Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-04-24 N TOWN OF GROTON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes of Public Hearing & Meeting - Wed. , 24 April 2002 - 7: 30 PM Groton Town Hall - 101 Conger Boulevard - Groton, NY Board Members (*absent) Others Present Lyle Raymond, Chairman Joan Fitch, Recording Secretary John Pachai George Senter, Sr. , CEO Steve Thane Vicki L. Lewis, Applicant *Lisa McElroy Patricia Gaines Public Present Rosemarie Tucker, 499 Locke Road; Kerry L. Manzell, 112 Park Street; Chuck Rankin, 103 So. Parkway. FWIWII� PUBLIC HEARING The Public Hearing was opened at 7: 35 p .m. by Chairman Lyle Raymond who read the Notice as follows: Please take notice that the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Groton, Tompkins County, NY, will hold a public hearing on April 24, 2002 at 7:30 PM at the Town Hall, 101 Conger Boulevard, Groton, NY, for the purpose of considering an appeal for a variance by Vicki L. Lewis, 488 Locke Road, Groton, New York, Tax Map # 16. 00-01 -4. 812, to construct an addition to an existing nonconforming residential dwelling in a Low Intensity Industrial District which does not allow residential development. The appeal specifically relates to Section 346. 1 of the Land Use and Development Code on the intent of the Low Intensity Industrial District, Section 111 on Nonconformance Policy, and Section 113. 1 b on Nonconforming Activities in Buildings. Lyle Raymond, Chairman Zoning Board of Appeals Chairman Raymond noted that the required fees have been paid. The ZBA members present then introduced themselves to everyone. The Chair then acknowledged that he had received no communications regarding this case, nor did he have any statement to make. Chairman Raymond advised those present that the applicant had submitted, in advance, a written communication on her Appeal, which he read into the record, as follows: April 8, 2002 To the Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals: We wish to request a use variance in order to add an enclosed room to our home at 488 Locke Road that was built in 1994 and occupied 2195, prior to Town of Groton zoning changes that made the area where our house is located an industrial zone. Section 429 of the Town of Groton Zoning Law states in order for the Zoning Board of Appeals to grant a use variance, it is our duty to show "that applicable zoning regulations and restrictions have caused unnecessary hardship. " We will address each parameter that is required under Section 429 below: 1 . Deprivation of economic use or benefit. Under the zoning regulations in question, it severely hampers our ability to improve our property. A property with a non-conforming use will restrict us from ever making improvements to the property and increasing its value. This fact is obviously Page 1 of 4 a Minutes of Town of Groton ZBA Public Hearing 24 April 2002 inherent because an appraisal on our property cannot be completed until we know if this variance is granted. Further, if we should ever wish to sell the property, we would have to disclose that it is a non-conforming use, and under these restrictions, we feel it would devalue our property, being a new owner would be subject to the same restrictions. The zoning inhibits the benefit of general enjoyment of our property. It would prohibit us from not only adding the proposed room, but would also prohibit us in the future from adding such things as a porch, a shed, a swimming pool, etc. 2. The hardship is unique and does not apply to a substantial portion of the district and/or neighborhood. The additional room in question is 12' x 18 ' which is a very minute portion of the district in which our property lies. 3. Variance will not alter character of the neighborhood. The neighborhood, as it has been for many years, has many residential homes on both sides of the highway. The only industrial entity in our immediate area is Lewbro Ready Mix to the rear of our property. Granting of the variance will have no effect on the neighborhood, especially in light of the fact that the addition will be at the rear of the house, not visible to the highway. Looking at this from another angle, even with the Town making this area industrial, the granting of the variance in no way will be a hindrance to Lewbro 's operations or any other industry who may wish to develop in this zone. 4. The alleged hardship has not been self-created. As stated in the opening paragraph, our home was built in 1994 and occupied in 2/ 95. At that time, residential housing was an allowed use and the Town duly issued us a building permit. The Town of Groton amended its zoning regulations in May 1995, which made our area industrial. We are sure that the Town did not intend for this type of situation to occur when they re-zoned this area, but it is obviously clear that such re zoning is responsible for creating the hardship. In conclusion, we feel we have justified our hardship based on the information above, and with these facts we feel that the Zoning Board of Appeals can legally justify granting our variance. We thank you for your time and consideration of our request. Sincerely, Jeff & Vicki Lewis Chairman Raymond asked the applicant if she wished to say anything regarding her appeal. Mrs. Lewis then introduced Chuck Rankin who then spoke on her behalf. Mr. Rankin stated that in his work for the Village of Groton he had sat in on various planning and zoning meetings so was quite familiar with the procedures involved. With regard to this Appeal, he stated that he had read a lot of literature regarding appeals and there was "no secret formula for granting a variance ." Discretion and good judgment are paramount in making a decision; this is the key to this request for a use variance, he stated. He reviewed the intent of the Low Intensity Industrial District (346 , 1 ) wherein it states that fairly large tracts of land are required; the Appellant's property is 1 .25± acres, which eliminates most industrial/ commercial uses, especially since there's no public water or sewer available. This, he felt, would hamper any commercial sale of the property, and actually lowers the value of the residential use. Mr. Rankin submitted a letter from Robert Walpole, Certified Real Estate Appraiser, which purportedly supported this fact (no copy available to Board Secretary) . Page 2 of 4 1s Minutes of Town of Groton ZBA Public Hearing 24 April 2002 Mr. Rankin stated that the residence, as it exists, is not suitable for commercial use without extensive alteration or even demolition. Substantiation of any devaluation would require an appraiser, which would be cost-prohibitive for the Lewises. He felt that in comparison to other commercial/ industrial properties in the County that were available, the Lewises property would not be marketable for this purpose, especially with regard to parking required, no sewer or water, electrical service, etc. As an aside, Mr. Rankin stated that he found where keeping of a customary household pet was an allowed use in this zone, but "you can't have a residence to put it in." In conclusion, he said that the hardship was not self- created and was unique . He supported the granting of the use variance. Chairman Raymond stated that it would be easier for the ZBA if there had been someone with the proper credentials to perform an appraisal of the Lewis property who had said that "this lot is essentially useless, in my official opinion as an appraiser, for industrial use and, therefore, residential use is probably the only possible use that could be conducted there ." Mr. Walpole's letter did not say that, he reported. Other points made in the letter were certainly valid. Chairman Raymond stated that a letter to this effect would suffice and would not require the seeking of appraisals. All that would be required, according to the Chair was to have one appraiser to look at the property and determine its value as an industrial use vs. its value as a residential use. Chairman Raymond stated he had talked with Harry Willis, Associate Attorney for the NYS Department of State regarding this case. He asked Mr. Willis "if the whole residential lot could be considered as residential use in a non- conforming, or whether you're just talking about the building?" Because if the whole lot was considered residential use, then you weren't really changing the use by just adding on a room. Mr. Willis responded that this was not correct; that when the Town created the district and declared it an Industrial Zone, that all land immediately became Industrial outside of what is called the footprint of the house itself. Therefore, if you build onto the house you would be extending into the Industrial Zone in your own yard. Member John Pachai felt that the Code is saying that "the activities of a residential property extend beyond the house into the yard." CEO Senter responded that he did agree with Mr. Willis. He also stated that he had received a call from someone who lives in this same district who wants to build a home; there's a problem here. Also , CEO Senter reported that the Town Planning Board had recommended to the Town Board that they address this problem by changing the zoning to Agriculture to solve the problem. Chairman Raymond advised that the ZBA was charged with balancing the interests of everyone in the district. And, if set up as an Industrial District, the Board must look at the interests of the industrial and commercial users in the district if the use variance was granted; i. e. , the interests of the Town vs. the interests of the individual property owner. He further commented that the reason for setting up a commercial or industrial zone is, quite obviously, to separate it from residential use, mostly due to traffic, noise, dust, etc. As an example, "are the interests of Lewbro and Genoa Farm Service and the auction house now or in the future liable to be confronted with this?" Chair Raymond acknowledged that the Town Planning Board had recommended to the Town Board that they dissolve the Industrial District, which means that it will go back to a Rural Agricultural District where, in fact, industry is still allowed, subject to Site Plan Review. The Town Board, he stated, has already indicated their willingness to consider this change. Chairman Raymond recognized Rosemarie Tucker who resides in the neighborhood, across the street from the Lewis residence. She asked the ZBA to provide her with a brief history of the zoning in this area, which they did. She then stated that "I, as a neighbor, would ask the Board to allow them to have their variance. " She also said her mother also supported the granting of the use variance . Member John Pachai stated that he did not feel the granting of the variance would change the character of the neighborhood. However, if there was not strong dollar/ cents evidence that it would lower the value of the property, appeals do not "go in the favor of the applicant." According to Chairman Raymond, the State, in their court cases, "is really stiff on" the granting of use variances. Member Pachai asked CEO Senter if he would describe the proposed enclosed sunroom as a porch. CEO Senter stated he would not because it's an enlargement of a non-conforming building. Member Steve Thane asked for size clarification on the proposed addition; it states 12'xl4 in one instance, and 12 'xl8' in another. Mrs. Lewis responded that the correct measurement was 12 'xl8'. With regard to the deck shown on the drawing, there has never been one there . Page 3 of 4 Minutes of Town of Groton ZBA Public Hearing 24 April 2002 n Chair Raymond then stated that he felt the ZBA needed to pursue this case further, and needed to obtain more information, including some of the legalities that had been raised by Mr. Rankin. By delaying the Board's decision, according to Member Pachai, it would give the applicant a chance to submit further evidence. Chair Raymond stated that, by law, the ZBA had 60 days to render a decision and, given this is the Board's first use case, that they should delay their decision. He suggested that the Board would still continue to accept written communications up until the time of the Decision Meeting. The rest of the Board members agreed with this. Member Pachai stated that with "what we have right now, it would be to the Appellant's advantage for us to make a decision." Member Pat Gaines asked what the Appellant needed to do and Chair Raymond stated that perhaps one appraisal by a Certified Appraiser, stating that this parcel has such limited value for the legal uses that are allowed in the Industrial District that, obviously, the residential use is the only thing that would be of any value to the owner(s) . Member Pachai also suggested that the appraiser could make a comparison of what the property was worth when acquired vs. what the property is worth in the Industrial Zone as a non-conforming use, stating this at current market value. This may possibly show a depreciation in value. Chair Raymond concurred that this type of appraisal would also help satisfy the uniqueness question because it could then be stated that "this particular parcel is zoned Industrial, but its value as an Industrial lot is so small that uniquely it can only be used as a residential use." The ZBA has to be cognizant of the fact that they do not overstep their authority and intrude upon the authority of the Town Board who sets the zoning districts. Kerry Manzell, another neighbor, asked about "grandfathering." Chair Raymond answered that this would not apply in this instance because it is a non-conforming use, which is another word for "grandfathering." Chuck Rankin encouraged the ZBA to make their decision as soon as possible as the Lewises may experience a change in mortgage rates from what they are now. The ZBA decided to leave the date open to allow time for additional written information to be submitted. With everyone who wished to be heard having been heard, the Public Hearing was closed at 8926 p.m. upon a motion made by Member Pachai, seconded by Member Steve Thane , with the vote recorded as follows: Ayes: Chairman Raymond Nays: None Member Pachai Member Thane Member Gaines Absent: Member McElroy No Action Was Taken . eZ J Fitch Recording Secretary 5/ 8/02 RFr. FIVFn MAY 1 0 2002 TOWN Or btiU t uN TOWN CLERK Page 4 of 4 TOWN OF GROTON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS (ZBA) FINDINGS AND DETERMINATION LEWIS USE VARIANCE APPLICATION The applicant, Vicki L. Lewis, 488 Locke Road, Groton, NY, applied for a use variance to construct an addition to an existing nonconforming residential dwelling in a Low Intensity Industrial District which does not allow residential development. A public hearing was held on this matter by the ZBA on April 24th, 2002. Testimony was provided by Charles Rankin on behalf of the applicant regarding the need for and purpose of the requested variance. Helpful remarks were also given by George Senter, Town of Groton CEO. No action was taken upon closure of the public hearing but it was announced that the ZBA would accept additional communications/information regarding the appeal up to the date when the ZBA schedules a meeting to make its decision on this case. The ZBA convened on May 29th, 2002, and determined its findings and decision regarding the requested variance. Finding #1 : The character of the neighborhood will not be altered due to its mixed industrial/commercial/residential use characteristics; and no evidence was presented by adjoining industrial or residential property owners that they were concerned. Finding #2: In terms of the broader neighborhood, as defined, which includes residential properties both within and outside of the Low Intensity Industrial District, the situation regarding the need for a use variance has some uniqueness ; however, in that portion of the broader neighborhood that is within the Industrial District, the situation is not unique. Finding #3 : Using the property value figures provided by Robert Walpole, licensed real estate appraiser, the value of the Lewis property will be reduced to $55,000 from a current value of $63 ,000 to $66,000 if the variance is not granted, resulting in a decrease of $8,000 to $ 11 ,000 in the value of the property, which is a substantial financial hardship. Finding #4: Based upon a broader view that the hardship was created by zoning changes by the Town in 1995, the need for a use variance was not self-created. A motion was made by L. Raymond and seconded by John Pachai to grant the requested use variance based upon the aforementioned findings. Roll Call Vote : Lyle Raymond, Chairperson Aye John Pachai, Vice-Chairperson Aye Pat Gaines Aye Lisa McElroy Aye Steve Thane Aye Submitted by Lyle Raymond �` O Z INTERVIEW WITH HARRY WILLIS �ZlO,Z ON APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES for ZBA and Planning Boards ( 1 ) There is nothing in Town Law that says who is to take the minutes for these Boards. (The Town Clerk is legally responsible for the minutes of Town Boards, with different rules that do not apply to Planning Boards or ZBA) (2) Nor is there anything in Town Law as to the kind of minutes or records that are to be kept for Planning Boards or ZBA ' s. (3 ) The Open Meetings Law only requires a set of minutes that records all motions, proposals, and actions (i .e. , votes), which are filed with the Town Clerk and become the official record for that Board. However, good minutes should also include the gist of discussions and presentations. Whether to keep a verbatim record of minutes is up to the individual Board, but is not required. (4) There is no requirement in Town Law that minutes of meetings must be approved. Since there is also nothing on who is to take the minutes, the person who does so is not liable for errors, mistakes or omissions, and is accountable only to the discretion of the respective Board involved. (Exceptions to this: (a) if there is a contract between the recorder and the Town Board for providing such services that specifies that minutes taken must be approved ; or (b) if the Town Code inludes a provision requiring this to be done--The Groton Code does not) (5) The Town Clerk' s Rule Book only suggests approval of meeting minutes as one possible format that a Board may wish to adopt--there is no requirement that it must be done. P.S. Another Town Clerk told April Scheffler that their Town Board had not approved any meeting minutes in two years. (6) Harry Willis also said that there is even less guidance in Town Law on the record to be kept of public hearings. In fact, it says nothing. The only reason for keeping a record of public hearings at all is to show justification for decisions made by the respective Boards, in instances where decisions are challenged. Therefore what kind of record is kept of public hearings and who does the recording is completely up to the respective local Boards.