Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-01-21 A r TOWN OF GROTON PLANNING BOARD Thursday , January 21 , 19889 8eO0 PM II BOARD ( „present ) PUBLIC present *George Totman , Chairman Gary Wood , Zoning Enforcement 'Michael Post , Vice - Chairman Officer %Cecil Twigg Monica Carey -%Vert Rankin *Bill Casolara G . TOTMAN , Chairman opened the meeting at 8 : 00 p .,m . Minutes of the December 17 ; 1987 meeting were presented and approved upon motion of M . POST and seconded by M . CAREY , G . TOTMAN : The Harrington Report that was here last meeting that we talked about . In between meetings Gary , and I looked at it: and Bill has also looked at it . Who would like to take the book to read it and bring it back for the next one to read it . M . POST : I would like to take a look at it . G . TOTMAN : Bring it back to Colleen , Town Clerk when you are finished . We will start out tonight discussing what we were talking about at the end of th e last meeting , going over the Ordinance . At the last meeting we' talked about forming a committe or sub - committee to take a look at it and work with it and find out . some of the tings that are wrong with it . Twice since the last meeting Bill , Gary and I have met and gone over some of the things we think should be changed . I ' d like Bill to explain what we have done and what we propose ro u P P p to this point . d% oCopy of Meeting of 1 / 14 / 88 to be sent to Board members %,„ B''. CASOLARA : I think the Board needs time to digest the suggestions that we came up with . It is extremely difficult to pick up a document on the spur of the moment and understand what we did over a 5 or 6 hour session . Through the discussion what we decided to propose was a combination of the categories of " Facility " and "Activity" . Gary had some problematic,i� situations arise(5� in that he could classify stuff by both ' activity ' and ' facility ' . We recognized that most land use comes under the of ,';activity ' , how would you use that land rather than ' fa cility , .y We went through g the sections and it beca me c ie apparent very quickly that all the ' facility ,y classifications could come under the ' activity ' classifications with a few minor changes . So what we have done if incorporate the ' facilityks- ; into the ' activity ' ;, and cleaned up a little bit of the language , ; g age , recognizing that there is a lot of language to be corr..cactedibecause this ease: is not a one time it is an integral part of the document and affects different areas in the whole document . M . POST : The bottom line is to make it easier for Gary to work with ? PLANNING BOARD . 2 . January 21 , 1988 G . WOOD : It removes some real diff1oult,ies . For example , somebody says you have to classify something two ways . That raises problems in that in one classification it requires one thing and in the other something else . It would seem by eliminating that duel track , you eliminate a whole lot of difficulties . G . TOTMAN : You are also removing po°s;sible future legal problems . It ' s not easy to explain in short words , but there is ava,lot more involved than making Gary ' s job ' easier . One is , the general public comes in and asks for a copy of the Ordinance and they don ' t understand it . We have had attorneys get copies of this and they don ' t understand it . In the past , I have gotten letters from attorneys representing clients with land in the Town and they read the Ordinance and don ' t understand the Ordinance . B . CASOLARA : There are other issues involved here . For instance , Gary would look at the classification of ' facility ' and the facility would say a Site Plan Review required ; then he go to the ' activity ' and the activity would say no Review required . '.Then he could decide , 'andu n 4thiisTppase , �i UIthinkrthere is too much flexibility in the Zoning Officer ' s function , it should be :consistent no matter what . Through our discussion we felt it more important to determine what you are using the land for should be dealt with , not the facility . We decided a few things needed to be incorporated into ' activity ' to cover some of the things in ' facility ' that were being deleted . We were basically interested in a clean up operation where there was a big inconsistency between the sections listed in tine Chart and the actual Sections in the text . For instance , No.) 1 in the Chart , Fsswhemoyobu IIf;or , ilt in the text it is . 30 . We also suggest changing the structure to the point system from the parentheses . I have learned a lot working with these two fellows , there is some stuff in this document that I shutter about . We found sections that require a Building Permit to put in a lawn or plant a tree or shrubs or stuff like that . There are sections in there that deal with issues we didn ' t think were there . For instance , there are sections in there that deal with landfills and haulage and those types of activities we didn ' t think were there . They are not complete , they need to be expanded with a more encompassing definition . In many issues , the document spoke to the issued but there was no terms about that particular issue . There were no definitions of what guide- lines to follow . So there are quite a few inconsistencies to be corrected . V . RANKIN : What about that fellow from Ithaca that helped write this up ? B . CASOLARA : You need a starting point , you have to have something to build on . G . TOTMAN : The Board itself , the Planning Board , has the responsibility to recommend changes to the Ordinance to the Town Board . They act upon our suggestions . They might change our suggestions , 4 I I i j PLANNING BOARD . 3 - January 21 , 1988 I i but the suggested changes come from the Planning Board . I think Billy was very enlightened by getting involved ° and reading through the document . I strongly g y suggest that mor:elkAhan one person go over this with Gary , if welcould get somebody else to work on j it or the whole Board . M . POST : I would be in favor of the members of the Board getting involved in it . G . TOTMAN : The whole Board could sit9ap another meeting during the month and go over the document@like we did last month . G . WOOD : I think one thing that we accomplished is that we focused on what needs to be done . I wouldn ' t be surprised if in another half a dozen sek sions you could have tings defined . V . RANKIN : The thing I would say is the Board sit in on a session and have one or two people do the main work . II G . TOTMAN : Over the years , this Board is not unique from other Boards , the Board initially sets together and draws up the Ordinance and they know what was in it . The new people on the Board have no background in the intent behind it . What I would really like to see is more involvement from the whole Planning Board so when we do present it to the Town Board the whole Board knows what is happening . I strongly suggest that at least one more besides Bill work on it . I don ' t want to prolong it too long . The Board wants to makedI changes all at once , not piecemeal . There are a couple of things that should be changed right away , that shouldn ' t be put off any farther than early Spring . Be CASOLARA : I think the task is large enough that some other people could take a portion of the Ordinance and bring it back . I414m more than willing to do what we have been doing and bring it back with suggested changes ; but I ' d also like other people to do that . There are a lot of sections that have to be dealt with . For i instance , the one section on households , we now need other sections in here too . The other thing I would like to see done is a manual ji for usage . Instead of the document , when a person comes in t with a procedure , he could be handed a manual stating the procedure . ti G . WOOD : If you don ' t mind my saying so there is a problem with different i people te4RjiLng different chunksFto We set down and discovered some things and thoughtawe had a program together , it all ties in II together . If we don ' t work together and keep it as one entity we are going to end up with things that don ' t fall together very well . Be CASOLARA : I think there are sections that people could work on indepen- I dently . G . TOTMAN : I would agree with you , Bill , if when they are doing it they I have Gary there . ,I I .I II ii it PLANNING BOARD - 4- January 21 , 1988 Be CASOLARA : What I am suggesting that after a session we say , ' here are some things that need to be done ' . I left our meeting and worked up these suggestions on my own , and then I brought it l back to you and you and ' Gary had a chance to look at it , the Board can look at it and make other suggestions . It is not a final proposal . We did a lot of brainstorming at our session , that was what was so productive . Go ': WOOD : It just occurred to me it is going to be tough for somebody to go off on a tangent without knowing what we have discussed . B CACASOLARA : I agree with you in that . G . WOOD : A thought has occurred to me , how about the mechanics of this . The possibility of loading this into a word processor and working with it . Mt POST : Isn ' t it already there , didn ' t Gary Evans tell us it was there ? u G ' WOOD : I think there is some truth to that . He has been asked , about a year ago , to do something about the swimming pool ordinance , but , for whatever reason , it has not been done - and I think that is a lost cause MI . POST : I recall him saying th y g at e time that he had the capabilities to insert and take out paragraphs and I assumed it was on some sort of system . G . TOTMAN : Bill talked to us about putting it on a computer and we have always talked about it . I ' m not sure if the Board knows it , but e T wn Board its if is talking about getting a Town computer , reheoex moee ingahey are having somebody explain a system to them . . Bill has come up with any idea of putting this on the computer soljlkt=iwe make changes henceforth , we can make changes by just picking the right thing out of the computer without going through the whole document , once it is more workable . Be CASOLARA : The intent of the idea is that someone , not myself , could put the document into a word processor and generate a table of contents and it would be available to make any changes for the next couple of months and come up with the finished product . I found out after that suggestion , that the Town is considering buying a system , it would be very propitious . If Gary Evans does have something on a disk that we could put on a word processor , it would certainly facilitate the process . George , I would ask you to contact Gary Evans to see if this is in a computer . M . POST : What do other Town Planning Boards do ? V G . TOTMAN : In relation , the majority of othetrttown ordinances are not as complicated as this one . Even the Town of Ithaca or Lansing i PLANNING BOARD - 5 - January 21 , 1988 or complicated ,Dryden are not as I have been directed to the Y Town of Virgil Ordinance . It is written in simpler language than this one . It probably covers as much as this one covers but is a much smaller document . The Town of Dryden ' s is half the size as this . The Lansing Ordinance is half the thickness of this . What are they doing ? They are not having the same problems . They are not on a computer , Lansing and Virgil are not . Dryden just went , this past year , to putting the Town on computer but the Zoning Ordinance is not on the computer . M . POST : Are we the only ones locally using this output from Evans ? G . TOTMAN : No , he has worked with nearly every town in the County . M . CAREY : How come ours is like this and Dryden'sand % Lansing ' s isn ' t ? G . WOOD : Virgil is in Cortland County and was drawn up by the Cortland County Planning Board and turned out to be a much more conventional document than this one . I don ' t know anybody else Y Y that Gary Evanss3has drawn up a land use ordinance for . V . RANKIN : I think , at that time , the Planning Board asked for all this . G . TOTMAN : I appreciate your thoughts , Verl , but what happened here , I believe , we set here many , many nights going through the ordinance chapter by chapter and we had a lot of discussion and comments as we went along ; and Gary Evans was here at the meetings and he had a sense of feeling there was not all total agreement of everybody and I think he was also at that time newer into this than he is now and it ' s my personal opinion that he rewrote it the way he thought it should be and also as a model to be used someplace else . There are things in there different than what we talked about . We did not notice them until after we got it back and started working with it . It`Mas not edited at the time . C . TWIGG : We didn ' t look it over closely enough , a thin. s in there g , there re g we discussed but they are not right . G . WOOD : When I took this job on and I read it through I did not appreciate the problems . It was not until you begiajto work with it that you see the difficulties with it . I think Gary Evans rand scheme�Lwas s • -to ma ke it g all encom- passing , toy have subdivisions , land use�;� flood zoning and SQRE all wrapped up in one document . The other thing is he had the concept it would be very , very flexible , that anything would almost be permissable with a Site Plan Review , which I hope we don ' t lose because that I believe is a good part of the Ordinance . Why he got into the business of trying to precisely define everything is beyond my comprehension . G . TOTMAN . What is our op inion pinion or feelings with what we have talked I' I • I, PLANNING BOARD - 6 - January 21 , 1988 , t Y so far : Where do we go from here ? V . RANKIN : I think it would be nice if you did it all and we did not have to do anything . Seriously , I think it is good to work with you fellows on it . G . TOTMAN : Is anyone receptive to the idea of having another meeting with the whole group or a couple three meet with Bill and Gary on an evening set up by them? V . RANKIN : Let Bill afndl Gary select a night and we ' ll be there . Get WOOD : I think we all have a lot to learn . G . TOTMAN : You want Bill and Gary to select a night tonight and let you know ? -,Board in agreement; PROPOSED SUBDIVISION by ROGER GLEASON Tax Map No . 16 - 1 - 18 . 12 , located on Licill k St . and Clark St . Ext . Town of Groton : G . TOTMAN : I am surprised Roger is not here tonight . Be CASOLARA : According to the Code , a developer of a proposal or his representative should be present at a meeting to present the proposal for accurate representation of the proposal . Since there is no representative present I would made the MOTION :I> the proposal be set aside until the next meeting when a representative is present to answer any questions the Board might have concerning the proposal . V . RANKIN seconded the motion . Be CASOLARA : I don ' t think it would be productive to second quess what 1 he is proposing to do . I have several questions on this . VOTE : All in favor Motion carried PROPOSED SUBDIVISION by ROGER GLEASON Tax Map No . 121 - 1 - 21. 2 Located on Lick St . Town of Groton ( north of Rt 222 and south of Old)AStage Rd . ) G . TOTMAN : For informational purposes this piece of land we agreed a year or so ago to let Mr . Koekebacker buy it to go along with his land as an add on piece of property so a subdivision was not necessary . Before the deal was finalized , circumstances changed and Mr. Koekebacker is not purchasing the piece of land . Roger P has another buyer g for the land but he does not live next door to I Does it mean it is now a minor subdivision because of other lots sold in the area . c I ii �I I� PLANNING BOARD - 7 - January 21 , 1988 V . RANKIN . Why discuss it without Roger , isn ' t this like the other one ? M . POST : What additional imput does Roger have on this one ? What do we want to ask him ? Be CASOLARA : How much land did he originally own and how many parcels have Jill been taken out of the land ? M . CAREY : It backs up to his house and barn , it must all be one . parcel . G . TOTMAN : It is across the road . M . CAREY : No I dofi`tathink so , it backs up to his house and barn so it must all be one tax parcel . V . RANKIN : Is it legal to do this ? G . TOTMAN : Yes , on a minor subdivision it is allowed . Be CASOLARA : Whysis it a minor subdivision ? M . CAREY : Iuwonder how many acres are in this piece . G . TOTMAN : I think you will find the major land that Roger has sold off is across the road from his house rather than on this side of the farm . C . TWIGG : How many lots has he sold off of this parcel ? M . CAREY : I don ' t think he has sold anything . He came before us with a proposal acouple of months ago to sell land down at the other end , the one for the trailer in the woods . ] Be CASOLARA : My, point is , if there are only 4 „ parcels , irhy � is it a minor subdivision . - - M . CAREY : A minor is for 3 to 5 parcels . G . WOOD : A rural , each parcel would be over 5 acres . G . TOTMAN : It would be a minor because a couple of lots were sold off of it before . M . POST : Do you have the original file of the sale, to Koekebacker ? G . TOTMAN : That was just ,the sale of a piece of land and did not come in as a subdivision but in the meantime he sold another piece of land from the parcel . M' POST : Those are questions we sould be able to answer without Roger . C . TWIGG : It doesn ' t show on this map - that corner out of it , this Koekebacker is the only other piece out of this parcel . p fI PLANNING BOARD - 8 - January 21 , 1988 G . WOOD : It shows on the tax map , you don ' t know how current that is . I like the point Mike made , we ought to have those things predetermined . ' M . POST : How do we do that ? How do we keep those records and files current ? Can we look at a tax map and show the changes that have occurred on that parcel during that period of time ? G . WOOD : o No , the tax map is out of date the day it ins printed . These �I are filed by tax map number so you can follow a tax map number . G . TOTMAN : The thing Roger is asking at this time is a request that he be allowed to sell one piece of land in the same track of land that his major farm is on under the same conditions as.a he sold to Koekeback and Rice . The only reason it is before us is that Mr . Koekeback could not buy it after the Board made it ' s previous decision . We agreed to let Roger sell it and now he is coming back to us . We have to be careful not to set a precedent . This particular one , I have no problem with , do you have a problem with it , Gary ? G . WOOD : The last time you ruled on it as a lot adjustment , therefore it was not a subdivision . I really see this as totally different proposition . As long as you give me the opportunity I " m going to say something that you don ' t really want to hear . I don ' t see any Environmental Assessment with this . Without which , I don ' t see how you can make a proper SEQR review . I know you may not agree with me but I think it is important that that procedure be followed . Even though it is the same piece of land it is a different situation and I . don ' t think what you did before has any bearing on what you decide now . On the obverse side , it would appear to comply with all the rules and regulations . There would not appear to be good grounds to deny it except that the applications is not complete at this point in time . V . RANKINlUpon Gary ' s recommendation , I make the MOTION that Roger complete the application before we can move on it . M . POST seconded the motion . VOTE : All in favor Motion carried G . TOTMAN : You want to set a meeting date for the work meeting with Gary and Billo ***„ Thursday , January 28 , 1988 at Town Hall was set for the brainstorming meeting of the Planning Boarde%% ;;;;;; Want to continue with consolidating ' facility ' in with ' activity ' Go through text and find reference to ' facility ' and tie them back to ' activity ' . There are sections that refer to ' facility ' that have to be altered or deleted . M . POST made the motion the meetingbe adjourned V . RANKIN adjourned ,* seconded the motion . The next REGULAR meeting of the Planning Board will be Thursday , February 18 , 1988 at 8 : 00 p . m , ectfully MraetA . Pamer g