HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-12-14 Side yard setback TOWN OF GROTON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Public Hearing & Meeting - Tuesday, 14 December 1999 - 7 : 30 p . m.
Board Members (*absent) Others Present
Lyle Raymond, Chairman Joan Fitch , Recording Secretary
John Pachai Dale Lane , Applicant
Mary Decker Mark Gunn, CEO
Steve Thane Glen Morey, Supv. -Elect
The Public Hearing was opened at 7 :40 p.m. by Chairman Lyle Raymond.
L. Raymond: Okay, we're opening the Hearing at 7:40 p.m. , and I will read the notice into the
Hearing record.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. 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 December 14th, 1999 at 7:30 PM at the Town Hall, 101 Conger
Boulevard, Groton, NY, for the purpose of considering an appeal for a variance by Dale Lane,
8 Old Stage Road, Groton, New York, to site a detached garage closer to the adjoining lot Line
and of greater height than is allowed in a Rural Agricultural District The appeal specifically
relates to Section 343.2(d) and 342. 2(e) of the Groton Land Use and Development Code which
require a minimum distance of 6 feet from an adjoining lot Line and a maximum height of 12
feet for accessory structures. Lyle Raymond, Chairman, Zoning Board of Appeals.
Okay, And Mr. Lane , for the record , has paid his fees and so we are free to go ahead with the Hearing.
Let's go around the table just to make sure Dale knows who we all are . I think he's met a couple of us.
I'm Lyle Raymond of Old Stage Road,
S. Thane: Steve Thane , Old Stage Road .
M. Decker: Mary Decker. Tallmadge Road.
J. Pachai: John Pachai , Cedar Lane ,
L. Raymond: Okay. I have some remarks as Chairman here as a preliminary to the Hearing. I'll read
them into the record .
The primary purposes of this Hearing are to hear an appeal to site a detached garage closer
to the lot Line of adjacent property and also of greater height than is allowed in a Rural
Agricultural District. On November 23rd, the applicant, Dale Lane, filed an appeal for a
variance from the building dimension and side-yard setback requirements in the Code for the
Page 1 of 35
Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing 14 December 1999
proposed garage. The site of the proposed garage is located on a non-conforming lot, being
substantially smaller than the one-acre minimum required by the current Groton Code. The
records of the Tompkins County Assessment Office do not show any changes in this lot since
1959, with the exception of a minor boundary correction 17 that resulted from a boundary
survey of a bordering property. Therefore, the lot as it presently exists clearly predates the
enactment of the Town of Groton Land Use and Development Code in 1972 establishing
minimum allowable lot sizes.
And, as part of this, I'd like to add to the Hearing Record here -- those of you have gotten this, some of
you have not -- this is a record of the owners of the lot from 1959 until the present. In fact, maybe
Dale would like to have a copy of that, too. And, Joan, here's one for you . Okay, I think you will find
that this verifies that the lot is not changed except as I indicated for the boundary correction which is
dated 10/ 15/87 on this lot. Otherwise , the lot has gone through a series of owners , but has not
changed from what it was at that time.
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, and (2) any harmful effects on the
health, safety, and general we fare of the neighborhood (and the Town generally) if the
variance is granted. Essentially, the ZBA is charged with weighing or balancing these two
interests.
At the close of the Hearing, the ZBA will either (1 ) immediately re-convene to make a
decision in this case or (2), 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.
Okay, and in terms of communications received, we have a note here from Mr. Charles A. Butts which I
will pass around, who is an adjoining property owner to the lot. I do point out that this note from Mr.
Butts is undated and, therefore , leaves it a little bit open to interpretation. But we will assume that it's
currently dated. He says:
1 am aware of Dale Lane 's building a garage two feet from property line and at 50 feet from
my nearest building and have no objections. Signed Charles A. Butts.
And he says PO Box 116, Groton, New York. And for the record again, I want to point out that
normally we have a communication from the County Planning Office indicating whether they have any
objections, and we have not received that communication . So as already suggested, any decisions we
make tonight will be made pending hearing from the County Planning Office . And I think with that, we
are ready to open the Hearing to anyone who wishes to testify regarding the proposed garage . And,
Page 2 of 35
Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing 14 December 1999
mainly, I think that means Mr. Lane, the application, who would perhaps like to explain to us what it
is in his own words he's up to.
D. Lane: So you want to go through the five questions?
L. Raymond: No, we will do that in our decision meeting. I gave that to you just to let you know
how we will decide in the end, so you have some idea. So really what we want to hear at this present
time is, in your own words, what it is you propose to do . Yes, we have the drawings and so on, but you
might have something further to say about it.
D. Lane: I want to basically -- it's going to be a one-door, two-car garage . No upstairs, at the
end of the driveway.
L. Raymond: Okay. Just a moment here -- let me get your record here which I have somehow
misplaced with the drawing in it.
M. Decker: When it says 50 feet from his nearest building, is that going to be -- is his garage still
standing there?
D. Lane : Yes, he put that back up .
M. Decker: Oh, did he? Because that was kind of -- he's got a lot of side yard there between two
driveways.
L. Raymond: Oh , here it is . So you're garage then, as you stipulate in the drawing here, is to be 24
feet north to south going back from the road, and 22 feet in width going towards the property line,
east-west. Or roughly east-west.
D. Lane: Right.
L. Raymond: As I believe you pointed out to us when Mr. Pachai and 1 visited your place, that the
lot lines aren't exactly north and south and the buildings aren't located exactly north and south , if
you want to get very precise about it. But for most intent and purposes, it is. They 22 feet, now --
what is it you propose to do with this garage?
D. Lane : I want to put my cars in it.
L. Raymond: Now, how many cars?
Page 3 of 35
Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing 14 December 1999
D. Lane: Well , right now I have three , and there will be four because one's setting outside. I've
got a car that I restored for my son that I don't want to park outside, and I've got a car to store for my
wife and it's worth considerable money and I'm not going to leave that outside either in the wintertime .
It's basically for storage. And if I need to, I'll work on them.
L. Raymond: Is the size of the garage you propose here -- looks like it would accommodate , at most,
two vehicles .
D. Lane: And my lawn mower.
L. Raymond: Okay. And how much space were you allowing then for each vehicle?
D. Lane: For each vehicle?
L. Raymond: In width .
D. Lane : About six foot.
L. Raymond: In width?
D. Lane: Six to eight foot, yes . A '65 Corvair is not very wide.
L. Raymond: Yes , What I'm getting at here is that you've requested is a variance to encroach on the
required setback, and to have the 22 feet. I have looked at our vehicles and, for instance , we have an
S- 10 pickup and, if you got both doors open on the pickup on both sides, you're talking about
somewhere around 11 or 12 feet. But if you're talking about opening one door --
D. Lane: If you park them next to each other.
L. Raymond: But if you're talking about opening one door, say on the driver's side --
D. Lane: There's only 24 feet, so if I pull this one ahead, the doors will open - - this one will have
room there.
L. Raymond: Yes. That would be the maximum. Now if you're talking about being able to open one
door on one side , then that makes a big difference because it's not 12 feet; it's more like 8 to 9 feet. And
my question was is how you apparently were figuring -- it must be that because you're not going 24
feet. You're only going 22 feet.
Page 4 of 35
Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing 14 December 1999
D. Lane: Right. I'm not going to have all the doors open on all the cars at once.
L. Raymond: Yes.
M. Decker: Conservatively speaking, you'll have to do it that way. You haven't got that much
space there .
D. Lane: Originally I wanted it 24 by 30, but M. Decker: It's not going to happen there .
D. Lane : There's no room for my toy.
L. Raymond: Well , what I'm getting at here is that looking at our own garage, it would seem to me
that why couldn't 20 feet, for instance , do the same job? You can open a door on one side and still
have room to do that - - put vehicles in there - - each one .
D. Lane: If I want a bench or something -- I mean, if I want to play with my weedeater or, you
know. I can't do it in my cellar.
L. Raymond: I understand that. I understand . I'm just trying to clarify here what the situation
could be. Because one of the things we have to look at, as we told you when we were there, is whether
you have alternatives or not.
D. Lane: Right. Well, downsizing the garage really for me - - I mean 22 feet is not a big garage by
no means.
M. Decker: It's minimum.
L. Raymond: Yes.
D. Lane : Downsizing it at this point? No, for me that's not an option .
L. Raymond: Well, as you understand and as I pointed out when we were there , we're dealing with a
non-conforming lot which is good reason why the Code today requires one-acre minimum -- for the
very reason you're running into . There's no room to do anything.
Page 5 of 35
r
Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing 14 December 1999
D. Lane: Well, on that section of the house , it's unusable , whether there's a garage there or not.
Whether there's garage there or not, there's going to be cars parked there . 5o it becomes, you know,
mostly a question of whether there's a garage there or not. I mean, the cars are going to be there .
L. Raymond: Yes. Well, we're -- according to the Code, I guess we're not concerned with the cars if
they're not in the structure . We're only concerned with the structure . If there are licensed cars outside ,
I guess you can have half a dozen of them parked out there and it doesn't matter as far as we're
concerned . You're correct in your observation however. It's true, the cars will be there . But as I think
you already understand from our visit and from what I'm getting at here, what we're struggling with is
this encroachment on the setback. And this is going to be a decision that we've really got to look
carefully at.
S . Thane: There's almost a comparable notch in the side of your house . Why can't you attach
the garage to the house?
D. Lane: I don't want it attached .
J. Pachai: There's a deck there , but it doesn't show.
M. Decker: It doesn't show on there .
L. Raymond: No, the deck in fact would make the house square.
D. Lane: Yes, we could move that, but the way the lot's situated, even if you wanted to attach it
to drive into it, no way. You'd have to turn.
L. Raymond: Yes.
D. Lane: But the way the bank drops off from there . I don't want to pull my wife out of the
chicken coop in the morning .
L. Raymond: It doesn't show on here , and we were there, what was the distance between the side of
your house if you drew a line north-south , and the site of the proposed garage? You wouldn't leave an
alleyway there in other words.
D. Lane: Right.
M. Decker: Not very far.
Page 6 of 35
Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing 14 December 1999
L. Raymond: How wide was that going to be?
D. Lane : I think it's about two or three feet.
L. Raymond: From what's on here it looks like that' s what it is. Two to three feet, yes.
D. Lane : Big enough to get my garbage cans in.
L. Raymond: And the garage -- you also asked for a height variance here . You propose to build it 14
feet to the highest point.
D. Lane: Right. He said it would be about 14 feet.
L. Raymond: Okay, he being?
D. Lane: Lobdell ,
L. Raymond: Okay. The one who's building the garage for you?
D. Lane: Yes,
L. Raymond: Okay. So the garage is going to have, essentially then, well -- you're going to have 8-
foot sidewalls?
D. Lane: Ten,
L. Raymond: Ten-foot sidewalls. Okay. Then 14 to the peak?
D. Lane: Yes,
L. Raymond: So you're going to have a gently sloping peak with that type of a garage. And that
would not be an A-frame? That would be round, what do you call them, what's the word for them -- a
round roof'?
J. Pachai: Hip .
L. Raymond: Hip , I guess. Is that the right term?
S. Thane : Are you talking about a gambrel?
Page 7 of 35
Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing 14 December 1999
L. Raymond: Gambrel. Okay. So it's going to be - - it doesn't have a peak and come down ; it's going
to be kind of rounded?
D. Lane: What he's planning on doing is a peaked roof.
L. Raymond: Oh he is. Okay, that's what I wanted to get at because one of the things we need to
look at for character of the neighborhood is the style of the building going up . That's why I asked that
question. And what we noted when we were there visiting your place is that you are six-foot back from
the rear sideline . You are six-foot back from the rear property boundary?
D. Lane: Oh, yes. That property line angles out. Right there in the corner is six, and then it
changes .
L. Raymond: So the corner of the garage is almost exactly six feet then setback from the rear?
D. Lane: Probably, yes.
L. Raymond: Yes. So you're okay there . Because the Code requires six feet from all the way around,
both rear and side. Yes. Okay. And as far as what the purposes of the garage are, you spelled that out
pretty clearly, not only for storing cars but also for certain other purposes you want to use it for.
D. Lane: I want to have a place to play .
J. Pachai: The other portion of the yard on the other side of the house -- the reasons why you
can't put it there?
D. Lane: On the other side of the house? There's no driveway there , and I'm still a half-acre
shy, and I've got a septic tank on the other side ; and I have gas and electric that comes through there .
And the propane lines. And there's some trees there, and I'm not taking those down .
J. Pachai: Okay. That actually adds to the character of the neighborhood .
L. Raymond: Now we explored with you also the possibility when John and I were there, the
possibility of being able to purchase more land to add to your lot so that you would have an acre and
you'd have more room.
D. Lane: I've tried.
L. Raymond: Okay. Could you indicate what you've tried?
Page 8 of 35
Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing 14 December 1999
D. Lane: Originally I tried buying it from Steger. Steger was going to sell that to the doctor.
L. Raymond: And he was the original owner of the land to the east of you?
D. Lane: Right. Over the hill is swamp and then it drops down 20 or 25 feet. Then Steger sold
it all to Sam Rose . And when Sam got it, I asked him if we could square the lot up and he said no , you
can use it, but I won't sell it to you . Because he wants to maintain the road frontage for that lot area
there . And I can't buy from the other side because he's only got an acre.
L. Raymond: Yes, right. We discovered that the day we were there. Butts . Even if he was amenable
to selling off four or five feet, he couldn't do it because he's only got an acre and he'd end up with an
illegal lot himself.
D. Lane: Brockway's on the back -- I've tried to buy that chicken coop , and the first guy wanted
$ 10,000 for it. And I didn't find any gold or oil on it.
J. Pachai: The other thing that we discovered , discussing the possibilities of putting the garage
on the other side of the house , we really need to give consideration to replacement of the septic system,
And that side of the house is the only area. You can't put it in the same spot. And I hope he doesn't
have to do that because that' s apparently -- a portion of that is apparently a portion of an old County
material dumping site, and he may even have trouble excavating it to do that.
D. Lane : Al Bossard put the septic in.
M. Decker: Just before you bought it; he found all kinds of --
J. Pachai: Buried metal debris is common.
L. Raymond: Yes . Do we have any other questions for Dale here? Let's see, has he , for the record,
explained -- are you satisfied that we have enough information to begin to consider what we'll decide,
and close the hearing?
J. Pachai: Are there any alternatives in regard to the height restriction that we should consider?
S. Thane: Which way is the roof going to go? You look at the gable as you stand in the
driveway?
D. Lane: Right. And it's going to be board and batten, the country look.
Page 9 of 35
Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing 14 December 1999
L. Raymond: Right, right.
J. Pachai: From our previous meeting, I think we've determined to even get a normal-sized, even a
minimum structure, you need this type of height anyway. Unless you put a flat roof on, and in this
area that's totally off the way.
S. Thane: I come up with a 4 : 12 pitch on that roof, which is standard.
L. Raymond: Well, I think what we're doing here folks is we're beginning to transcend here and
maybe we should move into what we should be discussing in our decision meeting rather than in the
Hearing. The Hearing's purpose is, of course, to elicit all the information we can get from the applicant
to understand what is going on and what he's going to do . And my question is, are we ready to close
the Hearing?
S. Thane: Can I ask one more question?
L. Raymond: Sure.
S. Thane : Do you have any idea of how much overhang you're going to have for that roof?
D. Lane: It has a one-foot soffit. It's actually three feet from the property line , but the overhang
is two feet on one side. I went by what the soffit would be.
L. Raymond: Okay. All right.
S . Thane: So when a drop of rain falls off that roof, it's going to fall two foot from the property
line.
L. Raymond: Okay. I'm glad you asked that question , Steve.
D. Lane: And the drainage from there goes right down the back of the hill .
S. Thane: It doesn't go toward his property, it goes behind?
D. Lane: There is a swale there for drainage . And on the other side, naturally, I'd have an eaves
trough on. Neighbors have called me .
L. Raymond: Oh , neighbors have called you?
Page 10 of 35
Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing 14 December 1999
D. Lane: Yes,
L. Raymond: Other than Mr. Butts what he's given in his written testimony?
D. Lane: Yes. Ed Barhite called me last night.
L. Raymond: And Barhite -- where's his property?
D. Lane: The other side of Roman Village .
L. Raymond: Oh, across the road, kind of on the corner. I see .
M. Decker: Don't we usually get a list here of the people that were contacted?
L. Raymond: Yes, there's a list here . April sends out notices - - everyone got a notice within 500 feet
of the property.
M. Decker: Yes, and we used to get that. I would like to have that again . That should be part of
our packet; that's what I'm saying.
L. Raymond: Yes,
D. Lane: But he called me and just wanted to know what size it was going to be because it
didn't say in his description. I told him and he said he didn't have a problem with that. And on the
other side, Jim flagged me down - - chased me down actually. No problem, he said . No problem.
S. Thane: Two-car garage, one door. How wide a door?
D. Lane: Twelve foot.
L. Raymond: Can any of you creative souls think of another question here? I think I'm out of them.
Steve raised a good one. All right. Then we will close the Hearing as of 8:05 p.m. and , with that, we
will then convene our Decision Meeting and you' re welcome to stay and listen in . Obviously, you have
an interest in it, and you'll have to forebear.
Approval of Minutes
L. Raymond: We will reconvene the meeting at 8:06 p.m. , and the first thing is the approval of the
Minutes of the last meeting. And we don't have the Minutes of the last meeting.
Page 11 of 35
Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing 14 December 1999
S . Thane: The meetings are coming fast and furious.
L. Raymond: Well, we'll have another meeting Monday, so we'll have a chance to approve some
Minutes.
J. Fitch: I'm on page 17 of those Minutes; you've been meeting every week, so it's taking more
time .
DECISION MEETING
L. Raymond: What I have done here, and I did last time, but John you weren't here -- is try to
maybe keep it a little more organized with the five questions we have to answer. I have tried to jot
down for myself every, I'm calling them scoping, scoping topics, to scope out what are the things we
ought to consider. Everything I can think of. And then ask you guys, you know, if you've got more to
add and whatever. And then structure it that way and then we can take it as we go. So you can see, I
put down the first two on the first page here : one for the character of the neighborhood, and the other
one or how substation is requested variance? These are the things I could think of guys, but do you --
and then we can go back after we've scoped out what we want to talk about and then discuss them.
That was my purpose here . The character of the neighborhood seemed to me basically, just to remind
ourselves of what the purposes of the Rural Agricultural District are, and that's why I jotted them down
there . Nothing very surprising there . And also that the Lane lot is non-conforming, I made a note of
which is already included in the Hearing notes here. One of the things here under c) that I felt perhaps
I should clarify because we need to make sure what we're doing here, and that's the interpretation of
non-conforming lots of record. And in the Code, as you may know, it refers here to Section 112 -- non -
conforming lots of record . And in which it says in any district in which one -unit residential buildings
are permitted , notwithstanding limitations imposed by other provisions of these regulations, a one-unit
residential building and customary accessory facilities -- that's what I thought was important -- may be
erected. It says may be . May be erected on any single non-conforming vacant lot of record if the
following conditions are met. Well, and that's headlined -- non-conforming vacant lots of record. I
can't see what the difference is if it was a vacant lot and we allowed the guy to put a house on it, on
the non-conforming lot, then he's allowed to put an accessory facility on.
J. Pachai: I would tend to look at it in the respect that they're only addressing non-conforming
vacant lots of record. They have not addressed non-conforming improved lots.
L. Raymond: That's right.
Page 12 of 35
Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing 14 December 1999
J. Pachai: So I would almost feel that the statute doesn't really apply and can't be applied in any
way to this situation. We have to work as if it was left opened in respect to the types of decisions we're
making now.
L. Raymond: Well, if the Code doesn't deal with non -conforming developed lots at all, and I haven't
found it anywhere --
J. Pachai: My assumption would be that it would , the Code would apply as if it were a
conforming lot.
L. Raymond: But how can we assume that if it doesn't give us any direction?
J. Pachal: It's up to us to make that decision .
L. Raymond: If it doesn't state so in the Code though , are we changing the Code? And that goes
beyond our authority, doesn't it?
J. Pachai: I'm looking at it as a matter of interpreting.
L. Raymond: That we can interpret? That's what I was actually doing was interpreting that when
they said non-conforming -- what you can do with a vacant lot of record -- that if you can erect a
house on that, which it says you can do, and then it says also a customary accessory facility, then
what's the difference between that and then the fact that it's a non-conforming lot that already has a
house on it and they want to put on an accessory? I was interpreting it.
S. Thane : I would agree with that interpretation , except that in c of Section 112 , the applicant
must receive Department of Health approval of the development of the non-conforming lot. And
development of the non-conforming lot implies that there's nothing there to begin with , that you're
starting from scratch .
L. Raymond: That's right.
S . Thane : I mean that's the implication . I would agree with your interpretation , though . I don't
see why, if there's a single residence there , that you can't put an accessory building with it.
L. Raymond: Well, what this raises is the basic question, obviously. And that's a question of
whether we can deal with this at all or not. Do we have authority to do it? Well, the Code is silent on
developed lots - - non-conforming developed lots. It just says vacant lots.
Page 13 of 35
Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing 14 December 1999
J. Pachai: Well, if you took -- if you looked at it in a logical sequence , which is actually what
you've done but to take it to make a different take on it, someone could build a house , according to
this, on a non-conforming lot and then, down the road, come back to us and ask for an accessory
structure .
L. Raymond: Yes,
J. Pachai: So if a lot exists -- if the structure already exists on it, what's the problem?
M. Decker: What's the difference of putting the accessory building onto it?
L. Raymond: That was my original interpretation, but I just wanted to make sure that we're all in
agreement that that is the interpretation we want to make. Because if we don't, we're in real trouble .
This Code has got a lot of things wrong with it. And this is another one . There should be another
section there on non-conforming developed lots and what the heck we're supposed to do with them. I
see Mark grinning over here because he knows about all the holes in the Code already. This Board has
found more dang holes in this Code that he must deal with .
J. Pachai: It would seem that if you were dealing with a non-conforming lot that had been
improved prior to the enactment of the Code, that and if you took into consideration that they're
basically allowing the same type of development with a vacant lot, then - - this is hard to follow. I'm
having trouble spitting it out. It just seems to me that the statute is referencing vacant lots because
that's -- the primary structure is going to be what the concern would be. And I think that if it were -- if
there's a reason as to why improved lots, improved non-conforming lots were not listed is because the
intention of the Code is that they be able to enjoy the same privileges or benefits of any other regular
lot, of a conforming lot in other words.
L. Raymond: Well said , John.
S. Thane: I won't argue with that either.
M. Decker: If we can -- if it's a non-conforming lot and you put a residential property like John
said , down the road a few years you decide to put a garage up, that's no different than --
L. Raymond: Than what it says here.
M. Decker: Exactly. That's right.
Page 14 of 35
Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing 14 December 1999
L. Raymond: Is this important enough that we should make a finding out of this that that's our
interpretation because we are interpreting Section 112 here? Do you think we ought to make that an
official finding? That since this is a non-conforming lot we're dealing with that has a house structure
already on it, that we find that Section 112 implies that we also can deal with a developed lot. Do you
think that's the way we should go -- go as far as to make a finding? Maybe it would be safer to go that
way. So that would let whoever would question this, one of these lawyers or somebody, to think well,
they never looked at Section 112 . This will let them know that we did. All right. Let's make this
Finding # 1 . The ZBA interprets Section 112 on non-conforming vacant lots of record as also applying
to a developed non-conforming lot because , or due to, no, because the situation is similar. Is that
what we want to say?
J. Pachai: Section 112 allows for detached structures.
L. Raymond: Because Section 112 allows for accessory structures to one-unit residential buildings .
So it allows for accessory structures to one-unit residential buildings on vacant, non-conforming --
S. Thane: On any single non-conforming vacant lot.
L. Raymond: Okay. On any single non-conforming lot of record.
J. Fitch: You left out the word vacant. Did you want that in there?
S. Thane: Vacant lot of record.
L. Raymond: All right. Now what did we say here? Does this make sense? The ZBA interprets
Section 112 on non-conforming vacant lots of record as also applying to a developed non-conforming
lot because Section 112 allows for accessory structures to one-unit residential buildings on any single
non-conforming vacant lot of record . Does that make sense to everybody?
J. Pachai: Sort of. I think at the beginning we should plug in "relative to detached structures,
the ZBA . . . `.
L. Raymond: Okay. Say "in relation to detached accessory structures, the ZBA interprets Section
112 . . . " Joan , do you have that?
J. Fitch: Yes. In relation to detached accessory structures, the ZBA interprets Section 112 on
non-conforming vacant lots of record as also applying to a developed non-conforming lot because
Section 112 allows for accessory structures to one -unit residential buildings on any single non -
conforming vacant lot of record .
Page 15 of 35
Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing 14 December 1999
L. Raymond: Okay. That's our Finding # 1 then. Are we done with that? Okay. Other questions
here, compatibility with the neighborhood -- type of structure proposed. And how the height and side
yard setbacks may affect this. Now we have the neighbor's statement of unconcern , both written from
Mr. Butts in the record, and also the applicant has testified that other neighbors have called him
verbally and indicated that they were not concerned . So I guess another question would be the
closeness to the adjacent property and how this may affect the future use of the adjacent property.
Because that's something we got to look at. Mr. Butts may not always be there, and once that
structure is there it's going to be there, as we talked about with the previous one , for a long time . And
once it's there, it's there. And previous new owners may want to say build a fence on the property line ,
put a hedgerow in on the property line, have a garden next to it. Is this going to detract from that, I
guess, would be the question .
M. Decker: No.
S. Thane: That's why I asked what the overhang would be. Staying back a full two feet allows
any of those activities to occur on that property line.
L. Raymond: It's close . But it does seem to allow it because he's got three foot now he's dealing
with . The overhang only goes to two.
J. Pachai: You won't be able to put a ladder on that side, but you could put it on the end were
someone to put a fence up on the line .
L. Raymond: That comes to the next thing that occurred to me there, which is whether some future
owner, who may not be a friendly one , puts up a fence along there and then the future owner of Mr.
Lane's garage wants to go in and repair the side of the garage . Has he got room to go in there and do
it? Is three foot enough to go in there and put new siding on, paint, or do whatever else is necessary?
J. Pachai: It would seem that it would be.
M. Decker: I would think that those things, yes. But if you're going to do structural, you might
have a little problem. But for residing, you ought to be able to do it in three foot.
L. Raymond: Three foot is what, the width of this table?
M. Decker: Three foot is not very wide, but if that's what you got to work with , that' s what you
will work with .
Page 16 of 35
Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing 14 December 1999
J. Pachai: And if you're working on the lower edge of the roof, you'd have to do that from above
rather than from below.
L. Raymond: Yes, if you've got a neighbor on the other side ready to shoot you . What about future
development of these lots? One of the other parts of the Code points out in terms of uses, non-
conforming uses, that you're not supposed to add to a non-conforming use . Well, he's not doing a
non-conforming use . He has a non-conforming lot in a way, but it is being used in a non-conforming
way. So if we grant this variance , are we contributing to the non-conformance?
M. Decker: I didn't agree with what you just said .
L. Raymond: Well, the non-conforming activities, if you go under Section 113, says that they're not
to be added to .
S . Thane: Look at Section 111 over there , second paragraph .
L. Raymond: Statement of non-conformance policy, yes .
S. Thane : It is the further intent of this Code that non-conformities are not to be enlarged upon,
expanded, or be used as grounds for adding other activities prohibited elsewhere in the same . . .
J. Pachai: And he's currently storing his cars, except they are unsheltered .
M. Decker: And you take a choice as to which looks more crowded -- two in the garage, two
outside of the garage, or four or six at the end . I think you've got to maintain the character of the
neighborhood and that still fits in under that situation.
L. Raymond: However, the vehicles are mobile. They can be moved at any time. Once the garage is
in there, this is a permanent thing that's put in there . And that's the question I was raising here for us
to discuss is are we adding to the non-conformance then of this lot? The lot is already non-conforming
and causing the applicant problems in trying to find room. And are we just adding to it? We're locking
it in in other words. More so. Or are we?
J. Pachai: Not unless somewheres down the road they say that on a non-conforming lot they
can't store their cars on their property.
L. Raymond: Well, storing cars on the property is not the same thing as building a building. You're
comparing apples with oranges here.
Page 17 of 35
Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing 14 December 1999
J. Pachai: But we're talking in respect to use.
L. Raymond: Well, I was only using the use here as just a kind of parallel way of looking at it here,
saying you're not supposed to add to non-conformance .
M. Decker: And non-conformance is giving up four feet.
L. Raymond: Yes,
M. Decker: And you're saying to a non-conforming, should we add another non-conformance . I
hear what you're saying.
L. Raymond: Now it is true that this non-conforming lot has adequate frontage on the road the way
the thing is laid out. It has more than adequate frontage . All it lacks is depth . And in the course of
the use of the lot, even if they had more depth , it wouldn't make any difference because it's so
constrained by the nature of the terrain in back. It drops off 20, 30 feet back there . You couldn't make
much use of that lot anyway even if it did have the full acre going back there . Well those are the things
I thought of in terms of thinking about the impact on the neighborhood and the character. Do we
have any other concerns here we ought to be dealing with? There are other ones, but I've got them in
other parts here .
J. Pachai: In respect to character of the neighborhood, I really don't have any. It will actually
hide that chicken coop a little bit.
L. Raymond: So Finding # 2 then -- we're ready for Finding #2 on the character of the neighborhood.
The ZBA finds that the type and size of the proposed structure is common to this neighborhood and
will not adversely impact its character. All right. Now the next thing here is, and you notice I've
changed the order a little bit -- I put how substantial is it first. It seemed to be a little more reasonable
to look at how substantial it is before we look at the alternatives. Well, obviously, it's encroaching
two-thirds onto the required setback and doesn't leave much room for future adjustments. And the
height variance is about 17 percent increase over Code.
M. Decker: Are they still in the process of changing that height?
L. Raymond: Well, yes. This is why I jotted that down here if you'll notice . This handout is the
portion of the Minutes from the Planning Board and from the Town Board on what they've recently
been discussing about the height business. Well , my reading of that -- they've had some real heated
discussions in the Planning Board over this, and in the Town Board, if you read the Minutes. And I
mean heated . You don't know what we let loose when we identified that problem in the Code .
Page 18 of 35
Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing 14 December 1999
J. Pachai: Well, the question isn't so much whether there should be a change, whether it should
be increased, but rather to what extent.
L. Raymond: Yes, there seems to be - - there doesn't seem to be - - and I think John is correct and
that would be my interpretation from all the remarks that have been made -- there doesn't seem to be
any controversy over the fact that it should be changed .
M. Decker: But how much and to what degree?
L. Raymond: To what degree . That's it. And how are you going to do it.
J. Pachai: And how you're going to do it is where you measure to .
M. Decker: But aren't they taking into consideration the accessory building, the average accessory
building is normal or common would be a two-car garage of X number of square footage? And then
does the normal pitch for that type of structure - -
L. Raymond: Four and twelve is the normal.
M. Decker: Four twelve, right. So on a normal 24 by 24 or 24 by 30, isn't that the typical garage?
L. Raymond: Yes,
S. Thane: A 24-foot garage and a four/ twelve pitch would give you a 14-foot peak which is what
he'll have .
M. Decker: And that seems to be the common factor. That seems to be the discussion of --
J. Pachai: I think that -- what was it, 27 or 35 feet?
L. Raymond: The Planning Board wants to make it 35 feet. Mark Gunn -- he's left now - - but Mark
wants to stay with what they've been doing.
M. Decker: Where did that come from? That's a barn, isn't it?
S. Thane: That's a house .
Page 19 of 35
Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing 14 December 1999
L. Raymond: Where that comes from is George Totman is claiming that in other towns, namely
Lansing, for the record, allows that. But if you read the Minutes, it's a real heated discussion over
what kind of structures are being built in Lansing vs. what's being built here .
M. Decker: Okay. But are we talking auxiliary structure, or are we talking primary structure with
that size?
L. Raymond: No, no . They're both . What they're saying is let's make primary and accessory the
same thing, the same height.
S. Thane: The maximum building height of a primary structure is three stories, or 35 feet.
They're talking about making them both the same .
L. Raymond: Yes. In effect, they're just eliminating the accessory structure height. Now the Town
Board wouldn't accept it and they kicked it back because Mark doesn't accept it. And at the request of
the Town Board, Mark met with the Planning Board at the next meeting and they had an extremely
heated discussion. The Minutes seemed to be so hot that smoke was coming off of them when I was
reading them. Well, Mark would like to, as I understand it, have an extension of the way we've been
doing it already, like with saying the 12 foot. He's pointing out that they have rarely had a request, he
said, since he's been in for two years, for a structure with that high sidewalls. The one we had in
Peruville was an exception. Most of them are about 8 to 10 foot sidewalls.
M. Decker: Which makes a normal pitch of what? Twelve or fourteen?
L. Raymond: So he would like to say why don't we just reword the darn Code to what we were doing
in the first place because it was working, and allow the roof pitch to be a normal roof pitch, not
defined . dust let the roof pitch be from the side walls.
J. Pachai: I mean if my garage were detached , which it's not, but if I had a 4: 12 roof pitch , my
house has got an 8 : 12 pitch to it, it would look kind of odd . People should be able to structure their
garage like their house .
L. Raymond: That's right. Well I understand from the discussion now, and I'm interpreting because
the discussion was so heated and they had so many things said in there that it's a little difficult, but
that's what I got out of it was that Mark was saying let's go on with something, even if you increase ,
say, the 12 to 14, use the side wall because that's what all the construction guys are used to using.
This is what's being done . And why don't we go with that then, and then say either allow what a
normal roof is, or maybe even say somewhere it can't be beyond a certain height, which would be
reasonable. But that seems to be the discussion, and the Planning Board didn't accept that. They
Page 20 of 35
Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing 14 December 1999
sent it back to the Town Board with the 35 foot. So everything is all in a mess and on hold until the
new administration comes in .
J. Pachai: There's no question that --
M. Decker: But we're not Lansing .
L. Raymond: That's right.
J. Pachai: I think the important thing to us now is that it's clear that the Town Board recognizes
the need for a change .
L. Raymond: That's right. So all we have to base it on is that the record says that both of them
seem to be saying that a change is in order, but what that change shall be we don't know. So it leaves
us in limbo as to what maximum do we interpret it -- what's the maximum we allow?
M. Decker: Common sense.
L. Raymond: I like that. Whatever that is .
M. Decker: Well, that's what we'll interpret the thing to be and what we interpret, that' s what it
will be .
J. Pachai: We should have a finding, I believe, that says that the Town Board and Town Planning
Board both agree that the Code as it is currently written relative to the height of accessory structures is
inappropriate and
M. Decker: In need of change . Period .
L. Raymond: All right. Let's put it this way. The Planning Board and the Town Board are on record
as - - I'm a little careful about the word agreement --
J. Pachai: Recognizing,
L. Raymond: As recognizing - - there we are . Recognizing that the current Code as currently written
as it applies to the height of accessory structures -- how's that? Joan, do you want to read that one
back to us to see if we got it right?
Page 21 of 35
Page 22 of 35
Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing 14 December 1999
L. Raymond: Maintained and discharge directed away from neighboring property. So we almost
have two sentences here. So then considering these factors, the requested variance is not substantial ,
or is --
J. Pachai: Not substantial in respect to function.
L. Raymond: Okay, in respect to function and impact on adjacent property. How s that? That was
a long finding, but it's necessary maybe . Now, Joan, I'll read back to you what I have here, right to the
beginning. Finding #4 : The ZBA finds that reducing the six-foot setback --
J. Fitch: You said the "required" six-foot setback.
L. Raymond: All right. That's what we are paying you for is to help us out with this. Reducing the
required six-foot setback to two feet in this case still allows three feet of space for building
maintenance , and also minimizes any impacts on neighboring property, providing that eave troughs be
installed and maintained and discharge directed away from neighboring property. Then the second
sentence : Considering these factors, the requested variance is not substantial in respect to function
and impact on the adjacent property. Okay. We've plowed through that question. So look at the next
page here -- alternatives. And these are not nearly as long. Scoping topics for alternatives, and we've
already discussed in the Hearing the options are to reduce the size of the structure, opportunity for
finding other means of meeting his needs, to purchase additional property to add to the lot size. And
all of these have been pretty well discussed in the Hearing.
J. Pachai: He actually did reduce the size of the structure . I wouldn't want to try to park two
cars - -
L. Raymond: And the opportunity for finding other means of meeting his needs, such as purchasing
additional property, he's explained that that has been attempted .
S. Thane: Or relocating the garage . That's been attempted also .
L. Raymond: And he's not been able to do so. And that adding additional property on that side of
the lot is impossible anyway because if the neighbor sold a strip of land , to put it on record here, then
the neighbor would have an illegal lot because the neighbor only has an acre lot.
S . Thane : It would be creating a non-conforming lot.
L. Raymond: Creating one, so that we're stuck in that regard. And then we looked at the fact that
on the other side , what limited space he has is taken up by his septic tank and field , and that there are
Page 25 of 35
Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing 14 December 1999
three large evergreen trees located in what little space is left. And that these evergreen trees, and I
think we're all pretty much in agreement, actually adds to the character of the neighborhood . And
requiring him to take down those trees in order to locate a garage over in that part would actually be
detrimental to what we're asked to do . And that would detract from the neighborhood.
J. Pachai: And the other area that is left over would barely allow for the replacement - -
L. Raymond: Replacement of the septic field if they ever had to. Yes. So we -- are there other topics
we ought to be dealing with here on alternatives? I don't think of any.
J. Pachai: I think we've covered them pretty tightly . Other than asking him to tear off his deck or
something like that. And that doesn't make sense to me .
M. Decker: Actually, we can't write it down, but it will enhance the character of the neighborhood
by not, you know --
L. Raymond: Yes. It probably will add to the value of his house, actually, to have a garage there for
the future. And that's one of the things we are supposed to look at is impact on neighborhood values,
property values . So we want to have then our Finding # 5: The ZBA finds, based on the hearing record,
that alternatives have been explored and found not to be viable options. Which is a good statement I
think, because what it says if we say it that way is yes, technically, yes he could tear down his deck.
Yes, he could tear down the trees. He could tear half his house down if he wanted to. And ,
technically, that is true, but we're saying is that these are not viable options . So I think that's a good
way to say it. Are we in agreement on that? All right. Joan, have you got that?
J. Fitch: The ZBA finds, based on the hearing record, that alternatives have been explored and
found not to be viable options.
L. Raymond: Okay, we've taken care of that one . Now the environmental impacts - - we have the
same thing as we had before -- and we just want to state for the record here that this is exempt from
review under 6NYCRR Part 617 Type II actions by the State in terms of environmental impact. We don't
have to make out an Environmental Impact Assessment. And we've already dealt with the roof runoff
and drainage implications as far as a condition under how substantial the difference is.
J. Pachai: That was my main concern when we were up there looking at the site . There's a swale,
a nice little spot in there .
L. Raymond: All right. Finding #6: The ZBA concerns about roof runoff and drainage have been
addressed and satisfied in Finding #4 (see conditions in #4) . And we have a second sentence here, just
Page 26 of 35
Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing 14 December 1999
for the record: The proposed garage is exempt from SEAR review for Type II actions. Actually I think
that's all we have to say; everybody knows what that is. And that will go for the record that we've
looked at it. That's what the told us in Ellenville in the training session we were at down there, that if
we decide it's exempt just put it in and make sure you let them know that you did look at it and
considered that, and that it's in the record. All right. The last one then is whether the action was
self-created . Did the applicant undertake this knowing in advance that he had a non-conforming lot,
and knowing darn well that he couldn't build a garage there without having to ask for a variance?
What are we going to say about that? As we stated before --
J. Pachai: It is self-created.
L. Raymond: It was self-created, based on the fact that the applicant is assumed, under the law, to
know what the regulations are in the district where he lives, or can find out if he doesn't.
M. Decker: He actually hasn't started anything yet, has he?
L. Raymond: No, contrary to some other folks.
M. Decker: He just cut a tree down which was his own tree. So he inquired and knew what he
had to do, I think.
L. Raymond: So Finding #7 -- we just simply got to say the need for a variance was self-created .
And of course , as I stated, our finding that doesn't mean we have to turn down the variance . It's just
that we have to indicate that. Well, so we have seven findings in here, and where are we coming out?
It looks like we're coming out to probably give both the height and side-lot variance based on the
findings that we have . Certainly it doesn't have any of the things that the previous case had --
encroachment on the highway, and he's not digging back into the bank anywhere . He's not building
an outsize building, 50 by 50, or going to any extraordinary height. So none of the things that came to
play that we discussed so long in the other one comes to play here at all .
M. Decker: The structure itself is very common to every other accessory structure in the area. It's
just that he's got to build it on a non-conforming lot which means he has to scrunch it in. And he's
doing it with the least amount of impact on everything and everybody, basically.
L. Raymond: Yes. So our final thing here is the charge we have of balancing the Town and
neighborhood interests against what the applicant wants to do. And it looks like it comes out that the
applicant is not going to detract from the long-term Town or neighborhood interests. In fact, he may
even be contributing -- the other way around -- to it.
Page 27 of 35
Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing 14 December 1999
S. Thane: Now we have to make this conditional, don' t we , on a reply from the County?
M. Decker: Yes. I'm in favor of granting the variance .
S. Thane: Conditionally granting the variance?
M. Decker: But it's conditioned upon - -
L. Raymond: I don't know. Do we have to make two motions on this? One on the height and one
on the side yard I wonder?
J. Pachai: I move that we grant both variances as requested , with the conditions set relative to
providing eave troughs on the west side of the garage with drainage running away from the neighboring
property, and --
L. Raymond: Now wait a minute here .
M. Decker: Does it have to be restated in there even though it's a condition in there?
S. Thane : It wouldn't hurt.
L. Raymond: Both variances granted as requested, with conditions as stated to reduce any impact
from runoff -- how about that? Because it's already stated in the findings what those conditions are .
M. Decker: What John is saying though , is that basically in our statement of granting the
variance , the condition probably needs to be --
L. Raymond: Oh , I see what you mean. All right. Okay. It needs to be restated . How did you want
to state that? This will be your motion. We'll make it your motion.
J. Pachai: Relative to providing an eave trough on the west side of the roof L. Raymond: Installing and maintaining .
J. Pachai: Yes. An eave trough on the west side of the roof, with drainage L. Raymond: With discharge -- I'm in Water Resources at Cornell and that's what we talk about --
discharges, you know. With discharge directed away from neighboring property.
Page 28 of 35
Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing 14 December 1999
S . Thane: I think it should be properties because there are two that come right in that corner.
J. Pachai: But there's no way - - you've been out there and that kinds of drop off. It's going to go
that way no matter what you do . It's going to go back. So I think if we confine ours to the drainage to
the south -- to the north rather. With drainage so as to minimize flow onto adjacent properties.
L. Raymond: Wait a minute -- with discharge directed so as to minimize impacts onto adjacent
properties.
J. Pachai: I think we need to read that whole thing over again to see how we're going to phrase L. Raymond: Yes, because this is going to be your motion, John, so we've got to make sure we've got
it the way you want it.
J. Pachai: That's why I said that -- that's why I want to hear the whole thing again so we can
plug that in in a reasonable way.
L. Raymond: Conditioned on receipt of -- well, approval I guess, from the County Planning Board.
M. Decker: Is that what they send us? An approval?
J. Pachai: It's really a statement of no impact.
L. Raymond: Yes. They gave a statement of no impact which means they have no -- well, we can do
that. We can say statement of no impact?
S . Thane: Right.
L. Raymond: Yes, that's officially the way they do it.
J. Pachai: As long as the County feels there's no impact.
S . Thane: They even say they have no interest in it.
L. Raymond: No impact from County Planning Board . Maybe it's the County Planning Department;
it's not really the Board that really does that. It's the County Planning Department, There, Now,
John, this is going to be your motion so we want to get it where you want it. Joan, do you want to
read back what his motion is.
Page 29 of 35
Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing 14 December 1999
J. Fitch: John Pachai -- I move that we grant both variances as requested , conditioned up
installing and maintaining eave troughs on the west side of the structure, with discharge directed so as
to minimize impact on adjacent properties, and also conditioned upon receipt of a statement of no
impact from the Tompkins County Planning Department,
J. PachaL Sounds good .
L. Raymond: I would suggest an amendment to your motion here. That we grant both variances --
maybe we should spell it out -- that we grant - -
J. Fitch: You said "as requested , " so then you wouldn't need "as requested" because that would
be redundant.
L. Raymond: Oh, I see what you mean. Yes. Maybe that would go. Is that okay with you for a
motion?
J. Pachai: Yes,
L. Raymond: Okay, we'll leave it that way. Now we have a motion. Anybody got a second?
M. Decker: Second.
L. Raymond: We've got a second over here. Do we have any further discussion on the motion? All
right. I guess we're ready to vote then. Joan , do you want to call the roll?
J. Fitch: Lyle Raymond .
L. Raymond: Aye,
J. Fitch: John Pachai ,
J. Pachai: Aye,
J. Fitch: Mary Decker,
M. Decker: Aye,
J. Fitch: Steve Thane ,
Page 30 of 35
Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing 14 December 1999
S. Thane : Aye,
L. Raymond: Okay. You have your variances, Dale . I have five days, as Chairman , to put in a
summary of the findings. Joan will have the full record, but I have to put a summary of the record and
what our action is on the variance . I get it into the Town Office. And as soon as that's in the Town
Office, and Mark gets that, then Mark is free to accept the application for the permit, you see, and can
act on the permit. He's already got the application for the permit, and you would have the variance .
Therefore, he can act on it. He has not been able to act on it until we gave the variance.
Other Matters
L. Raymond: Now I have two other items I want to deal with before we close our meeting. We're not
closing the meeting yet. In looking over the map, if you go back to the map of zones, given the
purposes of the various districts, the way it's set right now, Mr. Lane is in a Rural Agricultural District,
And I think this is ridiculous . That neighborhood there, with Roman Village there, is no damn Rural
Agricultural District. Instead, the L1 District should be extended a little bit farther up the road
probably to connect with the Industrial District there. Do we want to, as ZBA members, to recommend
to the Planning Board and the Town Board that a Zoning Map change be considered in this particular
area since we've had a case here and we've had an occasion to look at it very closely? Because when I
went down and looked at Mr. Lane's property, I just kept thinking - - yes, you know, this doesn't fit a
mix of farming and residential. We could make a formal resolution as a vote of the members and I could
pass it on, or if you want, I could just write letter indicating that we've discussed it and are in
agreement, whichever you want to do . Or, if you don't agree, why we won't do it that way. So I don't
know. I just tossed it out.
S . Thane: Do we have definite boundaries as to where you think that might go?
L. Raymond: Well, the Ll zone was set at 2000 foot, you can see, in a ring all the way around the
Village boundaries. Well, then the Industrial Zone is 1000 foot off Route 38 -- 1000 up one way and
5000 -- sorry --
S . Thane: By 1000 wide, right?
L. Raymond: One-thousand wide and it comes up 5000, that's right. Now we can simply say that --
I don't know as we have to. It's not our business to spell it out. We could just say that this zone is
zoned inappropriately, that's all. It's up to the Planning Board and Town Board to deal with that.
Page 31 of 35
Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing 14 December 1999
J. Pachai: Well , it's a typical fringe zone because you've got that large warehouse with the
construction materials and whatnot sitting opposite the intersection of Old Stage and Clark Road .
You've got a church . You've got a bar. And you've got a number of residences. So --
L. Raymond: The Roman Village is in there and the church is in there.
S . Thane: Certainly that triangle could be --
J. Pachai: It would seem that that should fall into the buffer type of district which is really what
the L works out to be.
L. Raymond: That's really what it is, yes. It's not appropriate in a Rural Agricultural I didn't think.
But if you guys want, we could make it a formal resolution , or we could just say that, if you want, I
could just write a letter as Chairman and say that we've discussed it and everyone's in agreement that -
- to suggest that they take a look at this.
J. Pachai: I'm just wondering if that would have any impact -- I was thinking of the warehouse
and the construction materials. If that person decides to go into fabricating trusses or something like
that .
M. Decker: In here? I thought that was a --
L. Raymond: Well, Low Intensity District. It doesn't fit Rural Agricultural either.
J. Pachai: Right. I agree -- the question is -- it seems huge to me. Certainly not huge compared
to some big industrial warehouse .
M. Decker: Are you talking about the one where bow people -- the recreational thing back there ,
isn't there . A horseshoe something or other.
L. Raymond: That's right.
M. Decker: Is that what you're talking about?
J. Pachai: No . It's a large building that has construction sign on it.
M. Decker: Right next to Steve Holmes'? I can't figure out where you're at, John.
J. Pachai: Unless that's changed . There was a bunch of roofing materials stored there .
Page 32 of 35
Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing 14 December 1999
M. Decker: I can't figure out where you're at.
J. Pachai: Maybe I misinterpreted the sign, I don't know.
M. Decker: This is Steve Holmes. And there is the garage . There is the horseshoe place.
J. Pachale That's down below.
L. Raymond: Well, I don't know. I would tend to suggest that we --
M. Decker: I was wondering where you were at, John. That's the horseshoe gathering place. They
built that themselves . That's why all that construction stuff is there .
J. Pachai: I had seen construction materials piled outside after the building seemed to have been
complete, and I saw trucks out there that were construction-related for quite a long time afterwards.
So my assumption was - -
L. Raymond: Well , we are off the track here. We're discussing things that are the purview of the
Planning Board and the Town Board, not the ZBA. All I'm suggesting is -- do we feel as the ZBA, since
we had a case here , Mr. Lane's, in that area that there's a reason for us to believe or suggest to them
that they might want to consider changing the zone identification in that area? That's all we have to
do. If you feel there's not enough evidence for that, then I'll just drop it and we'll just let it go. But I
thought maybe there was.
G. Morey: Can I throw in a sidebar here?
L. Raymond: Sure , I don't see why not.
G. Morey: We are going to review the Comprehensive Plan ,
L. Raymond: Yes . That was the second item on my list.
G. Morey: If you have any concerns, throw them all in the pot. But what I want to do is do
everything at once to eliminate the cost of -- So if you have concerns, I would be more than happy to
welcome them. Not only this, but if there's something over in Peruville, West Groton, Groton City,
anywhere -- McLean . We could revamp everything. The Comprehensive Plan hasn't been updated
since '93, 694.
Page 33 of 35
Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing 14 December 1999
L. Raymond: Are we satisfied that this new supervisor here already knows. Is that enough? Do we
need to write a letter?
G. Morey: I would rather have the letter.
M. Decker: I think that we should put something in writing. At least to have it be discussed. I'm
not sure that --
L. Raymond: What do you want me to do? Do you want me just to write the letter saying that we
agree that a change in zoning is called for there, and that the Comprehensive Plan needs updating
based on our experience with the Eckert Hearing, and let it go at that? Or do you want to go so far as
to make a formal resolution of it.
S . Thane: They may increase it to 3000 feet --
M. Decker: Which might and might not take care of it. Perhaps bring it up for thought.
L. Raymond: That's right. That's exactly what I intended . Right. And to go any further officially for
us is to step onto the Planning Board's shoes and we're not the Planning Board ,
G. Morey: If you have any other concerns, even concerns that are popping up throughout the
State you would like us to look at.
L. Raymond: Throughout the State? Oh , I see -- things like we picked up in Ellenville . John and I
were both in Ellenville .
M. Decker: So you'd have to write those down .
J. Pachai: My feeling is is that we should get together and have a meeting to which we come
prepared to bring up some of these types of concerns that you've expressed here because , I mean, if I
went home and thought about it, I could probably come up with three or four concerns, at least. And I
think that's true of all of us . We could come in and talk about them a little bit, come up with a
recommendation, or a set of recommendations, from the Board that we would like the Planning Board
and the Town Board to consider.
L. Raymond: We could do that. We have a meeting coming up Monday.
M. Decker: I don't want to be here all night Monday night. End of discussion.
Page 34 of 35
Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing 14 December 1999
J. Pachai: I think after the holidays --
M. Decker: After the holidays.
J. Pachai: We could even do it in a more relaxed environment.
L. Raymond: Well , if we do it officially, we have to put up a Public Notice for our meeting. And
where we're holding it and all this stuff.
J. Pachai: That's fine . Let's call it a training session. Because that's what we're doing.
L. Raymond: There's another way, too. And that is we could pass by e-mail and other ways back
and forth between us.
M. Decker: I don't mess with a-mail . I get it, I look at it, and I do what I have to .
L. Raymond: But in that way, as far as I know, we're not trespassing on the rule that you have a
public meeting because it's not three of us talking together.
M. Decker: But I think it's time for a training.
J. Pachai: I don't see any problem with having it be advertised. It's just a business meeting.
L. Raymond: Indicate it's just a business meeting. Yes, we could do that. Let's think about that
and at the meeting next Monday let's pick this up again and see if we want to act on it. Then
everybody could have a chance to think about it between now and then .
M. Decker: As long as it doesn't keep me out all night.
L. Raymond: Well, now. What John is saying is a separate meeting. Do we want a separate
meeting? Think about it guys . Okay, with that, let's close our meeting as of 9 : 26 p.m. Okay, Joan --
we're done . If you can make sense out of all that, you'll do well.
Jo E. Fitch
Recording Secretary
Page 35 of 35