Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-27-1998 Hearing SPECIAL TOWN BOARD MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARING THURSDAY, AUGUST 27, 1998 AT 7:30 P.M. Those present: Teresa M. Robinson, Supervisor Daniel J. Carey, Councilman Donald F. Scheffler, Councilman Francis Casullo, Attorney Absent: Ellard L. Sovocool, Councilman Donald N. Palmer, Councilman Also present : George L. Totman, Elaine Burin, Lisa McElroy, Tom Burin, Arthur Freelove, June Freelove, Elizabeth Munson, Pam Thomas, Timothy Munson, Susan Chiotte, Marian Strong, Terry Sharpe, Mary Kelly, Mark Gunn, Lauren Bishop, Virginia Munson, Doug Albern, Angela Leddy, April L. Scheffler. PURPOSE OF MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARING- To adopt a study regarding sexually oriented businesses within the Town of Groton and amend the Land Use and Development Code of the Town of Groton to include regulation regarding the operation of sexually oriented businesses within the Town of Groton. SUPERVISOR ROBINSON opened the meeting and public hearing at 7:34 P.M. She announced that a Study had been done on the effects of sexually oriented businesses in the Town of Groton and asked for comments from the public. MARY KELLY- For those of us who haven't seen this study, could you just give us a brief history of it, or what it actually says. Copies had been made available for the Public at the Town Clerk's Office during the previous week and were available at the meeting. ATTORNEY CASULLO read a copy of the study for the benefit of all present, and told the people that he drafted it. SUPERVISOR ROBINSON- Anybody have any questions about the study? TERRY SHARPE- In your paragraph about the people who live in McLean and our complaints that we have made to you, I'm not sure if you realize that there should be some police reports about vandalism in our community and also vandalism at Sirens. There were two separate incidents with tire slashing, a car was stolen this last weekend, and there's also several of us that were Pg.2 - Town Board Meeting & Public Hearing - Aug. 27, 1998 right across or in the area of Sirens who've had their cars broken into and had their things gone through. Just so you know, there have been incidents where the police have been involved. I'm just not sure, at this point you've already done your study, but it's started happening....that go with your secondary effects of the study. I just think it should be made clear that these things are happening now. COUNCILMAN CAREY- Fran, at some point down the road, could we include in this study a list of civil violations that would be an amendment to this study? ATTORNEY CASULLO- Yes, or you could always do another study. That doesn't prohibit you. What I tried to do is take a sampling of the problems from all the other studies. TERESA ROBINSON- Okay, is there anyone else on the study? If not, we'll close that part of the hearing. Now is the hearing on Local Law #4 of the 1998 to amend the various sections of the Land Use and Development Code of the Town of Groton to regulate sexual oriented businesses. ATTORNEY CASULLO- The only comment I want to make is that if you look at page four (4), paragraph (e), "for purposes of subsection (b)", that was a typo. That should be "subsection (d)". (This corretion was made to the final draft.) LISA MCELROY- I'm a citizen of McLean. I want to first thank all of you for all of the perseverance and hard work under pressure that you've been doing on our behalf. I wanted to ask a question about page (3) under the section 317.2 about the distance of 1000 ft. I'm just wondering if that's not very much distance and if it was possible to discuss greater distances. ATTORNEY CASULLO- It's my opinion that in all the local laws that I have seen, the distance of 1000 ft. is the common measurement. The Planning Board actually did this and...... GEORGE TOTMAN, CHAIRMAN OF PLANNING BOARD- The question is, is 1000 ft. too much. You have to bear in mind that it has to be allowed someplace. With this 1000 ft., there is only a very few places in the Town of Groton that it would be allowed. If you made it more than 1000 ft., you'd be playing against the law saying it has to be allowed someplace. This 1000 ft. means 1000 ft. from your place, like you put a pin in here, it's got to be 1000 ft. all around. And if you look anywhere in the Town, you will find it very difficult to find very many places where the boundary lines of the property are all 1000 ft. apart. LISA MCELROY- I'm not a very good judge of 1000 ft., so...but I was wondering, we have a few people here who live across the street from Sirens. Are any of you about 1000 ft.? (Several voices say "no".) GEORGE TOTMAN- I'm about 1000 ft. from Sirens. COUNCILMAN SCHEFFLER- It's 3 3/4 tenths of a mile, a little less than a quarter of a mile. A quarter of mile is 1320 ft. Aug. 27, 1998 - Town Board Meeting & Public Hearing - Pg.3 LISA MCELROY- Then that leads me to another point on 317.3 about further requirements. I had the understanding from some previous discussions, that it might be possible to regulate additional facets of the business. For example, whether or not they have exterior lighting, and if so, how much of it, and perhaps the issue of fencing, and I am specifically wondering about the issues of noise levels. So, I was just wondering if people had ideas about other things that we might want to include under the regulations, like noise and fencing and lighting. ATTORNEY CASULLO- That's a pretty good comment. I'm not too sure, but I think some other provisions of the Code could handle fencing and........noise would be a separate faction. Those are all good comments... Someone makes a comment about blackening windows. GEORGE TOTMAN- If this is passed, then before a place can open up, it has to go before the (Planning) Board for a Site Plan Review. Normally in a Site Plan Review, like if you're going to open up a meat shop or a body and fender shop or whatever, the Planning Board looks at how close they are to the neighbors and whether they should have a public hearing or not and that sort of thing. In most cases, if it is going to create a lot of activity, we have a public hearing. Normally you go over the hours of operation, do they have enough parking, and that sort of thing. Noise levels, most towns around us do not have a noise ordinance. LISA MCELROY- This has been one of the most difficult aspects. GEORGE TOTMAN- But bear in mind, that if that place was not open as the type of business that it is, and they had a band there, the noise would be more than it is now. So places in the Town of Groton...whatever you set is going to affect the whole Town of Groton. If you put a noise level of a certain decibel, and if you play music in your back yard, your neighbors can complain about it. So, you have to look at it very carefully, how you do that. I know a lot of the Towns around are all looking into each other's areas to see how they're handling the noise part of it because of things like this, even barking dogs. But there is, to my knowledge there has been no consensus of any towns around how to really handle it. If something like this comes before the Planning Board, usually they discuss all this and see how they're going to handle those things. Obviously, you're not going to have open windows where people, I mean when you mentioned darkening windows, it would defeat their business if they had windows where you could peek in. People wouldn't come inside. ELAINE BURIN- The only problem is, they've had people dancing in front of windows. LISA MCELROY- One problem that we've had is dancers being out on the porch and even though they've got their clothes on, it's.... you know, I don't know if anything can be done about that. But if a business had a fence around it, that wouldn't even be an issue. So that is why I was bringing up the fencing. Pg.4 - Town Board Meeting & Public Hearing - Aug. 27, 1998 GEORGE TOTMAN- On of things is that when we set on this Board, whatever rules and regulations we make, we have to make sure that the Town don't get in trouble for somebody suing the Town for making the rules too strict. I'm thinking about the case where, awhile back women protested the nudity law in Rochester where they paraded around with nothing on above their belts, and the ruling came down from the State government, Supreme Court, that it was not illegal to do that on the beaches. Now these people paraded around on the porch, but they had their clothes on. So, I'm not so sure where we can make the law on that. Obviously, we're going to look at it. What I like to look at that we're coming up with is living document. Once we get it enacted so that it's the law that they have to go for a Site Plan Review, if we see something in there that could make it tighter than it is, we can always come back before the Town Board and make different rules and regulations. But we have to make sure that whatever we make, that the people who are applying can't come and sue the Town because we are being too strict. ELAINE BURIN- I'm a resident of McLean. First of all, I'm thrilled we're finally getting to this point. A lot of my questions have already been answered. I wanted to thank Fran (Casullo) and the Board for addressing this as a sexually oriented business ordinance rather than adult entertainment ordinance. I have found it very offensive to see this issue referred to as an adult entertainment issue, and I think that this definitely is much more to the point. As Lisa and Terry have mentioned, I do hope that we continue to work on this and really refine it. I feel comfortable that I had assurances that that is going to happen. I just guess I want to be on the record for the people of McLean that we are continually watching it. We are more than willing to help in any way we can with this. But we do appreciate every bit of the time that you have put into this. Thank you. SUPERVISOR ROBINSON- We appreciate your efforts too. TOM BURIN- I'm also a resident of McLean, and again, I'd like to thank you for the efforts you've put into this also. I think our concern is that we are right now living through the situation. It makes us very much aware of what is happening on a day to day basis. So, when we go to other communities, not particularly in this state, but my wife and I traveled out west extensively in the last couple of years. We were in Columbus, Ohio, with our niece driving us through middle Ohio. Here's this young lady sitting in the window of a building, scantily dressed, making lewd gyrations, or whatever you want to call it, to try to entice people to come in. That's where we get concerned. Okay, we might be okay because somehow we might get rid of them. But someone is going to have Sirens by their house or near their house or near their place of work. We're saying that we don't want this trash thrown on them either. So, the more strict that you can make it within the laws and confines of what the Supreme Court of the United States defines as legal, the better off it's going to be for the next person that has to deal with this in our community, because someone is going to have to deal with it. We can't throw them out. So by putting in lighting, requiring them to have lighting, it's going to take care of the activities that happen in the parking lot, which we know happen, we see them every day. By darkening windows, you're not going to have the Aug. 27, 1998 - Town Board Meeting & Public Hearing - Pg.5 situations like you have in Columbus, Ohio, right in the middle of town. That's why we're concerned about these issues. They might sound nit-picky, they might sound like we're trying to be very restrictive, but we don't want to throw this on someone else's doorstep either. SUPERVISOR ROBINSON- We have it on our doorstep. That's why all the towns around are working very hard on their ordinances. MARY KELLY- What I'd like to know is, if the Town would adopt a law such as this local law, would it mean in fact that whatever business, this sexual oriented business, would that have to be 3/4 of mile from every residence in the Town? So, basically it would have to be on agricultural land. It wouldn't be able to be near a residence. Is that correct? (Several people answer that it is correct.) In that case, then if you were 3/4 of a mile away, the light, the sound, the whatever, would be a whole lot more minimized than it would in the center of Groton...of McLean. Is that not correct? GEORGE TOTMAN- You're right. MARY KELLY- What is the likelihood that this law will be voted on ............. GEORGE TOTMANATTORNEY CASULLO and both answer that it could be done tonight. DOUG ALBERN- What would be sort of the agenda about this whole thing......if it was passed tonight are they then going to..... can it be retroactive as applied to them (Sirens)? Several people answer that it can't be applied retroactively. DOUG ALBERN- So, then this has nothing to do with Sirens at all? GEORGE TOTMAN- Well indirectly it does. DOUG ALBERN- Okay, so it's still going to be there. We've done nothing yet to get rid of it. ATTORNEY CASULLO- We're in litigation. We could very well be back in court by September. ....The Supreme Court Justice has ruled that Sirens needs to go through a sight plan review. Sirens has appealed that decision, filed a notice of appeal. At this point the Town is taking steps to Supreme Court to say that regardless of their notice of appeal, that they should be required to right now to go through a site plan review. I can't speak for Mr. Chatfield, who represents Sirens, but I'm assuming they will take an argument opposite that. That's why we should be back in court...... DOUG ALBERN- If they have to have a site plan review, this isn't going to apply to them is it, because this came after they were in, is that true? I thought that the New York State Supreme Court ruled that you could retroactively......... Pg.6 - Town Board Meeting & Public Hearing - Aug. 27, 1998 GEORGE TOTMAN- You're talking about the one in New York City? See, what I think about a lot of misconception about that one in New York City is that in one particular area they have like 147 of these shops. What they ruled was that they're are not outlawing them in each burrow or whatever, they're cutting down the number of them. So even though they took 100 of them out, that is only out of a certain area, and they're still so many in that area. And they're moving them around the city, so they're not all in one area. There was some more of this discussion with several people speaking at once. DOUG ALBERN- I don't understand. If New York can make laws retroactive, then why can't we? GEORGE TOTMAN- I don't know. ATTORNEY CASULLO- I don't think that New York litigation is over with yet. Supreme Court is not the highest court in New York State. It's the lower tri- level court. They call it the Supreme Court, but it is not the highest court in the state. You go to the Supreme Court, and if this Sirens case is appealed it goes to the Appellate Division, and the state's highest court is called the Court of Appeals. So the Supreme Court is the lower level. New York (City) is still going through the process. I have their study right here. The New York situation is not complete yet. DOUG ALBERN- Well then in the end, there's nothing that we're doing here tonight that is going to have any effect on Sirens. ATTORNEY CASULLO- Yes. The short answer to your question is that this could very well not have an effect on Sirens. The other answer is that if the courts hold us correct that they have to go through site plan review, and they have to go before the board that George (Totman) is chairman of, that will certainly put them in a situation where they may have to have some conditions put upon them in order to continue to operate. It won't be these conditions, per say, but taking into effect some of the secondary effects, there might be some provisions in this code indirectly. It's hard to tell because that is going to be a decision for the Planning Board when it comes before them, if it comes before them. SUPERVISOR ROBINSON asked if there were anymore questions. moved There being no further questions, it was by Councilman Carey, seconded by Councilman Scheffler to close the Public Hearing at 8:13 P.M. Ayes - Carey, Scheffler, Robinson. Aug. 27, 1998 - Town Board Meeting & Public Hearing - Pg.7 RESOLUTION #45 - ADOPT STUDY ON EFFECTS OF SEXUALLY ORIENTED BUSINESSES IN THE TOWN OF GROTON Moved by Councilman Scheffler, seconded by Councilman Carey. Ayes - Carey, Scheffler, Robinson Resolved that the Town Board does hereby adopt the Study on the Effects of Sexually Oriented Businesses in the Town of Groton, County of Tompkins, State of New York, the purpose of which is to analyze the effects that sexually oriented businesses have on the municipality and address secondary effects, regulation, and recommendations. RESOLUTION #46 - ENACT LOCAL LAW #4 FOR THE YEAR 1998 TO REGULATE SEXUALLY ORIENTED BUSINESSES Moved by Councilman Carey, seconded by Councilman Scheffler Ayes - Carey, Scheffler, Robinson. Resolved that the Town Board does hereby enact Local Law #4 for the year 1998. Said Local Law to amend various sections of the Land Use and Development Code of the Town of Groton to regulate sexually oriented businesses in the Town. There being no further business, Councilman Carey moved to adjourn, seconded by Councilman Scheffler, at 8:16 P.M. Unanimous. April L. Scheffler Deputy Town Clerk