HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-10-15 t
TOWN OF GROTON
PLANNING BOARD
Thursday , October 15 , 1987 , 8 : 00 p . m .
BOARD ( *present ) PUBLIC present
Georege Totman* , Chairman Gary Wood , Zoning Enforcement
Michael Post* , Vice Chairman Officer
Nancy Ostrander , Core Secretary Mary Ellen Lane
Cecil Twigg* Roger Gleason
Monica Carey*
Verl Rankin*
William Casolara
G . TOTMAN opened the meeting at 8 : 00 p . m . Minutes of they~September 15 ,
1987 meeting were read and amended as follows : pg . 11 , 2nd line from the
bottom , Wood : " . . . . . . can not can ' t . . . . . . " . pg 9 , Wood : 'U' . . . . . . " create 2 legal
lots that are 200 feet deep and have 315 foot frontage . . . . . . " . M . POST made
the motion the minutes of the September 15 , 1987 meeting be approved with
corrections , M . CAREY seconded the motion and the motion carried .
PROPOSED MAJOR SUBDIVISION application of ROBERT & MARGARET KLUGE located
on the northeast corner of Clark St . Ext . and Salt lid . Tax Map No . 17- 1 -26 . 1 :
TOTMAN : For the purpose of the minutes I was called to task for the voting
on the proposed Major Subdivision application of Robert Kluge on
the night of the public hearing , 10/1 /87 , because the notice of
the hearing was for only the public hearing . The notice did not
say ' and for any other business that might come before the Board ' .
Because the notice said only a public hearing we were not suppose
to approve it at that time . We need another vote to approve the
Kluge subdivision to make it official that a vote came at a regular
scheduled meeting of the Planning Board .
M . POST made the motion the Planning Board approve the Major
Subdivision application of ROBERT & MARGARET KLUGE , located on
the northeast corner of Clark St . Ext . and Salt Rd . in the Town
of Groton , Tax Map No . 17- 1 -26 . 1 with the conditions as set forth
in the motion of October 1 , 1987 . ( see 10/1 /87 minutes )
RURAL
PROPOSED/SUBDIVISION application of MARY ELLEN LANE , of 441 Cobb St . , Town
of Groton , Tax Map No . 24- 1 - 11 . 2 :
TOTMAN : This is located on Cobb St . and Durfee Rd . consists of 5 parcels
of land all over 5 acres of land .
LANE : On Parcel No . 4 the Rapps have put a purchase offer in on part of
it to square off their lot . They may want the whole of Parcel No . 4 .
M . CAREY : How do you get to Parcel No . 5 ?
Yi � RANKIN : Y.ou are leaving a right of way to No . 5?
PLANNING BOARD -2- October 15 , 1987
M . LANE : As it stands now there is a right of way back to the woods . The
purchase offer on No . 3 is considering purchasing the woods also
if he can get the financing
G . TOTMAN : If we leave the proposal the way it is , and it was sold exactly the
way it is , you are proposing a 50 foot right of way to the back lot ?
M . LANE : It is actually 60 foot .
G . TOTMAN : The Rules and Regulations of the Zoning Ordinance requires a 200 foot
road frontage for a building lot .
M . LANE : I had a forester look at it Thursday and the realtor walked it and
he said he couldn ' t imagine anyone getting a perk test back there .
He didn ' t think it was at all suitable for a building lot .
G . TOTMAN : One of our responsibilities would be to make sure land does not get
landlocked . And that is what that one , No . 5 , would be .
M . LANE : Would it make a difference whether it was suitable fore building or
just a wood lot ?
G . TOTMAN : No matter what you and I think , somebody else might think differently .
M . LANE : The forester said it would take an enormous amount of money to do that ,
to build a road , drain it etc .
G . TOTMAN : Do you think it would be possible to include N0 . 5 in the purchase
of No . 3 ?
M . LANE : The purchaser of No . 3 is considering that .
G . TOTMAN : If it is like what you say it is the value would not be what the value
of NO . 3 is .
M . LANE : He was afraid I was going to sell it to someone else for a wood lot ;
so now he wants to protect the woods and is trying to get the
financial backing together . The way it looks now it is pretty certain .
V . RANKIN : Parcel NO . 3 is 13 acres ?
M . LANE : No -,- 18 acres + or - .
V . RANKIN : She is right on the woods , it is not the best .
M . LANE : I would assume he is sincere about the woods because he actually
stipulated in the purchase offer he would like to control the woods
without owning them . He ' s agraid somebody is going to level them .
I think if he is that concerned he should own them .
G . TOTMAN : In the past there has been landlocked lots and people;"have. : thought
that : .-sometime they would create a recreation area and the plans
didn ' t materialize and there sets a landlocked lot . Basically , one
PLANNING BOARD -3- October 15 , 1987
of the Board ' s responsibilities is to prevent this from happening .
Before we get into details and looking at what you ' ve seen , would you
like to put an agreed upon classification on this proposal? It is
all open land and it haaffive parcels over 5 acres of land as determined
by the map .
C . .TWIGG `'l : made the motion the Planning Board classify the proposed subdivision
of MARY ELLEN LANE on Cobb St . , 'vTown of Groton , Tax Map No . 24- 1 - 11 . 2 a Rural
Subdivision ; M . POST seconded the motion .
VOTE : ALL In favor
Motion carried .
G . TOTMAN : I have trouble with Parcel No . 3 and 5 . We are getting into a
situation with a landlocked piece of land .
C . TWIGG : I think Mary Ellen wouldnot be happy with this .
G . TOTMAN : Would you be comfortable if we passed the whole thing and make
Parcel 3 and 5 one lot ?
C . TWIGG : You are going to have trouble selling No . 5 once you sell No . 3 .
M . LANE : They tell me somebody is interested in it for a wood lot .
C . TWIGG : Your options are not that good . You can only sell it for one thing
and that is a wood lot .
G . TOTMAN : For all practical purposes , for future use if anybody wanted to buy
it for other than wood it would definitely '" be denied by the Board
of Zoning Appeals for a variance , : . ;; buying a landlocked parcel
is not a hardship case .
C . TWIGG : Why didn ' t you hav e a 200 foot right of way back to the woods ?
M . LANE : Because the realtor thought there was a slim chance of anybody
building back there .
C . TWIGG : You could have 2 good lots there if you put 200 feet on Parcel 5 .
Somebody could build out by the road and have the woods in the back .
That would not decrease the value of No . 3 but it would enhance the
value of No . 5 with road frontage enough"' for someone to build,; If
someone bought No . 3 . --A ; 2 and 4 you would almost have to sell that
woodlot to one of them for access .
M . CAREY : No 3 has 13 plus acres .
G . TOTMAN : You have to look at the road frontage . There is 769 feet . If you
took 200 feet off of that you still would have 500 foot frontage .
She has a very strong potential purchaser for No . 3 the way it is ,
right ?
M . LANE : Yes .
PLANNING BOARD October 15 , 1987
estin is you have 60 feet already on the map for
G .: TOTMAN : What we are Bugg g He could
No . 5 , you take 140 feet from No . 3 and add it to No . 5 •
go for both if he wants too
uilding lot tril'woods in the " back .
worth C . TWIGG : You could sell Noe 5 as a
It would make No . 5 somethingthenl '
it would not alter N purchasing plans any .
M . LANE : As I understand it ,
If heybought just No . 3 he plans to buildd in in t the northeasterly corner .
I don ' t think it would necessarily kill the sale of No . 3 •
there is a strong possibility that we would
G . TOTMAN : What we are saying is , you would agree to redraw this map
pass this , as it is , tonight if y taking 140 feet
so, �that No . 5 would have 200 feet i o road
sale bleglots g instead of 1 .
from Parcel 3 and that would give' You
M . POST : The other option would be to draw a line urchasEr has a middle
desireoto own
Parcels 3 and 5 and make 2 lots . No . 3 P
the woods , this would cut No . s 3 and 5 in half . We are not dictating
what you do , we are just nervous with that 60 foot right of way .
M . LANE : I would be agreeable to at least the 200 foot frontage for No . 5
and I ' l ; talk with this man and see what he wants to do about No . 3 -
it is okay with the Board if you go the 200 foot on No . 50
G . TOTMAN : Obviously , with what she is just saying ,
if we approve that and following up in half . We could approve that
she may consider cutting Nos . 3 and 5
also . From our stand ° point we would take the 200 foot frontage on
No . 5 and give
her the option of going the other way .
Board was in agreement .
V . RANKIN made the motion the Planning Board approve the Rural Subdivisi2 _ 1 _ 11 . 2
proposal of MARY : ELLEN LANE , No415 Cobb
200Stop
footwfrontage Groton ,
and the option No .
of
with the revision: of Parcel half with approximately 410 foot frontage on each ;
dividing Parcels 3 and 5 in
M . CAREY seconded the motion .
VOTE : All in favor
Motion carried .
SITE.PLAN. :REVIEW for a proposed Bed and3=Breakfast by THERESA Be OFNER , 973
Elm
St . , Town of Groton Tax Map No . 7 1 6 .
you look through the proposal
G . TOTMAN : Mrs . Ofner is not here tonight butooi(detail so we know exactly what
by Theresa Ofner , it is in very g questions we will have to wait -:
is being proposed . If you have any q problem
for another meeting wh en Ofners can be here . Gary Wood has no p
with the proposal *
is very clear with all the necessary drawings and
M . CAREY : The proposal I,
dimensions .
i
OTHER BUSINESS TO COME BEFORE THE MEETING :
G . TOTMAN : I did not know Roger was coming tonight , apparently he has something
to present to us .
R . GLEASON : I came to the clerk ' s office to file my proposals and I did
not know you had changed the meeting so I was not 10 days in advance
of the meeting . I have a couple of suggestions , and Colleen suggested
I come in and talk with you about them .
Lick St . , Koekebacker property :
Back last year when I sold a lot to John Koekebacker and he bought
a parcel ' on Lick St . adjoining the property . There is a possibility
that he was going to have to back out on purchasing the adjoining
land . The Board agreed it was an add on to the existing lot , it
is swampy and woody and not good for anything else . I may be getting
it back or he may have to sell the whole thing . What I am trying to
find out is 1 ) if he has to sell , there would be no problem . with him
selling the whole thing even though title has not passed to him yet ,
there is possibility of title passing to new owner and 2 ) I may get
it back . If I get it back , then in order to sell it I would have to
go with a subdivision . 3 ) I may get the whole thing back , the add on
parcel and the orginal Koekebacker parcel . Then , would there be any
problem if I sold the 2 as 1 .
G . TOTMAN : Right now there are two different parcels on the Tax Map , he lives
on one and is buying the other parcel from you .
R . GLEASON : Right , the deed is in his name .
G . TOTMAN : What you are saying is instead of him buying from you and selling
it to somebody else , you may buy back the parcel?
R . GLEASON : Right ,
G . TOTMAN : Then you would have 2 different parcels . You still owne separate
parcels .
10
R . GLEASON : If I then combine the two to sell them . . .
G . TOTMAN : You already have approval to combine the two .
R . GLEASON : But if I sold them as 2 parcels I would have to go to a subdivision?
G . TOTMAN : Right .
PLANNING BOARD -6- October 15 , 1987
Subdivision on northwest corner of Lick St . and Clark St . Ext . 16. 18 . 12
Last time you approved this subdivision , now Empson is going to buy
the five acres of land held out .
G . TOTMAN : You are proposing to change the subdivision and sell him the piece
in the corner?
R . GLEASONs That ' s one possibility . I have a purchase offer ; I am just trying
to find out what I have to do , things keep changing .
G . TOTMAN : I really don ' t see anyting wrong with it in modifying the original
proposal . You are making . that lot , that he did propose to buy , a more
. . . . . . . . lot and by doing so Empson will end up with five more acres
of land . I think in all reality , I don ' t see any problem with that
if the rest of the Board doesn ' t see a problem with it , as long as
you stop there .
R . GLEASON : That is the way I hope it turns out , it may turn out some other
way , I ' m trying to look at all the options , we are discussing it .
Board.-_ in agreement .
Major Subdivision on northwest corner of Clark St . Ext . and Old STage
Rd . 20 acres , 9 lots .
R . GLEASON : People don ' t seem to want to buy small lots . I was wondering what
your reaction would be if I resubmit this . We are reconfiguring
and making it into 4 five=acre lots .
C . TWIGG : That would make it a Rural Subdivision .
R . GLEASON : Basically , making it large lots instead of small lots .
G . TOTMAN : What ' s wrong if somebody wants to buy a larger lot buying 2 or 3
smaller lots , that leaves the options open .
R . GLEASON : If we do it we would probably move the proposed road to the east
and divide it further to the east . It appears that 4 lots of
5 acres each will bring just as much money as 9 lots .
V . RANKIN ,& Vhy not have all the lots come to the road ?
R . GLEASON : 16 could -, but it would make them aufully narrow . If we make
an entrance off Clark St . Ex . and put the cluster of houses in
the center , them you would have one entrance from Clark St . Ext ,
rather than four . The other reason to keep it at 4 is if you get
into five or more ,you get into underground electric . If I keep
it at 4 I don ' t have that problem .
PLANNING BOARD -7 - October 25 , 2987
M . POST : Could you sketch it on a piece of paper and sbow us ?
G . TOTMANI Before you do that;: Roger , ,your idea right now is to get the
general consensus of the Board ?
R . GLEASON : * ether you buy the idea or . . . . I ' m not saying .you are going
to give me a ,yes or no tonight , I ' m not asking that .
G . TOTMAN : I think you have gotten the general idea to us , we have the general
concept before us and at the next meeting you come back with your
proposal . Ve understand the idea of what you are saying , put it
in writing on the maps and drawing what you are saying , present
it next month . It looks something worthwhile to consider .
G . TOTMAN : Any other business to come before the meeting ? Vhy I ask is lately
we have been having something come before us , the object of a Planning
Board is to plan instead of making decisions all the time . There
are some real problems in our Ordinance that need to be looked at .
At one of our meetings I hope we have some time , maybe we could do
it through a committee system , or work sessions , to go over some
of the things that need altering in the Ordinance . Suggest - ways
to change the Ordinance to make it more workable . The reason I
Mention it is so we can work that into the next couple of meetings .
Pick out projects and work on them between meetings and come up
with possible solutions .
M . POST : Is there a list of issues in particular the Town wishes us to look
at .
G . TOTMAN : Yes , I don ! t have i# right now. Originally the Ordinance came
from the Planning Board to the Town Board for them to approve ,
change or pass . They passed what we gave them , in most cases .
The State really suggests that every five years .you take a look at
the Ordinance . Some things are outdated and through time and
working with and Ordinance you tend to find things that are hard
to work with . I know Gary has some suggestions that make the
Ordinance hard to work with and would like to see them changed .
14ith that in mind , I would like the Board to think of the sessions
they hold in New York on Planning . I am going this coming week -
to the Catskills to a 3-day planning session put on by the State
of New York . The Town Board will pay up to $400 a year for
training sessions . If you go to New York that uses up the $400
if you go to the others ,you have to go on your own . I think thby
are well worth it . Right now , the Village tried to get their
Planning Board to go to training , they got one person to go . I
think it is something to think about . In New York everything in
Town government is covered , in the Catskills it is just Planning
and Zoning and ZBA . Think about it for possibly next year .
PLANNING BOARD -8- October 25 , 2987
V . RANKIN : That session we had in Trumansburg last year was good . The
same speakerwas in New York and he was good .
C . TWIIGG : *y donut you get a list of these things , George , the Board wants
us to look at and get them to us ahead of time so we can look at
it so we are all thinking the same changes atthe next meeting .
G . TOTMAN : Concerning Nancy , the Board needs a written notice of resignation
before they can replace a member . Nancy told them she was going
to resign but they need it in writing .
Meeting was adjourned , the next regular meeting ;of the Planning Board will
be the third Thursday of November , November 19 , -. 987 at 8 : 00 p . m .
Respectfully submitted
Ma gare A . Palmer
Y
TOWN OF GROTON
PLANNING BOARD
Thursday , October 15 , 1987 , 8 : 00 p . m . .
BOARD ( *present ) PUBLIC - present
Georege Totman* , Chairman Gary Wood , Zoning Enforcement
Michael Post* , Vice Chairman Officer
Nancy Ostrander , Cor . Secretary Mary Ellen Lane
Cecil Twigg* Roger Gleason
Monica Carey*
Verl Rankin*
William Casolara
G . TOTMAN opened the meeting at 8 : 00 p . m . Minutes of the September 15 ,
1987 meeting were read and amended as follows : . pg . 11 , 2nd line from the
bottom , Wood : " . . . . . . can not can ' t . . . . . . " . pg 9 , Wood : " create 2 legal
lots that are 200 feet deep and have 315 foot frontage . . . . . . " . M . POST made
the motion the minutes of the September 15 , 1987 meeting be approved with
corrections , M . CAREY seconded the motion and the motion carried .
PROPOSED MAJOR SUBDIVISION application of ROBERT & MARGARET KLUGE located
on the northeast corner of Clark St . Ext . and Salt Rd . Tax Map No . 17- 1 . 26 . 1 :
TOTMAN : For the purpose of the minutes I was called to task for the voting
on the proposed Major Subdivision application of Robert Kluge on
the night of the public hearing , 10/1/87 , because the notice of
the hearing was for only the public hearing . The notice did not
say ' and for any other business that might come before the Board ' .
Because the notice said only a public hearing we were not suppose
to approve it at that time . We need another vote to approve the
Kluge subdivision to make it official that a vote came at a regular
scheduled meeting of the Planning Board .
M . POST made the motion the Planning Board approve the Major
Subdivision application of ROBERT & MARGARET KLUGE , located on
the northeast corner of Clark St . Ext . and Salt Rd . in the Town
of Groton , Tax Map No . 17- 1 -26 . 1 with the conditions as set forth
in the motion of October 1 , 1987 . ( see 10/1 /87 minutes )
RURAL
PROPOSED/SUBDIVISION application of MARY ELLEN LANE , of 441 Cobb St . , Town
of Groton , Tax Map No . 24= 1 - 11 . 2 :
TOTMAN : This is located on Cobb St . and Durfee Rd . consists of 5 parcels
of land all over 5 acres of land .
LANE : On Parcel No . 4 the Rapps have put a purchase offer in on part of
it to square off their lot . They may want the whole of Parcel No . 4 .
M . CAREY : How do you get to Parcel No . 5?
V. . RANKIN : You are leaving a right of way to No . 5?
PLANNING BOARD -2 - October 15 , 1987
M . LANE : As it stands now there is a right of way back to the woods . The
purchase offer on No . 3 is considering purchasing the woods also
if he can get the financing
G . TOTMAN : If we leave the proposal the way it is , and it was sold exactly the
way it is , you are proposing a 50 foot right of way to the back lot ?
M . LANE : It is actually 60 foot .
G . TOTMAN : The Rules and Regulations of the Zoning Ordinance requires a 200 foot
road frontage for a building lot .
M . LANE : I had a forester look at it Thursday and the realtor walked it and
he said he couldn ' t imagine anyone getting a perk test back there .
He didn ' t think it was at all suitable for a building lot .
G . TOTMAN : One of our responsibilities would be to make sure land does not get
landlocked . And that is what that one , No . 5 , would be .
M . LANE : Would it make a difference whether it was suitable fore building or
just a wood lot ?
G . TOTMAN : No matter what you and I think , somebody else might think differently .
d
M . LANE : The forester said it would take an enormous amount of money to do that ,
to build a road , drain it etc . i
G . TOTMAN : Do you think � it would be possible to include N0 . 5 in the purchase
of No - 3 ? {
M . LANE : The purchaser of No . 3 is considering that .
G . TOTMAN : If it is like what you say it is the value would not be what the value
of N0 . 3 is .
M . LANE : He was afraid I was going to sell it to someone else for a wood lots
so now he wants to protect the woods and is trying to get the
financial backing together . The way it looks now it is pretty certain.
V . RANKIN : Parcel NO . 3 is 13 acres ?
M . LANE : No , 18 acres + or - .
V . RANKIN : She is right on the woods , it is not the best .
M . LANE : I would assume he is sincere about the woods because he actually
stipulated in the purchase offer he would like to control the woods
without owning them . He ' s agraid somebody is going to level them .
I think if he is that concerned he should own them .
G . TOTMAN : In the past there has been landlocked lots and people have thought
that sometime they would create a recreation area and - the plans
didn ' t materialize and there sets a landlocked lot . Basically , one
y
PLANNING BOARD -3 - October 15 , 1987
of the Board ' s responsibilities is to prevent this from happening .
Before we get into details and looking at what you ' ve seen , would you
like to put an agreed upon classification on this proposal ? It is
all open land and it has. five parcels over 5 acres of land as determined
by the map .
C . TWIGG made the motion the Planning Board classify the proposed subdivision
of MARY ELLEN LANE on Cobb St . , Town of Groton , Tax Map No . 24- 1 - 11 . 2 a Rural
Subdivision ; M . POST seconded the motion .
VOTE : ALL In favor
Motion carried .
G . TOTMAN : I have trouble with Parcel No . 3 and 5 . We are getting into a
situation with a landlocked piece of land .
C . TWIGG : I think Mary Ellen would not be happy with this .
G . TOTMAN : Would you be comfortable if we passed the whole thing and make
Parcel 3 and 5 one lot ?
Co TWIGG : You are going to have trouble selling No . 5 once you sell No . 3 .
M . LANEs . They tell me somebody is interested in it for a wood lot .
C . TWIGG :Your options are not that good . You can only sell it for one thing
and that is a wood lot .
G . TOTMAN : For all practical purposes , for future use if anybody wanted to buy
it for other than wood it would definitely be denied by the Board
of Zoning Appeals for a variance , buying a landlocked parcel
is not a hardship case .
C . TWIGG : Why didn ' t you hav e a 200 foot right of way back to the woods ?
M . LANE : . Because the realtor thought there was a slim chance of anybody
building back there .
C . TWIGG : You could have 2 good lots there if you put 200 feet on Parcel 5 .
Somebody could build out by the road and have the woods in the back .
That would not decrease the value of No . 3 but it would enhance the
value of No . 5 with road frontage enough for someone to build . If
someone bought No . 3 , 1 , 2 and 4 you would almost have to sell that
woodlot to one of them for access .
M . CAREY : No 3 has 13 plus acres .
G . TOTMAN : You have to look at the road frontage . There is 769 feet . If you
took 200 feet off of that you still would have 500 foot frontage .
She has a very strong potential purchaser for No . 3 the way it is ,
right ?
M . LANE : Yes .
PLANNING BOARD .4. October 15 , 1987
'I
G . TOT MAN tWhat we are suggesting is you have 60 feet already on the map for
No . 5 , you take 140 feet from No . 3 and add it to No . 5 . He could
go for both if he wants to .
C . TWIGG : You could sell No . 5 as a building lot with woods in the back .
It would make No . 5 worth something then .
M . LANEt As I understand it , it would not alter No . 3 ' s purchasing plans any .
If he bought just No . 3 he plans to build in the northeasterly corner .
I ' don ' t think it would necessarily kill the sale of No . 3 .
G . TOTMAN : What we are saying is , there is a strong possibility that we would
pass this , as it is , tonight : if you would agree to redraw this map
so that No . 5 would have 200 feet of road frontage , taking 140 feet
from Parcel 3 and that would give you 2 saleable lots instead of 1 .
M . POST : The other option would be to draw a line through the middle of
Parcels 3 and 5 and make 2 lots . No . 3 purchas(r has a desire to own
the woods , this would cut Noes 3 and 5 in half . We are not dictating
what you do , we are just nervous with that 60 foot right of way .
M . LANE : I would be agreeable to at least the 200 foot frontage for No . 5
and I ' lj talk with this man and see what he wants to do about No . 3 .
G . TOTMAN : Obviously , it is okay with the Board if you go the 200 foot on No . 5 ,
if we approve that and following up with what she is just saying ,
she may consider cutting Nos . 3 and 5 in half . We could approve that
also . From our stand point we would take the 200 foot frontage on
No . 5 and give her the option of going the other way .
Board was in agreement .
V . RANKIN made the motion the Planning Board approve the Rural Subdivision
proposal of MARY ELLEN LANE , 441 Cobb St . , Town of Groton , Tax Map . No . 24- 1 . 11 . 2
with the revision of Parcel No . 5 to 200 foot frontage and the option of
dividing Parcels 3 and 5 in half with approximately, 410 foot frontage on each ;
M . CAREY seconded the motion .
VOTE : All in favor
Motion carried .
SITE-PLAN . REVIEW for a proposed Bed and Breakfast by THERESA Be OFNER , 973 Elm
St . , Town of Groton Tax Map No . 27- 1 .26 . 3 :
G . TOTMAN : Mrs . Ofner is not here tonight but if you look through the proposal
by Theresa Ofner , it is in very good detail .so we know exactly what
I
s being proposed . If you have any questions we will have to wait
for another meeting when Ofners can be here . Gary Wood has no problem
with the proposal ..
M . CAREY : The proposal is very clear with all the necessary drawings and
dimensions .
\ 1
PLANNING BOARD '
—5— October 15 , 1987
V . RANKIN made the motion the Planning Board approve the Site Plan Review for
a proposed Bed and Breakfast at 973 Elm St . Ext . Town of Groton proposed by
THERESA OFNER , Tax Map . No . 27- 1 -26 . 3s Co TWIGG seconded the motion .
VOTE : All in favor
Motion carried
OTHER BUSINESS TO COME BEFORE THE MEETING :
G . TOTMAN : I did not know Roger was coming tonight , apparently he has something
to present to us .
R . GLEASON = I came to the clerk ' s office to file my proposals and I did
not know you had changed the meeting so I was not 10 days in advance
of the meeting . I have a couple of suggestions , and Colleen suggested
I come in and talk with you about them .
Lick St . , Koekebacker property :
Back last year when I sold a lot to John Koekebacker and he bought
a parcel on Lick St , adjoining the property . There is a possibility
that he was going to have to back out on purchasing the adjoining
land . The Board agreed it was an add on to the existing lot , it
is swampy and woody and not good for anything else . I may be getting
it back or he may have to sell the whole thing . What I am trying to
find out is 1 ) if he has to sell , there would be no problem with him
selling the whole thing even though title has not passed to him yet ,
there is possibility of title passing to new owner and 2 ) I may get
it back . If I get it back , then in order to sell it I would have to
go with a subdivision . 3 ) I may get the whole thing back , the add on
parcel and the orginal Koekebacker parcel . Then , would there be any
problem if I sold the 2 as 1 .
G . TOTMAN : Right now there are two different parcels on the Tax Map , he lives
on one and is buying the other parcel from you .
R . GLEASON : Right , the deed is in his name .
G . TOTMAN : What you are saying is instead of him , buying from you and selling
it to somebody else , you may buy back the parcel ?
R . GLEASON : Right .
G . TOTMAN ; Then you would have 2 different parcels . You still owne separate
parcels .
R . GLEASON : If I then combine the two to sell them . . .
G, TOTMAN : You already have approval to combine the two .
R . GLEASON : But if I sold them as 2 parcels I would have to go to a subdivision?
G . TOTMAN : Right .
PLANNING BOARD -6- October 15 , 1987
Subdivision on northwest corner of Lick St . and Clark St . Ext . 16. 18 . 12
Last time you approved this subdivision , now Empson is going to buy
the five acres of land held out .
G . TOTMAN : You are proposing to change the subdivision and sell him the piece
in the corner?
R . GLEASON : That ' s one possibility . I have a --purchase offer ; I am just trying
to find out what I have to do , things keep changing .
G . TOTMAN : I really don ' t see anyting wrong with it in modifying the original
proposal . You are making . that lot , that he did propose to buy , a more
• . . . . . . . lot and by doing so Empson will end up with five more acres
of land . I think in all reality , I don ' t see any problem with that
if the rest of the Board doesn ' t see a problem with it , as long as
you stop there .
R . GLEASON : That is the way I hope it turns out , it may turn out some other
way , I ' m trying to look at all the options , we are discussing it .
Board in agreement .
Major Subdivision on northwest corner of Clark St . Ext . and Old STage
Rd . 20 acres , 9 lots .
R . GLEASON : People don ' t seem to want to buy small lots . I was wondering what
your reaction would be if I resubmit this . We are reconfiguring
and making it into 4 five -acre lots .
C . TWIGG : That would make it a Rural Subdivision ,
R . GLEASON : Basically , making it large lots instead of small lots .
G . TOTMAN : What ' s wrong if somebody wants to buy a larger lot buying 2 or 3
smaller lots , that leaves the options open .
i
R . GLEASON : If we do it we would probably move the proposed road to the east
and divide it further to the east . It appears that 4 lots of
5 acres each will bring just as much money as 9 lots .
V . RANKIN : Vhy not have all the lots come to the road ?
R . GLEASON : could , but it world make th@m aufully narrow . If we make
an entrance off Clark St . Ex . and put the cluster of houses in
the center , them you would have one entrance from Clark St . Extio
rather than four . The other reason to keep it at 4 is if you get
into five or more you get into underground electric . If I keep
it at 4 I don ' t have tl� at problem . II
l
PLANNING BOARD . -? - October 25 , 298?
M . POST ; Could you sketch it on a piece of paper and show us ?
G . TOTMANt Before you do that ; Roger , .your idea right now is to get the
general consensus of the Board ?
R . GLEASON : * ether you buy the idea or . . . . I ' m not saying .you are going
to give me a ,yes or no tonight , I ' m not asking that .
G . TOTMAN ; I think you have gotten the general idea to us , we have the general
concept before us and at the next meeting you come back with your
proposal . Ve understand the idea of what you are saying , put it
in writing on the maps and drawing what you are saying , present
it next month . It looks something worthwhile to consider .
G . TOTMAN ; Any other business to come before the meeting ? Why I ask is lately
we have been having something come before us , the object of a Planning
Board is to plan instead of making decisions all, the time . There
are some real problems in our Ordinance that need to be looked at .
At one of our meetings I hope we have some time , maybe we could do
it through a committee system , or work sessions , to go over some
of the things that need altering in the Ordinance . Suggest ways
to change the Ordinance to make it more workable . The reason I
Mention it is so we can work that into the next couple of meetings .
Pick out projects and work on them between meetings and come up
with possible solutions .
'M . POST ; Is there a list of issues in particular the Town wishes us to look
at .
G . TOTMAN ; Yes , I don ' t have i � right now. Originally the Ordinance came
from the Planning Board to the Town Board for them to ' approve ,
change or pass . They passed what we gave them , in most cases .
The State really suggests that every five years .you take a look at
the Ordinance . Some things are outdated and through time and
working with and Ordinance you tend to find things that are hard
to work with . I know Gary has some suggestions that make the
Ordinance hard to work with and would like to see them changed .
With that in mind , I would like the Board to think of the sessions
they hold in New York on Planning . I am going this coming week
to the Catskills to a 3- day planning session put on by the State
of New York . The Town Board will pay up to $400 a ,year for
training sessions . If .you go to New York that uses up the $400
if you go to the others .you have to go on your own . I think thby
are well worth it . Right now , the Village tried to get their
Planning Board to go to training , they got one person to go . I
think it is something to think about . In New York everything in
Town government is covered , in the Catskills it is just Planning
and Zoning and ZBA . Think about it for possibly next year .
PLANNING BOARD -8- October 25 , 2987
V . RANKIN : That session we had in Trumansburg last year was good . The
same speakerwas in New York and he was good .
C . UIGGs * y donut you get a list of these things , George , the Board wants
us to look at and get them to us ahead of time so we can look at
it so we are all thinking the same changes atthe next meeting .
G . TOTMAN * Concerning Nancy , the Board needs a written notice of resignation
before they can replace a member . Nancy told them she was going
to resign but they need it in writing .
Meeting was adjourned , the next regular meeting of the Planning Board will
be the third Thursday of November , November 19 , %987 at 8 ; 00 p . m .
Respectfully submitted
Ma gar, e A . Palmer