HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-01-09 A
1 1
, 1 16
TOWN OF GROTON PLANNING BOARD MEETING
Held at the Town Hall
Grotons . N . Y .
Wednesday - _ January 9 , 1980 - 8 PM
PRESENT : : Rq Gleason _'- Chairman* G . Evans - County Planning Board*
L . Raymond - Vice-Chairman
D . Payne* V . Rankin - Town Councilman*
J . MacNeil
G . Totman * Josephine Bell — Recording Clerk*
M . Adams
C . Twigg
- Denotes those present .
L . Raymond called the meeting to order at 8 : 15 PM
due to Mr . Gleason ' s absence .
L .. Raymond : For the time being we ' ll hold an informal meeting since we
don ' t have a quorum and when Roger comes in later we can
approve the minutes of the last meeting and everything .
We don ' t want to hold Mr . Evans up so we ' ll go ahead .
G . Evans : I talked with Roger on the phone about 2 - 3 weeks ago now
about the direction that the work that I ' m doing with you
is taking and I started in with the zoning ordinance and
we got about three - quarters of the way through it and the
subdivision issues came up and we have been working on that
ever since and the question I had for him is are we working
on zoning or are we working on subdivisions ?
L . Raymond : Good question .
G . Evans : I ' m perfectly willing - to work on either or both but I think one
at a time is the way to go and I don ' t see anything wrong in
working on one for awhile and then the other for awhile and
I ' m not trying to direct the activities of this Board but L . Raymond : You would like to have some direction on what to work on?
G . Evans : Right .
L . Raymond : Well , - -I see he had on the agenda here - -
G . Evans : He had both of them and on the phone I thought it was sort of
settled but when I got the agenda I saw it wasn ' t as
settled as I thought .
G . Totman : Why don ' t we settle it right now?
D . Payne : Yes , I agree with Gary . We ' re about three - quarters of the way
through zoning and so far as I know there ' s nothing really
pressing on the subdivisions , - - am I correct ?
- 1 -
L . Raymond : I don ' t know of anything - - unless we have another application
or something .
G . Totman : We do have one on the books and we ' ve lived with it 3 - 4 years .
L . Raymond : I just saw Ben tonight . He met me coming out of the Town Hall
and he wanted me to know he had given his best opinion but he felt
it may not be the only way to settle it and he ' s tired of the
whole thing and says it needs some revision and needs it bad .
D . Payne : Maybe the best thing for him to do is recommend that to the Town
Board .
L . Raymond : I believe that has already happened .
Some discussion was held on this by V . Rankin , D .
Payne , L . Raymond and others .
D . Payne : I think we ' re so close now on the zoning and , as George says ,
2 - 3 more months ought to finish it up and then we can go on to
the other one . I don ' t know how anybody else feels .
G . Evans : At the last meeting I attended here - I guess that was in
November - - I don ' t know . I said at that meeting that I
thought in your Subdivision Regulations that there were some
typographical errors - - just errors in transcribing from
this model ordinance .
L . Raymond : There was some argument as to whether to use that interpretation
or not .
G . Evans : I still hold that opinion on the matter and in talking with Roger
on the phone I suggested that we proceed in the following manner
and that is that there are these typographical kinds of things
that are haywire in the ordinance one of which is the second
public hearing .
L . Raymond : That ' s where the dirt hit the fan , - -couldn ' t get that straightened
out .
G . Evans : And that these things could be recommended to the Town Board very
easily and quickly to go ahead and clean up the typographical
errors . Once that is done turn to the zoning and finish that and
when that is done move to the second phase - - subdivisions - -
and that is the time to make substantive changes in the procedures
and standards and so on where you actually set up some other
categories for subdivisions , if you ' re - interested , and remove some
of these complex features that simply aren ' t designed for a commun-
ity like Groton . With that kind of idea in mind I was preparing
for this meeting and I put together some pages , in revised form ,
which have what I ' m considering typographical and transcription
errors corrected and - -
L . Raymond : These you feel will make the Subdivision Regulations a bit more
understandable for someone who reads it for the first time ?
2 -
G . Evans : I think it will . So if you have copies of the existing ordinance
we could go through it and I could tell you what these transcrip -
tion and typographical errors are that I ' m talking about .
L . Raymond : 0 . K . , - - this starts out with 3 . 1 . 3 - - alright .
G . Evans : Now the differences are in the paragraph at the top of the page
on line 5 it says - a- and this is the part where you ' re classifying
the original sketch plan as it comes in and trying to decide what
your eventual procedures are going to be - - major or minor sub -
division . And it says here " if the sketch plan;;;; , ; ,-. , . Section
2 . . . . . . . " and it should be Sections 2 and 6 . „ Arid " further down
it should be Article III , Sections `3 , \ 4 ;, 5 ,- `6w aud =7 .
L . Raymond : You ' re adding 6 ?
G . Evans : No , I ' m putting it back .
If you look in your table of contents which is on the second page
of this whole thing I believe , Section 6 is the
. (At this point Mr . Gleason arrived at 20 to 9 PM)
L . Raymond : We ' re just having an informal discussion here because we didn ' t
have a quorum for business here: and if we include you ands .your _
, arrivalc.iwe °: can .
G . Evans : Roger , do you have a copy of the subdivision regulations ? What
I have suggested we do here , and I think this is the substance
of our phone conversation of awhile back , is that the features
in the subdivision regulations which appear to be errors in
transcription or typographical errors and so on - - that we deal
with them immediately . That way dump the subdivision then and
finish up the zoning and when that is done get back to the sub -
stantive changes you would like to make in the subdivision re -
gulations . What I was doing when you walked in was going through
the list of transcription and typographical errors and there are
a cluster of them starting on page 7 .
The only ones I ' ve mentioned so far is in the original here -the first Section 2 and it should say Sections 2 and 6 and down
here it : says Sections 3 , 4 , and 5 and it should say 3 , 4 , 5 , E and 7
and I ' m just going by the guide here .
R . Gleason : O . K . , - -Mary Adams called me tonight and said she had a cold and
couldn ' t make it . I don ' t know what ' s happened to Cecil , - -he might
show up yet .
L . Raymond : We haven ' t gone through any of the formal business yet .
R . Gleason : O . K . Do we have a quorum now? O . K . but why don ' t we go on and
get the formalities out of the way for a minute and then go back
to Gary?
G . Evans : Sure .
_ . 3 _
R . Gleason : I ' ll call the meeting to order and I have the minutes of the
last meeting , - - are there any additions or corrections?
L . Raymond : Page 2 and 3 where I ' m discussing item 13 on page 2 I believe that
is the tax map it ' s supposed to have "block and lot numbers " on it . and
also on the same page I remark " all . . . . . . . proposed" and then there ' s
a blank I believe the word there is "mapped" and on page 3 there ' s
another blank at the top here " all existing restructions on use of
the land including" I believe the right word is " assessments . " I
hope that ' s correct anyways .
R . Gleason : Does anyone else have any additions or corrections ? All in favor
of the minutes being approved as corrected say aye .
The minutes were approved as corrected .
R . Gleason : O . K . , - - do we have any - - as far as I know - - O . K . any reports
anyone ? Any old business ? The only thing I have is - - we had
last time a preliminary hearing on my subdivision , - -I believe
at some point we ' re supposed to notify the County ? When would
that be done ?
G . Evals : Are you talking about a general planning review?
R . Gleason : When there ' s any subdivision now there is some point at which
Liguori has to be notified .
G . Evans : Not that I ' m aware of . Zoning matters on County or State roads
or a municipal boundary line but not subdivisions .
D . Payne : On subdivisions I think the only thing is a copy of the map has
to be filed in the County Clerk ' s Office .
R . Gleason : 0 . K .
G . Evans : There ' s a provision in State Law that if the county chooses they
can require that to be done but in this county - - no .
R . Gleason : Any new business ? 0 . K . we ' ll proceed with the review of the
Town Planning and this evening - -
G . B tman : Now Roger - - before you came - - Gary was talking about going in
two directions - - one working on the planning and zoning and the
other working on the subdivision and he recommended we finish up
and correct these things and then go on .
I would propose , in lieu of what Gary stated earlier , that we
eliminate Item 6 tonight and devote our time to Item 7 and then
when we get that done go on to the planning .
R . Gleason : O . K . since it ' s the concensus of the ord , we ' ll drop item 6 and
go on to item 7 .
G . Evans : 0 . K . , - -we got as far as the paragraph at the top of page 7 and
I suggested 2 corrections there to bring it in conformance with
- 4 -
i
1
G . Evans : the model subdivision regulations .
The next change on that page is item 7 - 3 . 1 . 4 and on the revision
you ' ll see it just isn ' t there at all and the reason is that it
just isn ' t here at all either and I think this is something that
got in here because of some mis - transcription that took place .
L . Raymond : 0 . K . - - Jim isn ' t here tonight but as I recall , out of fairness
to the absent member , Jim felt maybe there was some reason that
that was put in there . Personally I would agree , I think it
should be taken out but to be fair to Jim I think we should i
recognize he did have that opinion at that time .
G . Evans : I was suggesting that it would be useful for the proposed sub -
division to be subject to special scrutiny at an early stage .
I think , if you look carefully at the text of that section ,
you ' ll see that it refers to - - well it ' s misspelled - - should
be "modern" subdivision it ' s talking about minor subdivisions at
a point when you have not decided yet whether it ' s to be a minor
or a major subdivision , so I think that paragraph was taken from
something at some later point .
R . Gleason : I can ' t put my finger on it but , at some point , it refers to
the sketch plan and it says , to the effect , it may be eliminated
with the majority vote of the Planning Board .
G . Evans : Yes , - -I don ' t recall having seen that but I know you mentioned
that at the last meeting .
L . Raymond : In our regulations ?
R . Gleason : No in the State regulations and I ' m - - what I ' m trying to
say is I don ' t know - - maybe it ' s something we don ' t need but I
don ' t know . I thought maybe - - - or does it just apply to the
major subdivisions . Is there something in there ?
G . Evans : If you look on the very last page - - page 8 item 3 . 2 . 5 - - has
very much the same wording . It says " a public hearing shall be
held by the Planning Board within 30 days of the time of the
submission . . . . . "
G . Totman : I think it was to save the developer money . If you don ' t have
that first public hearing - - the first one is a general informa-
tion meeting , :=- - this is what we had in mind . He hasn ' t spent
any money at that time but if he does that and gets his maps and
everything drawn up before the regular public hearing and then
it ' s turned down you have required him to spend all that money
unnecessarily . Whereby if you had that first public hearing and
by the nature of what was going on - - they say this is what is
bad about this and we don ' t want it in our area and you take a
second look at it and say maybe they are right but if you wait
and then you hold the hearing and they come out screaming bloody
murder and you say to him "no , it ' s not such a good idea" he
says "why didn ' t you tell me that in the first place before I
- 5 -
G . Totman : all this money ? "
G . Evans : Well - -I can see how that section could have been put in there
intentionally .
G . Totman : I think it was .
R . Gleason : The only thing that bothers me , George , is that we have never
used it before that I can remember :
D . Payne : If that ' s the case , - - is there any need for the second public
hearing ?
G . Totman : Well the first is just to inform the public of what is planned
and the second hearing is where he has spent money and you
know what it ' s going to look like .
D . Payne : Yes , but we ' re still talking about a minor subdivision .
G . Evans : No , we ' re talking about any subdivision . We ' re in Section 3 . 1 .
L . Raymond : O . K . - -minor doesn ' t start until 3 . 2 and before that it applies
to either .
G . Evans : That ' s right . . And 3 . 2 . 5 is the public hearing on a minor
subdivision .
D . Payne : Just a minor .
L . Raymond : But the very first sentence here "Approval of Minor Subdivision"
says "within six months after classification of the . . . . . . . . . . . . "
That implies action has taken place before that and isn ' t that
previous action at a special meeting of the Planning Board
sufficient to meet some of these requirements ? After all we
could - - it could be said , for instance , at that meeting of
the Planning Board , when the sketch plan is first submitted ,
that perhaps the announcement of the Planning Board meeting
could be circulated a little bit wider so they will know a
sketch plan has been submitted . • Would that suffice for any
public reaction?
G . Evans : Do you customarily put a regular notice in the paper announcing
Planning Board meetings?
L . Raymond : No , we don ' t .
G . Evans : Some municipalities do .
L . Raymond : We have had notices the last couple of times because we had
changed the date.
R . Gleason : We do have to decide what night - -
G . Evans : It seems to me the only purpose for the 10 days prior to the
regular meeting is that if you are going to publicize it
that ' s the time to do so and if you get a sketch plan from
-' -somebody , or just a call saying they are going to bring one
6 -
G . Evans : this gives you the opportunity to publish that you are going to
meet and consider a sketch plan at such and such a time and place
and if people want to come it seems like .tliey � cou-ld do so . But
it seems to me , at that stage , a formal public hearing is simply
premature . People are going to come and say , what are you planning
to do and the guy will probably not have a` clear idea of what he
is going to do - -hemay say he would like to subdivide this area
into some building lots but he may not know how many or how large
or any of that sort of thing .
L . Raymond : Of course we do have another practical problem and that particular
publication that our notices appear in for the formal public
hearing requires all adjacent property owners receive special
notice but couldn ' t that be done anyways at the time of the sketch
plan and a letter could be sent to them letting them know when the
next Planning Board meeting is and that there is going to be some
discussion on it ? It seems to me that could be included in the
submission of the sketch plan and would adequately inform those
that may want to make their views known as George has indicated .
G . Evans : One of the features required on a sketch plan are the names of the
owners of all adjoining properties so you would have this informa -
tion and they could be notified .
R . Gleason : You know I ' m - - am I on the right page ?
L . Raymond : 3 . 1 . 4 .
R . Gleason : This 3 . 1 . 4 says " a public hearing shall be held . . . . . . . . " It says
in paragraph 3 . 1 . 2 " subdivision comply with all . . . . . . . . " which
would be approval of minor subdivisions . Now , if you read that
don ' t you go from there right down to here ? The only thing
is if you interpret it that way the public hearing shall be held
within 45 days of submission of a sketch or plat . Now the sub -
mission of a sketch or plat - - the more I read it the more I ' m
confused .
L . Raymond : That was the point I got crossed up on - - it ' s not clear if you
include that . That 's what I found to be so troublesome .
G . Evans : If you look at 3 . 1 . 2 this is on page 6 . This deals with the
business that takes place at the public meeting when the sketch
plan is considered and it says " the subdivider or his representa -
tive shall . . . . . . . . " and . in the next paragraph it says " classifica-
tion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . shall be made by the Planning Board . . . . . . . . "
and then it says " if it ' s a minor you follow Sections 2 and 6 and
if it ' s a major you follow 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , and 7 . " And then it says the
Planning Board can make specific recommendations as to what is to
^ be done and when you get to 3 . 1 . 4 you completely lose the
flow of events .
R . Gleason : Actually what it says though is , if we determine because of this
paragraph back here on page 6 " the Board may require however . . . . . . "
so that would seem to me could be this special hearing thing - -
it ' s not in a major is it ?
7 -
G . . Evans : Yes , in Section 3 - Approval of Major Subdivisions . 3 . 3 preliminary
plat for major subdivisions . 3 . 3 . 6 public hearing .
R . Gleason : So what I was thinking if you go back to the original idea of dropping
this 3 . 1 . 4 we still have the provision that we can require it under
this .
G . Evans : There ' s no way you can avoid a public hearing .
R . Gleason : No , I mean this preliminary 3 . 1 . 4 .
D . Payne : What you ' re saying is based on the fact that under certain circum
stances we can still require it if it seems necessary .
R . Gleason : Yes ' and it almost seems to me we could drop it .
Some discussion was held on this by R . Gleason ,
L . Raymond and others .
L . Raymond : I would like to see it stated - - . for the benefit of the people who
are reading this - - can say that if the Planning Board , in its
judgment , want to hold a second hearing then they may so that - any-
body that reads it knows it if that is the direction we were to take .
This is fine - - you have a set of subdivision regulations and it
says a local agency can hold as many public hearings as it wants to
but gosh darn it we don ' t always have that other law before us and
I would rather have it stated .
G . Evans : In 3 . 2 . 5 it could say , in effect , that additional hearings could be
held at the discretion of the Planning Board and over in 3 . 3 . 6 Public
Hearings on Major Subdivisions you could say " additional public hear -
ings could be held at the discretion of the Planning Board . "
Some discussion was held on this by D . Payne , L .
Raymond , G . Evans .. and others .
R . Gleason : O . K . if we can do that , that would take care of the thing and that ' s
the way to do it but I also want to be sure my personal feeling
is - - if we don ' t want to hold two public hearings we ought to be
able to do it .
G . }7ans : I would suggest you start with the requirement of one but say you
can have two if you want to .
L . Raymond : Gary , would that type of statement be taken to clearly mean that at
any point during the process that is laid out here that we could
decide to hold a second hearing , not just at the beginning but
through the whole process that if we decide to hold a second hearing
we could?
G . Evans : I think so . One of the things that is fairly common practice in the
Town of Danby - - when something comes up where public hearings are
required they have two public hearings , one on one night and one
maybe the next week - - one in the Town Hall and one in the West
Danby Fire Hall - - just as a matter of practicality they have
- 8 -
G . Evans : a geographical reason for doing that there . And sometimes , after
a public hearing , something will have come up at the public hearing
that provokes additional discussion and may require additional in-
put so you can schedule another public hearing at a later date .
V . Rankin The only thing I was thinking is if the subdivider came into you
and he wanted a preliminary hearing why then it would allow you
to give him a chance to see what is going to happen anyways .
R . Gleason : We can do that easily enough - - . as a matter of fact under this
3 . 1 . 2 .
G . Evans : Another addition that might possibly help you out here is some -
where around 3 . 1 . 1 or 3 . 1 . 2 where you ' re talking about just the
original submission of the sketch plan 10 days prior to the
regular meeting of the Board appropriately somewhere in there
you could say that the meeting could be advertised say at the
discretion of the Chairman of the Planning Board and the
location and owner of the sketch plan could be identified and
so on .
D . Payne : Would that be necessary ?
G . Evans : I don ' t personally think so , - -no - - but the feeling I get here is
that people want to be informed about these things as quickly as
possible and a public hearing has certain requirements and what
you want really is just to get people out of their homes and
down here to express their concerns if they have any . So , since
you ' re going to have a formal public hearing on any kind of
subdivision at some point , then there ' s no formal reason for a
preliminary public hearing . A preliminary meeting at which
people are informed may do what you want to accomplish without
the requirement of a public hearing .
. Some discussion was held on this by L . Raymond , D .
Payne , R . Gleason , G . Evans and others .
R . Gleason : The question I have is - - . I guess - - under that set -up who is
going to make that decision ?
G . &Tans : It would have to be some designated person . Normally it would
have to be the chairman . It seems to me that if at the first
meeting you consider it and make your decision as to whether
you want to hold a public hearing or not - - there really isn ' t
any need for this 10 days advance thing because if he comes in
at the public meeting and says I have a plan here I want to dis -
cuss you can look at it and classify it and discuss all the
requirements and decide , at that time , whether you want to have
a public hearing or not .
More discussion was held on this by all present .
G . Totman : I think the chairman ought to know in advance and put it on the
agenda .
L . Raymond : I agree with George but I think we should require that notification
9 -
L . Raymond : should be brought to the Board meeting .
R . Gleason : If you go over to the major subdivision it says - "prior- to the
filing of an application for approval . . . . . . . . . . . . " and it goes
on to say what he has to do and so on and lie ' has to put some
money with it whereas with the minor one you have this plat but ,
. again , it ' s a confusing point to me and goes back to this whole
thing . We can discuss the preliminary sketch and no money has
to be put in , then we determine whether it ' s a major or minor
and then , according to this , hold a public hearing . Apparently
only if it ' s a minor .
G . Evans : No , that ' s the confusing thing about it .
Some discussion was held on this by all .
G . Evans : The outline of the procedure is the guy comes in with a sketch
plan and you look at it and decide whether it ' s a major or a
minor and he then has some time to firm up his proposal and
if it ' s a minor he comes in and you have a public hearing which
he is at and you approve it . If it ' s a major he comes in with
some money and a preliminary plat and you have a public hearing
on that and you approve his preliminary plat and then he has 6
months to work up his final plat .
Further discussion was held on this by all .
G . Evans : I will try to write up one or more versions - - one with an
optional public hearing 3 . 1 . 1 and another version with an
advertised public meeting so you can consider both of them at
the next meeting . Is that alright ?
R . Gleason : 0 . K .
L . Raymond : I ' ll go along with that .
G . Evans : Let me flash forward at my usual blinding speed here
3 . 2 . 1 the last line of the first paragraph where it says
" listed in Article V , Section 2a - - there ' s no 2a - - it
should be 2 . 1 . The present version says 2a and it should
say 2 . 1 . The next page I handed out to you is identified
as 8 and the one after that is 8 . 5 revised version . The
addition I made here is at the end of Section 3 . 2 . 6 - -
several lines of text were left out . The first sentence
from the model legislation was included but then it goes
on for another half page in the model in effect telling you
what you are supposed to do upon granting conditional
approval and so on " the Planning Board shall empower a duly..
authorized officer to sign the plat upon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
It tells you what to do but here it says you shall approve ,
modify and . approve or disapprove the Subdivision plat . There
are three different options and might include it here telling
you what to do in those three cases .
. L . Raymond : I wonder if that was left out or what purpose there was for
leaving it out ?
10 -
w '
G . Evans : My opinion of the matter is that it was left out inadvertently . I
cannot see why it would be left out deliberately .
Some discussion was held on this by all .
G . Funs : Anyhow in the material I handed out in 8 rev . and 8 . 5 Section
3 . 2 . 6 has had the actual text from the model ordinance put in
it .
Now in your present ordinance the first sentence appears . All
the material after the first sentence is the material I am
suggesting you . add .
G . Totman : It was intended to be this way in the first place - - what you ' re
suggesting , - -I ' m sure .
G . . Evans : I ' m not talking about revisions now . I ' m talking about corrections .
Some discussion on this was held by all .
G . Totman : I would like to move that we implement Gary ' s change in this and
move on .
L . Raymond : I ' m not satisfied with the last part S sthat . I agree to adding
more but the last part of it where it a Clerk of the Planning
Board has a : 'separate office - - so far as I ' m concerned it seems
to me that could be consolidated just a bit but I agree with the
first paragraph and the first part of the second .
G . Evans : Would " shall be filed with him" - - ?
L . Raymond : Why don ' t you just go on , - -I may want to go back to this later .
G . Evans : I admit this is kind of an eye popper when you see this . It assumes
everybody has their own office and secretarial staff and own mail
room and so on .
Further discussion was held on this by L . Raymond ,
D . Payne and others .
G . Evans : On:_Fpage , 9 : - - due to the revision that appeared on page 8 and 8 . 5 ,.k" the
head:� sg�=Preliminary Plat for Major Subdivisions" fias�. been relocated
to 'the ' top of the page 9 revised and the correction I have tried to
. _make here is that about a line and a half of the text was simply left
out . In the old version it said "prior to the filing . . . . . . " it should
have read " for the consideration of a preliminary plat of the pro -
posed subdivision . Such Preliminary Plat shall be clearly marked
L . Raymond : How does that really differ from what we have in ours ?
G . Evans : It deletes the requirement that it has to be marked preliminary
plat . I know of one filed in the Clerk ' s Office marked "Preliminary
Plat" which never did get approved . This is not a big item , though .
- 11 -
G . Evans : One more that is so small I didn ' t prepare a sheet on it - - if you
look at page 10 " 3 . 3 . 5 . 6 " should be " 3 . 3 . 6 " . It seems to me that
if you approve these corrections that this could be made as a
recommendation for an amendment to the Town Board . You could
drop the subdivisions for awhile and finish up on the zoning . These
are things that I would classify as errors .
L . Raymond : And items of confusion '
R . Gleason : But you ' re going to write in this business about the hearings ?
G . Evans : I ' ll certainly prepare it for the next meeting .
L . Raymond : That certainly would help a lot for some future actions here .
D . Payne : And if we don ' t have many copies left there will be a reprint soon .
G . Totman : Yes , they are waiting for us . This is the only copy they have
left , right here .
R . Gleason : O . K . then , Gary , next time , you ' ll bring this revision and we ' ll
try to act upon it then .
Now if everything goes well this could take a relatively short time ,
then .
G . Evans : I would think so .
L . Raymond : If there aren ' t any large . questions at the next meeting we should
be able to .
G . Totman : I think we have asked all the questions tonight .
R . Gleason : And then we could go on with the zoning ordinance .
This is the other question before we adjourn - - we have to decide
what is the best night for our meetings . We have been meeting the
first Tuesday of each month , - - is that still the best night ?
G . Totman : Not for me it isn ' t . Starting next week I ' m going to school on
Tuesday nights , _-- Wednesdays or Mondays .
Some discussion was held on this by all and it was decided to
hold the Planning Board Meetings the first Wednesday of each
month . . After talking to members who are not at this meeting ,
if this is not agreeable he will let everyone know when the
February meeting will be held .
Mr . Gleason mentioned that the annual meeting of the Association of
Towns will take place in New York City February 17 , 18 , 19 and 20th
if any of the planning board members want to go . Mr . . Totman will
be going . Mr . . Payne will not nor will Mr . Raymond , Mr . Gleason
thinks Cecil Twigg might go and he is hoping to but right now
doesn ' t know due to illness in his family .
Don Payne made a motion the meeting be adjourned which was
seconded by L . Raymond and carried .
- 12 -
Unless notified otherwise , the next meeting of the Planning
Board will be on Wednesday night at 8 : 00 P .M . February 6th , 1980 .
The meeting adjourned at 10 PM .
Respectfully submitted ,
J seph ne Bell
13 -
J r lL�r
Subdivision comply with all or some of the requirements
specified for Major Subdivisions . If the Sketch Plan is
• classified as a Minor Subdivision , the subdivider shall
then comply with the procedure outlined in Article III ,
Sections 2 and 6 of these regulations . -- If it is classified as
a Major Subdivision , the subdivider shall then comply
with the procedure outlined in Article III , Sections 3 ,
4 , 5 , 6 , and 7 .
3 . 1 . 3 Study of Sketch Plan
The Planning Board shall determine whether the Sketch - ..
Plan meets the purposes of these regulations and shall ,
where it deems it necessary , make specific recommendations
in writing to be incorporated by the applicant in the
next submission to the Planning Board .
3 . 2 Approval of Minor Subdivision
3 . 2 . 1 Application and Fee
Within six months after classification of the Sketch Plan
as a Minor Subdivision by the Planning Board , the subdivider
==r , shall submit an application for approval of a Subdivision
Plat . Failure to do so shall require re - submission of
the Sketch Plan to the Planning Board for re - classification .
The Plat shall conform to the layout shown on the Sketch
Plan plus any recommendations made by the Planning Board .
Said application shall also conform to the requirements
listed in Article V , Section 2 . 1 .
All applications for Plat approval for Minor Subdivisions
shall be accompanied by a fee of $ C 0 dollars .
Fees not Refundable .
• 3 . 2 . 2 Number of Copies
Five copies of the Subdivision Plat shall be presented
1 to the Secretary of the Planning Board at least ten days
i
s
prior to a scheduled monthly meeting of the Planning Board .
• 3 . 2 . 3 Subdivider to Attend Planning Board Meeting
The subdivider , or his duly authorized representative ,
shall attend the meeting of the Planning Board to
discuss the Subdivision Plat . .
3 . 2 . 4 When Officially Submitted
The time of submission of the Subdivision Plat shall be
considered to be the date of the regular monthly meeting
of the Planning Board at least ten days prior to which
the application for Plat approval , complete and
i
accompanied by the required fee and all data required
by Article V , Section 2 of these regulations , has been
I
filed with the Secretary of the Planning Board .
3 . 2 . 5 Public Hearing
A public hearing shall be held by the Planning Board
within thirty ( 30 ) days from the time of submission of
the subdivision plat for approval . Said hearing shall
be advertised in a newspaper ' of general circulation in
the town at least five ( 5 ) days before such hearing . ,
3 . 2 . 6 Action on Subdivision Plat
F. ACTION ON SUBDIVISION PLAT
The Planning Board shall , within forty-five ( 45 )
days from the date of the public hearing, act to con-
ditionally approve , conditionally approve with modi-
fication , disapprove or grant final approval and au-
thorize the signing of the Subdivision Plat. This time
may be extended by mutual consent of the subdivider
and the Planning Board . Failure of the Planning
Board to act within such .time shall constitute ap-
proval of the plat.
Upon granting conditional approval with or with-
out modification to the plat, the Planning Board shall
empower a duly. authorized officer to sign the plat
upon compliance with such conditions and require-
merits as may be stated in its resolution of conditional
4
• approval . Within five ( 5 ) days of the resolution
granting conditional approval , the plat shall be certi-
fied by the Clerk of the Planning Board as condition-
ally approved, a copy shall be filed in his office, and a
certified copy mailed to the subdivider. The copy
j mailed to the subdivider shall include a certified
statement of such requirements which, when com-
pleted , will authorize the signing of the conditionally
approved plat. Upon completion of such requirements,
the plat shall be signed by the . duly designated officer
of the Planning Board . Conditional approval of a
plat shall expire one hundred eighty ( 180 ) days after
the date of the resolution granting such approval
unless the requirements have been certified as com-
pleted within that time. The Planning , Board may,
however, extend the time within which a conditionally
approved plat may be submitted for signature , if in
its opinion such extension is warranted in the circum-
stances, for not to exceed two additional periods of
ninety ( 90 ) days each.
•
v
3 . 3 Preliminary Plat for Major Subdivisions
3 . 3 . 1 Application and Fee ,
• Prior to the filing of an application for the approval of
a Major Subdivision Plat , the subdivider shall file an
application for the consideration of a Preliminary Plat
of the proposed subdivision . Such Preliminary Plat shall
be clearly marked ' Preliminary Plat ' and shall be in the
form described in Article V . Section 3 , hereof . The
Preliminary Plat shall , in all respects comply with the
requirements set forth in the provisions of Sections
276 and 277 of the Town Law ,
and Article V , Section 3 of these regulations , except
where a waiver may be specifically authorized by the
Planning Board .
The application for conditional approval of the preliminary
J.
plat shall be accompanied by a fee of $ 25 . 00 dollars ,
plus $ 10 . 00 dollars per lot for each lot in the
proposed subdivision , Fees are not refundable .
• 3 . 3 . 2 Number of Copies
Five ( 5 ) copies of the Preliminary Plat shall be presented
to the Clerk of the Planning Board at least ten ( 10 )
days prior to a regular monthly meeting of the Planning
Board ,
3 . 3 . 3 Subdivider to Attend Planning Board Meeting
The subdivider , or his duly authorized representative , shall
attend the meeting of the Planning Board to discuss the
Preliminary Plat .
3 . 3 . 4 Study of Preliminary Plat
The Planning Board shall study the practicability of the
Preliminary Plat taking into consideration the requirements
of the community and the best use of the land being
subdivided . Particular attention shall be given to the