HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-01-11 Assessory structure height TOWN OF GROTON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Public Hearing & Meeting - Tuesday, 11 January 2000 - 7 : 30 p . m.
Board Members (*absent) Others Present
Lyle Raymond, Chairman Joan Fitch, Recording Secretary
John Pachai Todd A. Lyndaker, Applicant
Mary Decker
Steve Thane
Lisa McElroy
Public Present
Pamela J. Hart, Chris Hatch
The Public Hearing was opened at 7:40 p.m. by Chairman Lyle Raymond.
L. Raymond: Okay, we've gone through all the stuff prior to the Hearing. Fees have been paid. Mr.
Lyndaker paid his fee . I have the information packet, so I guess the Hearing announcement is the next
order of business.
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 January 11 , 2000 at 7:30 PM at
the Town Hall, 101 Conger Boulevard, Groton, NY, for the purpose of considering an appeal
for a variance by Todd Lyndaker,PO Box 24, Groton, New York, to build a detached garage of
greater height than is allowed in a Medium Intensity One (MI ) District on a new homesite
located at 656 Peruville Road (NYS Route 38), approximately . 48 miles north of the intersection
with Stevens Road. The appeal specifically relates to Section 342. 2(e) of the Groton Land Use
and Development Code which allows a maximum height of 12 feet for accessory structures.
Signed: Lyle Raymond, Chairman, Zoning Board of Appeals.
And with that, I guess, Todd, you've already heard who we all are . Again, I'm Lyle Raymond, Chairman
of the ZBA.
S. Thane: Steve Thane .
L. McElroy: Lisa McElroy,
J. Pachai: John Pachai.
L. Raymond: John is Vice Chair by the way.
M. Decker: I'm Mary Decker.
Page 1 of 18
• T
Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing & Meeting 11 January 2000
L. Raymond: Okay. I usually make a little statement here as Chair, and I made enough copies so
everybody has them tonight. Chairman's remarks:
The primary purposes of this Hearing are to hear an appeal to construct a detached garage
of greater height than the 12foot maximum allowed in a Medium Intensity One (MI )
District.
Thepurpose of the Public 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 why a variance is being requested.
The Zoning Board of Appeals is charged with weighing or balancing two basic things in
deciding upon an appeal for a variance from an 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.
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. However, ZBA members may request additional
information for clarification in deciding the case.
The Zoning Board of Appeals will make its decision based upon information provided in the
Public Hearing and five questions that are required by State Law and the Town Code. These
concern impacts on the neighborhood character, whether feasible alternatives exist for the
applicant that do not require a variance, how substantial the djfl`erence is between what the
applicant is requesting and the Groton Code, environmental effects, and whether the need for
a variance was self-created.
And that was the Chairman's statement here. In terms of communications received, since the site of
the structure that the variance is being requested for is within 500 feet of a State road, the Tompkins
County Planning Department has to be notified and given an opportunity to respond. I received a
response from them dated December 30, 1999, and -- wait a minute ; that's the notice to the Planning
Board. Sorry. Just a minute here . I should have he one -- I didn't open the one from it. Okay .
January 4, 2000. To Lyle Raymond, Chairman of the Groton Zoning Board of Appeals.
Dear Mr. Raymond: This letter acknowledges your referral of the proposal identified above
for review and comment by the Tompkins County Planning Department pursuant to 239-1
Page 2 of 18
Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing & Meeting 11 January 2000
and m of the NYS General Municipal Law. This proposal, as submitted, will have no
significant deleterious impact on intercommunity, County, or State interests. Therefore, no
recommendation is indicated by the Tompkins County Planning Department and you are free
to act without prejudice. The Department has one general comment regarding the project
that is unrelated to our review under General Municipal Law 239-1 and m. This parcel is
located within Agricultural District 1 , therefore requiring a completed Agricultural Data
Statement. Please inform us of your decision so that we can make it part of the record
Well, that's a new one on me. I don't know what the Agricultural Data Statement is. They've never
asked for it before, and our previous ones were within the Agricultural Districts as well . So I don't
know what he wants. We'll have to ask him. I wished they'd spelled it out a little bit better.
M. Decker: They might be doing something by what our real estate code is now. It's rather
interesting that that should come up . If we list land in an Agricultural District - - but that's the
district, not the Agricultural Zone -- we have to make a form out for that.
L. Raymond: You do?
M. Decker: Yes. So that people realize that smelly things take place or something, if the agent
fails to tell them before they get into contract.
L. Raymond: What is the formal name for that you have to do?
M. Decker: That's just an agriculture disclosure statement.
L. Raymond: Disclosure statement. He says here Agricultural Data Statement; I wonder if it's the
same thing.
M. Decker: I don't think so .
L. Raymond: It doesn't sound like it, does it?
M. Decker: Doesn't sound like it to me, no .
L. Raymond: I wish they would, in these letters, explain a little bit better what it is they're asking
for. This is certainly new. Well, whatever we do tonight then, we'll have to condition it, I guess, on
getting a statement. Are you coming for the garage Hearing?
C. Hatch: Yes, I'm with these guys.
Page 3 of 18
Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing & Meeting 11 January 2000
L. Raymond: Okay, here -- you need to sign in here .
J. Pachai: Well that's in an M1 District, isn't it? It's not in the Ag District,
L. Raymond: No, no. They're talking about the County Agricultural District.
J. Pachai: Oh , the County -- all right.
L. Raymond: Not our district -- a good point, but I think that's what they're talking about. Because
it says located within Agricultural District 1 , and that's not what we call ours . So we'll have to take
that into account here .
J. Pachai: Do we have the form?
M. Decker: Seems like they would notify us if, you know.
L. Raymond: Yes. I have received no notice or anything of any kind here.
T. Lyndaker: Chris is my contractor. Chris Hatch . Could you just tell him what we were talking
about with the agricultural thing?
L. Raymond: Oh , okay. Yes. The Department of Planning of Tompkins County has to be notified
whenever we do any of these because it's within 500 feet of a State road , State or County road . And
the Department of Planning then comments as to whether this will have any impact on County or
State interests. Usually they say no , as they did here. But they can say no and if they do then that
stops everything for awhile . So we don't have to worry about that because they're not doing that .
However, they did add something we've never run into before, that this is located within Agricultural
District 1 , this parcel. Therefore, it requires a completed Agricultural Data Statement. And we don't
know what that means. We've never had it done before , and they didn't explain what they mean by an
Agricultural Data Statement.
C. Hatch: Horses been on it for 30 years. The same horse.
L. Raymond: We'll check it out.
J. Pachai: I would have expected some sort of an announcement or something.
Page 4 of 18
Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing & Meeting 11 January 2000
L. Raymond: You would have thought so. You certainly would have thought so here. Well, the
next item here is the appellant's case and I am assuming the appellant here who's applying for the
variance is Mr. Lyndaker,
T. Lyndaker: Yes,
L. Raymond: And would you like to explain a little bit, in your own words, what you're up to. I
know you've submitted drawings and so forth, but --
T. Lyndaker: Here's some better drawings.
L. Raymond: Okay,
T. Lyndaker: It's basically a two-car garage with a workshop in it.
C. Hatch: Thirty by 44, ten-foot ceiling height. The roof is a 4 : 12 pitch .
T. Lyndaker: It was designed by Essex Steel in Cortland . Here's the elevation.
C. Hatch: This is a view of a pole structure ; I don't know if they know what these things look like
or not. She acted like she didn't. So I was showing her the poles in the ground .
L. Raymond: We have all been by the site and looked at it.
C. Hatch: Good . Did you wear your boots?
M. Decker: I drove by.
J. Pachai: You're talking a 15-foot overall height?
C. Hatch: Fifteen foot four inches from grade to the top of the peak.
J. Pachai: Okay.
(Board members talk amongst themselves; unable to hear conversations. )
S . Thane: So the 8 by 8 overhead door is facing the road?
Page 5 of 18
Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing & Meeting 11 January 2000
C. Hatch: Yes, and the 16 by 8 -- it did not show the windows and doors on that one . The only
structural door is the 16 by 8 because it is on a load-bearing side . So I did show that.
L. Raymond: And the reason that you're asking for it to be higher than the Code allows?
C. Hatch: So that the ceiling height is not 6 foot 4 inches. With a 30-foot width , the ceiling
height would have to be 6 foot 4 and the NYS Code says we have to have it 8 feet. So we went 10 foot
so that we'd have some clearance in there for a truck in there. And with a 1 : 12 pitch roof, that would
look really silly, being so flat.
M. Decker: Well, 4 : 12 is the norm.
C. Hatch: Four twelve is the norm yes . It looks nice , it sheds the water good.
M. Decker: And serves the purpose of this kind of construction.
L. Raymond: Yes. What else are you going to use the structure for besides a garage?
T. Lyndaker: Well, like you say, half of it is going to be a garage and half of it is going to be a
workshop .
L. Raymond: All right. Because it's a pretty good sized structure; that's what I noted . In fact,
according to your dimensions here , it's 120 square feet larger than your mobile home .
T. Lyndaker: Yes, 140.
L. Raymond: One-hundred and 40 you get?
T. Lyndaker: No, I get 40.
L. Raymond: Forty?
C. Hatch: The trailer, I believe is 1280 square feet.
J. Pachale 1280 and 1320 -- 40,
M. Decker: The workshop -- that's to be personal use?
Page 6 of 18
Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing & Meeting 11 January 2000
T. Lyndaker: Personal . Yes. I've got an antique Corvette I have and part of it's for storage of that in
the wintertime. Like you say, the other half is going to be just a personal workshop . I like to tinker
around on things. I've been a mechanic for the last ten years previous to moving down here, and I
guess you could say over the years have bought a few toys and motorbikes, road bikes, that type of
thing. And I just wanted the space to tinker on my bikes -- snow sleds .
J. Pachai: You plan on using it strictly for personal use, not for any commercial operation?
T. Lyndaker: Right.
L. Raymond: He is in a Medium Intensity One District, which is billed as being a mixture of
residential and commercial anyway.
T. Lyndaker: That's interesting to know.
L. Raymond: That's what you're zoned for.
J. Pachai: Got to have a buffer someplace .
L. Raymond: It states in the Code that extra care has got to be taken in this District because of
that, because of having the two types of uses maybe next to each other sometimes can cause problems.
So the Planning Board and the Zoning Board and the Town have got to take extra care in seeing that
there are no problems with this thing. Technically, what you've applied for is a permit for an accessory
structure. That's what's defined in the Code . And the reason I mention that is because accessory
structures are defined in our Code as being incidental to the principal building. And then if you look
what the principal building is, the principal building is generally the largest, most conspicuous building
on the site . And that was why I mentioned the fact that this building is larger than your mobile home
which shades the definition in our Code here a little bit. You wonder which one is the principal
building then, the garage or the mobile home? From the floor space and such . It's no big deal . I'm just
mentioning it.
T. Lyndaker: Square footage-wise, yes. But the trailer itself is longer.
J. Pachai: It does say generally the largest. It also refers to the most valuable . And it's not going
to be the most valuable.
T. Lyndaker: Right.
L. Raymond: Right,
Page 7 of 18
Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing & Meeting 11 January 2000
J. Pachai: So you're kind of on the edge.
L. Raymond: We're just a little bit senstive about this because we had a recent case where there was
really a humungous garage being built and we got into all this. So we're a little bit sensitive about it.
I'm mentioning it mostly in passing. I did note, however, and maybe the others did, that you have put
the structure up, part of it, already.
T. Lyndaker: Yes,
L. Raymond: Were you authorized to do that?
T. Lyndaker: I was under the understanding from talking to Mark Gunn that things would be okay,
and he really didn't indicate to us that there was a problem with it until he stopped by at some point --
I believe it was last Friday -- and then there was a problem. At that point, when we knew that there
was a problem, I told Chris let's just leave this until we find out what's going on here , you know, at the
meeting. As soon as I knew there was a problem, I made sure to bring things to a halt.
L. Raymond: Right. Yes. Usually, just from purely a legal standpoint, you are not supposed to go
ahead until you know whether you've got your variance or not. So we just took note of it. Digging
holes and putting in foundations, I understand, there is no barrier to that. That can be done anytime .
Putting the structure up was another matter. Maybe Mark mentioned that to you. I guess that's what
it was .
J. Pachai: Did you get your trusses up yet?
T. Lyndaker: Yes. It's framed . That's all. I stopped the framing.
L. Raymond: Any other questions from the Board members? Everybody's been by to see it. Usually
we don't get out unless there's a real question involved . We have on previous ones.
M. Decker: And we notify the applicant so that they know.
L. Raymond: Yes, we would not do it unless the applicant knew.
M. Decker: And we normally go as a group , so we're all there at one time .
L. Raymond: Some of the previous ones we did because there were more complicated questions
involved. There were questions about frontage, on lot side lines, and a bunch of other stuff, so we
Page 8 of 18
Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing & Meeting 11 January 2000
actually went over and visited the site. But this one here was so obvious from the road there wasn't
really a need to do that.
M. Decker: You've got a long driveway.
T. Lyndaker: Two-hundred or so feet.
L. Raymond: You have plenty of room acreage-wise, you're well back from the side lines and frontage
and all of that, so it's pretty clear what you're doing as far as what we're concerned with . We're not
concerned, by the way- - actually we're concerned with the height. And as far as the structural details,
that's really more Mark Gunn's under the State Uniform Fire & Building Code than it is us. That's
what you're referring to I imagine. He's the one that deals more with that than we do.
C. Hatch: He inspected the holes.
L. Raymond: Well , if there aren't any more questions, shall we close the Hearing? And as you
realize, after we close the Hearing we'll discuss how we're going to decide your case . You're welcome to
stay and listen if you want, but we don't take any more testimony although we can ask a question to
clarify, if we need to, somewhere along the line . Okay, the Hearing is closed at 7 : 55 p .m.
DECISION MEETING
L. Raymond: All right. Weil reconvene for our Decision Meeting at 7 : 57 p. m.
Approval of Minutes - Eckert Decision on 11 / 29/99
L. Raymond: And as you see from the Agenda, the first order of business here is to approve the
Minutes from the previous meeting.
J. Fitch: That's not the previous one .
L. Raymond: One of the previous meetings - - we'll put it that way -- this is the one where we made
the decision on Mr. Eckert. November 29th . Do we have any changes, or does somebody want to make
a motion to approve?
M. Decker: I so move that we approve the Minutes.
S . Thane: Second ,
Page 9 of 18
Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing & Meeting 11 January 2000
L. Raymond: Okay, is that without further discussion? We will consider it approved then. All in
favor? (All members present indicated in the affirmative .)
J. Pachai: I've never run into this before . I wonder if I should abstain because I wasn't here? It
doesn't make sense for me to approve.
J. Fitch: There are two of you who shouldn't.
L. Raymond: We're not going to worry too much about it, John. -
Selection of Vice Chair for 2000
L. Raymond: Which brings up , by the way, the next item on the Agenda, and that is the selection of
a Vice-Chair for the year. John has been serving, as we know, as Vice-Chair. According to the rules of
the game, the Town Board appoints the Chair -- and they've appointed me as Chair -- and then we
select our Vice-Chair ourselves, among our members . If there's anyone who wants to nominate anyone
to serve as Vice-Chair - - or if you want to continue.
S. Thane : Sure . I think John does a very good job as Vice-Chair and I would nominate him, if
he's willing.
J. Pachai: Sure.
L. Raymond: I don't know if this requires anything so terribly formal; it's just an agreement from us
and we all agreed , then, that John continue as Vice-Chair.
Lyndaker Decision
L. Raymond: And we've already affirmed that all the members have seen the site, so I guess we're
ready to go into our questions here . And the first question, as we know, is are there any changes in
the character of the neighborhood? And just to refresh our memory here, or if you've got the Code in
front of you , this is a Medium Intensity One District. It says in the Code it's predominantly residential
with a variety of intermixed non-residential activities where a wide range of controls will be necessary
to preserve land values and quality of the environment due to closeness of the structures and the
variety of activities that will be present there . So that gives kind of a background to our consideration
of this case. So since the request for the variance is for increasing the height of the garage beyond
what the Code allows, basically we are charged with relating that to whatever impact it might have, one
way or the other, on the residential character of the neighborhood, I guess.
J. Pachai: I say the change would be no greater than a similar structure that actually met the
current Code requirements.
Page 10 of 18
Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing & Meeting 11 January 2000
the first thing that we want to note here is that, under Finding #4: It is exempt from the NYS SEQRA
under Part 617 Type II Actions. And , for Lisa's information as a new member, SEQRA stands for the
State Environmental Quality Review Act, and under this Act we have to make environmental
assessments on anything that they specify needs that. And they have exempted houses and small
structures like garages and other stuff from these requirements. But it's always wise, we've been told at
training sessions, to point out in our meeting that we were aware that we're exempting it and that
we're aware of the SEQRA regulations . So this is just sort of a pro forma thing to put in there in case
some legal eagle attorney looks at it someday and says what are you guys up to. However, we are also
allowed, on our own, to look at any other environmental impacts that we think might be occurring as
a result of putting this structure in. That has to do with drainage and runoff and driveways and
things like that. And I can't think where this would cause any impact, unless you guys see one .
J. Pachai: Not I .
L. Raymond: So under Finding #4 we'll make a second sentence : No other significant
environmental impacts.
J. Fitch: That's not a complete sentence. There are no?
L. Raymond: There are no -- okay. Make it a complete sentence . Now, #5 is the last one , and that
is was this self-created?
J. Pachai: Ditto the last one .
L. Raymond: Yes.
S. Thane: I mean it is, in fact, self-created.
L. Raymond: Well, it's assumed that the applicant knows the district they live in, knows what the
Code is, and therefore when they ask for a variance, let's assume that yes, this is self-created that they
did this supposedly knowing what the Code was.
J. Pachai: But our response to that goes on to say that we also recognize that the shortcomings
of the Code L. Raymond: I'll just put down ditto, finding in last Hearing. We'll do the same thing. The Takach
Hearing, Okay. Do we have any other comments the Board members wish to make on this whole thing
other than what we've already discussed? I don't see too many burning issues that looks like they're
arising here . Well , then it looks like we're inclined to grant the variance, doesn't it?
Page 13 of 18
Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing & Meeting 11 January 2000
J. Pachai: I move that we grant the variance, conditioned upon completion of the Agricultural
Data Statement.
L. Raymond: I'll check into that tomorrow. Add as requested by the County Planning Department,
J. Fitch: Okay.
L. Raymond: Okay, John's made the motion that we grant the variance . Has it got a second?
M. Decker: Second .
L. Raymond: Any further discussion? Okay. I'll let Joan call the roll.
J. Pitch: Okay, Lyle Raymond,
L. Raymond: Aye,
J. Fitch: Steve Thane .
S. Thane: Aye.
J. Fitch: Lisa McElroy,
L. McElroy: Aye,
J. Pitch: John Pachai ,
J. Pachai: Aye,
J. Pitch: Mary Decker,
M. Decker: Aye,
L. Raymond: Okay, you guys have your variance conditioned upon until we get this Agricultural
Statement done, whatever that is. Now I have to write a summary and put that in the Town Office
within five days; Joan will do the long one. I'll probably do it a lot faster than that and have it in
tomorrow. However, since this is conditioned upon the Agricultural Data Statement, we really don't
know at this point what that means, so proceeding will have to wait until that statement has been
Page 14 of 18
Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing & Meeting 11 January 2000
done. I'm assuming it's very simple and pro forma and maybe Mark's already done it. I'll check with
Mark tomorrow. As soon as that is done and Mark has it in hand , the summary that I will prepare
saying that we granted the variance, then he can proceed with the Permit for you . That's the timing of
the thing.
J. Pachai: I don't think we'll have to get together and have a meeting for this. We don't know
what that statement is.
L. Raymond: No , I don't think so.
T. Lyndaker: Is there any chance that Mark is over here? He's here . (Someone goes to get Mark
from the Town Board meeting in the Courtroom.)
L. Raymond: We might. We've never dealt with this before, so we don't know what it is. It comes
from James Hanson, Commissioner of Planning . I'm going to complain to the Planning Department
that they didn't explain what this thing was. No preparation or anything else. We have had these
letters almost everytime recently because almost all the sites have been within 500 feet of a County or
State road. This is the first one that's had such a statement in like that. I know Mr. Hanson and the
staff personally, and I'll just call them first thing in the morning.
T. Lyndaker: Then do we call Mark in the afternoon, or L. Raymond: Go ahead if you want. I'll call the Planning Office and I'll see what's going on. And , if
necessary, then I can call Mark. But I will try to write this thing up as soon as I can tomorrow and get
it over to the Town office so that Mark can proceed on the thing.
Discussion of Proposed Meeting on Code Revisions
L. Raymond: The last thing on the Agenda here that I handed out had to do with -- John here has
indicated that he would like to see us have our own meeting to talk about problems with the Code that
we've identified . And as I indicated, Glenn has already indicated that he wants to have a Joint Meeting
of all the boards to talk about what any of the boards have identified as problems preparatory to
revising the Code and holding hearings, and all this stuff. So what's the general feeling on this?
S. Thane: How long does it take to revise the Code and go through the hearings and finally get it
in to the State? Six months? A year
L. Raymond: No, it doesn't have to . But it can , depending on if it gets caught up in a conflict. Then
it can .
Page 15 of 18
Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing & Meeting 11 January 2000
S. Thane: Did any of you read the article in the paper a few nights ago about NYS accepting an
international planning set of codes?
L. Raymond: Yes, that was on the Fire and Building Code,
S. Thane: And they were talking about, in two years -- I'm thinking if this takes a year to do L. Raymond: No, I think the Town, in fact, can probably, if they really wanted to amend the Zoning
Code in a hurry, I think they can do it within a month . They've got to do what we do. They've got to
give notice of hearing and there's got to be so many days to hold a hearing.
S. Thane: I think it's worth doing. And our Code certainly needs some revision . I was just
thinking that if it was a long process, it may bump up against this other one that's scheduled to come
in in two years.
L. Raymond: I don't think so. In fact, I don't think our Code's going to have anything to do with the
Fire & Building Code because we're separate from that.
S . Thane: Okay,
J. Pachai: The only thing it might have in it might be roof pitches, for example, and that sort of
thing that may have some impact on some, you know, structure height.
L. Raymond: But the major question I want to get back to is -- is it the feeling of the Board
members, this Board, that we want to have our own separate little private meeting -- it wouldn't be
private because we'd have to announce it as a public meeting - - to talk about what we see we think are
problems with the Code? Or are we satisfied to go along with Glenn and when he has the Joint
Meeting we'll bring it up then? I don't know.
M. Decker: I think it would be more beneficial if we did it prior to going before the other Boards.
S . Thane: I think so.
L. McElroy: We could present it.
J. Pachai: I would think so. The reason that I thought it was a good idea was we each have
things that we've seen, that we've run across, that we think maybe should be changed, and we could
take the time to review this and then present it.
Page 16 of 18
Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing & Meeting 11 January 2000
M. Decker: And do some brainstorming.
L. Raymond: And then we could present it as kind of an official opinion of the Board members --
our collective opinion .
M. Decker: And it would seem to me it would carry more weight right now. I read the Minutes over
what we've got and it seems to be quite confrontational between the Town Board and the Planning
Board,
L. Raymond: Glennn asked me a few days ago for another copy of that original letter that I had
written when we first identified this. This was just confined to the garages, as you know. Other
problems, like this business about the zoning which I raised and we talked about with Dale Lane .
Whether that's an appropriate zone over there, and some things like that that maybe we should also
deal with .
J. Pachai: The island there .
L. Raymond: So there are some other things. So if you guys want a meeting, I would be -- we'll have
to schedule it then and get a date for us to get here, and one with Joan, and so on . So gets your books
out and let me know when you're free here . We don't have any more garage variances as far as I know.
Mark hasn't said anything about it.
M. Decker: Jim and I are talking about building a garage and it's going to be the same thing . It's
to house a camper and a couple of boats, and the size is going to be 30 by 50 is what Jim's looking at.
J. Fitch: Are we on the record yet?
L. Raymond: No . I'm sorry. Well, let's keep it open 'til we get our meeting date . I'm pretty open .
J. Pachai: The 13th isn't good for me .
L. Raymond: We've got to give 5 days' notice you know.
S. Thane: We should talk about next week, then, right?
L. Raymond: This is the 1 lth , and the very earliest that we could put a notice in would be the 18th
in the Moravia paper. This means the earliest we could hold a meeting would be the 24th .
Page 17 of 18
Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing & Meeting 11 January 2000
S. Thane: No , I can't do that one .
L. Raymond: Tuesday, the 25th?
J. Fitch: No, but the 26th is fine for me.
L. Raymond: Wednesday, the 26th . Is everybody agreed? (No objections received.) And this will be a
business meeting, a ZBA business meeting.
J. Pachai: Can we limit it to just that?
L. Raymond: It will be a business meeting that's open to the pubic ; it's not a Hearing. And do we
want to do it at the same time, 7 : 30? (All were in agreement. ) Now one thing we haven't checked on is
whether the Town Office is clear, but I'm assuming we can hold it in here in this room. Okay. So we're
all set then.
Adjournment
L. Raymond: Do we have a motion to close our meeting, then?
S. Thane: So moved .
L. Raymond: Second?
J. Pachai: Second .
L. Raymond: All in favor, say aye. (All members present indicated aye .) Meeting's adjourned.
Joan E. Fitch
Recording Secretary
Page 18 of 18
/JCS /���, /�� ��� � %���
Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing & Meeting 11 January 2000
M. Decker: It's going to take a fine eye to know whether it's 12 feet or 15 feet to be honest with
you . By the time you get it sided and such --
L. Raymond: And even though the garage is of a fairly large size compared to the home , it still seems
to fit the residentical character.
S. Thane: The fact that the home runs 80 feet lengthwise, it really doesn't look out of scale .
L. Raymond: Especially since this is a mixed - -
T. Lyndaker: It's going to be white sided with a green trim.
L. Raymond: This is a mixed neighborhood anyway, so one of the concerns that we already raised
was whether a building of that size could be converted say, very easily, into a commercial type
structure. Well, in a purely residential district, that would be more of a concern . But this is not a
purely residential district; in fact, there's a business right across the road. Antiques, and so forth , are
already there , which is one of the reasons it was zoned the way it was, I think.
J. Pachai: It could be converted, but my only concern was, now that it was built as a residential
accessory structure and went through the variance process, I wonder where that would leave him if he
did want to open up a -- if he did want to hang a shingle . Would he have to go through --
S. Thane: A change in use .
L. Raymond: If he's going to put a business in there, he'd have to apply for a Special Permit from the
Planning Board, and I think that would take care of it. They would have to deal with it.
J. Pachai: But I don' t think it would be that much more than having the variance -- especially
since the Code's going to, hopefully, going to change to that extent.
L. Raymond: And a Special Permit carries with it Site Plan Review anyway. All right, are we ready to
come up with a finding here? Finding # 1 : The ZBA finds that the structure will have no more impact
on the neighborhood than a conforming structure . Joan, you got that down there?
J. Fitch: Yes. The ZBA finds that the structure will have no more impact on the neighborhood
than a conforming structure.
Page 11 of 18
Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing & Meeting 11 January 2000
L. Raymond: Okay, that's Finding # 1 . Finding #2 would be how substantial the requested variance
is from the Code. And I guess, in my opinion, I find that it is not substantial . Asking for 15 foot 4
inches over 12 foot is not, the way we've been dealing with it, substantial. And if somebody had
something they were putting up that's going to be 30 or 40 feet high , then we're talking about a whole
different class of structure , as we did on one of the previous ones that we had . But this is not the case
here.
J. Pachai: In consideration of the overall size of the structure - -
L. Raymond: I like that statement you made, John . Finding # 2: In consideration of the
dimensions of the building, the requested height variance is not substantial . All right. Let's go to
Finding #3 under alternatives that could be taken that would not require a variance. Well, obviously,
one that would not require a variance would be one that wouldn't be over 12 feet.
S. Thane: Build a smaller structure . Lessen the pitch of the roof.
M. Decker: But that would probably cost more to build because you'd have to increase for the
snow load and that gets to be costly.
L. Raymond: And considering that it will be used as both a garage and a shop , reducing the size of
it is not going to be of benefit to the applicant, because we're supposed to balance the benefit to the
applicant against the benefit to the Town . And in this case, reducing the size would obviously have a
negative impact on the applicant in much greater degree than any benefit to the Town .
J. Pachai: Given the planned use of the structure --
L. Raymond: I like that. Thank you . Finding # 3: Given the planned use of the structure and the
dimensions required for the planned use, decreasing the roof height to meet the Code would be
impractical and not beneficial to the applicant versus any possible benefit to the Town.
S. Thane: Would you just read the question again just to make sure we answered the question?
L. Raymond: How substantial the requested variance is from the Code? Oh , I'm sorry -- the
alternatives.
S . Thane: Did we answer that question?
L. Raymond: Yes, we did. It's in the Minutes, so we have that. Yes, we did. I only put that down
just as scoping, anyway, as you know. Okay, #4 would have to do with environmental impacts. And
Page 12 of 18