Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979-10-02 r TOWN OF GROTON PLANNING BOARD Meeting Held in the Town Hall Groton , N . Y . Tuesday - October 2 , 1979 - 8 PM PRESENT : R . Gleason on Chairman* G . Evans - County Planning Board* L . Raymond on Vice -Chairman* C . Twigg - Secretary* D . Payne* G . Totman* M . Adams* J . MacNeil J . Bell no Recording Clerk* * - Denotes those present . Mr . Gleason called the meeting to order at 8 PM and handed out copies of the minutes of the regular September meeting of the Planning Board and also the minutes of a Special meeting held on September 25 , 1979 to all present . R . Gleason : Are there any additions or corrections to the regular meeting minutes ? L . Raymond : I have quite a few : On page 3 , bottom of page , line 1 , add " subdivision" , On page 2 delete irrelevant remark by me near the bottom of the page , On page 5 add after " I assume there aren ' t any" property restrictions . On page 10 on the New York Senate on June 7th but wasn ' t passed by the Assembly . L . Raymond made a motion the minutes be accepted as amended which was seconded by D . Payne and carried . R . Gleason : 0 . K . , that takes care of the regular meeting - any additions or corrections on the special meeting minutes ? G . Totman made a motion these minutes be accepted as written which was seconded by M . Adams and carried . R . Gleason : 0 . K . on reports on do we have any reports of any kind ? I don ' t think so . Old business ? New business ? A lengthy discussion was held by all on sub - division regulations . - 1 - Mr . Evans discussed changes he would suggest be made in the Subdivision Ordinance for the Town of Groton to orient it more to the rural environ - ment . He also suggested that they should reduce the requirement on maps as the sketch plan is simply a tool to help classify the subdivision and to help determine what procedures are going to be followed . G . Evans : One thing you might do is just have the submission at this stage be a verbal statement , - - a description of what you plan to do . C . Twigg : Or a hand - drawn map . R . Gleason submitted copies of his sketch map for his proposed subdivision to C . Twigg , Secretary of the Planning Board to be presented to the Board at their next meeting . G . Evans : The third point I ' d make would be to involve Town officials , rather than the secretary of the Planning Board and have the material brought to the Town office and file it . The fourth thing is , I think you would be wise to require some level of review and approval of all lot divisions and I mean even moving a boundary line a little bit . There ' s a requirement in Town Law , under Section 270 I believe , - - it ' s that the County Clerk is not supposed to receive any plats for filing that don ' t have on them the signature of the chairman of the Planning Board or the officer designated to approve a subdivision plan •: in those municipalities that have a subdivision ordinance and this is why I suggest more than two classes , some that require public hearings and some that only require the signature of the Planning Board . Are there any questions about any of these four things that I mentioned - - adding different classes of subdivisions , - - reducing the requirement for professionally drawn map , - - in- volving regular Town employees in the process , where appropriate - - and requiring some level or degree of approval on all lot divisions ? L . Raymond : I would like to have some indication of what we would be letting ourselves in for if we have to approve all land divisions in the Town of Groton . G . Evans : I can find out fairly easily how many there are . Further discussion was held on this by all . G . Evans : If this seems generally agreeable , I will start grinding away on this and come up with something . G . Totman : The only main thing , I have reservations on , is what you ' re saying - 2 - G . Totman : regarding these sketch maps . I guess I could go along without having a professional - drawn sketch map if they used a copy of the tax map so we would have some kind of idea of what they actually owned - - the land and the boundaries . R . Gleason : You would have to submit tax number on the application . D . Payne : But we wouldn ' t have the application at that time . G . Evans : You just get a copy of the tax map . R . Gleason : If you ' re trying to show any detail you would be hard pressed . The sketch should be separate but he should show on the tax map where it is . Further discussion was held on this and public hearings by all . R . Gleason : Let ' s get back to Gary . G . Evans : If you simply want to say that you want to drop some of these points or go on all four - - will take these as general in- structions and go back to my office and grind something out for you . Some discussion was held by all about what would go through a subdivision review and what wouldn ' t be necessary to go through a full review . R . Gleason : Maybe there are some areas where we don ' t have to have a hearing and so on and some we do . Would you all agree on that ? . L . Raymond : There might be a point where it wouldn ' t be necessary to have a public hearing but the property owners should be notified where something like that is planned and they could drop in on the next Planning Board meeting if they wanted to . R . Gleason : What we ' re really saying is we need simplification and would like you to put something together and we can go over it . C . Twigg : The point is what the person who is buying it might be going to do with it . Depending on what would be going in there would be of public concern but we have a zoning ordinance for that end of it . As far as the deal on the stream , - - that ' s not important , - - the Health Department would decide on that . They have all the regulations so that is where the public hearings are more important is what the guy is going to do after he buys it . I don ' t see that these subdivisions should be of any big concern to the public . L . Raymond : True , I agree with you , Cecil , but if the person who is doing the subdividing is not the one that is going to put the junk- yard or chicken house on it , can we even consider that ? The person buying those lots , if he is going to put something on - 3 - L . Raymond : there it comes under the other regulations and that is not part of our public hearings , though people come and say so and so is going to put such and such a thing on there . . That would be another process . Some discussion was held on this by all . R . Gleason : Let ' s drop this for now . I did have a couple of things to bring up . We have a whole bunch of these maps and so on . Gary , can you tell us how we should be taking care of them? They are subdivision maps from years past . What do we do with them? G . . Evans : Once they are on file in the County Clerk ' s office there ' s no reason why you should have to keep them . R . Gleason : Are there books available to bind them up ? G . Evans : The binders they use in the County Assessor ' s Office for tax maps . L . Raymond : You also can get map cabinets . R . Gleason : One of those binders would be good and they could be kept in the safe . G . Totman : Put them in a map binder and file them alphabetically . G . Evans : Are these of a uniform size ? R . Gleason : There are some that are smaller . G . Evans : There are hanging folders and big manilla envelopes - - big enough to lay them flat but I wouldn ' t suggest keeping them once the process is completed . However if someone files something and the application gets hung up or dropped I would keep those around . R . Gleason : Also about meeting minutes - - how long do you have to keep these on file ? We have them going back to 1969 . G . Evans : You ' re wondering how long you should keep them? Those you keep forever . G . Totman : But you only need to keep one copy . R . Gleason : One of the things , - -when they are doing this - - if we could come up with a check list that is simplified - - just to check off steps to be taken . . L . Raymond : Even a chart or something maybe that shows a time schedule , number of days and so on . That would be very helpful to me . G . Evans : Such as an administrative check list for use in subdivision - 4 - y G . Evans : review? I ' m not necessarily suggesting this format but this one has a place they can be initialled throughout the process . R . Gleason : And also divided , out as to whether it ' s a minor or major or some kind of criteria . R . Gleason : Lyle has some information on this business of liability - - L . Raymond : Not very much - - Gary was one of the people I talked to and I did talk to Professor Richard Booth in Regional Planning Office , - - he used to be in the DEC counsel ' s office in Albany and he had something to do with the writing of the SEQUA law and I asked him about this personal liability matter and he said he had never heard of it and he said we ' d better check With Mr . Bucko and find out precisely what he was basing his interpretation on and that he would like to see it . He said to ask him what he based his opinion on:. - He would like to see it because there ' s nothing in here that says if you don ' t make an environmental statement you are personally liable , G . Evans : I called him on this too and he said that although there are some possibilities or occasions where a public officer , or maybe a member of a Board who has decision-making responsibilities , - - he thinks it ' s pretty far - fetched and not likely to happen but he says there ' s nothing about the SEQUA law that makes it any different than any other law so there ' s nothing that makes board members personally liable any more frequently or likely than under any other law . He thought that if Mr . Bucko had some situation in mind he should come forth and say what it is he is concerned about . . A lengthy discussion was held on this by all. : A discussion was also held as to when the next Planning Board meeting should be held due to the first Tuesday in November being election night and it was decided to hold it on November 13th , Tuesday , at 8 PM . G . Totman made a motion the meeting be adjourned which was seconded by D . Payne and carried . The meeting adjourned at 10 : 10 P . M . Respectfully submitted , J sephine Bell - 5 - A TOWN OF GROTON PLANNING BOARD PUBLIC HEARING A public hearing of the Town of Groton Planning Board was held in the Groton Town Hall , at 7 : 45 pm on Tuesday , September 25 , 1979 . Those present were Lyle Raymond , George Totman , Cecil Twigg , Mary Adams , Donald Payne , James MacNeil , Benjamin Bucko ; as town ' s attor - ney , Linda Willis ; substitute recording clerk . Other persons present : Roger Gleason ; submitting proposed subdivision , Deforest Hall and wife , Steve Simmons , and wife , John Harrington , Van Gorder , Donald Carrs Lyle Raymond presided over the meeting . Mr . Raymond opened the meeting at 7 : 45 pm . L . Raymond : Please take notice that the Planning Board of Groton issued a public notice in the newspaper regarding the development of a subdivison propdsal on Clark Street and Lick Street , and notice in newspaper is by order of the Groton Planning Board . It says : " PUBLIC NOTICE " TOWN OF GROTON NOTICE OF HEARING ON SUBDIVISION Please take notice that the Planning Board of the Town of Groton , County of Tompkins , New York , will hold a public hearing at the Town Hall , 101 Conger Boulevard , Groton , New York , at 7 : 30 pm on Tuesday , September 25 , 1979 , for the purpose of considering the application for development of a subdivision at Clark Street Extension and Lick Street and borderP,dtby Simmons , Tillotson , VanGorder , McMasters , Brown , Perks , Harrington , Goodale , Galusha ; submitted by Roger W . Gleason , by order of the Groton Planning Board , Lyle S . Raymond , Vice Chairman , Dated September 19 , 1979 The Special Meeting notice says : " SPECIAL MEETING " TOWN OF GROTON PLANNING BOARD Please take notice that the Town of Groton Planning Board will hold a special meeting on Tuesday , September 25 , 1979 , at 8 : 00pm at the Town Hall , 101 Conger Boulevard , Groton , New York , Roger W . , Gleason , Chairman , Dated September 17 , 1979 . L . Raymond : The town subdivision law adopted in 1969 requires that the Town Planning Board is to approve and review any sub - division of land into two or more parcels in the Town of Groton . The planning board first reviews a sketch of what the subdivision proposes to do to identify the changes it will cause , the character of the proposed improvements , and what should be required to safeguard the public interest . _ 1 ® L . Raymond : The Planning Board then notifies all property owners bordering the proposed subdivision and holds a public hearing . Following the hearing , the Planning Board approves or disapproves the subdivision . The Planning Board has reviewed the sketched plan for this subdivision and I hope that all the adjacent property owners have received the proper notification through the U . S . Mail . I do want to point out that the Planning Board is appointed by the Town Board and has no power other than that delegated by the Town Board whichlas primary decision making power in the town . The Town Board has delegated the power to approve subdivisions to this planning board back in 1969 . Now , I think it might be appropriate at' this point before opening the hearing for any questions or remarks that you may have , to ask Mr . Gle ason to describe just what it is he proposes to do, for everybody concerned , e R . Gleason : I am selling to my son as part of a long range farm plan , the house that he lives in on Clark Street , and I have a lote just to the west that I did have sold , but the deal fell through . And then , I am conveying to McMaster ' s 75 feet that he wants to enlarge his lot . That makes three pieces and that is why we have to have the subdivi - a sion . S . Simmons : Please clarify what is encompassed in the subdivision . Do you want to create a building , development or what . From our understanding , he can sell this lot , and he can sell one more lot . L . Raymond : He cannot sell any more without further approval than what the Planning Board approves or disapproves . He is asking for approval of three parcels . G . Totman : MayyI explain that this a minor subdivision , not a major subdivision , and that if he sells any more , it would require a new public hearing and a new application . What you see here is all he can sell under this application . D . Hall : Is the property large enough so that major subdivision could be accomplished at a later date ? I think everyone has this in the back of their mind . G . Totman : He would have to reapply . The county Health Department requires 200 foot frontage , and the se(bnd lot has 300 foot frontage , so he couldn ' t divide it at a later date . D . Hall : So what you are selling to Jimmy is not as big as I anticipated , for the number of people involved . In other words , all of these names involved are only boundry proper - ty . L . Raymond : Only a few of the names listed actually border the lot as I understand it . R . Gleason : It looks like there could be another lot on the corner of Clark and Lick Street , but it is not a viable lot . - 2 - S . Simmons : What do you mean by a " viable " lot . R . Gleason : Creek running , a swamp . S . Simmons : Well , according to what the tax assessor told me , there is no such thing as a viable lot any more . J . Harrington : I think Steve is alluding to something that is in the back of all of our minds . Already the population density has increased , and a few more lots have been sold . It is getting rather uncomfortable . I think everybody is con - cerned about resources , etc. . People buy a piece of pro ® perty for a particular reason . People who have horses , and raise horses , want to ride them on the road . The Town Highway Department has improved the road and traffic has increased significantly . It concerns the general comfort of living . L . Raymond : What you are raising here is a question concerning the general subdivision regulations that the town has , rather than this specific subdivision per say. S . Simmons : Yes , it ' s really not a matter against any one person personnally , it is a matter of your own personal feeing . The reason that you moved out into the country in that area is to be apart from your neighbor and the other people . Now , myself I think I am the closest one to be affected , living right across the road , and that ' s going to make three houses within about an eighth of a mile stretch right there . John and I and some of the other people who live in the area have talked about this and we hadn ' t come to any conclussion , but I was going to come down here with the idea that I was going to say " no " . That ' s mainly why , because I bought the place because I wanted to be out far enough away from other people where you still have neigh ® hors , but you still have breathing room . You have your own comfort of living . B . Bucko : That is not an out and out objection of the law , because you cannot deny your neighbor the right to use his pro ® perty as he wishes . You may want it to be reserved for your particular area because that ' s your property say , if you have twelve acres of land . But if the other guy has 50 acres and he wants to put in a subdivision , he has all the protection of the law to use it in any way that he sees fit as long as it is within the content of the plan of the town and meets all of the subdivision requirements . S . Simmons : In other words , you are saying that this meet - s unnec ® essary if the planning board sees it fit even if we voice our opinion against it . B . Bucko : Nov under the present ordinance of the subdivision if he meets all the requirements , they would have to find that it would be detrimental to the neighborhood. to deny it . But , there isn ' t any reason to deny it , and the fact that ou say it would increase development in that area , under he law , that ' s not a valid reason . e3 I J . Harrington : But is it our responsibility to demonstrate that ? B . Bucko : Yes , it is . J . Harrington : But it is not his responsibility to demonstrate that it would not occur . B . Bucko : Well , in a major subdivision it would be , in a minor subdivision , no . J . Harrington : There is one other matter that I would like to speak to you about , and that is the little stream that runs through the property , which is a tributary to Peg Mill Brook . According to DEC , it is classified as a CET , that is a trout stream . There has been serious modification to the stream this summer , construction , which has affected the fish population in the stream , and I think that this board should be aware of this . Any construction that would alter the stream would be against DEC regulation . Secondly , people in DEC inform me that first since this is in the head water of the tributary that this law applies not only to the head stream , but to the water shed . It is in an area which Tompkins County Soil maps show is a high - ly variable one , with a very small area of sand , boulder clay , and tills . We all know that the stream is very poor along the crest of that area . Any significant modification would affect the flow of water in the stream . It is a permanent stream and does not dry up in the summe4 and does not completely freeze over in the winter , It flows through the corner of my barn yard , and for much of the year it is the sole water supply for my livestock . According to the DEC any new wells and even construction of lawn and black top will modify the stream . This is information that I have been made aware of . I hope that Mr . Gleason will not create any modification of the envi - ronment . It is more than an aesthetic thing , if the water supply dries up , I have got a problem . R . Gleason : There is no intention to do anything to the stream . If there is a house built it would already have health depart - ment approval . However , the house would be actually far enough from the stream so as not to affect it . J . Harrington : There are two regulations : One , you cannot move the stream . And , two , you cannot modify the water shed to decrease the flow , As I understand it is it is in a very delicate position , as it is very high up in this water shed . If McMasters extend their lawn 75 feet , it will have an impact on that stream . If that stream dries up , I have a problem . R . Gleason : Has it dried up before ? J . Harrington : No , it never has dried up before . 4® R . Gleason : The source of water for that stream is not therg , it is much higher up . The source for that is up in the woods of Perk ' s and Brown ' s . There are some very large springs up there . J . HarringtonI am sure the Planning Board has the soil maps to see where it does start . L . Raymond : Are you submitting this as an official bid of evidence that if a house is built and a domestic well dug , that it would eternally affect the stream based on soil maps ? J . Harrington : Yes , I would suggest that it may well be . S . Simmons : I don ' t think ' it ' s a matter of just wells , it ' s the whole surrounding area . The lawn , anything . Besides the fact that another new well is sunk on Roger ' s existing property . They just put that down within the last month . So , that will be two newvell s The head water starts up here , but the water shed actually comprises quite an area along the start of the stream . L . Raymond : As far as domestic water supply is concened , molt of the water used in the households is returned to the ground as waste water as we know it , so you are not actually withdrawing water from the stream , but you are recycling it or returning it back to the ground , through the waste water . It is not evaporated into the air in most cases as it would with errogation . I was wondering if you had had any further evidence of any other wells in the area , either in the past or recently that have had some known effect on the stream that we could consider in our deliberation . J . Harrington : The only other well is the new one that was just put in , B . Bucko : So you have no frame of reference . You wouldn ' t be able to tell without a subsurface structure of that s6il where the water was coming from . G . Totma.n : On what property was the new well dug . R . Gleason : Lot ## 2 . S . Simmons : How deep is your well , Roger ? R . Gleason : 65 feet , below rock . B . Bucko : It still doesn ' t prove that - where the water was coming from . Mr . Harrington has a point , but without a sub - surfact study of that soil , you coul.dn ' t tell where that water was coming from . The waterbed that he ' s drawing from may not come from the same source . J . Harrington : Aerial surface development , B . Rucko : Which office did you talk to ? J . Harrington : The Cortland office . - 5 - B . Bucko : Well , I just tried a case against a farmer for pollution of a neighbors land based on springs . The DEC wouldn ' t enforce it based upon pollution until they got They say alot of things and they say that thele ' s pol. ution and that it affectsit , but this is a CET structured stream , Virgil Creek and the high count of pollution going into Virgil Creek was enough for them to act on but they said that they don ' t have juristician because they cannot get the point source of the pollution . J . Harrington : Then what are you saying ? That we have to prove this ? What I merely want to do is to put it on record . B . Buckos You should put it on record , but if the Econ Department says that a well will disturb it , then it is up to you to prove that it is a fact , and DEC should come in and prove that it is a fact . R . Gleason : You may very well find that there is more flow , because by shutting off a spring that has been used for a hundred years , which rs a surface spring , now that will overflow into the stream beds , creating even more flow . J . Harrington : Well , it that is the case , I will be very happy . But , if it dries up , I will be very unhappy . L . Raymond : Any other remarks or statements before we close the hearing . G . Totman : I think this is great , but I detect from . one of the state - ments that was made that they had a feeling it didn ' t make any difference if they came or not , because things that are here , but I get a good feeling that they were here because , first of all , it was advertised in the paper that we were having a subdivision and from the advertisement if you don ' t know anything about what a subdivision is , it shounds like you might have a whole lot of houses cmin g in . I think that this is what some of the people might have had in mind . I think that it is good that people come to get abetter idea of what a major and minor - sub - division is , and to get a better understanding of what our job is . And , Second of all , as I listened to the problem about the creek , which is very important in many people ' s minds now , which is very understandable , because you want to preserve your natural waterways , But , one of the problems that the Planning Board has is that we can look at these in the back of your mind , but the main thing is how it affects the neighborhood , and how it affects the laws in the Town of Groton . As far as the creek is con - cerned , it is up to the individual property owner and the appropriate state agency as to how they deal with it . Once somebody buys it , it ' s really out of the hands of the local planning board , it ' s more in the hands of the state agency to control it . _6 ® M1. B . Bucko : If there is an environmental impact then that is to be taken into consideration . And , when we talk about environm mental impact , it ' s not just environmental , it ' s social and economical . For example , if you ' re going to have a 500 ®house development , then there ' s going to be an impact as far as traffic is concerned . D . Halls You were stressing the fact that there wasn ' t enough room to develop . How come when the assessors come aroung and they make you believe that your property is worth so much and so many building lots , and yet you only have just a minute chunk of land . Yet , there is just a minute chunk of land , but he can develop it later on . B . Bucko : I think you are saying two things . As they pointed out to you , Lot# 1 is not big enough to divide anywhere because Lot# 1 is 300 by 425 feet and the town regares at least one acre of land with 200 foot frontage . So , therefore , he could not divide this . If you are talking about the rest of the land , yes , he can divide it . ( The rest of his farm ) . But , he would have to go under subdivision regulations . D . Hall : I guess this is what you might say doing it piece by piece . B . Bucko : No , this is a minor subdivision . If he puts in two more lots , it becomes a major subdivision . It ' s got to be out - lined . S . Simmons : On that you said that this lot cannot be divided . Couldn ' t he put a right of way up to another lot and divide it across ? B . Bucko : No , it has to be 200 foot frontage ; that ' s street frontage . L Raymond : If there are no more questions , this public hearing is adjourned . Public hearing adjourned at 8130pm . _ 7v TOWN OF GROTON PLANNING BOARD SPECIAL MEETING A special meeting of the Planning Board was held at the Town Mall at 8 : 40 Pm on Tuesday , September 25 , 1979 • Those present were : Lyle Raymond , George Totman , Cecil Twigg , Mary Adams , James MacNeil , Donald Payne , Benjamin Bucko ; as town ' s attorney , Linda Willis ; substitute recording clerk . Lyle Raymond presided over the meeting : L . Raymond : The announced proposal of the special meeting to to make a decision on the proposed subdivision by Mr . Roger Gleason . We have had the special hearing and heard a number of interesting statements , and we now need to consider those statements and any new statements of evidence that may turn up for the record . R . Gleason : In view of the fact that I apparently did not submit these within the prescribed time , I will withdraw it . L . Raymond : We have a withdrawal by the applicant of the subdivision , so it does appear that we have nothing to decide on . Are there any further comments on this ? If not , we wil ask for a motion to close the meeting . D . Payne : Motion requested . L . Raymond : Do we have a 'second ? U . MacNeil : I second it . L . Raymond : All in favor say " Ay " . All * " Ay " L . Raymond : Motion has been approved . Meeting closed at 8 : 47pm . J