Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-05-29 Addition to non conforming residense in Low Industrial zone TOWN OF GROTON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes of Decision Meeting - Wed . , 29 May 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 Jeff Lewis The meeting was opened at 7: 30 p. m. by Chairman Lyle Raymond . Approval of Minutes - 24 April 2002 Chairman Raymond stated that the Board wished to approve the Minutes of this meeting, this time, as Member John Pachai wished to correct them . On page 4, second paragraph, where Member Pachai is quoted , the word "not" should be inserted in the quote between the words "would" and "be . " A motion was then made by Member Steve Thane to approve the Minutes as corrected . The motion was seconded by Member Patricia Gaines , with the vote recorded as follows : Ayes : Chairman Raymond Nays : None Member Pachai Member Thane Member Gaines Member McElroy This becomes Action # 2 of 2002 DECISION MEETING Jeff & Vicki L. Lewis ROs / Vicki L Lewis Applicant 488 Locke Road TM # 16 00 01 4 812 - Use Variance Reference is made to the Minutes of the Public Hearing for the requested Use Variance which was held 24 April 2002 . The Public Hearing was held to consider an appeal for a variance by the Appellant to construct an addition to an existing non-conforming residential dwelling in a Low Intensity Industrial District which does not allow residential development . The Public Hearing was closed at that time , with any decision to be made by the ZBA within the required 60 days . Therefore, the Decision Meeting was scheduled for this date and time . In his opening remarks, Chair Raymond noted that the Board members had received an anonymous letter and only mentioned it because it indicated that someone is "keeping watch on us . " Chair Raymond then advised that the basis for the Board 's decision will be based on the Code as it now exists , not any proposed changes that the Town Board may be considering. The Code requires that the ZBA respond to four specific questions : ( 1 ) the applicant is deprived of all economic use or benefit from the property in question which deprivation must be established by competent financial evidence , (2) that the alleged hardship is unique and does not apply to a substantial portion of the district or neighborhood , (3) that the requested use variance , if granted , will not alter the central character of a neighborhood , and (4) that the alleged hardship has not been self-created . Chairman Raymond made available the Use Variance Guide to Board Members in case they did not have them with them . Page 1 of 3 Minutes of Town of Groton ZBA Decision Meeting 29 May 2002 Chair Raymond noted that the Appellant has to prove an unnecessary hardship . The difference between a zoning district and a neighborhood was discussed . The Code refers to "district or neighborhood , " while the Planning Guide says "just the same zoning district . " Chair Raymond stated that he had talked with Harry Willis , lead author of the Planning Guide , who noted that it must have been an oversight; it was taken from Town Law. Chair Raymond suggested that the above four questions be taken in reverse order, starting with # 4 that the alleged hardship has not been self-created. Discussion of " self-created" was undertaken , in depth . Considerations were : ( 1 ) hardship was not self-created because zoning district was changed after the home was occupied , (2) applicant was member of Planning Board when change was made so should have been aware of the restrictions this imposed , (3 ) applicant was in position to know that the construction that was started should not have been started . All of these things were considered . It was the consensus of opinion that the hardship was due to a change in the zoning district from Agricultural to Light Industrial , which does not allow any change in residential structures . With regard to #3 , that the requested use variance , if granted, will not alter the central character of the neighborhood , Member Lisa McElroy asked why there was a zoning change in the first place . Chair Raymond responded that it was because in 1995 the Industrial zone was stretched to accommodate Lewbro , Munson 's Auction House, and Genoa Farm Services . Member McElroy asked if the district could be changed back to Rural Agricultural . Member Pachai explained that the Town Board was considering this , as was recommended by the Town Planning Board . If changed , light industrial would still be allowed , but with a Site Plan Review. Chair Raymond also explained that the idea behind having an industrial-type zone was that, in this zone , noise , traffic, odors , dust, etc . would be kept separate from residential areas and eventually, over the years , the existing few residences in the area would be gone . Member Steve Thane then brought up "are we talking about a district, or a neighborhood?" Extensive discussion ensued . The Board reviewed the area with regard to number of homes , location on which side of the road (different zoning district - Rural Agriculture - across road from subject) , and Member Pachai considered this unique in character, as well. Areas were calculated , and percentages of residential v . industrial considered . Chair Raymond stated that in his discussion with Harry Willis , it was just not clear how far one can go to define "neighborhood . " There were no guidelines . Member Pachai responded that the common sense approach would be to look at the number of properties , and that, in his opinion , the neighborhood would be the residences on both sides of the road and the three industrial properties . This would be considered mixed , with the general character of the neighborhood residential . At the end of an extensive discussion , the Board members agreed that granting of the requested variance was not going to alter the character of the neighborhood due to the mixed industrial / commercial/ residential use , and there 's no evidence provided by the adjoining industries / residential landowners that they are concerned about this . Item #2 - that the alleged hardship is unique and does not apply to a substantial portion of the district or neighborhood. Chair Raymond started this discussion by stating that he was having trouble, conceptually, with crossing the district boundary in terms of defining uniqueness , mainly because there were very different rules that apply on each side of the road . Obviously, on one side of the road it is not unique as someone could put an addition on their house in the RA zone ; however, across the road in the now- Industrial zone , this is not permitted . Member Pachai countered that "neighborhood" can be the other side of the road . The guidelines are not really clear in this matter. Member Pachai stated that the DOS attorney, with whom he consulted , it was the attorney's opinion , given that there were 12 to 15 houses on one side of the road in the RA District and 6-8 houses on the other side of the road in the Industrial zone which could experience a similar hardship if they wanted to put an addition on their home , this could be used to support this argument . The uniqueness , as Member Pachai saw it, was that within the residences in the neighborhood there was a smaller number of houses (a unique number) that were limited in what they were able to do . Member McElroy stated that the problem was a zoning problem . At the conclusion of this in- depth discussion , the Zoning Board of Appeals members agreed that in terms of the neighborhood , as defined, it has some uniqueness . However, that portion in the Industrial District is not unique . Page 2 of 3 Minutes of Town of Groton ZBA Decision Meeting 29 May 2002 Next, Item # 1 was discussed : the applicant has to be shown to be deprived of all economic use or benefit from the property in question which deprivation must be established by competent financial evidence . Chair Raymond acknowledged the statement received from the Appellant at the Public Hearing with their view on the matter. In addition , a statement dated 10 May 2002 had been received from Robert Walpole , Real Estate Broker/ Appraiser. The Board reviewed Mr. Walpole 's statement giving different values at different times in different districts (RA v. Industrial) . Chair Raymond acknowledged that even with the submittals on hand , the ZBA had been provided no specific data with regard to the actual value of the subject lot as an industrial property. Member Pachai stated he had talked with Mr. Walpole who felt that $55, 000 was what the value would be for any allowed use if the Code was not changed and the problem not solved . In 1998 , after the addition of a garage, the assessed value was listed as $63 , 800 . This would be a decrease in value of $8 ,800 . Member Pachai concluded that Mr. Walpole 's estimated fair market value , as stated in his letter, of from $63 , 000 to $66 , 000 was based on there being no problem ; if the variance is denied , he thought , then the value would decrease to $ 55 , 000, a 20% loss which the Board members felt was substantial . In conclusion , the Board members felt: Using the figures provided by Robert Walpole , Licensed Real Estate Appraiser, the property value will be reduced to $ 55 ,000 from a current value o f $63 , 000 to $66 ,000 , resulting in a decrease of $ 8 , 000 to $ 11 , 000 in property value which is a substantial financial hardship . Returning to Item # 4 , that the alleged hardship has not been self-created , where there was no finding at the outset, Member Gaines started the discussion by stating that the original problem is the change in zoning district over which the Appellant had no control . Member Steve Thane reminded everyone that it was up to a property owner to know the regulations and not undertake any construction until any or all permits have been obtained ; in that sense the hardship may be self- created . More importantly, the Board should consider the loss in property value should the variance be denied , or the problem not remedied . Member McElroy then reiterated that the change in the zoning district created the problem; therefore, she felt it was not self-created . This was the general issue that should be addressed . Chair Raymond added, for the record, that all the adjoining neighbors were notified of this Public Hearing and that no responses had been received . He further stated that the Board had defined character and uniqueness on a broader sense , in which case the response would be no , it's not a self-created hardship . The Board concluded this issue with their finding that: it was not self-created, using the broader view that the hardship was created by the change in zoning in 1995 . A motion was then made by Chair Lyle Raymond to grant the variance based on the aforementioned findings . The motion was seconded by Member John Pachai , with the vote recorded as follows : Ayes : Chairman Raymond Nays : None Member Pachai Member Thane Member Gaines Member McElroy This becomes Action # 3 of 2002 , Adjournment On a motion made by Member Thane , seconded by Member Pachai , with all Board members voting in the affirmative , the meeting was adjourned at 9 : 50 p . m . X40 Joan . Fitch Rec ding Secretary 6 / 19 / 02 =RECF-= IVFDPage 3 of 3 TOWN OF GROTON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS (ZBA) FINDINGS AND DETERNUNATION 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 &� A a a -ZM. TOWN OF GROTON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS QUARTERLY MEETING JUNE 18TH, 2002 This was a working session. Announcements: Appointment of Steve Thane to Comprehensive Plan Committee, and Lyle Raymond as Chairman of the Comprehensive Plan Committee Local Law dissolving the Low Intensity Industrial District, noting that this also resolved the matter of a mining permit for Lewbro Review of letter received from Mark Sawyer, new Senior Planner at the Tompkins County Planning Office, outlining his expertise and availability Review of actions subject to County review, based on letter from County Planning Office Review of letter from James Baranello, legal counsel for the Town, outlining changes he would propose in the ZBA suggestions for ECHO unit Code changes. Response to Mr. Baranello to be prepared and sent to him before going to Town Board; this will be placed in this file later. I