HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-07-21 s lill
y
< u
TOWN OF GROTON PLANNING BOARD
N '
Thursday, 21 July 1994
Board Members Public Present
*George Totman , Chairman George Senter, Sr. , Code
*Monica Carey Enforcement Officer
Sheldon Clark Ralph Baker
*Jeffrey Lewis Charles Volbrecht
*Verl Rankin Carl & Barbara Kelley
*Cecil Twigg James Henry, Attorney
George Van Slyke Kenneth Tompkins
George Totman, Chairman, opened the Planning Board meeting at 8 : 10 p .m .
11
Preliminary Review - Ralph Baker - Brown Road - Possible Subdivision of Land, TM #341 -30.5
G. Totman: Would you please explain to the Board what you have in mind.
u
R. Baker. What I had intended to do in the first pld''ce was sell it off in one lump . The realtor I
talked to suggested that I break it up . I understood the Board was going to talk about a right-of-way and
possibly allowing a right-of-way to go across the building lot for a place in back.
G. Totman: This Board? From where did you underst Iand that from?
R. Baker. Someone told me over home .
G. Totman: Okay. Let me explain to you where I think they may have misled you . The
requirements for a building lot in the Town of Groton is 200 feet of road frontage. . .
R. Baker: Yes. I had to get a variance .
G. Totman: and there is no way we can change that, What they might have been talking to you
about is some towns around us have what they call "flag lots" where you can go down to 20 feet and the
driveway be the flagpole, and the flag is the lot out back. ,, They are discussing that in the Town of
Groton and it's been suggested in the Comprehensive Plan that eventually they go to that, but it hasn't
been brought up for any zoning change and probably, even, if it was brought up to the Town Board to
pass it , I wouldn't be looking for it until spring if it does happen . So whoever told you that probably
had heard something about that and so unless you really wanted to talk about it now and then wait till
that possibly happens, that's one thing . But if you think about selling it off within the next year, then I
don't think it's a wise decision .
R. Baker: Well, I checked to see what it costs to run a road back and it's not worth it.
G. Totman: Not for a few lots. You've got to have eight " or ten lots to pay for a road , to build it to
Town specifications. This Town hasn't ever had it requested of it before , but there is such a thing in
Town Law where you can build a private road and have up to four roads on it. But even then our
ordinance would have to be changed to allow that because they still require the 200 feet on a public
highway. So you might be dealing with a realtor who is familiar with other towns, and he 's been able
to do what he's telling you in other towns.
R. Baker. He 's apparently new, so he wasn't. . . . .
G. Totman: But that isn't possible in this Town.
M. Carey: There isn't enough road frontage to begin with for that lot.
JI
` u
I
G. Totman: So , basically, all this land you've got only has a total road frontage of 188 . 42 feet.
Very honestly, until the rules and regulations change, there's nothing we can do for you . If you had the
right road frontage we could help you . But here you've either got to build a road back to those lots, and
you can't take 60 feet away from what you've got for the road. Did Milt Greene draw this up for you?
R. Baker: Yes .
G. Totman: I wish you'd have talked to me before you spent the money on it.
ail
R. Baker: Now that's just a suggestion from the rece1dtor. Milt did the original survey.
G. Totman: The realtor should have known better than that. I don't know of a town around where
this would work.
CO lwigg: I looked at this thing when it came in the mail and said what's he trying to do. It just
doesn't look to me like it's going to fly.
G. Totman: When you take that 60 feet off that 188 then you're below what all the other towns
around us are anyway. It's too bad you have all that land and you can't do anything with it. The only
other possibility for land like this, and I don't see a map of the other land around it, is that somebody,
like the person owning the land right next to you , may buy it and use their road frontage to get back to
that property . They would have enough because they have 287 feet.
R. Baker: They would like to buy what I've got out front -- about a 100 feet of that for. . . .
G. Totanan: Do you live there?
R. Baker: Yes, I live back in the cabin.
Ilu
C. Twigg: How far back is your cabin , Ralph?
R. Baker: About a quarter mile .
G. Totman: (Pointing to map) Then you live back in Jere then . So it is possible then to make 60
feet back in here to make a private road if they were legal, in the Town. For future things, something
could be done like that. It can't be done right now. But you can't sell that up there because it would
landlock you in there . So you can't do that either.
R. Baker: Okay. We 'll forget about that. Now, if IIII were to build three or four ponds, is that
permissible?
C. Twigg: We have nothing to do with that -- maybe Soil Conservation,
11
G. Totman: If you get DEC approval for what you're;) doing, that's all you have to do . To my
knowledge there's nothing in our ordinance. . .it's the Cortland office of DEC .
V. Rankin: He doesn't want to go talk to them, he wants to go talk to the Soil Conservation
Service . They'll tell him . Right?
G. Totman: I 'm not going to argue with you , Veryl . Normally the DEC has ultimate responsibility.
C. Twigg: That's what Veryl says, but the Soil Conservation will tell you what to do.
G. Totman: Yes, but you've still got to get the permit from DEC.
M. Carey: Depends on how big a pond.
C. Twigg: The DEC would probably send him back to 'the Soil Conservation .
2
G. Totman: Veryl probably knows more about that than I do. I 've always sent them to DEC and
they've never come back to me , °so I assume I was doing ,' the right thing. You're talking about the Soil
Conservation District headquartered over to Cayuga Heights?
V. Rankin: Either that or the one at Community Corners. . .
G. Totman: That's the one I 'm talking about. I 'm on their Board of Directors.
R. Baker: Now if I suggest something to them on the ponds, do you think they might go in and
ir
look at it and say I've got wetlands.
J. Lewis: They've got maps; they already know what you have .
G. Totman: It's already recorded that part of your property is wetlands.
R. Baker: Are there any restrictions on me on that?
G. Totman: The only restriction I know of is that you can't use it for anything but a wetland and
you can't build a house within a 100 feet of it.
C. Twigg: You can't cut the wood, you can't do this, you can't do that.
G. Senter: You can pasture on it.
CO Twigg: You can pasture on it?
G. Senter: The 100-foot area, but not the wetland itself.
V. Rankin : If it's already been drained once, you can drain it again.
G. Totman: Anyway, to answer your question as far as the Town of Groton is concerned , if you get
approval from one of those agencies for what you want to 'do with it, as along as you're not building a
building or whatever, it has nothing to do with us . Until' the regulations in the Town of Groton are
changed, there isn't much else you can do with this property. You can't even get a building in there
because there's no 200 feet for the road frontage . I don't know if we answered your question or not. . .
R. Baker. Well, you did . I 'll work in a different direction. Thank you very much .
Chairman Totman then introduced Joan Fitch who will be doing the minutes/ transcript of the
Planning Board meetings until further notice .
000
At 8: 27 p .m. , Chairman Totman continued the meeting.
G. Totman: Has everyone read the Minutes of the last meeting (May)? If you haven't had a chance ,
I'd like to just have you read the Minutes to see why we didn't have a meeting in June. So does anyone
want to make a motion to approve the Minutes of the last meeting?
Monica Carey made the motion that the May minutes be
approved; the Board approved.
MVRS Re-Application - Charles Volbrecht - to Operate a Motor Vehicle Repair Shop at 205 Chipman's
Comer Road - TM # 16- 1-9.2 °
G. Totman: Now you've been here before . A re-application. Do you want to tell the Board what
you've got in mind and why you're re-applying.
C. Volbrecht: To open up a repair shop . I finally got all the garbage cleaned up . The cars are all
gone, every one of them.
3
• G. Totman: Just to refresh the Board, and Jeff, who is new on the Board, Mr. Volbrecht was here in
the fall of 1993 to get a special permit, which he got, with the idea he was going to clean up the junk
cars and stuff around there. His statement at the time =„ correct me if my memory's off -- was that he
didn't see any need to have any cars outside. The question is how many cars can he have or not have --
or turnkeys or not turnkeys -- cause he had enough room inside the building so the outside would look
nice and clean . As I understand it, it didn't quite happen that way and he didn't get it approved in
January because it didn't meet it. Even though he said he didn't need the cars out there we did allow
him to have no more than three cars outside, but I 'm not sure why things happened between him and
the Code Enforcement Officer, but I do know there was a problem with getting it cleaned up . So now
that it's all cleaned up , he's coming back, re-applying to see if he can get a new permit to operate .
Anybody got any questions?
M. Carey: What are the restrictions we put on the application the last time?
li
G. Totman: No Sunday hours; 7 a.m. to 7 p .m. weekdays; 8 a.m. to 3 p .m. Saturdays; no more than
three customer cars on the outside, and no junk cars.
M. Carey: You didn't have any turnkey cars?
G. Totman: He's not selling cars, just repair.
J. Lewis: Has there been any complaints from the neighbors?
G. Totman: You're not listening to what I was saying. He never has been in full operation because
he never did comply with this. In January, when the Code' Enforcement Officer looks at it, they have to
comply to get renewed for the next year.
J. Lewis: I see . I thought that when he made thell statement he came to get re-instated and
couldn't in January. . . .
G. Senter: I 've got to make some corrections here . Chuck came in in the fall of '92 and got his
application; he operated most all of '93 and didn't renew for '94 .
G. Totman: Okay, but other than that, he started off at a place that had already been cited for the
last six or seven years for having too much junk around it. And when he started off, the junk was still
there and it was his intention to this Board that he was going to clean it all up . Now he says it's all
cleaned up and, according to George, that's right. So now he wants to re-do what we did before. Do you
still feel the same way now that you did when you were here the first time? Are you going to operate --
like three customer's cars on the outside -- so if George drives by to see if your in compliance you'll
have no more than three cars outside?
C. Volbrecht: Yes,
G. Senter: Do you feel three's enough, Chuck?
V h •
C. oibrec t. Should be. Right around there .
G. Totman: Well, you 're going to have to live with it because when we make the ruling and it goes
down, that's what the secretary has to type on the permit.
C. Volbrecht: Now I 've got four cars and they'll probably be there most of the time .
M. Carey: Your own?
G. Totman: They're your cars? Are they licensed?
C. Volbrecht: They're my own .
G. Totman: We're talking about unlicensed cars or customers' cars. But cars you , your wife , or
your kids have are not counted.
4
J. Lewis: You don't fix crash cars?
G. Totman: He does mechanical work. So if the Board agrees, and we re-write , is it the same name
-- you're in partners with somebody?
C. Volbrecht: Yes.
G. Totman: I have no problems with this.
M. Carey: We have no problems -- as long as he thinks three cars.
11
J. Lewis: If he said five cars you might turn it down, but it would give him some leeway.
C. Volbrecht: That would probably be better.
C. Twigg: That makes sense what Jeff is saying, because three cars. . . . he's got a lot of building
there . . .
I
M. Carey: He could fit five or six in the building.
Ce TWI g: Well, if he never expands his business he'd be all right. He's got two mechanics there .
G. Totman: I was going by what the man said . The man told us two years ago that he'd been in
business for a year. He's back in here now telling us he can live with it the way it was. If you want to
change it, that's fine .
J. Lewis: (To Mr. Volbrecht) Do you want to change, it?
C. Volbrecht: Five would be better than three.
G. Totman: Okay. No junk cars. These are customer cars that are in for repair.
M. Carey: If we see a junk car -- we're closing you down.
G. Totman: All in favor of the same rules we had before , except add two cars?
All Board members present voted in the affirmative.
G. Totman: (To Mr. Volbrecht) Your next step is getting with George Senter. It will probably be
typed up tomorrow.
Rural Subdivision ApplLeation - Don Fulier - Davis-Holl Road Town of Groton
G. Totman: Have you all read Mr. Fuller's thing?
M. Carey: Yes, but I can't figure where on Davis Road this is.
G. Totman: You go down the hill.
M. Carey: Why don't we have better maps?
G. Totman: See where it says Cortlandville on the map you have? It's right on the Town line .
M. Carey: I know where it is now.
G. Totman: He's applying for a subdivision for two lots . Both have more than the required
amount of road frontage ; they both have more than the required amount of acreage . The only thing
you might find wrong with it, I suppose , is that they are very', very deep lots, which some people try to
discourage, but they are in the same line with the other lots in the area.
5
` t li
V. Rankin: There's nothing wrong with these lots.
G. Totman: Most people that buy these lots will take' care of three-quarters of an acre, mow it, and
let the rest of it grow up. And that's where they hide their junk. According to the ordinance he 's legal .
Do you have anything to add to that?
D. Fuller: They both want to build houses there land they seem like real nice people ; I think
they'll keep it nice . I don't think you'd have any problem because they want to have a horse or
something like that and room for recreation. One wants to put in some apple trees.
C. Twic Is that up on a side hill?
D. Fuller: It's right on top of the hill so you have a Beautiful view of that whole valley.
CO Twigg: This is the Cortland-McLean Road right?
D. Fuller: No , the Davis-Roll Road ,
Co Twia Okay.
G. Totman: Bill Stevens lives down there and if you don't keep your in order he'll tell them. Any
questions?
Co Do we need to make out an Envir nm n II Twigg o e tal Assessment Form?
G. Totman: You do it, Monica. By State Law we have to do an Environmental Review for every
action we take, regardless of what it is for something like that. Monica will be reading the back part as
you've completed the front.
Monica Carey read aloud all the questions for the Board, A
thru D. All Board responses were "no" or "none" to Parts A
thru D.
M. Carey: I declare it a negative impact.
G. Totman: Does the Board agree to the questions as read and the answers? If so , will someone
make a motion that we acknowledge the fact that we went through the review and declared it a negative
declaration .
C. Twim I will make a motion to declare this a negative dec .
11
G. Totman: Do we have a second? (Second made , by Monica Carey and it was approve
unanimously. )
G. Totman: Does anyone have an questions on the iv ?
y y q e division of these two parcels .
M. Carey: I make a motion that we approve . . .
G. Totman: Move to approve the preliminary plan and have a Public Hearing?
M. Carey: I waive the motion for a Public Hearing ;' This would be called an agricultural
subdivision, right, because it's more than five acres?
G. Totman: Yes. Each one is more than five acres.
Co TwlW I second the motion,
G. Totman: The motion reads that we used the Short Form EAF, waived the public hearing, and
approve the subdivision . All in favor of the motion?
The motion to approve was passed unanimously.
6
G. Totman: This is passed contingent upon your presenting the survey map . I need two copies in
addition to the mylar. The approved mylar will be returned to you. Once you have the signed mylar,
it's officially approved .
Minor Subdivision Application - Carl & Barbara Kelley "- 307 Pleasant Valley Road - TM 35. 1- 1101 &
11,2
G. Totman: Mr. and Mrs. Kelley want to subdivide their land and have hired an attorney to
present their case for them. (James Henry, Attorney) . Jim , it's all yours.
J. Henry: The Kelley's have a contract to sell, and it's all set to close , a portion of their land .
They own two parcels divided back in the 60's before there were any subdivision regulations. It was
divided the way it was for the purpose of a Farmer's. Home mortgage to have nearly four acres
mortgaged , but not the whole parcel . There's a piece along the road and then there's a totally
landlocked parcel . What the Kelleys want to do is move the east/west division line to the dotted line
shown on the map to sort of northwest/southeast. You have a sketch plan and a survey there . The
survey gives the dimensions of the smaller parcel completely and the road frontage of what would be
the larger piece . The idea is that the tax map numbers would be re-oriented ; that is, 11 , 1 would instead
of being the current piece would be the one to the east which currently has a house on it; 11 . 2 would be
the large piece in the back plus the smaller portion in the front. There would be 205 feet of frontage on
the large piece, and 318 feet of frontage on the smaller parcel. What this would do is un-landlock the
parcel .
V. Rankin: This is on Pleasant Valley Road?
J. Henry: Yes, sir.
G. Totman: Basically, this is a boundary change and , because it's makingdifferent tax map
P
numbers, it's a subdivision. And this is not affecting 11 . 32 at all, right?
J. Henry: No, that's separate .
G. Totman: Does anyone have an questions? Basically, what the want to do is to sell some
Y any Y Y
land, and make a boundary change so 11 . 2 will become a legal lot which it isn't now because it has no
road frontage . So they're taking a piece of their land and making it legal. Jim, did you make out an
EAF?
J. Henry: No I didn't.
G. Totman: Would you like to quickly do that? (GT gives JH the form and JH completes it) .
Upon completion of the form, Monica Carey read aloud all
the questions for the Board, A thru D, ,, All Board responses
were "no" or "none" to Parts A thru D. 11
M. Carey: Based upon the information and supporting documentation supplied , a negative
declaration is declared.
J. Lewis. I second that.
G. Totman: All in favor?
The motion to approve the negative declaration was
passed unanimously,
G. Totman: Do you understand what is being asked? And, if so, does anyone have any questions.
You approve of the boundary change as presented, then you take up the subdivision.
C. Twigg: I make a motion that we accept this boundary, change as presented .
J. Lewis: I second that.
7
G. Totman: All in favor?
The motion to approve the boundary change was passed
unanimously.
G. Totman: And now the subdivision.
M. Carey: I make a motion to approve the two-lot subdivision, as presented by the Kelleys, with
no public hearing.
J. Lewis: I second that motion .
G. Totman: A motion has been made and seconded to approve the subdivision. Because of the size
of the lots and not really changing the character of the area, you are moving to forego the public
hearing?
M. Carey: Yes ,
G. Totman: All in favor?
The motion to approve the two-lot subdivision as presented
was passed unanimously. Due to the closing of this property
on 22 July 1994 in the am., G. Totman hand-signed a copy
of the map presented by J. Henry for immediate use.
Minor Subdivision Application - Kenneth Tompkins - Townline Road - TM # 14- 1-37.2
G. Totman: Kenneth Tompkins, wants to subdivide his property on Townline Road ; he lives on
Cobb Street. Have you all looked at your paperwork? Would you try to give the Board a thumbnail
sketch of what you're trying to do?
K. Tompkins: I want to buy a piece of land for a trailer.
G. Totman: And you're going to buy a piece of land which will subdivide it?
CO Twigg: It's right next to Decker's trailer there in the woods.
G. Totman: The lot would be 4. 5 acres with 256 feet of road frontage. A single lot. It is considered
a subdivision because other lots were sold off before this . It meets the requirements of the Town of
Groton .
C. TwW I see no problem with this.
G. Totman: Monica, will you again present the EAF Review?
Monica Carey read aloud all the questions on the back of
the EAF for the Board, A thru D. All Board responses were
"no" or "none ' to Parts A thru D.
M. Carey: Based on the information received and the supporting documentation , I declare a
negative declaration, and waive the public hearing.
J. Lewis: I move that we accept the one-lot subdivision by Kenneth Tompkins on Townline
Road, and move to waive the public hearing.
V. Rankin : I second that.
G. Totman: All in favor?
8
The motion presented was passed unanimously.
Other Business
(There was no recording tape running at this time . The following is taken from the Recording
Secretary's notes.
George Totman brought up the Charles Finton property on Lick Street which is in a
Commercial/ Industrial Zone , The Town of Groton Zoning Board of Appeals rejected a variance sought
to sell the property for a residential unit, A letter dated 12 July 1994 to Glenn Munson from Lyle
Raymond, Zoning Board of Appeals Chairman , was introduced.
Tape continues, . . .
CO Twlgg: (reading) , . . "as it relates to the variance you sought," Was that the one behind Peters?
"The Town of Groton Land Use and Development Code clearly designates that one- and two-unit
residential units are allowed in a Commercial/ Industrial Zone with Site Plan Review. " So why did
they turn it down? "Unless some documentation is found that states otherwise , this provision in the
Code stands as stated and was the basis for the ZBA's recommendation to you . " They turned it down
but it's allowed?
M. Carey: It's allowed in the Master Plan , but it's not allowed in the Zoning Law as of yet,
C. Twigg: "The Code that describes the intent of the low-intensity industrial district states that
it is intended that no residential development be allowed to discourage residential development. . . .
This interpretation is also given in the Town of Groton Comprehensive Plan , Note that it says it does
not have any zones which are set aside for exclusive commercial/industrial use , "
G. Senter: Do you know what the definition of intent is?
C. Twigg: No .
G. Senter: Everybody's taking it a little different. Intent is the purpose .
C. Twigg: Why didn't they say purpose then?
G. Senter: It's the same thing,
C. Twigg: No, not in my book,
G. Senter: It isn't in Lyle's either, In my book, intent means purpose . It's the purpose of that not
to allow residential development in an industrial zone , To me that's pretty cut and dried. Lyle doesn't
see it that way. We pointed out what appears to be a typographical to Colleen about a year and a half
ago. She agreed with me that it's a typo, but it never got changed. She should have made out an
Addendum and put that in the book.
CO Twigg: It look's like a screw up to me .
G. Senter: I agree with George's (Totman) interpretation of what the use of that land is, that it's
not to be used for residential development, Whether we agree that should be industrial up there or not
is not the point, But it's industrial now -- maybe someday it'll change .
G. Totman: I have talked to Lyle at some length on this. The Finton property on Lick Street is in
the Industrial area and his estate applied for a variance to the ZBA to be able to sell it for a residential
building lot, So it gets turned down , The ZBA told them they could come back to the Planning Board
for a Site Plan Review, We are now discussing whether we agree with the ZBA or not, I talked to Lyle
over the phone before I read it, After I read it through , I talked to Lyle again and I really don't see it the
way Lyle sees it. We both agree that we don't see it the same. So I asked Lyle to come to the meeting
tonight. That was a week ago before I realized we were going to have so much on our agenda. Lyle did
come tonight and he decided he didn't want to wait for all these people. He will be at the meeting next
Thursday night to go over this with us. But unless the Board says otherwise , I don't see or read in the
9
ordinance where we can give them a Site Plan Review to allow them to put a residential unit on that
lot. What I 'd like to have the Board do -- there's four of us here out of seven -- (Note: V. Rankin left the
meeting before Other Business commenced.) I would like you to read this and see if you agree with my
stand ; if you don't, I'll accept it. To me you either have an Industrial Zone and you allow certain things
in it, or you don't. If you start allowing residential units in an Industrial Zone, then you don't have an
Industrial Zone. That's been there for a long time and it hasn't been used. I know your thoughts, Cecil,
but the point is we go by what's in this book. The original reason for putting that Industrial Zone there
was to try to encourage industrial development in the Town so people could come into Town and not
change an ordinance -- they could go there and it's legal. So until that's changed, it's what we have to go
erson who
ownedust don't see how the state, and he ou. can nott hius anymore, bother ecause he wanted to, We have putt talked
residential unit in back of
0
his garage at that time .
M. Carey: This property is the one behind Pete's Garage, right?
G. Totman: Yes . And we took the stand then that there wasn't anything we could do about it and
he'd have to go to the ZBA because it just wasn't allowed in the area. Everybody has the right to go to
the ZBA to see if they can get a variance . If the way we read this is the way I think it's written, if the
ZBA does not think they can grant a variance for it, then the Planning Board doesn't have the
authority to do it either.
Co Tvigg: Then they shouldn't.
G. Totman: And you're right. They shouldn't. That's why they have the ZBA Board . Now we have
authority to do Site Plan Reviews, and the way I understand the "intent" of all this is that the Site Plan
Review granted to the Planning Board was there for the purpose of doing something other than the
ordinary, like running a business or doing something on a particular piece of property, running a
business out of a home , or a body shop , not for changing the ordinance. And that is a change in the
ordinance if we allow something that the Zoning says is not supposed to be there. So Lyle is going to
come before our next meeting to get the Planning Board' s stand . I want you to read it and see if you
agree with me .
G, Senter: What Lyle is saying is , it says intent -- he says intended -- there's a difference .
Intended doesn't mean you can't have it and that's how Lyle sees it. There's nothing wrong with that;
but I see it like George sees it -- intent is a purpose. I think that's the conflict here.
J. Lewis: My feeling is if we don't make any preparations to try and get business in here we're
never going to . We'll never have any industry, any jobs, or anything else.
C, egg: But if those people got land up there , then what can they do with it until industry
comes. And there this land sets. They can't sell it for housing and business isn't coming in . What do
you do with it?
G. Totman: Cecil, let me answer your question . The argument that you're presenting and have
presented before -- you know where we should be hearing arguments and we haven't yet? The people
who own the land have never said a word about it. They know about it and they understand why it's
j there . These people own the land and pay taxes on it and they don't have the argument you do.
Co Twiggt But I'd really hate to have my land all tied up waiting for business when we've had all
this time to get business to come to the Town of Groton and it hasn't happened.
G. Totman: Let's adjourn the meeting and you can argue all you want to.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Joan E. Fitch
` Recording Secretary
r
10