Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3-14-2000 (B) GROTON TOWN BOARD MEETING TUESDAY, MARCH 14, 2000, AT 7:30 PM AND PUBLIC HEARING FOR LOCAL LAW #1 OF THE YEAR 2000, AT 8 PM Those present : Glenn E. Morey, Supervisor Ellard E. Sovocool, Councilman Donald F. Scheffler, Councilman Sheldon C. Clark, Councilman Duane T. Randall, Councilman Francis Casullo, Town Attorney Also present : George Totman, Liz Brennan, Marie Hoy, Gordon Hoy, Angela Leddy, Dewey Dawson, Mark Gunn, April Scheffler, DeForest Hall, John Lampman, Christian Nolan, Dan Carey, Monica Carey, Lisa McElroy, Willis Sheldon, David Dann, Richard Dann, Joe Graham, John Pachai, Rick Case. MOVED by Councilman Sovocool, seconded by Councilman Scheffler to approve the minutes of the February 8, 2000 meeting as presented. Ayes - Sovocool, Scheffler, Clark, Morey. (Councilman Randall did not arrive until 7:50 PM) General Fund Claim Nos. 42 – 84 of the in the amount of $50,891.83 were presented for audit. MOVED by Councilman Scheffler, seconded by Councilman Clark to approve the General bills for payment. Ayes - Sovocool, Scheffler, Clark, Morey. Special Grant (HUD) Fund Claim Nos. 179 – 180 of the in the amount of $1,335.12 were presented for audit. MOVED by Councilman Sovocool, seconded by Councilman Scheffler, to approve the HUD bills for payment. Ayes - Sovocool, Scheffler, Clark, Morey. 2 Town Board Meeting Page March 14, 2000 Highway Fund Claims Nos. 17 – 36 of the in the amount of $29,160.60 were presented for audit. MOVED by Councilman Clark, seconded by Supervisor Morey, to approve the Highway bills for payment. Ayes - Sovocool, Scheffler, Clark, Morey. John Lampman from the Tompkins County Supervisor Morey offered privilege of the floor to Department of Transportation. Mr. Lampman was there to talk about the planned replacement of the bridge on Champlin Road over Webster Brook, about 400 feet north of the intersection with Old Stage Road. Champlin Road is a County road and it has been the policy of the County to get public input on these projects. The bridge was built in 1936, has a 40’ span and is 28 ½ ‘ wide. Mr. Lampman explained the problems with the bridge that necessitated replacement. Design of the structure should be completed by this fall with bidding by contractors by March 2001 and construction to follow. Coordination with the Groton Highway Department and the School will be necessary. It will be 100% County funded with an estimated cost of around $200,000. Construction should take about three months. Some discussion took place between Mr. Lampman and members of the public, Mr. & Mrs. Hoy, who live in the area. Liz Brennan, Bookkeeper – I understand you all have the annual report. I don’t know if you have any questions on it. I am at a point now where I’m playing catch-up. Probably by next month I will be up to date in the books and you will have your monthly report again. Supervisor Morey – The annual report was submitted last week, no the end of February. If everybody takes a look at it, the first 69 pages are all financial, but the pages afterward give a brief history of the Town and how we do things around here, and that’s very interesting reading. Any other questions for Liz? Rick, have you got something quick to say? Richard Case, Highway Superintendent – The Highway Department is still dedicated to snow and ice removal. Is that quick enough? Sheldon and I are still working on the specs for a new plow dump truck. Don and I have worked on the alarm system. So things are still moving along. We had some minor erosion which has been taken care of….excavator, loaders. We’re in pretty good shape because of the weather. Other than that, unless you’ve got questions for me…………… Arthur Dawson, Town Justice – A couple of things. There’s no formal report from the Court. Peg Palmer is back to work, but she was out for a couple weeks longer than we expected, so she’s still busy inputting all the data into computer that Arland, Bob, and myself had generated for her. I’m here about two things, primarily tonight. I gave Colleen a packet. This first page is a training teleconference that we are seeking Board approval to send Peggy and myself to at $10.00 apiece. This covers the assets of the Court, the bookkeeping changes, things like that. They offer it once a year, especially when new judges come in, we really need it. I would ask that you consider giving us approval to go to this. 3 Town Board Meeting Page March 14, 2000 MOVED by Councilman Sovocool, seconded by Councilman Scheffler, to authorize Justice Justice Court Management Arthur Dawson and Court Clerk, Margaret Palmer to attend the th Teleconference on March 27 in Ithaca. Ayes - Sovocool, Scheffler, Randall, Clark, Morey. Arthur Dawson – The second part of the packet is regarding a copier. Many of you know that our copier is pretty well defunct at this point in time. We checked some prices and we have come down to two copiers that we have seen and are interested in and we actually have an interest in one of them The first two machines on the list are the same machine but from different vendors and come with a different package, or perks, that come with it. The third is a Panasonic laser copier that we have set up in the office now. They brought it down from Syracuse and let us try it. It’s a nice machine but the thing that we’re looking at is expansion and also the fact that it’s a used machine. I understand the Court has gotten used machines before. We’d like to get a new one that we could keep track of ourselves. Copier Comparisons : Xerox XD120F Xerox XD120F Panasonic FP7113 Laser Copier/Printer Laser Copier/Printer Laser Copier OfficeMax, Ithaca Staples, Ithaca Copier Products, Syr. New New Used $799.99 $799.99 $950.00 Supervisor Morey – Which one do you want? Arthur Dawson – The first one. RESOLUTION #17 - AUTHORIZE PURCHASE OF COPIER FOR COURT MOVED by Councilman Randall, seconded by Supervisor Morey. Ayes - Sovocool, Scheffler, Randall, Clark, Morey. RESOLVEDXerox XD120F , that the Town Board does hereby authorize the purchase of a Laser Copier/Printer from OfficeMax of Ithaca for the sum of $799.99. 4 Town Board Meeting Page March 14, 2000 PUBLICE HEARING – LOCAL LAW #1 FOR THE YEAR 2000 TO AMEND THE TOWN OF GROTON LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT CODE Legal Notice Clerk Pierson read the as it appeared in the Moravia Republican Register on February 3, 2000. Supervisor Morey – Can we have some discussion on the Board? Louie? Councilman Sovocool – There was some discussion brought up about the detached buildings and all that at the Planning Board meeting the other day. Is a detached building in the zoning ordinance? Is there a definition of one of them in there? I don’t think there is. (There was some discussion where no one was using microphones.) John Pachai – It may have been included under accessory structures…….. Clerk Pierson – When you speak you have to give your name and use the microphone. George Totman – What Louie is bringing up as to the building height is what is part of the main structure and what is detached. Because the question is, I think what you’re saying is, correct me if I’m wrong; If I build a house and I build a nice breeze-way between the house and garage then is the garage a detached garage or is it attached? Councilman Sovocool – That’s where I’m at. George Totman – I call it attached. Councilman Sovocool – I’d call it detached. No, that would be attached. Councilman Scheffler – Well, I know we’re never going to make everybody happy on it, but what we came up with last month when we wrote this was kind of a compromise. I really don’t know what to say on it. I agree with Tyke some, but I feel that measurement should be sidewall instead of overall. But I don’t see where it’s that serious of a problem as long as everyone understands what the height is that we decide on. Councilman Randall – After the last meeting I think that the 20 foot overall height is a good compromise. I’d rather see sidewall height myself, but I think that this is the fairest way and keeps it consistent with other townships in the area. I think this is a good compromise and everybody knows where they stand with it. Councilman Clark – I’ll go along with that. Supervisor Morey – With Tyke? 5 Town Board Meeting Page March 14, 2000 Councilman Clark – Yes. Supervisor Morey – Alright. Fran, it’s going to cost us some money to take care of this right? Attorney Casullo – What do you mean? Supervisor Morey – To send it in as a law. It’s got to be sent to the County……….. Attorney Casullo – No. What we’ll do is I think we can pass it. I don’t think it will be one of those deals that we have to send it to the County, I really don’t. We really aren’t doing anything that’s changing the land use. If you were changing like a section of a zoning district within 500 feet of something as in your code, then you might have to go to the County. But something like this, I don’t believe you have to go to the County. What I think you do tonight is listen to whatever the public has to say, close the public hearing, and then you can vote. Supervisor Morey – Okay. Anybody else have anything to say? George? George Totman, Planning Board Chairman – I guess I have to. I think we’re making a quick decision that we might regret later on. Normally the procedure which the Town Board has followed in the past is when they want to make a change in the ordinance, they sent it to the Planning Board. As I recall, in the Town Law, that the Planning Board has 30 days to respond. Then the Town Board has the full authority to act on it the way they want to. But as I understand it, the Town Law says that if you’re going to form an advisory board, then you should give the advisory board some recourse to reactions that are going to change the local law as far as planning and zoning is concerned. This was not done. It was done previously for this same type of thing, because the Planning Board took it up at two of their meetings and came back with their suggestions and none of their suggestions were listened to. At the last Board meeting I was at, which I really wasn’t asked to respond to until the very end, the Code Enforcement Office and newest member of the Planning Board presented their case very well and it was listened to and there was no thought considered even given to the Planning Board’s suggestion they…. the recommendation the Planning Board sent. So I think the Town Board should really think strongly about what they think the Planning Board’s accessory role should be if they are not going to listen to anything they say. I’ve heard comments that other towns have these rules and stuff like that. Well, I think I know more about what other towns are doing than some of the people who make their statements, because I work in those other towns, I deal with them every other week. And I’ve had comments from those other towns saying what is the Town of Groton trying to do. You’re allowing certain things in certain areas of the Town like general trucking or whatever. If you’re going to allow those things why aren’t you going to allow them to build a building big enough to put it in? In fact out in the agricultural districts, the agricultural area, we aren’t allowed to ask for permits. Farmers can build any size building they want. I’m not against that. But what I am saying is that the argument was made that somebody could build a big building next to a house or someplace like that. I don’t know of anywheres that we had an accessory building built so high that it was a problem. And I really believe that you ought to delay this and sit down with the Planning Board. Those members are appointed for seven years. You appoint them. They have had a lot of experience, a lot more than the people that presented the case, and you’re not listening to them. So, I’m just curious what kind of message that you’re trying to send out to the public. 6 Town Board Meeting Page March 14, 2000 John Pachai, ZBA Member – Basically the Zoning Board of Appeals would like to go on record as supporting this. It meets the needs, as we see them based on appeals that we’ve had, variances that we’ve had to deal with. It will also control concerns regarding the size of over-sized buildings. I’m not sure what use, in a residential area, a garage 35 feet tall, or a shed 35 feet tall would provide. The residential area is our primary concern. That’s about it. Mark Gunn, Code Enforcement Officer - I have some copies for the Board of a particular case- in-point on an accessory structure with a permit for a site plan review. It was filed in 1993 by Mr. Brong on 554 Pleasant Valley Road. The minutes of that Planning Board meeting are also accompanying the application and you can see where this height restriction on the beginning, very front page of the site plan review application, right here is written down, “maximum height 12 foot print calls for 18foot 4 ¼ inches.” Now, if you look down through the minutes, you’ll notice that the reason given to Mr. Brong for not being able to put in his 18 foot 4 ¼ inch garage, and I quote “I guess we should have a site plan. It would be helpful. Doesn’t see anything wrong with giving Mr. Brong a special permit for putting an accessory garage. It is not blocking any of the neighbors’ views. Believes that the reason the ordinance says 12 feet high is because you may block the view of the neighbors – obstruction of view.” What’s changed in seven years? We still have the same neighbors. We still don’t want to block those same neighbors’ view. I think my point has been made prior to this, and right here members who are still sitting on Planning Board, saying it in their own words seven years ago why we have a restriction on height. April Scheffler, One of three new Planning Board Members – It has been suggested that if we are to base the 20 foot height limit according to the possibility that illegal or unsafe conditions may be generated in a 35 foot tall building, that we should also outlaw basements because all kinds of illegal and unsafe conditions take place in basements. First of all, there is no one in the group of people that I have been working with who has advocated outlawing anything. Secondly, I ask you not to try to compare apples to oranges. A basement is, always has been, and always will be an accepted part of a primary structure. It has nothing to do with an accessory structure. There are many things that we cannot control in the privacy of a person’s home, but why open the door to the same problems on accessory buildings. It has been suggest that we should allow larger structures because I might want to buy a big tractor with a cab and bucket to clean my driveway with and I want to park in my garage. Being an ex-farmer, I know a little bit about tractors. Any tractor that the owner of a single-family residence is going to buy is going to fit into a ten-foot overhead door. No single family is going to buy a tractor that costs $120,000 or more just to clean the driveway with. Even the biggest tractor a farmer could buy would not require a 35-foot building to store it in, nor would it be stored in the house garage. It would be parked up in the machine shed because the barn has to be plowed out first so that milk can shipped and the barn can be cleaned. The house is the last to get plowed out. These seem like frivolous arguments to me. Where is the research? Where are the facts? It has been suggested that the law that is before you tonight has been hastily prepared. I have to disagree with that. The problem with the wording in the Code was identified by the ZBA on st October 1, 1999. On October 21 the Planning Board passed a resolution that the distinction between primary and accessory buildings be removed from the code and the maximum height for 7 Town Board Meeting Page March 14, 2000 st all buildings be established at 35 feet. According to the Planning Board minutes of October 21 the only reason for this resolution was that according to George Totman, and I quote, “the Town that I work in has a 35 foot limit on everything.” Excuse me, I thought he worked for the Town of Groton. And the Town of Groton does indeed have a distinction between primary and accessory buildings and a height limitation on those accessory buildings. In my opinion this was a hastily prepared resolution without any research and very little thought by the people who th made the resolution. When the Town Board reviewed this resolution at their November 9 meeting, there was not one member who seemed to be in agreement with it, and it was returned to the Planning Board asking that they consider what the Code Enforcement Officer had to say th about the issue. At the November 18 meeting of the Planning Board there was an extensive discussion on the issue where the Code Enforcement Officer was in effect told that it wasn’t his place to question this or any other issue and the Town Board shouldn’t listen to anybody else except the Planning Board. (Page 11, November 18, 1999 Minutes). Am I the only one who sees anything wrong with this picture? th At the February 8 meeting of the Town Board, a law was drafted. Tonight you have the opportunity to act on that law. The Town of Groton Land Use and Development Code states “Section 102. Planning Basis. This Code and each of its parts are enacted for the purpose of promoting the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of Groton through the use of powers granted the Town by the State of New York, and to that end the Code is made in accordance with a Comprehensive Plan for the development of the community.” It has been six months since this problem with the Code was identified. I cannot see this as a hasty decision. I must agree that there may be other things that should have been included in this law; there are many other issues that need to be addressed as far as this Code in concerned; and there is a great deal of work that remains to be done. Fran Casullo has said for years that this Code is worthless. th Van Travis stated at the February 17 meeting of the Planning Board that the Code needs to be rewritten from the ground up. Supervisor Morey has made it very clear to all the Boards that he is going to require that this work be done. But the main issue that is before you tonight is whether or not you are going to allow the public to build a normal, customary, incidental accessory building or garage without the added hardship of having to apply for a variance. I am asking you to forget about the argument about who is right and who is wrong and the apparent inability of certain persons to accept compromise. I am asking you to forget about who’s ego needs to be stroked. What I am asking is that you think about the public, who we are supposed to be serving, and pass this law so that things may continue and building permits may be issued for the normal, customary things as they have been in the past. If you want to charge me and the rest of the appointed members who serve this Town to go forward with more work, so be it, but please, serve this public tonight and pass this law. Serve the public tonight so that people can have things built, contractors can do their jobs and workers can draw their draw their paycheck. Serve the public and pass this law. Thank you. Attorney Casullo – Let me just go on record. I didn’t know what April was going to say and that it had my name in it. I don’t necessarily think the Town Code is worthless. I think I’ve said in the past that I feel that it needs some change. April Scheffler – I’m sorry, that wasn’t a direct quote. Attorney Casullo – No that’s okay. I just want to make that clear. 8 Town Board Meeting Page March 14, 2000 Supervisor Morey – I did get a letter from Van Travis (Planning Board Member) dated March nd 2 and I will read it to you: “Dear Mr. Morey: I am writing with regard to the proposed Town Law #1 of 2000 relating to the height of accessory buildings for which there will be a public hearing on March 14. I shall be unable to attend and therefore submit this for entry into the testimony received. It is not necessary to have it read publicly as long as it is recorded as being received and is considered by the Town Board when they deliberate on the issue. I have studied the proposal in detail in preparation for the Planning Board meeting that occurred on February 17. At that meeting the Planning Board had a full and open discussion with the Code Enforcement Officer, who is the primary author of Law #1, and two members of the Town Board who were in attendance. As a result of that discussion and subsequent consideration I have come to several conclusions that I submit for the board’s consideration. 1.The Law has been hastily drafted without proper consideration to all of the issues related to it, creating a situation that most likely will result in more rather than fewer questions and appeals. I am talking about such things as definitions of accessory buildings and procedures for measuring height. As we discussed the issue we continued to raise more questions than were answered within the code. The result of this is that the Code Enforcement Officer renders his own interpretation, which if that is to be the prevailing method of operation, a code is not required. 2. It is clear that the Groton Code differs significantly with the state code on such issues as how to measure the height of a building. It would seem, except under unusual circumstances that our code should agree with the state code as much as possible on matters of definition and procedures. 3. The Groton ZBA submitted to the Town Board in late January a number of recommendations related directly to the issue of building height. The proposed law shows no evidence of any consideration of those recommendations. a. Clearer, more precise definitions of accessory buildings. b. Different definitions of height for different zones. c. Allow different accessory buildings heights in different zones. None of these are provided for in the proposed law. 4. The primary reason that I have heard put forth by the code enforcement officer with regard to restricting building height is because that will prevent illegal and unsafe activities from occurring overhead in these structures. If the logic of that argument is carried further then we should also ban basements under buildings because all kinds of illegal and unsafe activities occur in basements. Building codes not zoning ordinances regulate those kinds of activities. The proposed law needs much more careful and precise work than it has received. Simply raising the building height form 12 to 20 feet addresses none of the issues that have been th described by the ZBA or which arose in our conversation on the 17. It would seem that if we are going to enact a new law, we should do it once and do it right. My sense is that this law will place a band-aid on the situation, but we will see the issue retuning in the near future. Thank you for you consideration of these issues. Very truly yours, Van C. Travis, Jr.” 9 Town Board Meeting Page March 14, 2000 Supervisor Morey – Any other public comment? John Pachai – In respect to the items listed by Mr. Travis, the ZBA does feel that the Code does need a thorough going through, and we do see that there could be additional changes regarding the heights of accessory structures. When the Code is changed to address a number of these issues that Mr. Travis has paraphrased as part of the ZBA’s comments, I believe that detailing of this height issue in respect to detached structures in residential areas versus low intensity areas, this sort of thing, can be addressed further. Our primary concern is that every time somebody wants to build a garage for the six or nine months that it might take to put together a revised Code and deal with a lot of the other issues that are on the table other than garage or detached structure height, I just don’t think it’s fair for everybody building a detached garage or any detached structure to come and get a variance for that purpose. So, from my point of view personally, and as I understand it the Board’s point of view, we need to act on the law as it is drafted and make it so. Thank you. Supervisor Morey – Any other public comment? …………. I’ll take a motion to close the public meeting. MOVED by Councilman Sovocool, seconded by Councilman Randall, to close the Public Hearing at 8:25 PM Ayes - Sovocool, Scheffler, Randall, Clark, Morey. RESOLUTION #18 - APPROVE LOCAL LAW #1 FOR THE YEAR 2000 TO AMEND LAND USE & DEVELOPMENT CODE PERTAINING TO HEIGHT OF ACCESSORY BUILDINGS . MOVED by Councilman Sovocool, seconded by Councilman Randall. Ayes - Sovocool, Scheffler, Randall, Clark. Nays – Morey RESOLVED , that the Town Board of the Town of Groton does hereby pass Local Law No. 1 for the Year 2000 amending various sections of the Land Use and Development Code of the Town of Groton as enacted by Local Law No. 1 of the year 1995 and amended by Local Law No. 1 of the year 1997 as follows: 10 Town Board Meeting Page March 14, 2000 SECTION 1. 1. Amend Section 342.2(e) of the Code to read: e. Maximum building and structure dimensions. HEIGHT: Primary structure: 35 feet Detached accessory building or structure: 20 feet See Section 308 for list of exemptions from height regulations. Maximum lot coverage: Nonresidential lot: 40% Residential lot: 30% 2. Amend Section 343.2(e) of the Code to read: e. Maximum building and structure dimensions. HEIGHT: Primary structure: 35 feet Detached accessory building or structure: 20 feet See Section 308 for list of exemptions from height regulations. Maximum lot coverage: Nonresidential lot: 40% Residential lot: 30% 3. Amend Section 344.2 (e) of the Code to read: e. Maximum building and structure dimensions. HEIGHT: Primary structure: 35 feet Detached accessory building or structure: 20 feet See Section 308 for list of exemptions from height regulations. Maximum lot coverage: Nonresidential lot: 40% Residential lot: 30% 4. Amend Section 345.2(e) of the Code to read: e. Maximum building and structure dimensions. HEIGHT: Primary structure: 35 feet Detached accessory building or structure: 20 feet See Section 308 for list of exemptions from height regulations. Maximum lot coverage: Nonresidential lot: 40% Residential lot: 30% 11 Town Board Meeting Page March 14, 2000 SECTION 2. If any part of provision of this local law or application thereof to any person or circumstance be adjudged invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, such judgment shall be confirmed in its operation to the part or provision or application directly involved in the controversy in which such judgment shall have been rendered and shall not affect or impair the validity of the remainder of this local law or the application thereof to other persons or circumstances, and the Town of Groton hereby declares that it would have passed this local law or the remainder thereof had such invalid application or invalid provision been apparent. SECTION 3. This local law shall take effect immediately upon filing in the office of the Secretary of State in accordance with section twenty-seven of the Municipal Home Rule Law. Supervisor MoreyComprehensive Plan – Everybody also has a copy of the . We will distribute this also to the Planning Board on Thursday to review. I’m going to ask everybody to review it and see if the needs are still the same, and we go from step one. I agree with April that we have to do something quickly and get this straightened out, all the way around it. Okay, let’s go back to monthly reports. Mark do you have anything else? Mark GunnCoit property – For the up on Lick Street, as per Local Law No.1 for the Year 1978, Unsafe Buildings, we are at step 5. Do you happen to have that law with you? If not, I’ll just read it. Fran’s been working so we can get this structure burnt down, or torn down, something to that effect, to just get it down. It is extremely unsafe, and I’ve had reports right up until this week that there’s been people in there after dark, with flashlights, going through the place. Section 5 of this law reads, “Town Board Order. The Town Board shall thereafter consider such report and by resolution determine, if in its opinion the report so warrants, that such building is unsafe and dangerous and order its repair if the same can be safely repaired of its demolition and removal, and further order that a notice be served upon the persons and in the manner provided herein.” And that completes Section 5. Attorney Casullo – If you have the local law in front of you, I think there is a typo there. I think it should read “repaired or its demolition and removal” instead of “of.” Supervisor Morey – Do we have the report? Mark Gunn – Yes, I re-did it. The initial report that was done when this problem first took place in 1999, I did the same report and dated it again for the new Board Members for the same property. (Some Board Members did not have their copies, so more copies were then made for their review.) Councilman Sovocool – So, Mark, what do we have to do now? Can we burn the building and turn the bill over to the County or….? 12 Town Board Meeting Page March 14, 2000 Mark Gunn – Fran will have to answer that. Attorney Casullo – Where you are now, is at the point where you review Mark’s report. If you feel Mark’s report has merit, and at this point, I am telling you this building is beyond repair, what you would be doing, if you so desire, is pass a resolution indicating that the building is unsafe and dangerous and that you order its demolition and removal. You would further order that proper notice pursuant to this local law be served upon the individuals that according to this local law need to be served. That’s the point that’s going to get tricky for me because the actual owner is deceased. So, that’s a little bit tricky. Supervisor Morey – The building has been condemned, right? Mark Gunn – Yes. Supervisor Morey – Is Mrs. Coit still in the hospital? Do we know that? It’s in your report, Mark. Mark Gunn – To my knowledge, she’s up in Weedsport. That’s all the information I’ve got. I don’t know if Fran has found anything different. Councilman Sovocool – Is she an owner? Attorney Casullo – I think, as I understand it, it’s in his name. I think at this point, for your purposes, after this particular part, then it becomes my problem, so to speak, of finding who I need to find and serving proper notice. Supervisor Morey – So the resolution is just to move forward? Attorney Casullo – The resolution would be that you acknowledge Marks report and after its review you find the report to have merit and that by resolution that you would be essentially stating that you believe that the Coit property is dangerous and that you would be ordering its demolition and removal pursuant to the local law and that you would be ordering that notice be given upon this person. Supervisor Morey – Has everybody read the report? Can I have motion on the resolution? RESOLUTION #19 - ORDER DEMOLITION OF COIT PROPERTY MOVED by Councilman Clark, seconded by Councilman Sovocool. Ayes - Sovocool, Scheffler, Randall, Clark, Morey. RESOLVED , that the Town Board of the Town of Groton upon review of the report presented to them by Mark D. Gunn, Code Enforcement Officer, pertaining to the Coit property located at 924 Lick Street and in accordance with Section 4, Investigation and Report, of Local Law No. 1 of the Year 1978 entitled Unsafe Buildings Law that the Town Board has found said property to be unsafe and dangerous. And be it further 13 Town Board Meeting Page March 14, 2000 RESOLVED , that pursuant to Section 5, Town Board Order, of Local Law No. 1 of the Year 1978, the Town Board does hereby order the demolition and removal of said property and that notice be served upon the appropriate individual(s). Supervisor Morey – Fran, we haven’t given the right to have it destroyed or burnt down, or whatever…. Attorney Casullo – You can’t do that. You have to give them notice first. Councilman Scheffler – If we give them notice, then whoever owns it could come forward and say they would burn it themselves or fix it. Attorney Casullo – Fix it or whatever. We are just giving them notice that we’re proceeding pursuant to our Unsafe Building Law and go through the process to clean this up. Councilman Scheffler – I want to make sure everything is done right before we burn somebody’s house. Mark Gunn – They have every right to bring this thing back up to code if they want. Attorney Casullo – Just before we get off this particular issue, I want to let the Board know that I did receive a phone call from a neighbor who indicated to me that she may have an interest in purchasing the property. She called me late last week and I called her back. I told her that I would begin research as well in exploring that avenue because that would make things a lot easier. So I told her I would do that. I just wanted to make you aware of that. Colleen D. Pierson, Town Clerk/Tax Collector – Presented her monthly Town Clerk and Tax Collector Reports for the Board’s review. RESOLUTION #20 - APPOINT JIM STEWART TO GROTON YOUTH COMMISSION MOVED by Supervisor Morey, seconded by Councilman Sovocool Ayes - Sovocool, Scheffler, Randall, Clark, Morey RESOLVED , that the Town Board does hereby appoint Jim Stewart to serve on the Groton Youth Commission. 14 Town Board Meeting Page March 14, 2000 RESOLUTION #21 – APPROVE CONTRACT BETWEEN TOWN, VILLAGE & COOPERATIVE EXTENSION FOR YOUTH SERVICES MOVED by Supervisor Morey, seconded by Councilman Clark. Ayes - Sovocool, Scheffler, Randall, Clark, Morey RESOLVED , that the Town Board does hereby approve the agreement made between the Town of Groton, the Village of Groton and the Cornell Cooperative Extension of Tompkins County for the purpose of insuring the development and availability of youth service programs for the youth of the Village and Town. RESOLUTION #22 – APPROVE GADABOUT CONTRACT MOVED by Supervisor Morey, seconded by Councilman Randall Ayes - Sovocool, Scheffler, Randall, Clark, Morey. RESOLVED , that the Town Board does hereby approve the 2000 Gadabout Contract at a cost of $4,100.00. RESOLUTION #23 - CONTRACT WITH KIRBY, BEALS & MAIER FOR AUDIT OF 1999 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS MOVED by Supervisor Morey, seconded by Councilman Sovocool Ayes - Sovocool, Scheffler, Randall, Clark, Morey. RESOLVED, that the Town Board does hereby retain the services of Kirby, Beals, & Maier & Company to audit Financial Statements including Justice Court for the year ended December 31, 1999 at a fee of $4,200.00. 15 Town Board Meeting Page March 14, 2000 RESOLUTION #24 - SET DATE FOR JUNK YARD HEARING MOVED by Councilman Sovocool, seconded by Councilman Scheffler Ayes - Sovocool, Scheffler, Randall, Clark, Morey. RESOLVED , that the Town Board does hereby set a Public Hearing and Special Town Board Meeting for Tuesday, March 21, 2000 at 7:30 PM to review an Application for a Junk Yard License submitted by Jeffrey Snyder to be located at 575 West Groton Road. MOVEDTown Clerk by Councilman Randall, seconded by Councilman Scheffler, to authorize and Deputy Town Clerk to attend Annual Conference in Saratoga Springs April 30 – May 3. Ayes - Sovocool, Scheffler, Randall, Clark, Morey. RESOLUTION #25 - ESTABLISH REVIEWING COMMITTEE FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REVOLVING LOAN PROGRAM MOVED by Councilman Sovocool, seconded by Councilman Randall Ayes - Sovocool, Scheffler, Randall, Clark, Morey WHEREAS, the Town of Groton desires to establish a committee to review applications and make funding recommendations to the Town Board relative to the Town’s Community Development Revolving Loan Program; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, that the Town of Groton hereby establishes the formation of a committee to review applications and make funding recommendation to the Town Board relative to the Town’s Community Development Resolving Loan Program. Supervisor Morey – Number 14 is to approve the creation of a recreation commission with the Village of Groton. Fran, you had some concerns? Attorney Casullo – Yes. I think it is fine. The resolution should indicate that it is something that you, as a town board, want to enter into a joint recreation commission with the Village and that pursuant to General Municipal Law, that you are going to proceed to at least establish an informal agreement with the Village for the use of facilities, personnel and the distribution of financial 16 Town Board Meeting Page March 14, 2000 support. And once we have that informal agreement, I can work with the attorney for the Village and put together ordinances that will mirror one another that after a public hearing should be passed. That would essentially begin the creation of the joint recreation commission. I think today, all that needs to be done is that a resolution saying that the Town is on board for the creation of the joint recreation commission and authorizing that I go forward in working with the attorney for the Village and move forward with the process. RESOLUTION #26 - APPROVE THE CREATION OF A JOINT RECREATION COMMISSION WITH VILLAGE OF GROTON MOVED by Supervisor Morey, seconded by Councilman Clark Ayes - Sovocool, Scheffler, Randall, Clark, Morey. WHEREAS, the Town of Groton desires to establish a joint recreation commission pursuant to the General Municipal Law of the State of New York for the purpose of better serving the youth of the area; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Groton take all steps necessary to reach an informal agreement with the Village of Groton regarding the use of facilities, personnel and the distribution of financial support relative to the proposed joint recreation commission and the Town of Groton take all further action on its part to implement the joint recreation commission. th Supervisor Morey – The Groton Business Association is going to have a Spring party March 25 at the McLean Fire Department. Dinner with the Groton Rotary Club will be at Mineral Springs th on March 30 where a forgery specialist will be speaking. Review of the Notice of Claim served on February 16, 2000: Basically it’s back in their court. I don’t think we’ll have anything else after that. Fran did you………? Attorney Casullo – No, I don’t find that this particular Notice of Claim troubling for the Town. Supervisor Morey – Okay. We have to record the renewal letter for liquor license for Stonehedges Country Club. We don’t have to vote on it. We just have to record it. Clerk Pierson – You need a consensus of the Board either for or against it. Supervisor Morey – Okay, can I have a consensus? All Board members indicated no objections to the license. 17 Town Board Meeting Page March 14, 2000 Supervisor Morey – We also have to record the liquor license application for Elm Tree Inn. Councilman Sovocool – Have they sold that property yet? Attorney Casullo – I can tell you that I received a phone call from the attorney of buyers who asked me to provide him with some information, which Colleen and April were kind enough to give me, and I forwarded to him last week. He indicated to me that they are in the closing process and it seems like everything is moving along. Consensus of Board was no objection to license. Supervisor Morey – On Thursday of last week, I met with the Better Homes of Tompkins County and over the last couple of years we’ve had grants provided to us for low income to middle income housing. This is a free loan. We do have $67,000 left in this grant program. They are going to advertise in the shopper for applications or pre-applications. If you know anybody, please tell them that the money is available and we would like to loan it out to them. Lock Box This is the . Everybody saw it. This is what we would like to put out in front for emergency keys. This should be part of the proposal that Rick talks about when we have building procedures going. th Anything else? Next Board meeting is April 11, 7:30 PM. I’d take a motion for adjournment. George Totman – Can I just correct you on something? That grant program, the program you’re talking about with Better Housing, is not a loan program; it’s a grant program. It’s up to $25,000 per applicant. Supervisor Morey – I meant grant. I’m sorry. The application in the Shopper will be more clear. MOVED There being no further business, Councilman Sovocool to adjourn, seconded by Councilman Scheffler. Unanimous. Colleen D. Pierson Town Clerk