HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-11-19 f TOWN OF GROTON
PLANNING BOARD
Thursday , November 19 , 1987
BOARD ( *present ) PUBLIC PRESENT
George Totman* Chairman Robert F . Walpole , Munson
Mike Post Realty
Cecil Twigg* Gary Wood , Zoning Enforcement
Monica Carey* Officer
Verl Rankin'
Bill Casolara*
G . TOTMAN , opened the meeting at 8 : 15 p . m . Minutes of the October ,
1987 meeting were reviewed . Be CASOLARA qu'estione&,page: ,2 where V . Rankin
asked M . Lane about Parcel 3 being 13 acres and she replied it was 18 .
On ,the map presented it says 13 . C . TWIGG stated .Me Carey asked the same
question on page 3 and it was stated parcel 3 had 13 acres . G . TOTMAN
replied the proposal was approved pending the presentation of a revised
map . Apparently she has one lot sold , and she assumed everything was
passed an legal ; it hasn ' t been finally approved or filed yet because
she has not presented the revised map . That is where it stands now .
Be CASOLARA replied his question was just a point of information .
M . CAREY moved the minutes be approved ; C . TWIGG seconded motion ; carried .
PROPOSED SUBDIVISION RONALD and CAROL MARKS , 137 Chipmans Corners Rd .
Tax Map N0 , 16 - 1 - 12 :
G . TOTMAN This is a situation where there is a piece of land that is
going to be auctioned off and the agent for the seller
is here to present to the Board what is being proposed
and to make sure it is in line with the Ordinance . Upon
a preliminary acceptance of the porposal , they will then
at the auction state it that way , the,, people that are
buying the land will know they won ', t get a deed until it
has been approved by the Planning Board ,
R . WALPOLE : Basically , this is a courtesy call to indicate to the Town
Planning Board that we are going to be offerring the Marks
farm on Chipmans Corners Rd . into 5 parcels and 'if sold in
five parcels we will apply for a Major Subdivision . At
this point all parcels are at least 5 acres of land or more ;
everyone exceeds 200 feet and more in road frontage to
comply with the Ordinance .
Parcel No . 1 : contains 5 acres with the house , 630 ft . rd . frtge
Parcel N0 . 2 : contains the barn with 14 acres , 430 feet of
road frontage
Parcels 3 , 4 , 5 : each have 200 feet road frontage , being
sold as building lots ; 2 have 6 acres and
the third one is 87 acres
At this point all parcels have the legal amount of road
frontage as required by the Town Ordinance .
PLANNING BOARD - 2 - November 19 `,` 1987
Be CASOLARA : This came up before , you can have 5 parcels in a Rural
Subdivision .
R . WALPOLE : I thought you had to go to Major Subdivision with five .
G . TOTMAN : Five starts a major .
Be CASOLARA : My book says 13 to 5 lots f6r a Rural ' . This came up
before as a issue before and there was a change in that
and it was penciled into the book as ' 3 to 5 ' . I believe
it was in August .
R . WALPOLE : We are waiting for the final maps now on the surveys for
the subdivision on the corner of Clark St . Ext . and Salt Rd . ,
the Kluge property , and we went to a Major Subdivision
because there were 5 lots .
Be CASOLARA : No . 112 . 2 Rural Subdivision : ' Subdivision of land resulting
in 3 to 5 lots each with 5 acres or more ' I want to clarify
it because it seems it has come up at least three times .
C . TWIGG : It was originally ' 2 to 4 ' and we changed it to 13 to 51
.
Be CASOLARA : You have that change also ?
M . CARREY & C . TWIGG : Yes ,
Be CASOLARA : So 5 is okay in a Rural Subdivision ,
R . WALPOLE : So we didn ' t have to go for a Major Subdivision in the
Kluge subdivision . We had a public hearing on that one .
I can ' t remember whether we did 5 or 6 in the Kluge
subdivision , unless you have the paperwork handy .
M . CAREY : There were 5 parcels including the parcel previously sold
by Mr . KLuge ,
R . WALPOLE : That was a 44 acre parcel and basically , everything exceeded
the 5 acre limit , if I recall . _
G . TOTMAN : See if this makes sense , the reason we went from 2 to 3 ,
which would mean if you were a farmer and had a piece of
land and wanted to give your son an acre of land t6qbuild
a house on it was a subdivision because it would be 2 parcels
of land . So we changed that from 2 to 3 parcels so that in
fact could happen without a subdivision . That means even
though you are dividing 2 you are getting 3 . When we say
from 3 to 5 it doesn ' t mean the 5tht6ne% . . . . . . . If you do
5 then you end up with 6 . You can go up to 5 . . . . .
Be CASOLARA : I disagree with you . The language is clear . It says a
subdivision resulting in 3 to 5 lots each of with is 5 acres
PLANNING BOARD - 3 - November 19 , 1987
It doesn ' t say 3 to 5 subdivisions , it says 3 to 5 LOTS .
C . TWIGG : There is nothing left in the Marks subdivision . There is
not a 6th one left .
R . WALPOLE : That the same way it was with the Kluge proposal .
C . TWIGG : There are 5 lots , 5 total . In other words , if he sold 5
and had one left . . . . . . .
G . TOTMAN : Let ' s go on and come back to that . Gary Wood will be
here shortly and we ' ll ask him to clarify that .- point .
R . WALPOLE : IF we could avoid a public hearing so some of these people . . . . .
B . CASOLARA : At the meeting in July and August that became an issue and
Gary was saying ' 2 to 4 ' and I asked why 2 to 4 ? when
we were discussing the Munson Subdivision , and I said it
could be 5 lots and Gary disagreed and I said it was in my
notes as 13 to5 ' and we went through this whole thing again
and Gary said ' your ' re right , it is 51
.
R . WALPOLE : Now is that 5 lots on anyone tax parcel ?
B . CASOLARA : Yes .
G TOTMAN : If that is the way it is with Marks that would be a Rural
because you are only making 5 but if you have 1 left over
then you are making 6 . That ' s what I was trying to say .
B . CASOLARA : It says 5 lots .
G . TOTMAN : What I am saying , and I know it is not coming out right ,
but suppose Marks is saying what is proposed now but they
were keeping 1 acre of land they were going to keep for
something else , that would make 6 ; they would only want
to divide 5 but what they are actually doing are making
6 .
C . TWIGG : :w) And Kluge did the same thing as Marks is proposing .
G . TOTMAN : So if you had a total farm , like Roger for example , and he
does 5 here , a-he is really making 6 so we can ' t let him have
5a
it would say
B . CASOLARA90 The language would be clear then , / ' resulting in 5 lots '
and he would end up with 6 lots .
R . WALPOLE : For example , if I took the 5 parcels here and kept the legal
road frontage and withheld the barn back then I would be
making 6 lots , then I ' m into a major subdivision . But if we
PLANNING BOARD - 4- November 19 , 1987
were into the next tax parcel on over and broke that into 3
exceeding the 5 acres , actually the farm would be broken
into 8 units ; which would still be within the Rural Subdivision
as long as we stayed within the 5 acres plus . . . . . . . is that
how we are interpreting it ?
B . CASOLARA : How does this apply to this situation : if someone has a
parcel of land and I sell it to Cecil , he divides it up into
5 pieces and each of those is 20 acres , then you buy one of
the 20 acres and you divide that up into 5 more pieces . . . .
G . TOTMAN : He can if he comes in and gets approval .
B . CASOLARA : So each of those will be a Rural Subdivision?
G . TOTMAN : You would be changing tax parcels with each sale but each
division would need approval if more than a splitfiof 2 lots .
B . CASOLARA : I think we have to be careful if something like that started
occurring .
C . TWIGG : I We could control or stop it on each consecutive sale .
B . CASOLARA : We ' d have to watch that , because that could be aware around
planning .
C . TWIGG : Each one would have to come thoough the Planning Board ,
R . WALPOLE ** The purpose of breaking these up into large parcels is if
the purchaser wants to break them into smaller parcels they
will have to come in and go through the regular process .
B . CASOLARA : When you had the one at Torok ' s you had more than 5 but when
you ended up you had less than five so it was not a problem
in the final . . . . .
G . TOTMAN : But they did not know that in the beginning .
B . CASOLARA : No , but when it was finally sold it ended up with less than
5 parcels ; here you have 5 to begin with .
R . WALPOLE : We may end up with 5 or we may end up with 3 . We know right
now there are people interested in putting 1 and 2 together ;
you just don ' t know how it will end up . There is more of
this going on around the states . I happen to look at the
Lancaster News before I came over and there are 3 pages of
farms being broken into smaller parcels .
Basically , this is a courtesy call to make the Planning
Board aware of what is going on soy" if you get any calls about
it you are aware of it ; and we are staying within your rules
and regulations for a Rural Subdivision .
PLANNING BOARD - 5- November 19 , 1987
Be CASOLARA : What happens in the case of less than 3 , there is no
subdivision entailed and there is no approval necessary?
G . TOTMAN : No , on the sale of the land .
Be CASOLARA : So you can divide into 2 without approval .
R . WALPOLE * We will notify the Board the outcome of the auction . If
it is sold only in two we would notify you of that fact and
would not have to come back .
G . TOTMAN : Different towns have different rules . Some towns hold that
a 2 division of land is a subdivision . Everybody has different
reasons for doing that .
The auction is December 2 ?
R . WALPOLE : Yes , if it is sold in parcels and confirmed by all the agencies
involved , we will apply for an application according to the
subdivision regulations .
G . TOTMAN : Any other questions ? If not , we ' ll have it on the agenda
for the December meeting .
SUBDIVISION proposal by MARY LANE , Cobb St . and Durfee Rd . , Town of Groton ,
Tax Map No . 24 - 1- 11 . 2 :
G . TOTMAN : There seems to be. a question because she is selling some of
the land . It was approved at our last meeting , it is in the
minutes that she agreed that before we could put our seal
of approval on it , before we could sign the proposal she had
to present a new map to meet the boundary line requirements .
I understand somebody came into the Clerk ' s office and wanted
to buy some of the land with the idea that it had already
been approved and I relayed the message through theDeputy
Clerk that it was not . That is why that is on the Agenda .
( refer back to first paragraph in November minutes )
Association of Towns Conference in New York City . This is
a seminar put on by the Association of Towns for town officials .
Very informational , covers aspects of planning and zoning ,
meetings for town councilmen , supervisors , clerks , justices ,
highway superintendents , covers functions of local governments .
The reason it is in the Agenda tonight , in order to get room
reservations close to the Hilton where the conference is held
reservations have to be made in advance . This year the
Association has reserved three hotels near the 1. Hilton on a
first come , first serve basis . Teresa would like to know how
many are considering going and put down a deposit of $ 20 for
the bus transportation . The Town pays up to $ 400 expenses .
Board members going : Monica Carey , Cecil Twigg ,
I ' ll call Mike Post and Verl Rankin to see if they are going .
PLANNING BOARD - 6- November 19 , 1987
G . TOTMAN : We talked at the last meeting about the planning part of
the Planning Board , which we haven ' t done much of lately .
There are some things in the Ordinance that different people
have had some questions about , Gary Wood has discussed many
times things that he has found in the Ordinance that were
ambiguous and we have not taken time before to go over them .
The way around that might be to have a separate meeting where
there are not public hearings or people presenting proposals ,
coming in and sitting down and going over some of the problems ,
I asked Gary and Teresa if they would give me a list of things
that they though we should look at .
For an example : Gary has noted " check with the consistency
of the ' x ' s ' on the chart " What he means is you look at
the Ordinace chart and what is allowed where and when a
Site - Plan Review is required , if you follow it through , some
things require a permit , some things require a site -plap ;
it ls�ptjheasame type of activity but it depends on where it
is located . For example : a sign this gentleman put up for
business , I had to tell him he put it up illegally . After
I checked again with the Ordinance , I found if he was in
a district like where I am in Mclean he would not need a
permit he would just put, the sign up but because he is in a
business district he has to apply for a permit and a site -
plan review with the Planning Board , At
Some of this has slid by us . When you are looking at it like
we have been , on an item to item basis , you don ' t pick those
things out . In a rural agricultural zone , for a sign , he
needs a permit from the Zoning Enforcement Officer ; in
a Low intensity Zone , where there should be no businesses ,
he can put the sign up without a permit ; in� ��the ' Medium
Intensity Zone , which is the business zone , he needs to go
before the Planning Board for a Site - Plan Review .
What we have to do is look at the Ordinance and pick out
what is inconsistent and proposel4amendments to make the
Ordinance more workable and congruent and present them
to the Town Board for passing .
Teresa has suggested we look over the fees charged for
various activities ; chgc Section 252 ; amend 114 . 07 & 08
referring to continuous9tines ; Section 410 should be Section 415 ;
She also would like the Planning Board to make suggestions
to the Town Board about the landfill and sludge situation ;
make recommendations to help the Town draw up something
where it would put a little more teeth in the law and where
the Town would have more control over it ' s own land ,
B . CASOLARA : As far as zoning in regards to the landfill , in the literature
received concerning the landfill selection the Town may xat
have the right to initialize zoning in regards to placement
of landfills but if the County comes in and says they want a
landfill there , the best the town can do is hold up the process
with litigation . So we might want to consult legal counsel
before we spend a lot of time for nothing .
PLANNING BOARD - 7 - November 19 , 1987
G . TOTMAN : I agree with your thoughts in that .
Teresa also is suggesting making the Mobile Home Ordinance
part of the Town Ordinance ; right now it is a separate code
by itself .
She also notes that our swimming pool ordinance is not up to
the State Code ; she is right , it isn ' t up to the State Code .
For example : our swimming pool ordinance as far as fencing
does not meeVIS;tate Codes now and the Enforcement Officer
has to go by the more restrictive one . We can make a Code
more restrictive thaftT+;. the State but we can ' t make one less
restrictive . Right now the State requires a fence around
an inground pool itself with a self - locking gate , not just
a fenced in back yard as ours requires . The fence cannot ,
according to the State , be connected to the house , it has
to be around the pool perimeter itself as of January , 1987 .
When Gary checks on pools he has to go by the State Law .
When people in the township come in for a pool permit they
ask ' what is the law ' the Clerk gives them the Town law
but then the Enforcement Officer has to go by the State Law .
People are getting confused and they have a right to be .
B . CASOLARA : The Ordinance could , in fact , refer to the State law . Our
Ordinance could say ' fencing requirements should meet State
regulations and applicable codes '
G . TOTMAN : That is the idea . It is up to the Board to study the laws
and make recommendations for change to the Town ; that is
the planning process . In a lot of towns planning boards are
getting into the same rut that we have been in for the last
couple of years , just handling subdivisions and things as they
come up and you become more of a governing board than a plannng
board ;- and it is really not meant to be that way . It is meant
to be more of a study of what you ' ve got , what the processes
are , what the problems are and what proposals or changes can
be made to the Town Board and they are more than willing for
us to do it , they want us to do it ,
am in a ree ent wit tat , that we s ould be more involved
B . CASOLARA : xxmxxRxa9xffKffxNRxaRm dx axWarmxafxzxpxzx nrx1kzx
with planning . Along those lines in about May or June of
last year the Town Board hired a geologist; Harrington ,
to make a recommendation on Town planning and land use .
Maybe if you check with Teresa and find out what the status
of his study or report is , it may in fact be helpful to us .
I would like to know what happened with the outcome of his
study .
G . TOTMAN : How the Planning Boards are resolving their planning time ,
they are holding an extra meeting a month . It would be open
to the public but would not hear proposals as we have at
our regular meetings , it would be more of a work session .
PLANNING BOARD . 8 - November 19 , 1987
Iof� during the next month you look through the Ordinance
and jot down any inconsiste cikes you find , we can discuss
them at the meeting . Like / Re single family homes4and
relate it to different circumstances and see how it fits
in and make notes for the next meeting .
V . RANKIN : ( not present at the beginning of the meeting ) asked ab out
the situation of Mary Lane property )
G . TOTMAN : In the October minutes we approved what shey: gave us if she
would present a revised map to the Board , that is the way
it was left and she has not done that . She agreed to it at
the meeting .
V . RANKIN : She says now she wants to keep that 60 foot right of way .
She doesn ' t want to take frontage off of one parcel fort3ta
the other parcel .
C . TWIGG : Unless that realtor wants to buy that wood lot , I don ' t
understand why a realtor would advise hermthat way . That
lot is not going to be good for anything but a wood lot
and it ' s not even a good wood lot . THe lot would be worth
more if someone wanted to put a house on it and have the
wood lot with it .
V . RANKIN : Apparently now she is have problems with people backing
out of original offers .
G . TOTMAN : The Board can do nothing more until she comes back with
the revised map or comes back to discuss it further with
us . She agreed to do it according to the Board ' s suggestions
and regulations , she has not asked us to change it , she
has not asked us to look at anything different , until she
returns to the Board nothingf'more can be done , the ball is
in her park .
B . CASOLARA : Gary , remember back when Munson was doing his division on
Sovocool Hill road and the question was whether li-s was
a major or rural subdivision and every one was proceeding
along that it had to be a major subdivision and I 'J° questioned
it because in my book it said ' 3 to 5 lots ' not 12 to 41
.
It had been penciled in the book and at that point you said
that ' s right it was changed . That came up again tonight
with Mr . Walpole , he was saying "I have 5 lots so I have to do
a major subdivision just like up on the Kluge farm" and I
said '.'up,,' : to 5 lots is a rural subdivision" that is where
we ended up .
v PLANNING BOARD - 9 - November 19 , 1987
G . WOOD : The Town Board passed several amendments , one of which
was that one , changing a rural subdivision from 12 to 4 '
to 'r3 to 5 ' . You should have a copy of that amendment .
G . TOTMAN : We were just discussing , Gary , trying to be a planning board
and were discussing some of the issues you brought up and
some that Teresa suggested . Would you like to make any further
comments .
G . WOOD : Just briefly , strongly suggest making the Mobile Home
Ordinance part of the regular Town Ordinance . As far as
the swimming pool , according to our Ordinance the TownClerk
issues the permit ; the Town Clerk really doesn ' t issue any
permits the zoning Enforcement Officer does ; so the Ordinance
should reflect that .
Iisuggest you check the consistency of the flow charts Tilthe
minuses and pluses and so forth ; for example , a single
family residence or maybe its a mobile home or maybe both ,
I can ' t remember now , you now have it changed so I can issue
a building permit for a single family residence in the RA
district but the rest of the districts it takes a site -plan
review .
Between Sections 100 and 500 , theiTdefinitions don ' t correlate
as they ought to . What does ' dwelling unit ' mean in respect
to ' one dwelling ' . We keep coming back to this . For
example : if we have a house on a lot and it says you can
have only ' 2 dwellings per acre ' I think that means you can
have two structures there each with a dwelling in it but
that is not what other people say . I think it ought to be
written so it is clear to everybody .
No . 115 . 04 that ties back into the definitions . Some things
are in the definitions but don ' t appear further back in the
Ordinance or are out of order and difficult to follow . .
Being no further questions or business V . RANKIN made the motion the
Planning Board adjourn , C . TWIGG seconded the motion and it carried .
The next regular meeting of the Town of Grotn Planning Board will be
Thursday , December 17 , 1987 at 8 : 00 p . m .
Respectfully submi d ,
rga et A . Palmer
Stenographer