up even with the house -- L. Raymond: No , I understood that the house, it was going to be even with the house . That's what we went by. It was going to be even with the house, straight across. I think we discussed that during the Hearing. M. Decker: Okay, Okay, L. Raymond: And so therefore , when I measured from the center of the road over here to this corner, this came out to a little over eight. And this was a little over ten because it pulls in about two feet further -- S. Thane: So this distance from this corner to the edge of the road is - - L. Raymond: To the front lot line -- or to the center of the road -- is ten-foot closer than allowed . S. Thane: Right. Okay. And this is -- L. Raymond: And this would be somewhere around eight. We measured it with the tape there, and it's about, it's roughly about eight. I won't say it's exact, but it's right around that. M. Decker: But when you pull that whole thing forward - - I don't know. L. Raymond: Yes, so -- M. Decker: Because all structures on the surrounding properties are small. They are small structures. They are close, but -- L. Raymond: Yes -- M. Decker: But they are all small structures if you look at them. I mean , you know -- L. Raymond: Yes -- so this is larger not only than their house, but also a lot of other houses in the whole neighborhood because it's the dominant building in the neighborhood . Page 6 of 32 Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Transcript 29 November 1999 S. Thane: Did you say you have the engineering drawings for that wall? L. Raymond: Yes. I have them right here . I got them from Mark. I didn't something with them here. I organized everything -- it's supposed to be in here . Here we are. That's it. Well, this is the bottom right here . So let me set it like this. Okay. S. Thane: So it's two-foot eight inches below grade . Is that correct? L. Raymond: Yes. It goes below grade . But then he's going to come up step-wise as I understand it. He's going to come up step-wise up to there. And so the reason, as I understand it and it's plain to me, this is the occasion for moving the garage back farther because it's going to take more room to put all this stuff in here without digging the whole thing back farther. S. Thane: Oh , I see. Okay. L. Raymond: And then he's going to , by doing that, by coming out this way a little bit farther, then he's going to grade this off coming out. Let me see, where's a -- there's two grades to it. I think this is it. S. Thane: The proposed top of the slope . L. Raymond: No, that's looking down on it this way. Oh, here it is up here. S. Thane : Oh, yes. Yes. L. Raymond: Okay, yes. He comes up like this for a grade, and before he gets to the top , it lops off further and becomes less grade. So there's a little bit of grade there and there's more grade here, and then it drops off down here to this. S. Thane: And because of this step , I was going to mention making this part of the building, the back wall, but because of this step that would eliminate this as being a foundation wouldn't it? L. Raymond: As I indicated afterwards in conversation , from an engineering point of view it would be impossible to make that the back wall of the building without expecting it would last, not with that kind of a thing. He's got a drain in there as you'll notice . Because there's a continued danger. The reason for the drain is because there's a continued danger of the same thing happening that's happened before. And when you get hydraulic fluid in there, that darn thing is going to -- M. Decker: Move - - Page 7 of 32 Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Transcript 29 November 1999 L. Raymond: Going to move. And it can move some heavy stuff as we already noted . Whatever. Now whether that drain that's in there, well , obviously, it will require maintenance to make sure it doesn't, you know, at some time, get plugged up . In which case, then you're right back to where you were, square one . It's quite a plan . And I think this is it right here, too, again . Yes, he's coming over and over and down and down again and so on. Something like that. This is the way it was in the first place. This is the original, like that. He's changing it to this. S. Thane: I see. L. Raymond: So he M. Decker: Graduated L. Raymond: Yes . He's graduated -- and see, he mentioned in the Public Hearing there's going to be a lot more digging done up here and take out a whole bunch of trees up above in order to do that . These trees got to come out, which is going to change things a little bit around there quite a bit. S. Thane: Yes. L. Raymond: And as Mr. Eckert mentioned , he's bumping up against his property line as he gets up in there so he can only go about so far. This is a huge change to the slope and to the lot. Yes. So did I cover most of the stuff we think ought to be considered when we talk about character and neighborhood? M. Decker: Yes. S. Thane : Yes. L. Raymond: Do you folks have any other S . Thane: Should we make mention of the fact that the buildings on the other side of the road are very close? The one thing I've been worried about -- L. Raymond: All right. All right. S. Thane : Is are we going to create an alley effect by putting buildings right up against the road? L. Raymond: Other side are very close -- okay, I'll just add that to it here . And you said alley effect. Page 8 of 32 Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Transcript 29 November 1999 M. Decker: They are close , but they are smaller structures. S. Thane: They are, yes. M. Decker: You know, they tend to -- I mean they're all close and they're all smaller too, most of them . L. Raymond: The garage, if you're viewing it from that aspect, this is a large building and also is not at the same grade, the same level as the ones on the other side . So the visible effect is going to be magnified because you are looking up -- going up from the other side. How important that is, I don't know to be honest about it, and just how we should work that in if anything. But I'm just making the observation that it would be that way. The -- S. Thane : One more point. L. Raymond: Yes, S. Thane: In your experience , and you probably know more about this than I do -- if they come in to widen that road, and - - L. Raymond: Let's get into the substantial -- what a substantial change , because I've got that all in there. So let's try to keep it categorized so that we're not running all over the place. S. Thane: Yes. L. Raymond: Let's stay with the character at the moment -- unless what you're going to say has to do with character. S. Thane : No, no, no, no . I didn't realize you had another list there . L. Raymond: Yes, I've got another list for that one -- for everything I can think of. This has been raised here. So let's just stay with the character of the neighborhood. It goes back, again, to the purposes of that district as outlined in the Code . And that' s why I started out with that. I thought it better to back to phase one here. We're supposed to preserve the residential characteristics. Well , the other thing that you could look at is that a building of this size which is larger than the supposedly principal building that it is supposed to be incidental to may not -- is that true -- help me here -- may not really be what most people think of as a residential compound . S. Thane: That's right. Page 9 of 32 Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Transcript 29 November 1999 L. Raymond: Now you have a huge storage building and garage . It's sort of like a farm where you have a huge barn and a little tiny house -- not that bad - - I'm stretching it. But is that what our Code means by preserving residential characteristics? S . Thane: Yes, M. Decker: Yes. L. Raymond: Now there's another factor here that I think was briefly alluded to during the Hearing, and that is if -- now I forgot to mention it in here -- if a building of that size is constructed, well, it certainly would be suitable for either conversion into another dwelling, which would end up with two dwellings on a lot with insufficient frontage, or it could be , sometime in the future, it's conceivable that somebody might want to start a commercial business of some kind in that building . It's a temptation, because the building would already be there . And it goes back again to the purpose of the district -- we're supposed to preserve the residential characteristics of the damn district. So how to heck -- all of this is speculative, of course. And how much weight we should put on speculative , I'm not sure. By the way, tonight, just before I came over, it occurred to me and I went and looked at the Town's Comprehensive Plan , which really ought to be redone -- it was done in 1993 and usually you should redo them every five or six years. But anyway, that was still worth it. I went back and looked at the plan and what they envision as development trends are sewer, water, energy, and so on in the Town which relates back to what we're supposed to be looking at here, on balance at one end with the applicant's needs on the other. I didn't really find in the Comprehensive Plan anything that probably would be that helpful in our decision here . It did include Peruville in areas on the east side of Route 38 that they considered at the time for a long-time future would possibly be eligible for sewer districts, with public sewers, which would tie in apparently to some kind of a sewer line they were talking about along Route 38 coming out of Groton Village and going down along 38 , And they had it marked on the map as that type of thing. Well, all that raises, I guess, would be if they were to do that is well, if you got buildings, you know, too close to the road , I don't know whether you're going to add to the problems of trying to put a sewer line in , or whatever. I don't know. But the Comprehensive Plan , as I said, it's not all speculative on our part because the plan deals with the future possibility of what directions development might go in in the Town. Of course , the plan centers all of the major thinking on the Groton Village. And it branches out from there to McLean and so on, and along Route 38 which they thought was the major corridor. So I don't know as that helped very much, but it was a thought here in that regard. S . Thane: Well, that may come up on your next list. That's a comment I was going to make. Page 10 of 32 Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Transcript 29 November 1999 L. Raymond: What I'm getting down to here , obviously, in this first question on the character of the neighborhood , is what weight do we put on this? We're supposed to balance the applicant's need as he's expressed them, against the needs and impacts of the public, of the Town . M. Decker: Well, I think if you weigh it out I think that that building, I mean, it's a stretch in so many different ways that I think it overbalances away from our residential intent. L. Raymond: So you're saying that in any one of these by themselves is not enough to tip the balance one way or the other, but taking it all together, you're suggesting that it would be enough? M. Decker: Yes. I mean, if we only had one of them, we were only really dealing with the height before is what we had in mind . And we felt that was rather a -- L. Raymond: A stretch -- M. Decker: A stretch at that point. But we were also sitting back in the hillside . It kind of didn't blast you right in the face -- L. Raymond: That's right. M. Decker: Whereas now, boy, you're not hiding anything. L. Raymond: Well, is ten feet -- moving it out ten feet, is that enough to do that, have that effect? In one respect, ten feet is not a lot. In another respect, in the right place , it's a hell of a lot. Depends on where you're applying it, I guess . M. Decker: If it were a little building, I wouldn't worry much about it. But I think it's the size of the building . Again, the size is, you know, it's larger than any building on -- L. Raymond: On the whole road . M. Decker: On the whole street. On the whole road, basically. And there are other close buildings, but they are small buildings. L. Raymond: Like I said, it's like moving a big semi-trailer from back away from the road and moving it out and parking it on the road . M. Decker: Right along the road . Then it becomes, yes - - so there's like two things, you know, that break into mind there . Plus, then adding the encroachment because it does, you know - - Page 11 of 32 Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Transcript 29 November 1999 L. Raymond: Yes, right. M. Decker: You've got the encroach -- so you've got three things there. I don't know. I think we're pushing our authority for staying within the realm of the Low Intensity District, you know. And I don't know how much weight you can put on it if there are people that are complaining to begin with , but they don't want to go on record -- L. Raymond: That's right. M. Decker: That's a rather difficult, but it can come back to really bite the living daylights out of us, I think, if we - - I don't know. L. Raymond: Yes. How seriously should we take a complaint given to us like that? M. Decker: Yes. How much credibility if they won't come forward . L. Raymond: I talked to Mark today and he verified that complaint was made. M. Decker: Because , see, we haven't heard any of this before . This is new. L. Raymond: No, I hadn't either. M. Decker: So there's, you know, you're talking about four. L. Raymond: I asked him specifically if the person who complained to him, what they were complaining about. And he said they were complaining about the size of the excavation . S. Thane : Were they even aware of the size of the building going in there, or they were just talking about the digging? M. Decker: Major change . L. Raymond: Yes, major change in the landscape there. S. Thane: So they may not even be aware of M. Decker: See, when you start, when you put the structure there, don't you think that's -- I mean if they're a little bit excited now, what's it going to do -- Page 12 of 32 Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Transcript 29 November 1999 L. Raymond: And the point is is that if they were complaining over that, it's going to be more excavation if they go ahead with this because they're going to do even more. M. Decker: Yes, we have to do more to make it -- L. Raymond: Yes, but again , we can't make a decision just based on what some people want to complain about. But nevertheless, we need to take that into consideration if there was some feeling about this . M. Decker: Some question, yes. S . Thane : But just that there's some feeling about it -- I think that L. Raymond: Yes, there is some feeling there . S. Thane: Right, but not put too much weight on it because L. Raymond: Somebody else came in . Also, there's a second person who came to the Town office and didn't really identify themselves, but asked to see the permit and all the paperwork. So that person must know what the size of the building is going to be in addition to the excavation. I mean, you know, there had to be interest enough there because usually people don't do that. They don't go on a special trip to the Town office to see this. So there was enough interest to take time and whatnot to do that . M. Decker: We're taking those accounts into, you know, those stats right there into account. And I use the word substantial because I think it's substantial in this case . That would be my L. Raymond: You mean effect on the character of the neighborhood? M. Decker: Yes, the overall effect. I mean that -- that's my S. Thane : No, I feel the same way. M. Decker: My thoughts. L. Raymond: Well, if we were to put this into a finding then, which would be Finding # 1 , we would say that -- Page 13 of 32 Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Transcript 29 November 1999 M. Decker: The accessory building is larger than the principal -- I mean, size has a lot to do with it I think. L. Raymond: The existence -- if I hear you guys correctly - - the existence of several factors here -- I don't know as we should spell them out, but I can hear John Pachai now saying spell them out. M. Decker: John would spell them out. L. Raymond: The existence of the following factors -- and I'll just put a dash in here and list -- what do we want to list here? J. Pitch: Use a colon. L. Raymond: All right. List the following factors -- all right - - what are those factors then? It is the dimensions of a very large structure for the neighborhood . M. Decker: The accessory S. Thane: The accessory structure M. Decker: The accessory structure . And then use the dimensions, 52 by 52 . I mean , that speaks for itself. L. Raymond: All right. 52 by 52 . This large accessory structure is -- M. Decker: Is larger than the principal structure , and our Code says it's supposed to be incidental to that. I mean , you know. L. Raymond: All right. Now, wait a minute . Wait a minute . The existence of the following factors -- I say this is a very large accessory structure , 52 by 52 , in comparison to the neighborhood , in comparison to, say, the average for the neighborhood -- in comparison to the average dimensions of homes and garages in the neighborhood? M. Decker: Yes, surrounding -- L. Raymond: Well, do you want to add surrounding then? In the surrounding neighborhood? J. Pitch: Where else is the neighborhood? Page 14 of 32 Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Transcript 29 November 1999 M. Decker: Just neighborhood is neighborhood . L. Raymond: Maybe just say neighborhood . That's right. In the neighborhood . Following factors. Okay, that's one . Comma. Then what's -- it is -- how do we want to say it doesn't fit with the accessory structure definition in the Code very well? M. Decker: It doesn't. Structure is supposed to be incidental, which it's not. L. Raymond: Yes. And the principal structure, which would be the house, is supposed to be a large, generally -- M. Decker: Primary. L. Raymond: Yes, the largest building on the place. So it doesn't -- J. Fitch: It's in conflict -- L. Raymond: Hey, Joan, what would we do without you here? In conflict. I like that, if you folks do -- with the definition of principal and accessory structures. M. Decker: Period , L. Raymond: In the Code. And that's the second thing. What else do we want to add here? We said the following factors, and there's two . Oh, it increases the visibility of the height. Well, I had stated up here that what it starts to do, anyway, begins to do, is decrease or negate the basis for the granting of the previous variance . It starts to undermine it. Because we based that on being set back into the -- M. Decker: Right. And that's not quite as visible . L. Raymond: Yes, so do you want to say it that way as I already had it. It doesn't really negate it, but it decreases it. Yes, it increases -- M. Decker: Well, it increases the visibility. L. Raymond: Well, it decreases the basis for the previous height variance because it is moved out from the excavation where it is more visible. M. Decker: More noticeable . Page 15 of 32 Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Transcript 29 November 1999 L. Raymond: More noticeable? All right. More noticeable . I like that. All right, there's three factors . Do we want to add any more here? M. Decker: Well, it's an encroachment to the Town, I mean -- L. Raymond: Yes, we'll get to that in the substantial part. Right now, the character is what I'm looking at here. What about this thing that Steve mentioned here about having the wall of a large building like that moved so much closer to the road -- that much closer to the road in terms of you have a house and then you have this long, 52-foot wall, or whatever, front of the structure -- although there'll be an opening there , a door. Even so, it comes across as a building. I don't know. The thing that we're saying is that none of these by themselves, each one by themselves, wouldn't maybe be enough . But when you add them all together, then we're saying there's an impact. M. Decker: There's an impact. Well, what the heck do you want to call it? It's not the character of the building, but the structure itself no longer represents a residential structure . That looks more in line of a commercial structure. I think you have to put that in there someplace . L. Raymond: All right. Okay. That's another factor. Let's see, we had three; this makes the fourth one . M. Decker: The structure itself resembles commercial -- S. Thane: Or agricultural. L. Raymond: What is it about the structure that does that? The size? The dimensions. J. Fitch: Configuration . L. Raymond: Configuration or dimensions . M. Decker: Configuration covers it all , I guess, pretty good. L. Raymond: Configuration and dimensions why don't we say, then we'll be safe -- of the proposed structure resembles a commercial -- M. Decker: You could say commercial slash agricultural . Page 16 of 32 Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Transcript 29 November 1999 L. Raymond: I would just say commercial because it says up here it's the purpose of the Low Intensity District that restrictions are needed on non-residential development to achieve the desired pattern here. So this resembles a commercial building more than an accessory residential garage . How about that? S. Thane: Yes, M. Decker: Okay, L. Raymond: Okay. So we have the existence of the following factors, and we've got about four or five here now. S. Thane: Four, L. Raymond: Okay, we got four. The existence of the following factors, and we've listed them all here. And then we say taken together have a definite -- oh , what do we want to say? A definite negative impact on residential character of the neighborhood? Do you want to read that back to us, Joan? J. Fitch: Which one, the last one? L. Raymond: The whole thing here . It's a long finding. S. Thane : Starting with finding. L. Raymond: Finding # 1 . J. Fitch: You've changed it enough times. L. Raymond: I know. Can you -- do you want me to read it off here what I got? J. Fitch: The existence of the following factors: this is a very large accessory structure, 52 by 52 , for the neighborhood, in comparison to the average dimensions of homes and garages for the neighborhood ; it's in conflict with the definition of principal and accessory structures in the Code ; it decreases the basis for the height variance because it is moved out from the excavation where it is more noticeable . Then you talked for awhile . L. Raymond: The next one was the configuration and dimensions of the proposed structure resembles a commercial building more than a residential garage. And then saying, taken together -- Page 17 of 32 Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Transcript 29 November 1999 J. Fitch: Have a definite negative impact on the residential character of the neighborhood . L. Raymond: Yes . Are we satisfied with that? S. Thane: For now. We have more to go right? L. Raymond: Yes. We have more questions to go. All right. I propose that usually the way the State has them, maybe you go to alternatives next? But I propose, given the way things are going, that we should go to the third question which is how substantial is the requested variance? Because that turned out to be the next larger one. And here's what I had written down for that. Joan , here's a copy for you . Now on that one, as you see here, I noticed that the requested 10-foot encroachment on the public domain represents nearly one-third of the total of the 30 foot that's allowed . And then I got to thinking well , what were the purposes and function of the 30-foot setback anyway? What do we have it in the Code for? Well, I don't know. The things I thought of was it provides room for future upgrades of the highway, which might require more space. Another one is that it provides space for current highway maintenance. And the third one is to provide space for utilities such as natural gas pipelines and sewers and stuff like that. I don't know. S. Thane: That's my concern. L. Raymond: Okay. Now I got a letter from Jerry Stern and I have a copy of his letter here which I will give to Joan and have this in the record. Jerry Stern is Highway Technician and Permit Agent for the Tompkins County Division of Public Works. And in it, as you will note, Mr. Stern says there is no current or future problems with the proposed encroachment next to the County highway. S. Thane: He says highway maintenance. L. Raymond: Highway maintenance. He says for maintenance . Yes. He makes it quite clear he's talking about highway -- but he says down here in the last part, "does not have a negative impact on any current or future concerns for highway maintenance. " But, again , he's talking about maintenance . He's not talking about highway upgrades, if one should ever occur, which is a good point. Now when I talked to Mr. Stern, he made a number of verbal statements to me which I would like to put in the record here . He pointed out that the State Law provides for a 25-foot right-of-way from the centerline of the highway, plus something called adjacent property. That is not defined, he says, in the Law. Because I asked him specifically what did they mean by 25-foot plus adjacent property? And he said the purpose of the statement was to provide a legal means of taking private property, as needed, beyond the 25-foot right-of-way for highway improvements or rebuilding, if necessary. That gives the County the basis for using eminent domain. And it's purposely left Page 18 of 32 Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Transcript 29 November 1999 undefined because they don't know how much will be needed in that case. And then Mr. Stern made another statement to me . In my last conversation, when I asked for the letter, he said he "would not provide any information that might cause the ZBA to turn down Mr. Eckert's variance request. " And he had promised me a copy of the State Law which talked about the adjacent property and whatnot, and it was not included in the letter when he sent it. So whether that was just an omission, inadvertent or whatever, I don't know. But that's what he told me. So we have to consider his letter in the light of what he told me . Okay? I suspect, and I may be wrong, and you may be right, Steve , that we should take it that he's talking about maintenance and not about upgrades of highways. And he purposely stated it that way because he didn't want to maybe get into that. I don't know. Mr. Stern also said that he saw no problem if the encroachment on the public 30-foot setback did not exceed that of the present house which is already non-conforming in regard to the setback as we know. The requested 10-foot encroachment matches that of the house as we already know. And , finally, Mr. Stern told me that if they ever needed the space for highway upgrades or improvements, they would condemn Mr. Eckert's house anyway. And so the addition of another building to condemn is not a big deal. R. Eckert: Wait a minute! S. Thane: I'm not sure I like that logic either. L. Raymond: I know. So I had a pretty interesting conversation with this guy. S. Thane: That was my question a little while ago that I was going to ask. What happens if they do want more land? Do they allow you to move buildings? Do they just condemn them? L. Raymond: Yes, that's what he told me . M. Decker: Sounds like a typical government answer. L. Raymond: Yes. Using the power they have under the State Law that says they can take adjacent property beyond the 25-foot if they need to do that. Now, also , which I didn't put down here -- and I mentioned that at the Hearing -- but he also -- we had a little discussion with him about well, what are the possibilities of ever doing that in Peruville? Well, he didn't see any immediate need for that. On the other hand, it depends upon the trends of development. That was quite clear. Well, you know, I don't know -- I understand what, the bed and breakfast is for sale over there -- 150 acres right now . Maybe you know, Mary. M. Decker: It's been for sale for years. L. Raymond: lt's waiting for somebody to pick it up and do something with it. I don't know. Page 19 of 32 Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Transcript 29 November 1999 M. Decker: It's always been a -- you know -- I don't mean to , you know -- Peruville has never been an areas that was the number one. We've always had a helluva time trying to sell a house in there . It's down in there where the sun doesn't shine, and things like that. Only a little bit. You know. S. Thane: The problem is it may become something on the way to something else. If they split the property off, for example, and this is just speculation - if they split the property off from that bed and breakfast and turn it into a development. You may have increased traffic through there -- or utilities. Increased utilities. L. Raymond: So what we're really talking about here is a speculative scenario for the long-term future which , again , goes back to the Town's Comprehensive Plan which they also discuss in there what might be the implications in the long-term future . But it's a speculative scenario that, given developments not too far away, in other parts of the County, in Dryden, Lansing, and whatnot, it's not that unreasonable I would think either. But - - M. Decker: But if you look over the whole spectrum, there's still a lot of areas that are more choice than Peruville . I think its a long ways out there. Tomorrow somebody will decide to open it up and there goes my credibility. L. Raymond: Well, anyway, let's proceed here. There are other things I've noted here. We also have a letter from the County Planning Department, which I mentioned in the Public Hearing, and that letter, also, indicates that they don't have a problem. But you've got to pay attention again to what they said they didn't have a problem with . It mentions here, as you see here, that "The proposal, as submitted, will have no significant deleterious impact" and then it says, on what? He says " on intercommunity, County, or State interests . " That's what they're interested in . They're not interested in the same stuff that we're talking about to an extent. '"Therefore , no recommendation is indicated by the Tompkins County Planning Department, and you are free to act, " it says, "without prejudice. " So for whatever that's worth , I don't know as I expected there would be much intercommunity, County, or State , in that sense, although it says County interests. They do include County interests there. They do include the County interest. To be fair, whether that included possible upgrades in the road, you see , because that's a County road , is something we ought to think about - - if the Planning Department did their job and didn't just copy over something they send to everybody. It sounds very similar to other ones we've seen. It says, "no deleterious impact. " And again , if we consider the County interests, and they don't define what they mean by County interests, are they talking just about snowplowing the road? Are they talking about future development? God knows. They don't explain themselves very much. I thought of giving Joan Jurkowitz a call and I didn't get to her on that one . There's a helluva spectrum there. All it says is they're not going to put their finger in the pie, I think. And it says we're free to act without prejudice. Page 20 of 32 Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Transcript 29 November 1999 M. Decker: And if we decide differently later on , we'll let you know . S. Thane: It says they have no opinion . L. Raymond: They don't have any opinion ; I think you 're right. Well, next, we were supposed to get -- now John told me that he had talked to Rick Case, and I was hoping we'd have a statement from John tonight. John must have completely forgotten about us. I don't know what happened . Or else something -- I hate to think some disaster has occurred to him -- but nobody answered when I called the house . He did tell me on the phone now -- I'm trying to recall here -- he said that he'd talked with Rick and that Rick had a different -- he did tell me that Rick had a different scenario to spin out than we got from Jerry Stern from the County. And that Rick was talking, I believe, he mentioned 70 foot in terms of right-of-way. S. Thane: Seventy-foot total? L. Raymond: Yes, but I don't know whether that means he meant one side -- see, we have 55 already. Or whether he meant that went from -- oh boy, I don't want to get into stuff here that - because John, when I talked with him, kind of gave me a quick rundown, you know, and I don't want to state things incorrectly. All I know for sure is he said Rick had a little different take on it than Jerry Stern did. So we have to take that under consideration ; that's all we can do tonight. There may be a different view on it from the Town perspective -- from the Highway Superintendent. As you can see here, I also made a call to NYSEG . And the reason for that was because of the discussion of about the natural gas pipelines. The NYSEG gentleman told me that he said the current natural gas line extends along Route 34B in Lansing, and that's where it stops over there . And any future extensions of the natural gas pipeline along 34B to say, come down to Peruville or that area, he said depended, as you might guess, entirely upon development trends. He said a major development near Peruville, anywhere around there, could trigger such an extension anytime in the future, and it was not a prospect until such an event took place , of course . So there we are . Now he also mentioned that the County Public Works Department doesn't like it very much if the natural gas line encroaches upon the road right-of- way. They get themselves in real trouble he says -- S. Thane : They like to keep that gas pipeline back -- L. Raymond: They want to keep the pipeline, he says, on private property when they put them in . They want to make sure they're on private property to stay out of trouble with the County. S. Thane: So they want it beyond the - - Page 21 of 32 Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Transcript 29 November 1999 L. Raymond: Beyond the 25 foot. S . Thane : Right, L. Raymond: Now he says that if the County should extend and upgrade -- if they ever upgraded the road and extended their 25-foot right-of-way, which they have a right to do under State Law, as we mentioned, anytime in the future for road improvements, then it would make it very difficult for the gas company if they ever wanted to put a natural gas line in there to find space for the gas line if structures are already located close to the road . Well, this brings up , as far as I'm concerned , an interesting scenario here. First of all , we already have structures too close to the road in Peruville , especially on the north side, but also Mr. Eckert's house is too close to the road on the south side . So the question apparently is, does it matter if we add to this? S. Thane: I think it matters if you add to it. Why make the problem worse? M. Decker: That's what zoning is all about, I mean, to control what's not, you know, a positive to keep it to a minimum and then build from there . So why would you , I mean - - I don't think it's -- L. Raymond: What you're saying is that zoning, if I understand you, already when they impose a zone, or there hadn't been one, you already got a lot of non-conforming structures anyway. M. Decker: Right, Right. L. Raymond: What they're saying is all new structures are not supposed to -- will now adhere to our new standard because of that. But the old non-conforming ones are still there. M. Decker: I mean unless there's a real problem, that's where the variance falls into line . I mean , you know, that you can work with that, but all of these factors taking into the consideration, and I don't see natural gas -- it's been a long time . I mean, it took them a long time to get that natural gas to 34B where it is. It's been in the recent five years. L. Raymond: So we're talking about probably at least a 10- to 20-year scenario . S. Thane: Again, it's very difficult to judge what they're going to do . They can change their mind anytime . When we built our house, I called them three times because there was a rumor of a gas line coming up Old Stage Road . And they denied it each time . Well, it wasn't nine months after we had built our house they dug the trench and put in a gas pipeline after I already put in the oil burner. So, I mean, they can change their mind anytime. Page 22 of 32 Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Transcript 29 November 1999 M. Decker: Well, the prison opened that up . And that development wasn't in Tompkins, that was over in Cayuga, so that tells you . S. Thane : It may become a corridor for something else . But we can't put a great deal of weight on something speculative like that, but you can't just toss it out. M. Decker: Yes, right. At the same time, we shouldn't promote it. L. Raymond: Here we go. We're back to the balancing again . We're supposed to balance the future needs of the Town against the needs of the applicant. S. Thane: Right. L. Raymond: And the applicant has some real needs. Well, we're balancing how substantial the variance is in this case . I could see where maybe in different circumstances a 10-foot encroachment on the public domain, as it's defined , wouldn't have near the impact or ramifications as it would , perhaps, in this particular site . This happens to be a difficult site . S . Thane: Right. L. Raymond: Let's say that was in more open country and you didn't have houses on the other side of the road that were all non-conforming -- right up next to the road -- which restricts space . And if you didn't have a hill there behind on the other side, and it was fairly level terrain, I could see where maybe the 10-foot encroachment wouldn't have nearly the significance as it would in this case maybe . So it depends on the site , it seems, to some extent. Or does it? Am I on the wrong track here? S. Thane: No , no , no . But I would still have to have some sort of reason for putting it up that close . Say there was a close property line in the back or something. But if you say it's level land , then push it back. L. Raymond: Yes. There would have to be some reason to set it up to encroach. Well one reason could be size of structure , and it's a small lot. If you want to build a big structure, even on level ground you might want to be able to extend that. Oh dear, now where are we coming out with this thing here? Are we coming out, are we , that it's substantial? S. Thane : I think so. L. Raymond: As Mr. Stern said, what the hell -- the house is already there and if we want to get through there we'll tear all the buildings down anyway. Page 23 of 32 Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Transcript 29 November 1999 S. Thane: That's true, but I am not one for making adding to a problem. I mean, there is a reason for this setback, and I find it hard to encroach on that. L. Raymond: One thing which I didn't list here in the purposes of a 30-foot setback was in the Comprehensive Plan they have a map , 1993 Plan for the Town. And there's a map showing the possible future areas where public sewers may want to be considered. And if you look at the map, it's like a strip right down through the middle of Town along both sides of 38. And on the -- wait a minute -- S. Thane: Through the middle of the Town of Groton? L. Raymond: Yes. S . Thane : Starting from the Freeville line? L. Raymond: Let's look at it. I'm pretty sure I threw it in here. The Town's Comprehensive Plan . 1 know 1 put it in here, I thought. Here it is. I want to show you that map . August 1993, and in the back here they got this map here. Here we are . Potential sewer service areas. S . Thane: This is 38? L. Raymond: You guys want to take a peek? I know you've seen the Comprehensive Plan for the Town . See , it's right through the center of town . Here's Route 38 right down through here; this would be Groton Village in here. And when it got down here, this side would be the less expensive areas of service, and this would be the more expensive areas of service. But what seems important to me is what they did. They included, obviously, Peruville which is right here. It's included in the area that might be a potential for future sewage service. And one of the things that the ZBA, as I learned from the training sessions, is charged with is paying some attention to the Town's Comprehensive Plan if you had one . And certainly, even though they say it might be more expensive , they've included it in a possible service area for sewer. What we're getting at here is, obviously, all right, what about room for sewer lines going along the roads? Are we contributing to the expense of putting them in here if they think that might be the future thing if we're going to add more buildings closer than 30 foot to the road? Goodness knows, there's already enough of them closer than 30 foot to the road there to cause problems in the first place . I thought your point was well made , Mary , that that's what the whole point in zoning is all about is that if you declare everything that's there now as non-conforming and from now on everybody's got to meet the Code. Well, okay. So Finding #2 then is that the requested variance to use ten feet of the 30-foot setback is substantial in regard to preserving options for future development in the Town in regard to possible expansion of utilities and highway /road upgrades. Can you read that back to us Joan? Page 24 of 32 Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Transcript 29 November 1999 J. Fitch: Yes. The requested variance to use ten feet of the 30-foot setback is substantial in regard to preserving options for future development in the Town in regard to possible expansion of utilities and for highway/road upgrades . L. Raymond: Do we want to add anything to that? It crosses over to the character part, but I guess we covered it in the character one in terms of all the stuff, visibility and all of that. Yes, substantial . What I'm thinking here is justify entirely on utilities and road upgrades to justify it based on impacts on characters of the neighborhood as well . I think that flows out of what we said in the first one , right? M. Decker: That's what we did in the first one isn't it? L. Raymond: Yes, we did -- yes, but we didn't say substantial impact. We just said that it would have a definite negative impact, but we didn't say how substantial. I guess we already said it I the first one, didn't we? M. Decker: Do you want to say instead of a definite negative, a substantial negative on your first one? That would cover you if that's what you're trying to do . Your last sentence back there . L. Raymond: All right. Let's make that substantial. J. Fitch: Okay, you're deleting definite and changing it to substantial? L. Raymond: Yes, to substantial . And that way we don' t have to mention it again down below. Okay. Then let's go on to -- where is my next spot? M. Decker: Do you want to make any reference to that map? L. Raymond: Oh, wait a minute. That's right. That's what we ought to add in there . That's right. . . the possible expansion of utilities and road upgrades as shown in the current Comprehensive Plan for the Town of Groton. Okay, now I think that's good . The courts always love it like that and I understand . Remember, at training sessions? If you showed you stay within the Comprehensive Plan of the Town, the judge loves that. So then let's go back to alternatives . And there wasn't nearly as much to say about alternatives. The options it appears Mr. Eckert would have would be, which he doesn't want to do, and I don't blame him any, is reduce the size of the structure to adhere to the 30-foot setback from the lot line which would put the height and everything back to where we said it wouldn't have such an impact in the first Page 25 of 32 Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Transcript 29 November 1999 place when we gave the first variance . But is there an opportunity available for the applicant then to find other means for meeting the needs that he would probably have to subtract by making the building shorter? If he goes with the engineering plan he's got here, he needs that room to put in the new wall. Does the applicant have other means of meeting his needs? How do we balance that against the encroachment on the public domain and character of the neighborhood? And finally, I thought, well, do these questions really matter? If we feel that these other things are pertinent enough, then it's the responsibility of the applicant to define what alternatives are available . And we don't have to think this out maybe . On the other hand, I don't want to be so -- I hate to be hard-nosed about this, but as you know, in the Public Hearing I explored with Mr. Eckert the way he saw possible and some of the things he saw were restrictions on what alternatives might be for what his needs are . If you cut back the building ten foot, you're going to have a 52 by - - still have 52-foot long -- 52 by 42 , which is still a pretty good sized building. But on the other hand , he obviously has calculated what he needs for his truck and for, as we found out, other uses that he wants to make of that building . It's not just a place for the truck. Don't you like the State of New York for making us answer all of these questions? Are there alternatives that would meet the -- the only alternative to meet the requirement -- that's what the State fully says -- that would meet the requirements without a variance would have to be to cut it back to ten foot. And then to re-think his strategy of how he wants to go about meeting his needs . Now, if we did that, we're not telling him he can't have a building; he's still going to have a substantial building. he's going to have a building big enough for his truck. M. Decker: Because if he cuts the building by ten feet, is he going to have to do the - - they'll do this anyway - - L. Raymond: Yes, I'm assuming they are going to have to do that anyway or he's going to have another disaster like he already had. M. Decker: There's no choice about that. L. Raymond: I'm assuming he's going to have to do that anyway. So the only way he'd have is to cut it back to ten feet, and he's pretty close to his house so he probabVs limited on how many feet he could extend out the other way along the hill to make it up . And he's still got a big structure . He still has these other things in it, although 52 by 42 wouldn't be quite as overwhelming as the one he has now . S. Thane: Just to make the answer official, by cutting this back it has no effect on his previous variance for height, correct? L. Raymond: No . And I think we should say that -- that it would have no effect on his previous height variance. That's true . Page 26 of 32 Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Transcript 29 November 1999 S. Thane: I want to make sure that's in the record . L. Raymond: In fact, it would put it back into the ballpark in terms of our reasons for giving the one in the first place because you're cutting back that ten feet and keeping the -- that would mean that the thing would go back in the excavation again where it's not going to stand out so . Yes. I think that we're going to have to say, aren't we, that - - M. Decker: I'm just curious. We have no way of knowing if we were to take that ten feet back in that direction, does he have space that he might be able to go and pick it up in length? L. Raymond: Well, that's what I was mentioning . I don't think a lot. M. Decker: He doesn't have a lot to work with on that. L. Raymond: Yes. Well, there's in back of his house -- the slope goes in back of his house and he probably doesn't want to do a lot of digging in there either. But the other possibility would be, which I had thought of, was if the amount that was diminished -- if he cut it back by ten feet -- the building, the big building, would he have room for a smaller building on the property to make up for the storage? M. Decker: This is the driveway up to the upper, see? L. Raymond: Yes, M. Decker: So if he were to take ten feet off here and go this way -- whose is this driveway? L. Raymond: Yes, that would be getting close to the property line probably. M. Decker: Is it? L. Raymond: That's what I suspect. Well, he has 190 and some odd feet of frontage, and this takes 52 , and then the house -- I didn't measure the house -- here we are -- 193. He's got 193 feet of road frontage, and this thing is taking up 52 plus whatever the house is, which is probably -- I don't know, 1 didn't measure it. But it's less than 52 just by eyeballing it. So -- but on the other wide of his house , you see, there's a place for, as he pointed out in the hearing, where his septic system and his well is. So some of that's out of the question. That' s on the east side, I believe. Yes, this side, towards the corners. M. Decker: Yes, Page 27 of 32 Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Transcript 29 November 1999 L. Raymond: Yes. And he's already gone back -- he says he's pushing his property line at the back. Now when he tried to do the new excavation back to here, that' s what, 171 feet? S. Thane: Yes, L. Raymond: So it's quite a stretch there, going back there . Well, I don't know as we can resolve all of his problems for him. The question is, is the impact on the public interest strong enough to say that does he have alternatives? He could cut the building back by 10 feet. M. Decker: Well, he has that alternative . He just doesn' t want to . Well , that's his - - S. Thane: Yes, L. Raymond: Right. Yes, because he can still get his truck in there. All right, let's make that Finding #3. Because we aren't telling him he can't have the building, by a long shot. An alternative exists which is to reduce dimensions of the structure so that it does not encroach on the 30-foot setback. Okay, that's it. So the next one here would be environmental affects, and I want to state for the record, as I was told to do in the training session down at Ellenville, to point out that under Part 617 of the NYS Environmental Law which has to do with the SEQRA, that the construction, expansion , or placement of minor accessory or pertinent residential structures, including garages, carports, patios, decks, and so on, are not - - do not require an Environmental Assessment. S. Thane: As long as they agree in this definition that this is a minor structure. L. Raymond: Yes, it says the following actions are not subject to review under this part. S. Thane: Okay. As long as they agree that this is a minor structure . L. Raymond: Well, I think when it says garages we pretty well got it here . S. Thane : Okay, L. Raymond: Barns - - it says storage sheds and so on . S . Thane: Okay, there we go. Page 28 of 32 Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Transcript 29 November 1999 L. Raymond: Yes. It also includes single-family, two-family, and three-family houses, which is quite large . These do not fall under it. However, having said that, we don't have to fill one of these things out. On the other hand , we still, if we think there are some impacts on our own in terms of the Town , can point those out for any mitigation. And I was looking -- we can use this as a guide, the questions they have in there , just to see whether we think so. Well, it points out here like aesthetic resources, and we've dealt with that in terms of the character, I think. Whatever. Interestingly enough , a community's existing plans or goals, as officially adopted -- S . Thane: That's the Comprehensive Plan . L. Raymond: That's the Comprehensive Plan. We go back to that. So that's there . Growth , subsequent development, or related activities likely to be induced -- well, I don't think that's likely to be induced much . Nor are any other long-term effects. So, just for the record, we can pretty well state there are no substantial environmental effects, can't we? M. Decker: Yes, L. Raymond: So that's Finding #4 . S. Thane: Yes, environmental impact as defined by -- L. Raymond: Just no environmental impact. Don't say substantial ; just say none at all . You want to say as defined? S . Thane: I think so. As defined by -- and do we want to get as touchy as Part II of the Environmental Assessment? L. Raymond: All right. Part II of SEQRA. S. Thane: Right, NYCRR 617 . 12 -- L. Raymond: Oh , you want to put that in there? S. Thane: Yes, L. Raymond: That's Part II of 617. 12 of SEQRA. Okay. All right. Well, that gets us down to the last question, which is that was this thing self-created? Did the applicant plan this thing and develop it with knowledge beforehand that it was not going to meet the Zoning Code for the Low-Intensity District? And given the previous history here, I think we're going to have to say yes, he was aware of Page 29 of 32 Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Transcript 29 November 1999 the Code . And as we noted before, and again for the record, I learned in training sessions here a year or so ago that the applicant is assumed to know the rules of the particular zone that they live in. And if they have not done so , that's not our fault. It's their responsibility. So claiming they don't know the rules is not an excuse for saying it was not self-created. So I think we're going to have to say that Finding # 5, we did before on the last variance -- we said it was self-created. All right. J. Fitch: How did you put that down , for the record? L. Raymond: Wait a minute. Well, here it is. I said the ZBA finds that the alleged difficulty was self- created. Okay. S. Thane: That's all five? L. Raymond: Yes. I wish to heck that John had showed up tonight. Maybe we shouldn't be making this decision with just the three of us as a minimum. Goodness knows, we're down one anyway. Well, where do we come out, folks? Not very good did we. M. Decker: Not really. L. Raymond: No. Personally, I don't like where we came out, but we did. The height variance that we gave in the first place was, as we said at the beginning, stretching it. And we gave it because it was not encroaching on public domain and it was hidden back into the hill. But when they wanted to move onto this ten-foot thing, it raised all these other issues that we kind of skipped over with the other because we were able to. M. Decker: We didn't really skip over them, but they weren't the principal -- L. Raymond: They weren't the principal thing we were asked to do . M. Decker: Now there's too many that we can't -- L. Raymond: Yes, Yes. Well, it looks like we're going to turn down the variance doesn't it? Does somebody want to make a motion that -- how do we want to word this? I got a wording here we could use. How about this? Now, therefore , a motion was made and approved that the applicant's appeal for a variance to -- okay, we got to change that -- to use 10 feet of the required 30-foot setback, as stated for a low-intensity district in the Code for detached accessory structures is denied. I'll read that again . The appeal to use ten feet of the required 30-foot setback, as stated for a low-intensity district in the Code for detached accessory structures, is denied . Does somebody want to make a motion on that? Page 30 of 32 Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Transcript 29 November 1999 S. Thane: So moved. L. Raymond: Second? M. Decker: Second . L. Raymond: Okay, we have motion made and seconded to use that language . Any further discussion? S. Thane: I might say -- can we include something like based on our findings? L. Raymond: Okay. All right. So you want to amend the motion to read that "Based on the findings . . . " M. Decker: The above findings. L. Raymond: The above findings. J. Fitch: Where are you putting this? At the end , or what? L. Raymond: Yes. Isn't that where it's supposed to go? J. Fitch: I have "Based on the above findings, the appeal to use . . . " L. Raymond: Yes, we could do that. Joan , what would we do without you? Move it to the beginning -- based on. Now -- "Based on the above findings, the appeal to use ten feet of the required 30-foot setback as stated for a low-intensity district in the Code, for detached accessory structures, is denied . Is that amendment to the motion okay with you? S. Thane : Yes, M. Decker: Yes, L. Raymond: Okay. And do we have any further discussion? All right, I guess we're ready for the roll call vote , Joan . J. Fitch: Mary Decker. M. Decker: Aye, Page 31 of 32 Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Transcript 29 November 1999 J. Fitch: Lyle Raymond, L. Raymond: Aye. J. pitch: Steve Thane , S. Thane Aye. L. Raymond* Okay. And so are meeting is over as of 9: 20 p .m. Jo . Fitch Rec ding Secretary Page 32 of 32 r � � 70d