HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-01-28 J
Town of Groton Planning Hoard
Ancillary. Meeting . of 1 / 28 / 88
Present : G . Totman , M . Post , C . Twigg , M . Carey , V . Rankin , H . Casolara ,
and G . Wood ,
NEXT MEETING - TO CONTINUE REVISIONS : FEB I , AT 8 : 00 pm .
PROPOSAL : . Change ,, the following on page 28 ,, to read :
131 . 1 One and Two ' Unit Occupancy : ' occupancy -• of housing accommodations
on , a permanent ( longer than.' : one month ) ' basis by a household '
1.including the ' activities normally found in houses and rectories ,
including , .gardening and the -, keeping of pets .
131 . 2 !I Multiple and .. Transient ' 06cupancy : , occupancy of rooming unit
�pphousing accommodations on a ` . . p'ermanent ( Longer than - one month )
basis , including the activities normally found in rooming houses ,
boardinghouses and apartment illl
p houses .
131 . 3 j Group Occupancy : occupancy of housing accommodations on a
permanent ( longer than one month ) basis by a group , including the
activities normally found in fraternity houses , dormitories , and
licensed group homes .
Add the following on page 28 :
131 . 4 Site Improvements : modifications to the surface of a property
that results in : a body of waters changes in the drainage
emanating from the property ; or blockage of vision for
traffic .
131 . 5 iRecreational Occupancy : occupancy of a facility , recreational in
; nature , in a structure equipped with plumbing facilities .
Change the following on , page 106 to read :
RA L M i
131 Residential Activities
. 1 One and Two Unit Occupancy + + + #
. 2 Multiple and Transient Occupancy + + # 0
. 3 Group Occupancy # # # 0
spill Site Improvements X , # # #
. 5 Recreational Occupancy X X p p
Respell ul Illy submitted by H . Casolara
q `
It
Ii' � Y ,-I}` @T->, ."!•: i 'II`* R}9�1, a.S+ Sv. tM'?,:� -4;73�.
I r n 0 � and so if they'll do something for the gov-
\+Y t 5+ 'x� M �. �` 1• '` J E5E, ItI,
'� ' ernment in return:, _ .
"Restricting this sort of I scratch your
ii
7 4 back, you scratch mine mentality," Wat-
� ' t I r b son said, "means that planning officials
w y, EC
I "IONSwill have to be more serious and specific
s
} a, tsr,,,z .,, .at on rules and regulations of development.
s' , . . ,, + jz t r - . : , r: , It will force giou and governments to
11
} ps
look"at what they rally want" ` a
dent of the nonprofit, public-interest law consent of the landowners,", Krause not -f; ti "<r , F- 6
firm, which he describes as dedicated to' ed-"or compensation." A d®nper Yyl
"advancing private properly'rights." L • - In 'the -Nollan vs. California Coastal , :?he'decision mould Iso put a damper
c,7he P Pe
"In First English; Zumbrun noted, Su Commission case; the Coastal Commis- on rural initiatives to preserve farmland
>preme Court Justice !Safidra� Day t slon "said a con le the Nollan, had to he said. In the
�v ,� ,4 S P past some areas have re
O Copnor brought in a case f his'ias Pa g fve u . part o[their property for a public quired;developers such 8s one wanting
III r ,t } hororsto`ry" ofiwhat can happen to land ,•,tbeach aecessbefore they would begrant- to build a ski lodge, to buy up develop-
r owners. In that case the;Caldornia Su .xr.ed a permit to add onto their' house. The meat rights on `adjacent farms as a pre-
, n
• preme:i Court : had ,rezoned to open- Nollan objected saying that such a re-, condition of developing another piece of
n • " a ': mot , space=land that+a couple; -Donald and > gmrementamounted to the stale taking property.
Y III Bonnie"Agin's, shad 'bought to ' build`ra `' part of their propertyd Watson warned that developers could
_u r c4 ✓t 'n.a ki A . .t .} '3i'} •ii` ,/y < r '
? M1 u �+P.•a home on , r s • f .t . "'§'� , vr-i r n . .gr6e e . �,,. , ec
, , x , The Supreme Court agreed with the .well benefit from the Nollan decision, at
The rezoning hadoccurred only after a Nollans11thestate wanted the easement, the expense ofh6il communities. "De-
i Y - cityyhadmade»themninsewer; en'viron ithad-topayr forit. And, thestatecouldn't '; veloperrssmaybully-,=pushtheirpsycho- .
1 ti r mental unpact, studies,;and'thelike.,The � require Something of the Nollans that had tOb -caladvantage'And `govemmentsmay
.
f,J. ply tied also required them to deed over nothing to do with what they wanted fhe �� givetin !sa IIIVying;ago ahead we can't get
a third of their property z . n pernrt (or rl�� '' : ' Yanytlung' any`way "
i ! ' -ti>+AftertheU'S:SupremeCourtdecision ' - This d66sion, in Zumbiun'IIIs opinion, ': Both SupreIIIme Court cases, Watson
•on behalf of the Lutheran Church in Firsts has s;'%v6liitionizeid , land rules ;,The tooted, strengthen'private property rights
t . ^n . «a. . . •
English, Zumlirun's firm took the Agins' . court ehminated the "gamesmanship,r ,i.. ' !.thei'abrhty ,.of• *pie to determine
.case back,6 court, successfully arguing,I :he,said. '.'the veiled attempts to. take ;their' own economic - future." But both
Itt that the couple,was due not only coin property "tZumbmn's firm represented t` decisions were split 6 to 3, and 5 to 4.
" pensation,but interim damages: Fifteen .'. the Nollatfs in the case. Therefore,•he said, the Grange is very
years had elapsed since the -Agins first'•• •I IItivican the decision mean for • interested -in 'who is going to take the
.'bought the landl " 'farmers? "' ninth seat on the US. Supreme Court.
Often, Zumbrun explained,' govern. •"If you want to build a farmhouse, or. How that person stands on land-use
: _ ments will ' gII %reenbelt ' farmland-place , add other buildings, and if you meet the issues, he said, could be critical.
This land is mine-- or isit7Fr sh a building moratonum on the land, codes,". Zuinbrun said, "the state or a city Unfortunately;- he said, lawmakers
water wetlands could ,onee , be' ';:.sometimes; even ; preventing -an, owner can't say to you that you must first dedi- paid "little attention" to how a previous
converted by landowners to from' farming it. First English, he said, sate the rest of your property to open nominee, Judge Robert Bork, stood on
lakes without -hassle, but. no ' could be '•'dynamite" in fending off such ' space "The state can, however, require land use. "We didn't notice any interest
more. -The U.S. Supreme Court attempts ' ' ' you to ;Mcerlain related things such as even from the head oftheSenateagricul-
daecisions." red two relevant . FarmeIII-rs said Leroy Watson, aspokes help pay for road improvements if what lure committee,' Senator Patrick Leahy
a( , man in- the'Grange's Washington office,`, you're asking for-creatingasubdivision (D-Vermont)."
BY JAY RICHTER t v. feel that.", if farmland is removed from on your ,pro perty, for example, can im- The Supreme Court has been "very
,• . ," - them they should-be paid. ,•". And they ; pose a burden, such as added traffic. : - dormant" on land-use issues for 50 years,
7F. you're concerned about Uncle Sam, .;:don't need 'outside' influences telling =: . In the past, Zumbrun noted, the land= Zumbrun charged . These two historic
your state;or that town down the road them that their farms 'should be main- % owner has had the burden of proving that cases, he said, provide "some weapons" "
lion
taking away, your ' land or ' telling you ? tarried because they look 'pretly. Those a government did not act properly in tak- against further encroachment on indi-
what to do with it yob can resf a .inite i, ftimsaretheirlifesavings=theiIIIr equity " ` ing ovei.; his ' property 'or exacting `an vidual landowners.
easier now Two Supreme,Coiirt 'deci we, First English,`said Watson,who point undue toll That has bee' nmostdifficultto Why hasn't,agriculture taken greater
sions havestie`ngthened your de[eiise ; ed out he s ii layman, not a lawyer," has do. Now,,the burden has shifted to the - , note of them? ,American Agriculturist
Thefrstdecasion; decidedlaiiJune,isI; upset a lot..of; people . in zoning circles , ;,government.. asked Zumbrun that question. "Well," he
known as First Englistn In this rase; the ;;.They're worried about how' much they Zumbrun` thinks the Nollan decision replied, "many have simply written them
high court found that a governmental un-':' could be liable for, he said, when-:� vnU eventually be used against the Corps off as goofy positions in California." If it's
it must compensate for land wrongfully they,try, to'regulate in good faith. " 'j "'of Engineers in its zeal to designate and r from California, he implied the rest of
h ken—evenrytf it is only •temporarily "That fear bus placed a chilling effect preserve wetlands areas: In many cases; , 'the'agricultural community often writes
on,. zoning boards particularly, in the. , he said, the Corps has declared an area'to : it off as zany, weird, or outright insane.
The second decision, ' also handed Northeast where the land values are (air-„ : be wetland and told the owners. "You Farm Bureau's Krause sees far-reach-
down last June, is Notlan vs. California : ly high and where zoning regulations are, ; :can't use your property to build a home, ing implications of both decisions for
Coastal Commission. This one says that ' seen as a way,to 'preserve' farmland." .and you ,have to get a permit to (arm" land-use decisions. For example, they
a regulating agency cannot "exact a Communities, Watson said, will now - Then, the Corps has often denied the could be used to require compensation
price" that is unrelated to the issuing of a - -have to be serious about farmland pres- farming permit. for farmers denied use of certain pesti-
permit. That is, it cannot make a person ' ; ervatioaThey'll have to, be
willing topay The federal government has in recent cider due to the Endangered Species pro-
seeking a building permit contribute for it " ' years, Zumbrun went on, used the wet- gram to be implemented by the Envi-
money or property to what's deemed a lands concept and the, Clean Water Act ronmental Protection Agency.
worthy public cause- AM position "to get greater control over real prop , ' "If farmers aren't permitted to use the
In First English, a Lutheran Church in : r i, Rick Krause, a_lawyer in The Ameri- erty."-.The Corps of Engineers, he said, proper tools to grow their crops," Krause
California was denied the right of build- can Farm •- Bureau Federation's Park . - has "extreme power,"- , and has been pointed out, "that comes very close to
ing back a church camp that,was 'wiped Ridge,- Illinois; office,% told `American guilty of, "overstepping" its bounds. ' ' denying them the use of their land for the
out id a food: Los Angeles officials said '- Agriculturrsf that his organization plans ` Zumbrunsaid he and his firm believe' public benefit. That would amount to a
the;zomng' regulations there I .prohibited to use First English as a precedent in a in environmental causes, but the com- compensable taking."
property improvements i , ur^ casto I e pending in Missouri. Thafcase has munity or society ..must _ be willing to The same could be true for areas
The churchisued and• proved the regu „� to do with the_ use of abandoged railroad '; pay' the burden should not be focused , where a government wants to promote
lation was indeed a bad one..,Then the nghtsof way ., ,o1-1
, on the individual landowner. ; _ _, . : . wildlife -on people's own private lands.
church sued for damages—tor. loss o[ +4 ; Farmers, Kraiise pointed�out;original- Farm Bureau's Krause said the den--- It would be denying a farmer the right to
property use -during the time the issue,% ly gave easements to' lho railroads- for ` 'sion 'could have implications where the use his land as he sees fit," said Krause.
was before,,he' courts their use as longas the railroads needed government says a farmer has to ant the Note: This correspondent talked with a
The Supeme Cc rt ruled that indeed, them. However; when they ',were no public access—free gratis—through his lawyer in USDA's General Counsel of-
a "Sorry, Charlie" attitude wasn't enough' longer used, the easements were sup land. This- decision could be used to test fiee, James Snow, who commented: "We
on the governing body's part. An actual posed to revert back to the landowners. the notion that anybody is allowed to , don't see those cases as having a direct or
monetary compensation.was due. - • :.i But now, he explained, states and oth- ' cross a 'farmer's land in order to have profound impact on farm programs.
Y eragencies have decided that the ease- hunting access, for example, to federal Under the Food Security Act, a farmer •
LCuv Srm ments would make good hiking and bik lands- can do anything he wants to if he accepts
AmencanAgriculmru7contactedRoo- mglrails They've been negotiating with TheGrange'sWatsonsaidtheNollan thecotisequencesofnotparticipatingina a4
aid Zumbrun; Pacific Legal Foundation , the railroads toturn theabandoned lines decision put a damper.on the horsetrad- ., federal program 11
Sacramento, Cahfornia who was in- ,; into'such trails t"_ mg'phabsophy often praWced by gov "I "'don't see that those two ., cases a,
volved m both cases Zumbrun is press .- "All this is being ,done �witbout the ernments-tbey'B let landowners do thus plowed that much new ground".
`