HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-10-17 Front yard setback TOWN OF GROTON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
PUBLIC HEARING - TUESDAY, OCTOBER 17, 2000 AT 7 : 30 PM
VARIANCE - ROBERT HYDE
Those present: Lyle Raymond, Chairman
John Pachai, Vice-Chairman
Mary Decker
Lisa McElroy
Steve Thane
Others present.9 Bob & Doris Hyde, appellate; Sheldon Clark, Town Councilman;
April L. Scheffler, to take minutes.
Lyle Raymond opened the meeting with the reading of the Public Notice .
"Please take notice that the Zoning board of Appeals of the Town of Groton, County of
Tompkins, State of New York, will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, October 1711, 2000, at 7: 30
PM at the Town Hall, 101 Conger Blvd. , Groton, New York for the purpose of considering an
appeal for a variance by Robert Hyde, 15 Hart Drive, McLean, New York, to site a detached
garage 1. 5 feet closer to the Center Line of the highway than is allowed in a Rural Agricultural
District. The appeal specifically relates to Section 342 . 2(d) of the Groton Land Use and
Development Code, which requires a front yard depth of 30 feet from the front lot line (or 55 feet
from center line of highway). "
Lyle Raymond asked April Scheffler if all fees had been paid. She responded that the
. advertising fee for the Public Notice had not been paid because the Town of Groton had not yet
been billed for the notice. Mr. Hyde offered to make a good faith deposit of $5 . 00 towards the
advertising fee and it was agreed to bill him for the remainder as soon as the bill was received.
The Board then proceeded with the hearing.
Lyle Raymond — As far as the hearing is concerned the principal task for the ZBA members at
this hearing is to hear testimony from the appellate and any other interested parties to this appeal.
We will ask questions to insure that the ZBA understands the nature of what is being proposed
and the reasons why the variance is being requested. At the close of the hearing the ZBA will
either ( 1 ) immediately reconvene and make a decision on the case; or (2) if deemed necessary
defer its decision to a later date as for. . . . . . . . The decision meeting is open to the public but no
further testimony will be heard after the public hearing portion is closed.
We have received one communication on this item. This is from the Tompkins County
Department of Planning. For the record, we have to notify the Department of Planning if any
requested variances or other activities are within 500 feet of a County road, a State road, or other
property of that type. The letter is dated October 10, 2000 :
78A Public Hearing Page 2 of 22 nctoher 17, 2000
"This letter acknowledges your referral of the proposal identified above for review and comment
by the Tompkins County Planning Department pursuant to §239 -1 and -m of the New York
State General Municipal Law.
The 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 the following general comments unrelated to our review under §239-1, &-m :
• The subject property is located in an Agricultural District; therefore, an Agricultural Data
Statement should be filed in the event that a farm operation is located within 500 feet of
the subject property and within the Agricultural District.
• The applicant should take care to control erosion during construction since Unique
Natural Area (UNA) #36, North McLean Marl Meadows, is located to the east of the
subject site.
Please inform us of your decision so that we can make it a part of the record. "
i believe that we ran into this Agricultural Data Statement the last time around. And it turned out
that Joan Jurkowich of the Tompkins County Planning Department subsequently informed us
that that was an error and an Agricultural Data Statement was not required for, I think it was a
garage wee were dealing with. it Nvas not re;used. This Ryas a mistake. i suspect that it may be
in here, this is my suggestion, I can't prove it, because this is just a form-type letter and they just
put it in everybody' s and they put that in there. But we do haVe to c,ieck that out Just to n'iake
sure since they did put it in the letter. i ex�i11 do that. But i am going to assume that tl,;s is not
applicable due to our previous experience. This is for the hearing record.
We hnvp. no other communications and April as secretary, I believe you will need a copy of this
17
letter for the file.
With that part over, we. open the floor here, first of all the appellate, Mr, and Mrs. Hyde. Do you
wish to make a statement in regard to what it is that you are requesting.
Mr. Hyde — I wrote down a few notes in response to your letter that you mail_ed to me .
Lyle Raymond — That was only to inform you of questions that we have to use to decide it.
Mr. Hyde — Then I won ' t address every question.
Lyle Raymond — You don ' t have to.
Mr. Hyde — Okay. Well, I' ll address the questions that I think may be pertinent. Can it be done
in some other way so that a variance is not need? Sure, I can build it in the back yard. That
would require me to construct a new driveway that I thought would be a minimum of $750. 00.
That' s three loads of crusher-run. That' s if I built as close as possible. I'd prefer not to build it
in the middle of my back yard. Where I have located it now is so that I can use my existing
ZBA Public Hearing Page 3 of 22 October 17, 2000
driveway. I would move it back farther but as the drawing that I put in with the variance shows,
my water well prevents me from moving it back any farther, or I would gladly do that.
John Pachai - How close is the well to the wall ?
Mr. Hyde - I brought it within 3 or 4 feet. I didn 't want to build it right on it, you know, in case
it needed work on it. I didn't think that would be a good idea. I left a leeway in there.
Lyle Raymond - The structure, according to the diagram you had here, is going to be 16 by 20 to
build. So the distance you have between the water well and where the line would be is not
enough to have it in there. That' s what you're saying?
Mr. Hyde — Right, right, well it ' s not enough to give me 55 feet from the centerline to the edge
of the garage.
John Pachai - The drawing' s not to scale.
Lyle Raymond - Is the 16 or the 20 feet going to be parallel to the road?
Mr. Hyde - The 20 feet will be parallel to the road.
Lyle Raymond - Okay. So, you have 16 feet plus whatever you have allowed for the wellhead, 3
feet maybe?
Mr. Hyde - I was measuring from the center of the road . . . .
Lyle Raymond - Yes, but you were going to have the wellhead . . .
Mr. Hyde - I didn't measure from the wellhead, no.
Lyle Raymond - Well, let's say you had 5 feet. I don' t know how close you want to be to your
water well . We ' ll say you ' re five feet from that and then you would go another 16 feet for your
width and you would have 21 feet. And you' re saying you don 't have another 30 feet beyond
that 21 feet towards the front lot line.
Mr. Hyde - Well , actually, I measured it tonight and I would still have 30 feet of front yard. Of
course, Hart Road is quite narrow. I have 30 feet of lawn, but I won 't have 55 feet to the center
of the road. From the center of the road to the edge of the lawn is 17 feet.
Lyle Raymond - So, with 21 feet you 're saying, let me get this correct, if we figure 5 feet for
your well, 16 feet for the width of the building, makes 21 feet. And then you 're saying you don't
have another 30 feet, or you do, to the front lot line? The front lot line is 25 feet, yes, the road is
50 feet wide.
Mr. Hyde - Okay, so you're going, so you consider the front lot line 25 feet from the center of
the road.
Lyle Raymond - That ' s right. And then you 're supposed to be 30 feet back from that.
ZHA Puhlic Hearing Page 4 of 22 Qctoher 17, 2000
Mr. Hyde - 30 feet back form that.
Lyle Raymond - And you ' re saying you don' t have that.
Mr. Hyde — Right. Correct. I don't have that.
Lyle Raymond — All right, I just want to itiake sure we have it all correct in' ' the record here.
John Pachai - It' s the Town' s right to have this easement, I would assume it' s probably a right-
of-way . But it is also 50 feet wide and so that extra footage is designed to allow to widen the
road, the shouldering, or whatever. Then beyond that, it is not our concern, but usually, maybe
on your deed or something, the utility companies might have a right-of-way of so many feet,
maybe 15 or 20 feet, who knows. The odds are that the right-of-way for electric and gas and
stuff is not supposed to be considered the Town' s . . . . .
Mr. .Hyde - There is an electric pole in place already, if that has any bearing.
John Pachai - What I ' m saying is, I' m only offering a suggestion, is that you might take a look
at your deed and make sure that they don' t have an easement beyond the Town' s easement that
would interfere with this construction. It' s really not our concern to deal with that, but I just
thought I would mention it as long as we were in that area of discussion.
Lyle Raymond — IS your telephone line underground?
Mr. Hyde - The phone line is underground.
Lyle Raymond - It' s underground, so they must have, when they went by our place they took
and easement beyond the right-of-way.
Mr. Hyde - You mean to my house?
Lyle Raymond - No, no along the road.
Mr. Hyde - No, it' s not underground. I misunderstood. No, we have a pole with wires.
Lisa McElroy — Can I ask a question for clarification here? Were you saying that we standardly
consider this to be 50 feet?
Lyle Raymond — That' s correct.
Lisa McElroy - And therefore this is 25?
Lyle Raymond - Yes, this is 25 , from the centerline to the lot line.
Lisa McElroy — Bob is saying that he only measured 10. Hart Road is narrow.
John Pachai — It ' s an actually easement, and your tax iiiaps will reflect, if you get one that' s
blown up a little bit, you can see it says 50 feet or 60 or in some cases 75 feet for a State road,
and that' s what an easement actually is. All of the codes and whatnot are based on the right-of-
ZBA_ Public Hearing Page 5 of 22 October 17, 2000
ways and the actual property lines and that sort of things, things that aren't real arbitrary. If
you' ve got pavement and the shoulder and grass growing in on the shoulder and shoulder widths
vary and that sort of thing.
Lisa McElroy - You' re saying that we consider this standard, the 25 feet.
Lyle Raymond - Right.
John Pachai- 25 or 30.
Lisa McElroy — But that would mean, actually, if we' re considering this a standard easement,
this 25 or 30, if this is 25 or 30 right here, then Bob has a lot of room here, even though it ' s only
10. But we don't care if it ' s only 10, is that it?
Lyle Raymond — No, it ' s supposed to be a setback of 30 feet from that, from the edge of that,
from here.
Mary Decker — 30 feet back.
Lisa McElroy — Right, but Bob is saying that he measured this and it' s 10 feet, but we ' re saying
not, that it' s . . . . .
Lyle Raymond - 1. 0 feet from the center of the road?
Mary Decker — The road is a narrow road.
Everyone talking at once.
Lyle Raymond — He ' s only talking about the pavement part. The road goes 25, which includes
the ditches and the area along the side of the road. Even though your deed, I know ours does,
says that you own property to the center of the road, they usually do, however the 25 feet, or so
of the highway is considered to be a public easement. You don't have any choice. You have to
give that in order to allow access.
Lisa McElroy — So it overlaps this line here, this lot line.
Lyle Raymond — Yes, well, it' s 50 feet that we' re dealing with right now. It will be 25 feet back
becomes the front lot line, what we call the front lot line. This is described in our Code as the
front lot line. It ' s the easement for the highway. Then we are supposed to go 30 feet more from
that. The structure has to be 30 feet further back. That ' s why it ' s a total of 55 feet from the
centerline of the road that we are talking about. 25 and 30 makes 55 .
John Pachai — Most of our front yards are sitting in the Town ' s right-of-way.
Lyle Raymond - Yeah, a lot of the older structures are closer than that and are grand fathered in.
Part of that is due to the fact that highways have been widened over the years. So what it comes
down to here, if I understand it, and let' s get it correct, you're about 15 feet short of meeting the
30 foot setback from the front lot line.
ZBA Public Hearing Page 6 of 22 October 17, 2000
Mr. Hyde - Correct.
Lyle Raymond — Now, you explained that you had reasons for putting your garage here. Are
there other alternatives that would be available to you and still have access to the driveway?
Mr. Hyde — Not realistically. I could put it on the other side of the driveway, but then I would be
setting it right in front of my house, which, you know. . . .
Mary Decker - When you look at this map, where about is your side boundary line?
Mr. Hyde - 10 feet.
Mary Decker - Out the end of your garage here?
Mr. Hyde — Right. I guess the Ordinance says 6 feet from the property line, so I can meet that
with no problem.
John Pachal = What is the distance from the driveway to the well ?
Mr. Hyde - I didn't measure it, but it' s not 1. 6 feet. To be able to put it perpendicular to the
road . . . . . . .
John Pachal - Well , what I was thinking was, I' d like to know either the distance of the
wellhead to the driveway or the wellhead to the boundary. Do you see what I ' m saying?
Because if you push the garage away from the driveway, push it beyond the well, so that it can.
be back from the front line . . . .
Mr. Hyde - Still going parallel with the road?
John Pachal - Well , the way you are designing it, you need to have your door here? So, I guess
what I ' m saying is, if we move it back here, so that you still have access . . . . .
Lyle Raymond — You're saying beyond the buried propane tank?
John Pachai — No . . . .
Everyone talking at once.
Mr: Hyde - I don ' t have 20 feet from here to the property line. I didn ' t measure it but . . . .
Steve Thane - What' s the distance, if you know, between the well and that buried propane tank?
Mr. Hyde - That ' s probably, I' d say 10 feet.
Steve Thane - So, there ' s no way you can put it in between those two.
Mr. Hyde - No.
Lyle Raymond - Now, on the tax map, I' m a little confused. You have two parcels?
ZBA Public Hearing Page 7 of 22 October 17, 2000
Mr. Hyde - Yes.
Lyle Raymond - It shows 1 . 7 and then it shows the road to the north, the house to the north of
you. That' s also _yours? So it ' s all one, but it' s in two pieces, but one property.
Mr. Hyde - Yes, when I talked to the Zoning Officer, or Code Enforcement Officer, he said it
didn't matter if I owned both pieces of property, that it didn ' t matter if I owned them both. I
called Mr. Gunn and asked him that. He said that it doesn 't matter that you own both pieces.
Down the road, if I sold it, then I would have a conflict. So he said to treat that property line like
I didn ' t own that.
Lyle Raymond - I know for some purposes, if you read the law, they are considered one
consolidated lot, if people own a series of lots.
Mr. Hyde - These aren ' t consolidated.
Lyle Raymond - Well , you would consider that. You don' t have to have it on the deeds. As
long as your deeds showed that they were all contiguous to each other, you would consider them
essentially as one property.
Mary Decker - They are two separate tax parcels.
Lyle Raymond - In this case they are two separate tax parcels, I suppose. How big is that small
lot?
Mary Decker - Looks like it' s about an acre.
Mr. Hyde - Just shy of one acre, 200 by 200 I believe.
Lyle Raymond - Okay, so there' s no way that you can adjust that property line on the small lot,
say to make it a little smaller and then have room . . . . .
Mr. Hyde - It' s a little less than legal now.
Lyle Raymond - Okay, you have it there?
Mary Decker - Yes, it ' s just a shade under.
Lyle Raymond - So, there ' s no way he could adjust the property lines here.
Mary Decker - No, because then you would be throwing that lot totally off.
Lyle Raymond - Yes, because that one would be out of whack. You would be creating a
nonconforming lot, which you can't do. The driveway, as I recall looking at your house, the
driveway goes back to the small building, straight back?
Mr. Hyde - It goes back to the edge of the back side of the house, parallel with the back side of
the house.
7BA Public Hearing Page 8 of 22 October 17, 2000
Lyle Raymond — Okay, and you have drawn on here at the back side of the house, a three foot
retaining wall?
Mr. Hyde - Yes.
Lyle Raymond — Okay, what' s the room in here, beyond the propane tank and still within your
driveway here? What space do you have here?
Mr. Hyde — Well, there is another retaining wall there. That' s a retaining wall .
Lyle Raymond - So, the retaining wall goes along here too?
Mr. Hyde — Right.
Lyle Raymond — Looking at your property, i didn' t see tbat.
Mr. Hyde — It goes from 3 , 3 '/Z , to 2 feet high. It follows the property.
Lyle Raymond - So, if you were to put a building in here, you ' d have to have like a downgrade.
Mr. Hyde — Or build it up.
Lyle Raymond — Or build up the foundation for the garage, or else you would snake the driveway
go down into the garage. But if you were to do that, what is your space here? Would you have
space anyway? I don' t know if this is to scale or not.
Mr. Hyde - I probably would have room back here, it ' s just, like you said : : : : :
Lyle Raymond — Yes, you' d have to fill in, either build up the garage or else make a driveway
that goes down.
Mary Decker — And that' s not what you want to do. You don't want a driveway going down in.
Lyle Raymond — I know, I'm just looking at all alternatives here. We ' re supposed to examine all
the alternative.
John Pachat - Is there a particular reason why you have it the long way with the road? In other
word, if you rotate it so that your door was, if you came out of the garage, and the door was
facing the road and you had an "L" attachment to the balance of your driveway, is that. . . . ?
Lisa McElroy — It' s not wide enough. There ' s not enough room.
Everyone talking at once:
Mr. Hyde - I only have the 16 feet from the well .
Jahn Pachal — I see. And the properties don't allow for the setback
ZBA Public Hearing Page 9 of 22 October 17, 2000
Mr,, Hyde — Right. 'There' s not enough room here to stick it in lengthwise. And then the
property line would avoid me from that.
John P'achat — Right. That ' s about 31 feet, . . . . . . . I can see where that wouldn 't be reasonable.
Lyle Raymond — In looking at your property here, your other alternatives appear to be that you
would have to go on the other side of the house.
Mr. Hyde — Right.
Lyle Raymond — And you do have room there, I assume? I saw, if I read the map right, is that
correct?
Mr. Hyde — There would be room there.
Lyle Raymond — You would have room there, but you 'd have to make a second driveway.
Some discussion of area on other side of the house.
Mr. Hyde — This is a garage we' d like to park my son ' s car in so he doesn 't, I mean that' s half
the reason to have a garage there. I mean, I don 't want to have to fight . . . . .
Lisa McElroy — Also, I' ve seen the house and I think that aesthetically putting it on that side of
the house just wouldn't look good.
Mr. Hyde — That plays into it, in our plan.
Steve Thane — I know we discussed it a lot, but if this goes in, as is, this measurement is correct,
40 feet from the centerline to the edge of the garage?
Mr. Hyde — 40 feet from the centerline of the road to the edge of the garage.
Sieve pane — Okay, so we 're talking roughly 30 feet to the edge of the driveway, as this is,
because of the road being so narrow?
Mr. Hyde — 30 feet to the edge of the road, right.
Lyle Raymond — Those two lots that you have there, let' s get back to that. Is there some reason
why you have those two lots in separate parcels?
Mr. Hyde — We bought them separately.
Lyle Raymond — Because we, on our place up on Old Stage Road, we bought more than one
former lot and we went to a lawyer and immediately had them conglomerated into one property,
got rid of that property line.
Mr. Hyde — Ivy mother lives in the house next door to us, which is irrelevant, really, but there is
a house next door. So. I don 't want to incorporate it all into one tax map. Down the road, I don ' t
know what' s going to happen. And if down the road, we want to sell the place . . . . .
ZBA Public Hearing Page 10 of 23 October 17, 2000
Lyle Raymond - Uh-huh, just looking at all the alternatives.
John Pachai - In that case too, we gave you a variance at that time based on the square footage
of the house being less than Code, and it looks to me, in driving by that you have put a porch on
there, it has a .roof on-
it . . . . .
Mr. Hyde - We have since, I have applied to have that variance wiped off. We have increased
the size of the house to meet Code.
John Pachai — That' s what I'm getting at. So, it is a marketable home and lot. I wouldn' t want
to try to cut into that myself because now it is a viable property.
Mary Decker - Now it' s all legal.
Mr. Hyde - And I think that variance was lifted? Do you have to do that?
John Pachai - I think the only thing you might have to do, and Lyle can set me straight on this,
is if it was put on your deed, as originally we requested, then you could have the restrictions
removed, but I would imagine that somebody would have to sign off on that, probably you, Lyle.
Lyle Raymond - That variance was given based on Elder Housing, was it not?
Mr. Hyde - I think that played into it.
Lyle Raymond - Which was meant to be temporary. The Elder Cottage itself was to be
temporary based on how long your mother was to live her life. That is the very basis, I believe,
well, you were the first one. Then after that we didn't have any more hearings for Elder Cottages
because the Town moved right after that to incorporate permissions for Elder Cottages into the
Code. There is a provision for it, but they are all , I believe, intended to be temporary, only for
the life of the individual who lives in that house. Then they have to be removed. I think that was
the basis for the variance. That was my recollection. John, what' s yours?
John Pachai - (Reads from minutes of that former hearing. ) The variance will be valid for the
life of the use of Roseanne Hyde. When usage ceases structure will have to be brought up to
current requirements for any other dwelling purpose.
Lyle Raymond - Okay, that' s what we did then.
John Pachai - All conditions of the variance are recorded in the County Clerk ' s Office as an
addendum to the deed and proof of recording be furnished to the Code Enforcement Officer prior
to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy.
Lyle Raymond - So we left an opening there.
John Pachai - Yeah.
Lyle Raymond - We didn ' t say it had to be removed. But the ones they put in now, these
moveable ones, they have to be removed after the life of the person who is using it. I think that ' s
ZBA Public Hearing Page 11 of 22 October 17, 2000
where I got that from. So, we did put that in there. So, they brought it up to Code and the other
thing is whether you have adequate frontage. I believe you do?
John Pachai - There' s more than enough frontage. The only thing is if that it is a tad short on
area.
Mary Decker - But that' s pretty common, because of the roadsides. You know, there are a lot
that started out to be an acre and then ended up being shy, just like this.
Steve Thane - Well, have we exhausted all the alternatives for putting this garage in?
Lyle Raymond - Well, I was just going to ask if anyone else had any other questions here on the
Board. Sounds like you don't, Steve.
Mary Decker - Just unless you went to the other side and then you'd have to change the
configurations so that you could set it back here, and I don 't see where . . . . . .
Lyle Raymond - Well, as far as the Public Hearing part, we don't want to cross over into our
decision here. But in the Public Hearing aspect, are there any other questions that you want to
ask of Mr. Hyde about dimensions or whatever? Is there anyone else who wants to make any
statements or comments?
As there were no other questions to be asked, Lyle Raymond closed the Public Hearing at 8:1 S
PM and the Board then reconvened to discuss what their decision would be.
John Pachai - I would like to make a point to start out with regarding the numbers. This is,
even though the house is quite a ways from Stevens Road, it' s still a corner lot. And 30 feet
doesn 't necessarily apply. 24 feet would be. In the Code, page 55, on corner lots one front yard
may be 24 feet.
Lyle Raymond - We're in the ag district here on corner lots, okay, one front yard may be 24 feet.
Okay. That still gives him . . . .
Mary Decker — He ' s still shy.
Lyle Raymond - Still shy.
John Pachai - It would cut down on it substantially.
Lyle Raymond - Yeah. It would cut 6 feet off the 15, which would make it 9 feet.
Mary Decker — He' s still shy, but not as shy.
Lyle Raymond - Yeah, that' s a good point. I missed that too. However, what do you consider a
corner lot? Because, look, if you' ve got a property that is say 10 acres in size and the house sits
a long ways away, can you still call that a corner lot when it ' s on two roads?
ZBA Public Hearing Page 12 of 22 October 17, 2000
John Pachai - I agree totally with the ambiguity of the term, but I am going by the illustration in
the Code.
Mary Decker - It doesn 't determine the size of that corner lot.
John Pachai - That ' s right. There are no dimensions attached to it.
Lyle Raymond - To what a corner lot is. So, I could have 150 acres and have a corner lot.
John Pachai - There is a definition on page 5 , a lot having frontage on two streets where they
intersect.
Mary Decker - There are no dimensions.
Lyle Raymond - That' s correct.
John Pachai - Perhaps we should mark that for when we are doing changes.
Lyle Raymond - As to how you determine a corner lot? Yeah, another thing to put into our
recommendations.
Lisa McElroy — May I ask a question? The underlying intent of the 55 feet is what exactly?
Lyle Raymond - John outlined it fairly well . It' s to make sure that in the future, if they ever
wanted to widen the road or make adjustments in the road, or if you wanted to put power lines
through or easements, that there is room enough to do that.
Lisa McElroy - And that' s a whole other thing, okay.
John Pachai - There is an aesthetic element too. So, after you get all of this utility easement
covered, you still have a distance to the road.
Lyle Raymond - This is a big problem in the small hamlets, no places for the road to go. If
something comes up and they want to widen the road, they either pick a route through the hamlet
or go outside, you ' ve seen them do this, or they have to buy and take down houses and so forth.
However, the number of feet has been arrived at, probably, by process of trial and error over the
years as to how many feet are reasonable as a setback.
John Pachai - And, in fact, when I spoke with Rick Case, not relative to this, but I spoke to him
in another case, the needs of the Town in respect to width, he did indicate that the 50 feet is a
minimal amount these days when you figure the roads need to be where, say, a development is
built on farmland, you ' d put in a regulation width or a typical width street with shoulders and
culverts. Now you ' ve got 15 feet at least or 20 feet of blacktop, a 6 to 10 foot shoulder, plus a 6
to 10 foot culvert.
Lisa McElroy - Yes, I see that now. Who pays the cost, whose problem is it if the road is
widened and there ' s not enough room there and it hits the garage or whatever? Is it the owner
or . . . .
ZBA Public Hearing Page 13 of 22 October 17, 2000
John Pachai - Yes, if there is a taking.
Lyle Raymond — There could be a taking, eminent domain. They could have the building taken.
Lisa McElroy - So, it' s the owner. So, that is a risk that the owner is taking when asking for this
particular variance.
Lyle Raymond - Yes, there ' s the assumption made, I believe, that the need for highways and
highway access supersedes the rights of owners where it is going to be an obstacle involved.
Lisa McElroy - So, in this case though, that would be the Hydes ' risk in the long run. It would
not cost the State.
Lyle Raymond - The reason how that got going, using eminent domain, by the way, is that a
long, long time ago, back in the early history of the country, you ran into problems where one
property owner would refuse to allow them to go across their property. So, if you did this, it
would hold up the whole highway for the whole community or the whole area, just over that.
The law, the courts, decided that this couldn't be done.
Mary Decker - All the new houses being built, they are automatically setting them back.
Lyle Raymond - Shall we do our usual here and do our list of questions? (Question #1) If we
were to give this variance, would it cause an undesirable change in the neighborhood, or harm
nearby properties in any way? We all know that usually that means will it cause harm to the
values of the neighboring properties, although it' s not restricted to that. I don 't see where we can
say that it would cause any harm to neighboring properties in any way whatsoever either through
value or any other thing.
John Pachai - It' s not the kind of structure that is going to be a problem in the future if there
does prove to be a development, then it can be removed.
Steve Thane — Moved or removed.
John Pachai - I' m not sure that my statement needs inclusion here.
Finding #l: This detached garage will not have any negative impact on the neighborhood
Lyle Raymond - Do you want to add a supplement?
John Pachai - No.
Lyle Raymond - So, that ' s our first finding. (Question #2) Can this be done in some other way,
so that a variance is not needed? Is there some other reasonable way to do this? Actually, the
law states that, where these cases get a little more complicated, that we ' re supposed to ask for
cost estimates. What would it cost Mr. Hyde, say to put it in another place, including changing
his driveways and doing all the other stuff versus the cost of putting it where this is. How much
of a burden is this cost going to be on the property owner. I think we can just kind of extrapolate
that probably according to the testimony he ' s given at the hearing as to what needs to be done.
7BA Public Hearing Page 14 of 23 October 17, 2000
So, on the other hand, you can take it as a straight out statement. Can it be done another way?
We would have to say yes. It can be done another way.
Steve Thane - It can always be done some other way.
Lyle Raymond - Well , not always, it seems.
Mary Decker - Then you are going to throw some of the others askew with that. I agree, but
understand that this is a very nice looking piece of property and if you start by putting a garage
on the other side, yes it can be done, but aesthetically, for this particular property you are going
to throw off. . . . .
John Pachai - To go along with what you are saying, Mary, okay, it could be placed in front of
the house but aesthetically it would be . . .
Mary Decker - That ' s a negative impact.
Lyle Raymond — Not on the other properties, but on him?
John Pachai - Whatever affects one property, affects all of them.
Mary Decker - On this particular property. In the long run, value is value and it impacts it all.
John Pachai - Visual character of the neighborhood would be impacted if it were placed in front
of the house. If it were placed south of the house, it would require an extensive driveway and it
would block the view out that way. The rear of the house, the cost of the driveway would be
expensive. Then on the north side, you would either have to move the well, move the retaining
wall or move the buried propane tank, all of which would be a considerable expense. If that,
being in the minutes is enough to support a statement that there are other options available, but
none of them are economically feasible or aesthetically desirable considering the character of the
neighborhood.
Lyle Raymond - We also, as a basis of our decision, as you folks know, are supposed to consider
the trade-off between the benefits to the property owner versus the benefits to the Town because
we represent the Town as whole. So, the trade-off here is a yes, there are definite benefits to the
property owner, as you just outlined here. Now, the Town ' s side, is this going to matter to the
Town? We just went through this on roads and that kind of thing in terms of protecting the
Town' s interest. To balance those things off, we come out then, if I hear you correctly, if you
put them on a scale here, a balancing scale, the benefits to the property owner are going to
weight the scale this way and the Town' s not going be heavy enough to counter balance that in
terms of its interests.
John Pachai - This is where that statement that I made that I suggested we not bother including
for the first finding might be usable in that it is a small structure that would be readily moved or
replaced with little cost to the Town if they actually needed to take it. That shouldn ' t be the case
because we have, as a Town, we have our 50 feet. If we needed more, based on the centerline,
based on there being 30 feet from the edge of the pavement to the building, and there is 15 feet
of clear property. So, you could end up with 75 feet of Town right-of-way and still not hit the
garage.
ZBA Public Hearing Page 15 of 22 October 17, 2000
Lyle Raymond - Well , there' s another way to look at it too, and that is that at the present time, of
course you don't know what' s going to happen in the future, but at the present time, there aren't
any houses across the road so the Town if they wanted to widen the road, could do all the
widening on one side. But on the other hand, if somebody else wants to put a house in there,
they are going to be able to put it in there within 30 feet of the property line on the other side.
And they could do that. We are supposed to look at the future as well as what the current
situation is.
John Pachai — I think it is a valid consideration because that area is an area where I could
foresee somebody coming in and building 20 houses across the street.
Lyle Raymond — So, again, if we are looking for the future, which we have to do, for the Town ' s
interest, it comes back to the business of, okay, is this structure so substantial that it is going to
be very difficult and expensive to move if the Town ever had to widen the road or the utility
wanted to go through there or an easement for telephone lines, gas lines, or whatever?
John Pachai — I would say it' s not substantial enough to be an impediment to development.
Finding #2: a) Other alternatives exist, but are impractical from an aesthetic and economic
standpoint as it applies to this property and proposed structure; and b) the proposed detached
garage is more easily removed or moved than a more substantial structure, should the Town
require this space for a road easement
Lisa McElroy — I think that ' s an important part if someone wants to build a house there.
Lyle Raymond — Yes, of course we have to remember though that once a garage is built there, it
can then be modified and made into all kinds of stuff.
John Pachai — I ' ve heard about that.
Lyle Raymond — So, the next thing you know, it' s more than a garage.
Lisa McElroy — He doesn't have enough space there though, with the well where it is.
John Pachai — He ' d run into a real frontage problem .
Lyle Raymond — Yes, well, let' s go on. (Question #3) Is the requested variance a substantial
difference from what is allowed? I originally was looking at it from the original 30 feet and yes,
there is a 30% difference there. But since we find out that it is a corner lot, that becomes much
less distance, so do we really want to say it ' s substantial ? We ' re down to 9 feet. I guess I would
consider 9 feet not substantial . I start getting a little concerned when it gets over 50% when you
talk about substantial here. Of course, this is considerably less than 50%.
John Pachai — The other thing when you consider how substantial that dimension is that we're
dealing with is that whatever amount that the Town might want to take on one side, they are
typically going to take an equal amount on the other side. So, 5 feet on one side gives you 10
feet total .
Lyle Raymond — That' s true.
ZBA Public Hearing Page 16 of 22 October 17, 2000
John Pachai — I have, over the years with this, I 've been getting more sensitive to the word
substantial. The way I tend to look at it is not necessarily, I look at it two ways, I look at it as a
number, like a percentage, and then I look at it as how substantial is this in respect to . . . . .
Lyle Raymond — As a comparison?
John Pachai — Right. And in fact, I think that is the more important consideration at this point.
I would say numerically it is substantial but from a functional point of view it is not substantial .
In other words it is not going to pose a substantial impediment to development, to widening the
road, or whatever.
Finding #3: a) We find that being a corner lot, this reduces the amount of front yard setback
to 24 feet rather than 30; and b) This means that the requested variance for setback distance is
not a substantial impediment to the Town 's interest
Lyle Raymond — All right, let' s go on to the next question. Question #4 : Will the requested
variance have a harmful effect on the environment of the neighborhood? At that point I need to
put in, just for the record, here, that this does not require any SEQR statement. This is under
615 . 5 Type H Actions of the State Environmental Quality Review Act, which specifically
indicates under Type 11 actions those that are exempt from having to file an Environmental
Assessment. It states, in Number 10, under this section, that construction, expansion or
placement of minor accessory to permanent residential structures including garages, carports,
patios, decks, swimming pools, etc. are exempt. You don't have to have an Environmental
Statement on that. We were informed in the training sessions that it is good to put that in the
records so that the credibility is there that you paid attention to it. However, at the same time, we
also have the option on our own to look at any other possible effects on the environment that we
may think of. To be frank about it, I can't think of any drainage problems, or access problems,
or noise problems or anything like that that could be environmental .
Finding #4: The ZBA has not identified any serious environmental effects.
Lyle Raymond — All right, let' s get on to the last one. (Question #5) Is the difficulty for which
a variance is requested self-created? That means that does the applicant knowingly set himself
up so that is can 't be done in any other way. This assumes that, the law assumes that the
applicant, no matter what the applicant says, that the applicant knows, or should know what the
rules are in the Zoning district. Therefore, if they had knowingly set up previous things on that
lot, knowing full well what the rules are, and knowing that they want to do this other thing, that
they want to put it in there. And then they come running to you and want a variance to put it in,
when they already knew that it was not allowed. Can we say that any of this applies in this case?
It appears to me, no, because I haven't seen any evidence in the hearing that the Hyde ' s started
out five years ago with the idea that someday we 're going to put a garage in there and we've
located the house where it is and the well and everything knowing very well that we' re going to
put a garage in there someday and we ' re going to have to ask for a variance in order to do it.
There ' s no evidence in the hearing that that was part of their plan.
Lisa McElroy — The water well being a real limiting factor.
Lyle Raymond — That' s right and at the time the water well was put in there was no evidence that
there was any thought at that time that it would act upon the location of other structures.
ZBA Public Hearing Page 17 of 22 October 17, 2000
John Pachai - I don't agree with that. I think the thing that was brought up before though was
that it doesn' t have to have any bearing on our decision, but if you decide you want to build a
garage, you decide you want to build a house on a parcel, that in itself is a self-created situation.
So, I believe it ' s a self-created situation, myself. In fact, even in my situation, which was years
ago, I agreed that that was the case.
Steve Thane — Did the Hydes build the house?
John Pachai - Well, that ' s not the issue. They want to build a garage.
Steve Thane - So why did you mention the house? I guess I ' m not following you there.
John Pachai — Did I say house?
Lyle Raymond - Yeah, I thought you did too.
John Pachai - Well , I'm sorry, I meant the garage. They want to build a garage. By wanting to
build a garage, and knowing the Code, the old adage of ignorance of the law is not an excuse.
And unfortunately that ' s legal-ease. So, they want to build, and they want to build it in a spot
that is not within the Code, that is a self-created situation. That doesn ' t mean that we can' t allow
the variance.
Mary Decker — Right, but what you ' re saying, I agree.
Steve Thane - You're saying that every situation is self-created. Just by the fact that they' re
asking for a variance it' s self-created.
Lyle Raymond - There ' s something wrong with that.
Lisa McElroy - I think the point is that Lyle is making is the person applying for this variance
with the forethought of sort of undermining the zoning code? Have they created a situation so
that they have to ask for a variance? And I think that the one thing that weighs in this case is that
there are a variety of other circumstances and that the Hydes have tried to put their garage and
would if there was another reasonable place.
John Pachai - The reasonable circumstances are things that are . . . . . .
Lisa McElroy - That are not self-created. I mean, where the well is drilled is not something that
is . . .
Steve Thane - Yeah, it is. Who put the well there? That' s my question. If the Hydes put it in,
sure, then the argument holds. It ' s self-created. If they didn' t put it there, it just came with the
house, then they didn' t create the problem. The previous owner did. It' s not self-created
problem.
Everyone talking at once.
Lyle Raymond - I can 't agree with that definition because one, as you say, everything would be
self-created with that definition. And I don 't think the State meant that when they put that in
ZBA Public Hearing Page 18 of 22 October 17, 2000
there. They wouldn't put it in if that was the case . If there weren't some things that were not
self-created, then why even have the question in there?
1
John Pachai - The thing is that it could be put in another location.
Mary Decker - Yes. In this particular case I think that what John is trying to say is that we are
not dealing with a side yard set back on the house, south side of 10 feet and a setback of 10 feet.
We' re dealing with 13 '/2 acres. Now, when you want to say I want to set the garage here, that
has to be self-created because you do have choices. There are reasons why we ' re not going to
use them, right? But there are choices in this particular instance.
Lyle Raymond - There are choices that are less unavailable that they don' t want to use, but they
are there. Therefore, the fact that they want to put it in this place makes it self-created.
Mary Decker - I would look at it from that point. I think that is what John was trying to say.
Steve Thane - You could put it on Champlin Road, but that ' s impractical .
Mary Decker - Yes that' s another impractical . . . . .
John Paehat - We have already ascertained there are other options but they are impractical from
the Hydes ' prospective.
Mary Decker - And, like you said, just because it' s self-created, that does not stop us from
giving the variance. It' s just a question that we have to answer and then weigh all five of the
questions and answers.
Lyle Raymond - That' s right, we are supposed to weigh it, but we don 't have to necessarily. I
guess I come back to the point though that the State wouldn 't have that question in there unless
there were cases where it is not self-created. You can 't say they all are.
Mary Decker - Well, that' s true, but in this particular . . . . .
Lisa McElroy - I think this line of argument sort of undermines our previous response to the
issue of could this be done in some other reasonable way. We 've already said that there really
isn't another reasonable way to do this. So, it' s not a case that he' s setting himself up in the
sense that there are actual constraints on his property. He would do it some other way, if it
weren't for the restraints that we ' ve already agreed upon as problematic.
Steve Thane - I'm not sure I like the idea of saying that this is self-created.
Lisa McElroy - I think we ' ve already agreed with the Hydes that these restraints are real ones.
And I think that Mr. Hyde has, in fact, underestimated the cost to put it in another location. It ' s
not just the driveway costs, but there' s this problem of having to move earth or build up earth,
which I think would be pretty substantial, also to move his retaining wall.
John Pachai - I don 't want to belabor the issue tonight_ I hesitate to say it, because I can't recall
the particular cases off the top of my head, but the case law that I have looked at regarding
whether something is self-created or not that this, in my estimation, as in most of the cases that
ZBA Public Hearing Page 19 of 22 October 17, 2000
we have, is self-created. I wish I could substantiate that with some case law, but I just can' t
remember.
Lyle Raymond - Could you give an example of where case law shows that it wouldn't be self-
created?
John Pachai - If I thought about it.
Lyle Raymond - Well , I ' m going back to my assumption that the State wouldn't have that
requirement, ask that question in there, unless there has to be some cases where they are not.
Otherwise, there is no reason to ask the question.
John Pachai - If there is a building lot that you own and the State comes by and widens the road
and takes a portion of that lot and it becomes less than legal . You have purchased that building
lot with the idea of putting a house on it, the State has taken a portion of it, now you have a lot
that is substandard by Code, and you are going to build a house on it. Now you have a situation
where you didn't create the problem because there was a taking. There ' s one. It' s not case law;
it' s just an example.
Lyle Raymond — Right. This is what I was trying to get at here, are there reasonable examples
where they wouldn't be self-created.
Lisa McElroy - Well that mean that only acts of God or the Highway Department, I mean that' s
a very small . . . . . . but that' s a very small percentage of circumstances, something that is just
completely out of control of the property owner.
John Pachai - I think that' s why when they set up the conditions, they actually have a statement
in the State statute after they mention was the hardship self-created. They say after that, self-
creation does not preclude the granting of the variance. I think that' s why they throw that
sentence in, because some things are.
Lyle Raymond — But they also want you to consider it though.
John Pachai — Exactly, and now we are considering just the concept.
Lyle Raymond - You know, I think the next training session that I get into will be an
opportunity. I' m going to raise this question as to a definition of self-created. I think there is a
real question here. We ' re tied up on that. The thing is, we are supposed to show that we
answered that question. Are we going to say it ' s self-created or not?
John Pachai — Maybe we should answer it in a split fashion where we look at the substantialness
of the variance request. Is it self-created from a perspective that . . . . . in respect to space? No, I
don't like the way that sounds . . . . . .
Lisa McElroy - Is self-created, Lyle, somehow getting at the concept of negligence or poor
judgment on the part of the property owner?
Lyle Raymond - I think that could be one possible part of it. I don't think that' s all of it. I think
it includes that, but they also assume that the property owner knows the rules and proceeded,
ZBA Public Hearing Page 20 of 22 October 17, 2000
deliberately, in such a way that those rules are violated and then they come asking for a variance,
when it could be shown that they already knew. At least that is my interpretation of what I have
seen so far, and it' s not enough, to solve our question here. I think we need a meeting to get one
of our attorneys from Albany. I do go to the New York Planning Federation training session this
year down in the Catskills and that would be a question to ask, about what their definition of
self-created is. Or I could call him on the phone. It would be a good question for you, John,
why don 't you call him up on it? Okay, so what are we going to do folks? We still need to
answer the question.
John Pachai — There are five of us . Let ' s vote on it if you want to get it over with in a hurry.
Lyle Raymond — All right, I will say that it is self-created.
Lyle Raymond, John Pachai , and Mary Decker voted that it was self-created.
Lisa McElroy and Steve Thane voted that it was not self-created.
Finding #5: The need to request a variance is self-created bu a vote of 3 to 2 among the ZBA
members
Lyle Raymond — Those are our five questions. Now we come to the juncture of do we grant the
variance or not. I guess based on the answers to our questions, it sounds like we are going to
grant the variance, doesn't it?
Steve Thane — Could you read the findings, so that we have them all ?
Lyle Raymond read back the five findings for the benefit of the Board.
RESOLUTION - GRANT VARIANCE TO ROBERT HYDE
MOVED by John Pachai, seconded by Mary Decker.
Ayes — John Pachai, Mary Decker, Steve Thane, Lyle Raymond, Lisa McElroy
RESOLVED, that the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Groton, County of Tompkins,
State of New York, does hereby grant the variance as requested by Robert Hyde, 15 Hart Drive,
McLean, NY, in the Town of Groton, Tax Map # 37. - 1 - 1 . 7, to site a garage 15 feet closer to the
center line of the highway than is allowed in a Rural Agricultural District. Said variance
specifically relates to § 342 . 2 (d) of the Town of Groton Land Use and Development Code,
which requires a front yard depth of 30 feet from the front lot line (or 55 feet from the center line
of the highway).
ZBA Public Hearing Page 21 of 22 October 17, 2000
Lyle Raymond — We need a motion to approve the minutes of our last working session, unless
you want to make changes. John had a point and he wanted to make some amendments or
changes . It was that long piece that we came up with there.
Lisa McElroy — I was pleased with the results of our findings. I thought it was really good.
John Pachai — There were a few things I don 't remember discussing or agreeing to or. . . . .
Lyle Raymond — Well there was an awful lot of stuff there.
John Pachai — It was mostly right at the beginning. I don't have it with me, but if I could see
your copy. Most of what threw me off with this, maybe I didn't realize all of the details of
Finding #6 from the Rural Development Guidelines. Some of this stuff . . . . .
Lyle Raymond — Lisa asked that we include that, if you recall .
John Pachai — I don 't remember. I remember there being something in. . .
Lyle Raymond — She said, what was it from that booklet on the Rural Development Guidelines,
she wanted to have that section included so that' s what' s in there. If we want to change that ' . . .
whatever.
Lisa McElroy — I think it ' s a lot of information, John, if that' s what you ' re saying. I was also
thinking that those issues might be important enough to be over incorporative at this stage of the
game and as this gets passed on to the next body that addresses it then they can decide to what
extent . . . .
John Pachai — I understand. I guess I didn't think that we wanted to get into stone walls and
hedgerows and stuff like that. The other thing, it seems like, because it sounds like this is
coming directly from us, for us to say "small scale projects need less complicated review than
large scale projects" it just, a number of these just didn't seem to fit the more generalized
program that we were laying out. You start getting into, make sure you put the horse before the
cart, and that sort of thing.
Lisa McElroy — So, maybe we should revise some of it. Try to keep the gist of it and take some
of the detail out of it?
John Pachai — Yes, even if we just, didn 't necessarily specify this list and just indicate the Rural
Development Guidelines, period.
Lyle Raymond — Do you want to edit that #6 ?
Lisa McElroy — I think one of the things that caused us to err on the side of incorporating this
was my question to Lyle as to whether or not we can assume the body to which we pass these
recommendations will know all that stuff or be interested in or motivated to examine it. And
Lyle, if I remember correctly, didn't think that we should make assumptions like that. So, my
overriding concern was that we ' d try to preserve the flavor of the Comprehensive Plan. But I
hear what you're saying. It could be overkill.
}� Public bearing Page 22 of 22 October I ? 2000
John Pachai — Especially this bottom portion, which is getting into details on what color to pai +
your house, which is the way I see this. Some people may not. But whether you cut down your
hedgerow or leave it up or take down you stone wall or leave it up, it may disrupt the character
of the countryside, because the hedgerows look nice and stone walls look nice. But I' m not sure
that is an area in which I want to tread.
Steve Thane — Well, eventually, we will. A lot of stone walls are boundary lines, and it lends
itself to the aesthetic value of the countryside. If developments come in and things like that,
hedgerows being cut down stone walls removed, or stones being removed can cause a lot of
controversy. So, I just think back to this Sirens business. We were caught unawares because we
didn't have anything to cover us. Now maybe stone walls and hedgerows are a minor issue but
I' d hate to be caught unawares again.
John Pachai — I agree. In fact I made a comment during the meeting that we make some
revisions to the Code dealing with some circumstances, situations that may pop up in the future,
where I want us to be covered for it. I was thinking about things like dirt bike tracks and things
like that where you have noise or pollution along with other types of operations. We need to be
covered on them, but in respect to the Comprehensive Plan this kind of detail doesn 't seem to me
to fall into. . . . Only a general description of this sort of consideration would be relative to the
Comprehensive Plan. Then you get into the Development Code and you start getting into this
sort of detail .
Steve Thane — So you're not objecting' . . .
John Pachai — Pm not objecting, I just don 't feel that this sort of thing has a place in the
Comprehensive Plan.
Further discussion was held on the subject. John Pachai did not want it to seem that they were
getting into details that should be dealt with down the road, that they were just looking at
hedgerows and stone walls and not other things such as fences or development; or that they were
looking at some details and leaving out others. Others felt that the contents of Finding #6 were
important and wanted them to remain included in some way in the minutes of the work session.
It was decided that the Rural Development Guidelines referred to in Finding #6 be moved to the
appendix with a reference to "see appendix". Lisa McElroy wished to also add the sentence, " to
preserve the rural character of the Town. "
MOVED by Mary Decker, seconded by John Pachai , to approve the minutes of the minutes of
the Zoning Board of Appeals work session of September 9, 2000 with the provision that Finding
#6 be moved to the Appendix.
Ayes - John Pachai, Mary Decker, Steve Thane, Lisa McElroy, Lyle Raymond.
There being no further business, Steve Thane moved to adjourn, seconded by Lyle Raymond at
9 :23 PM. Unanimous.
oeo
A
.
April L. Scheffler
�I o C T 2 Ir 2000
jI 1 Gr:'d �r G', ra i 'J;!
L�TlC. ; CLERK