HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-07-16 i
TOWN OF GROTON
' PLANNING BOARD
THURSDAY , JULY 16 , 1992
BOARD ( d'bpresent ) PUBLIC PRESENT
* George 'rotman , Chairman George Senter , Zoning
* Cecil Enforcement Officer
* Monica Carey
* George VanSly11[ e
* Veil Rankin
* Sheldon Clark
* David Chatterton
GEORGE rO `.MAN , Chairman , opened the Planning. Bd . hearin ,
DAVID CIIATTER '. ON made the motion to pass the minutes of the last
meeting , VERL RANKIN second the motion and the minutes were accept Ed .
DAVID CHA'PTER 'PON made the motion to approve the minutes from the
Public Hearing ; Cecil Twigq second it .
TOTMAN : Down to business ; let ' s talk about road frontage of
200 ft . Lyle wants us to keep in mind . . . do we want
to keep it 200 feet ? We are the only town in the
County over 150 feet . The ordinance here is pretty
tijht . As land values go up , it ' s clot of land ; if
too much is requiired of people , the land might en. d up
as junk yards . Alot of people don ' t want that much
land . These are things we ought to think about , consid r ,
and discuss in the futilre meetings . Another idea is
the granny flats .
TWIGG : Road frontage doesn ' t need to be any more then what
they need for a right of bray . '•hat would save money
and space . What difference does it make how much they
got out on the road ? As long as it serves the Health
Department . . . . the people have to co back a mile and
a • half just to put his :house away from the road .
PO '.MAN : W , agree , In or, d. er to , change an ordinance or have a
change in ordinance , there has to be a public hearing .
'TOWN OF GROTON
PLANNING BEARD
Planning Board Meeting , rhursd. ay , July 10 , 1992 , 8000 P . M .
RURAL SUBDIVISION proposed by John Beck , located on Davis Rd .
and Lafayette Corners Rd . ; 'Pax Map No . 28 Parcel 59 . 12 .
BOARD PUBLIC PRESENT
°IGeorge Toitman , Chairman George Senters , Zoning
* Veil Rankin Enforcement Officer
* Cecil rwi, gg John Beck , Davis Rd . &
* David Chatterton Lafayette Corners Rd .
* George VanSlyke
* Sheldon Clark
* Monica Carey
( * present )
G . 'PO 'PMAN , Chairman , opened the meeting .
TOTMAN : I . think everybody knows why we are here tonight . John
„ Beck is proposing to do a rural subdivision on Davis Rd .
i�
and Lafayette Rd . , 31 . 71 acre parcel vacant land ; 'Pa <.
° Map # 28 , Parcel 59 . 12 . Does anybody have any r., uestions ?
TWIGG : „ Do we need a public hearing for a rural subdivision ?
I don ' t think we need one for a rural , but we do for a
major .
TO 'PMAN : If you grant my opinion , my opinion would be that it ' s
really up to the Board if they want to hold a public
hearing or not on this particular property . There is
no major utilities going in there ; it ' s in a rural
area of the town and all the lots are over three acres .
All of the lots have a greater amount than required
of road frontage . It meets the rules and regulations
of our subdivision ordinance .
RANKIN : Motioned to do as a rural subdivision .
CI '1TTER 'iON :
i
Second the motion .
-
Page 2
John Beck
i
SHORT ENVIRONMEN'PA?_: ASSESSMEN'x FORM
Part 1 was filled out by owner
Part II reviewed by the Board :
A . Action Exceed any Type 1 threshold NO
13 . Will Action Receive Coordinated Review NO
Co Could action result in ANY adverse
effects C1 - C7 NO
C1 - yes , but only as related to residences
C2 - N/A
C3 - no
C4 - no
C5 - no
C6 - none
C7 - same as C1
D . Is there any controversy related to potential
adverse environmental impacts ? NO
CECIL TWIGG made the motion the Planning Board declare
the proposed subdivision by John Beck , Davis Rd . and Lafayette Rd .
Town of Groton , Pals Map No . 28 - 59 . 12 a RURAI, SUBDIVISION and
proceed with the short form ender Section a40 of the `l' owm of Groto
Land Use and Development Code and bypass a public hearing ;
Monica Carey second the action .
VOTE : ALL, IN FAVOR
MOTION CARRIED
ro ,rMAN : John , you need to have it surveyed .
BECK : We are surveying the whole thing .
I , SANDRA D . DILLON , DO Cr: R 'PIFY that at the Planning
Board Meeting in the matter of a RURAL, SUBDIVISION proposed by
John Beck Davis Rd . and Lafayette Corners ],? do , lax Map No . 28 -
59 . 12 , held on Thursday , July `16 , 1992 , 8 : 00 P . M . did take the
minutes of said hearing and the foregoing is a trite and exact
copy of said hearing , to the best of my ability .
o/K
Sandra D . Dillon
F
,;I
PART II — ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (To be completed by Agency)
A. DOES ACTION XCEED ANY TYPE I THRESHOLD IN 6 NYCRR, PART 617 . 12? If yes , coordi,cate the review process anc\
❑ Yes Wo
B . WILL ACTION RECEIVE COORDINATED REVIEW AS PROVIDED FOR UNLISTED ACTIONS IN 6 NYCRR, PART 617.6 ? If tso i
may be superseded by another involved agency. , \
❑ Yes Lo
C. COULD ACTION RESULT IN ANY ADVERSE EFFECTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE FOLLOWING : (F.r, swers may be handwritten , if legibi C1 . Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns , solid waste productk
potential for erosion , drainage drainage or floodingproblems? _ xpla �in briefly:
r +
'J (J
C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, archaeological, historic, or other natural or cultural resources; or community or neighborhood character? Explc
,
C3. Vegetation or fauna, fish, shellfish or wi !dllfe species, significant habitats, or threatened o.v endangered species? Explain briefly:
v � �
C4. A community's existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use or Intensity of use df land or other natural resources? Explain briefll
C5. Growth, subsequent development, or related activities likely to be induced by the proposes action ? Explain briefly.
C6. Long term , ' short term, cumulative, or other effects not Identified in C1 •C5? Explain briefly.
C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or type of energy)? Explain briefi :.
^ J
D. IS THERE, OR ION
ERE LIKELY TO BE, CONTROVERSY RELATED TO POTENT t-� AL ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS?U Yes o If Yes, explain briefly
PART III — DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE (To be COmo ! eted by Agency) —J
INSTRUCTIONS : For each adverse effect identified above , determine whether it is substantial , large , important or otherwise significant .
Each eff6ct..should be assessed in connection with its (a) setting (i . e . urban or rur2 !'; (b) probability of occurnng ; (c) duration ; (d)
irreversibilit e O g
O geographic Scope ; r_ r) d i magnitude . 11 necessary , add attachments ; r reference supporting ::-latevials . Enst ; re that
explanations contain sufficient detail to show that all relevant 2dverse impacts have = en identified and 2Geeuately addressed .
❑ ChecF; this box if you have identified one or more potentially large or s ;; olnificant adverse impacts which MAY
occur. Then proceed directly to the FULL EAF and/or prepare a positive declaration .
—Check this box if you have determined , based on the information ana analysis above and any Supporting I
documentation , that the proposed action WILL NOT result in any significant adverse environmenta ! impacts
AND provide on attachments as necessary, the reasons supporting this determination :
Fame of Lead Agency
Print or pe Name of Responsible Oificer ,n Lead Agency — _
Title of Responsible Oiiicer
Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency . Signature , of Preaarer ( If different from responsible officer)
i
j74 . 16-4 (2/87) — Tex t, 12
PROJECT, I . D. NUMBER
I. -
s � :z ;.' . . .. . SEQF
APRI . C. . ..
State Environmental `.Q_Uality Review
SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL. ASSESSMENT FORM
For UNLISTED ' •ACTIONS' Only: .
PART I. — PROJECT INFORMATION (To be .Completed by Applicant or ' Project sponsor)
1 . APPL CANT ISPON ° R I 2 . . . P, JECi t:AM
3 . PROJECT ' OCA710^N :^
I. Municipal] )
P Y UU3i� Q CT /'� � D ,[/. .. .. . . . . County
4 . PRECISE LOCATION (Street, address and road intersections, prominent landmarks, etc., or provide m.ap)
,r
P &0 Z; 6 C
1 5 . IS PROPOSED ACTION :
New ❑ Expansion ❑ Modification/a• era
i Y
i t lion : ,__: .. . . .. r. , . , -...
6 . DESCRIBE PROJECT BRIEFLY: --
y
ee
00 All
141)
L4 12
y ,
7 . AMOUNT OF Ll JD AFFECTED:
Initially GL' _ acres Ultimately acres
Ile Be WIIIL�LggL PROPOSED ACTION COMPLY WITH EXISTING ZONING OR OTHER EXISTING LAND USE RESTRICTIONS?
IAI Yes ❑ IJo h No, describe briefly
II
u
., . WHAT IS PRESENT, LAND USE . iN VICIN' lT1' OF' PROJECT? d
' esidential � 1
❑ Industrial
❑ Commercial �Agnculture ❑ Park/ForesUOpen space ❑ Other
Describe:
I Ij
i
f
10 . DOES ACTION INVOLVE A PERMIT APPROVAL, OR FUNDING NO
W OR ULTIMATELY FRGM ANY OTHER GOV
ERNMENTAL VE N r STATE OR LOCAL . R MEt\ TAL AGENCY
m (FEDERAL
y i •
❑ Yes -IfYesI 'st acencYsandPermitlaPProvals
i
11 . DOES ANY ASPECT OF ,1 HE ACTION HAVE A CURRENTLY VALID PERMIT OR APPROVAL .
❑ Yes `RNo if yes, list agency name and permit/approval
12 . AS A RESULT "OF PROPOSED ACTION WILL EXISTING PERMIT/APPROVAL REQUIRE MODIFICATION ?
❑ Yes Fb No
I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE
ApplicanUsponsor name: ��
Date: I � ` /
Signature : _-
� 1
• If t action
Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with e agency, complete the
Is to the Coastal Area , and you are a state
p g h this assessment
OVER . . . . . .