Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-07-28 c i TOWN OF GROTON PLANNING BOARD Thursday, 28 July 1994 Board Members (*present) Others Present *George Totman , Chairman Lyle Raymond, Town of Groton ZBA *Monica Carey Chair Sheldon Clark Tracy Smith , Tompkins County *Jeffrey Lewis Planning Dept. Circuit. Rider *Verl Rankin *Cecil Twigg *George Van Slyke The purpose of the meeting was to continue the review/revision of the Town of Groton's Land Use & Development Code, adopted September 10, 1990. This review is being accomplished with the assistance of the Tompkins County Planning Department, represented by Tracy Smith. This meeting was to work on Article 4: Procedures and Rules, commencing with Section 400 - Purposes. Before work on the revisions commenced, Lyle Raymond wished to explain the circumstances of the Zoning Board of Appeals' ruling on the Charles Finton property on Lick Street as a continuation of the Planning Board's discussion of the matter on Thursday, 21 July 1994, L. Raymond: What I am saying is that it's come to me that it looks like we're opening up this property to residential units. -Nothing of the kind ; because even if it is an error and nobody's rectified it, it's there and it's approved. So if someone wants to apply for a Site Plan Review to put a residence in an Industrial Zone, let him go ahead and have the benefit of the doubt; it says that in the Code. Because it's going to come before your Board, and if you don't want residential in there, you're not going to let it anyway. Right? Because you 're going to say the intent was that we were not going to allow it, but we will allow you to go through the process. So it's not opening up the Industrial Zone to anything. All we were telling Glenn Munson was that because it said that in the Code , he had that as an option ; he could apply if he wanted to . We did not tell him he was going to get one, far from it. Nobody said that. We only said he had the right to apply because it said that in the Code . If he did go through the process, it would stop right here and stand just the way it is . G. Totman: I 'll have to admit something . eth I never looked g at the page in the ordinance ; I didn't believe that was there . The intent is not to put it there. L Raymond. It doesn't say it's prohibited, it only says it's intent. But if there are strong enough arguments made that residential should be allowed , it might possibly be put in . If it said it was prohibited , that's another language. In my opinion, that's what needs to be in there. G. Totman: This is one of the reasons I asked Lyle to sit in on all these meetings because he gets all of these oddball requests, as well as George Senter, and we ;really need their input. When we get back to doing what you did the night I wasn't here -- they made everything Site Plan Review. We've got to go back through that. I think that's good, because now when you go through all the rest of the stuff, listen to everything that's going on, then when we go back over that, everybody will have a better idea of what' s going on. Okay -- so what Lyle is really saying about the Finton property is that in his letter to the Munson's he referred to them (and I 'm talking about the ZBA when I say he) their interpretation of what the intent was that once they got turned down, or if they'd gone to the Planning Board first, but it has been the stand of the Planning Board over the years that their intent was not to allow residential units in indus--trial zones . If anybody wants to apply to us, they really do have the prerogative . So we've really got to understand that might come before us, which it probably will , and we want to be prepared . I know the developer on the Finton case is going to come in here and apply. He's been calling me and I 've told him we were going to have a meeting with Lyle. L. Raymond: In that case , once you get the case, in my opinion, then that statement about what the intent is means that he has the burden of trying to overcome that. 1 ` Town of Groton Planning Board July 28, 1994 G. Totman: I think it's good that these things are coming up, because when we go through these things, if you want to make a zone and you don't want anything else in that zone, put a Site Plan Review indicator on it. I 'm sure that was a typographical error. L. Raymond: To tell you the truth , I 'm convinced that it probably is too , but we need to have some kind of documentation that it was so if any lawyer looks at it, we'll be able to respond to it. 11 G. Totman: Now, then -- are we ready to move into the purpose of tonight's meeting? Did everyone get a copy of that? T. Smith: No, I sent the copies here. G. Totman: Do you have any extra copies with you? T. Smith: No . G. Totman: Okay, you all should have got in the mail, about a week ago yesterday, a letter from Tracy. In that letter, you should have had Section 400. Did you all look it over, did you read it? I didn't think to tell Tracy to make one for Lyle . When the machine 's warm, I 'll make a photocopy. Okay, we're all set to have Tracy go through what she 's done for us to see if we agree or whatever. Go ahead Tracy. T. Smith: Did anybody read it? V. Rankin: I didn't get it. I can look on here with George. T. Smith: I pretty much left all the wording the same , but I just re-arranged things so it would be simpler and make a little more sense . One of the things that did change were the number of days you had to do things because the State Law changed . It now gives you more time to get things done . 1 guess the first thing to do would be to look through to see if the order of everything makes sense , then we can go through the wording. 11 L. Raymond: Did you deal with Part 40 1 , 1 about the Code Enforcement Officer being responsible for interpreting the provisions of the Code? Because it states otherwise in the State Law that the Code Enforcement Officer has no authority to interpret the Code. Only the ZBA has the authority to do that. G. Totman: You're right. L. Raymond: We've gotten caught in that before . He can explain -- there's a difference. J. Lewis: So you're objecting to the word "interpret. " L. Raymond: It's illegal . He can explain, but if it comes down to a question and "this is my interpretation" then that's different . And , in fact, that' just came up with Glenn Munson . He was dealing with Glenn Munson giving his interpretation of what he thought that meant. Co11 Twiggy: So just cross out "interpreting and" because he can explain. L. Raymond: That's right; that's part of his job . But if there's a question in explaining -- a question he's not sure of -- then that is for the ZBA to do on appeal. G. Totman: Take personalities out of the CEO -- if :you you leave that interpreting in there, you can almost eliminate the need for the ZBA. I might interpret it completely different that George Senter, or Lyle Raymond might interpret it completely different than me , and you wouldn't have a uniform Code . It's up to the ZBA to make that interpretation. L. Raymond: There have been legal cases over that. ''The CEO has told people to go ahead and do something and issued a building permit and they've had legal cases where they had to throw it out. V. Rankin: Why can't he interpret the location of the district boundaries? L. Raymond: He can, that part. 2 Town of Groton Planning Board July 28, 1994 V. Rankin: Leave that in there . L. Raymond: He can explain the provisions. It's only interpreting the provisions. Somebody comes and asks for a permit and he says well, this is what you've got to do - - this is what the Code says. As long as there's no question. But then, if you get to a question like just came up with Glenn Munson as to whether a permit can be issued or not, and he's not "sure, then that's an interpretation. If the landowner is denied by him or somebody else who was given a permit, either one can appeal to the ZBA in which case we'll issue the interpretation. He can go ahead and do that, and if nobody challenges it, it's like everything else -- you getaway with it. But if someone is denied something because the CEO says this is the way I interpret it, then there's a question there . And he has to say, "Well, that's not really clear is it, and because it's not clear, I 'm going to deny it. " But then he should make it clear that they have the right to appeal to the ZBA for the correct interpretation. As I said, if you look in some of these guides we 've got, you 'll find court cases in there where zoning officers have issued permits and somebody in some neighborhood was mad and they challenged it. It went to the court and the court said the zoning officer exceeded his authority. He made an interpretation that wasn't explicitly stated in the Code . I admit that what we've done in the ZBA doesn't have a strict perimeter around it; it has a gray area. Is it an interpretation or isn't it? That's always going to be a question. J. Lewis: You wonder why you even have a code enforcer. As far as filling out building permits, I can see that, or coming out to see if it's done right. Why should he be in charge of building permits if he has no power to make decisions? L. Raymond: Oh , yes he does. Because when he 's dealing straightforwardly with what they can do and what they can't, it states so right in the Code . There 's no problem here . It's only when you get into this thing of interpretation that there 's a question ; then he's exceeding his authority. He is then supposed to inform them that, if he's unsure the permit should be granted, the way I understand it is he should deny it and then tell 1 the applicant he has the right to appeal it to the ZBA and they'll issue the interpretation . That's the way it's supposed to be done . The Zoning Board of Appeals in the past, several times, back when Gary was here as well as Zoning Officer, corrected / changed some of the interpretations given to landowners. There had been instances where landowners had been told that you can do this and you can do that and had been assured, in fact, that this action or that action would be taken. It turned out he had no right to do that at all. So we have taken the Code Enforcement Officer to task more than once in the last ten years and said this is not the way we interpret it. Ninety- nine percent of the stuff that comes before the CEO is straightforward and there's no interpretation to it . J. Lewis: Even if he interpreted it, the Zoning Board would have the last say anywaywouldn't they? L. Raymond: Yes, but only on appeal and that's usually because somebody's been denied a permit and they disagreed with the zoning officer over the interpretation and what he is supposed to do is make sure they know they have the right to appeal to the Zoning Board for an interpretation and not to just issue a cut-and-dried opinion that you can do it or can't do it. Like this intent business ; that's an interpretation as to what intent means. If it was very clear and that symbol wasn't there , there would be no interpretation to it. It's not allowed. G. Totman: I don't know how I missed that, but I did miss it. L Raymond: So there's a good example of interpretation vs. clear-cut what it says in the Code . C. Twia, Now in 406 it says something about referral to the County Planning Department . That's something we haven't been doing, right? M Carey: I wanted to ask why that's even in there . Why are we jumping ahead? Are we done with 401 ? G. VanSlyke : No, that's what we've been talking about. 11 G. Totman: Okay, we got through that. Now we're down to Section 402 - Building Permits. Does anyone have a problem with that? 3 Town of Groton Planning Board July 28, 1994 M. Carey: When you enlarge a building, you can't just, add on a little room can't you? G. Totman: Actually we have no control over 402 period . State Law says anything structural, electrical , or plumbing inside a building needs a building permit. And any building over 100 square feet needs a building permit. So we can't do anything with that one . 11 L Raymond: Did you see where Marty Luster has introduced a bill to revise the Uniform State Building Code to divide it into rural areas vs. urban area because he feels some of the provisions in that Code are really not good and are too much for rural areas? I heard that last week on the radio. He said he felt some of the provisions where too much for rural towns to administer. G. Totman: Not just for farmland stuff, but for any building permit? L Raymond: Uniform, that's right . He feels they are based on urban center standards and developed in an urban area and it's not for rural areas. G. Totman: Section 403 - Certificate of Occupancy - everybody understand what that is? L. Raymond: Now wait a minute ; you 're going from 401 to 403 , I was looking at the old original here -- what's all this stuff here about application procedures and everything? T. Smith : I re-arranged stuff so it all fits together. G. Totman: What we tried to do, Lyle, was to make this ordinance more user-friendly and simpler. Certificate of Occupancy -- we're through that. Fees (Section 404) , G. VanSlyke : What about the Certificate of Conformance . Is that going to be 404 a or b or what? T. Smith: I'll change Fees to 405 and then change them all the way down. G. VanSlyke : So Fees is going to be 405? Okay, G. Totman: Now I have questions on that one - - I don't think that's a State Law, T. Smith: What's that? G. Totman: Under Approval of County Health Department, it says no Special Permit. Well that's okay. G. VanSlyke: How are you getting all over the board here? We're doing Fees. 11 G. Totman: Fees we have no control over. It's automatic that they are established by the Town Board. This is for people to look at so they know where those fees come from. It's in all ordinances that way, George . G. Totman: I think 405 (Approval of County Health Department) is the way it is supposed to be anyway . M. Carey: Building permit? It would be more of a building permit that would go to County Health , L. Raymond: Do you have some special permits that "go before County Health? G. Totman: If you issue a special permit for a food stand, we can give the permit, but it's not valid until they get permission from the Health Department that it meets their standards. It's what I call an academic thing. CO TWIWO Now just because you get a special permit, that isn't valid until the Health Department says that it's valid . G. Totman: That's like we give a special permit to run this meat business up here. As long as he meets our local requirements, but that doesn't mean he can go ahead and operate . He's got to get 4 Town of Groton Planning Board July 28, 1994 approval from the Federal government, meat department, 'Health Department, or whatever - - just so they understand that when they read these ordinances, M. Carey: (Referring to Section 406 - Referral to County Planning Department) , Now this section I don't like at all. Is it even in our book? L. Raymond: Yes, it's in there, C. 1wige: We talked about this a couple months ago, G. Totman: And I had her boss in here to try to explain it the way I understood it, You were here that night, Monica, George, were you here that night? G. VanSlyke: I was here , but I don't remember anything about it, G. Totman: There's a State Law, Section 239, 1 and in and n, where it says that subdivisions have to be approved by the County Planning Board, or anything within 500 feet of the County municipal property, or municipal properties like the town lines . When they're talking about that, and some people got the misconception is, they're talking about a subdivision being five lots or more - - not the small ones that we get. Mr. Hansen that night clarified that right there and agreed with that, But a lot of people look at this and say "when we do a subdivision, we've got to go through all that stuff. " M. Carey: How come we don't put that in here, then? 11 T. Smith : I don't think the County adopted Section ;239 n that calls for the subdivision , G. Totman: Are you sure? Because a lot of places have it automatically five or more . But I just wanted to make sure everybody understand that they are quoting the State Law in here for anybody that's coming on, or for people who come in here and buy this at Town Hall , They have to realize this is what they're going to have to do -- the State Law says subdivision -- but according to the State and the County Health Department, for them it's not a subdivision unless it's five or more. What you have to bear in mind is that in the Town of Groton if it's two or more, it's a subdivision , In the Town of Caroline , they don't even have any subdivision rules, so it's automatically five or more over there . Some towns don't have it at all ; some towns have it that one lot is a subdivision, some two . So the State maintains it's five, so when they're figuring what the State Law says, they've got to figure on the five part. Is that the way you understand it? T. Smith: I understood that you didn't have to submit any subdivision to the County Planning Department because it's section 'n' and the County Planning Board didn't adopt it, G. Totman: You better check on that ; I agree that we shouldn' t have to, but I personally think you're wrong, L. Raymond: I noticed that you stated only "I" and "m" and not "n" in the heading. G. Totman: Where I don't agree is somewhere in here it states that a Site Plan Review has to be sent in to the County Planning Board under those same circumstances. That is not a State Law that I know of. I think that's something the County likes to have in there . T. Smith: I 'll find it for you . G. Totman: If the County approves of our having an Industrial Zone on Route 222 , and we allow things up there by Site Plan Review, and they've already approved it being an Industrial area, I don't see why we should have to check with the County to see if we could put a hot dog stand up there. When you look at it this way then, remember that night we made everything Site Plan Review -- when we go back and go over this, everything you make Site Plan Review you've got to wait 30 days for the County to make their decision if they like it or not, My point is, in a small town like this, I don 't think people that are hired from out-of-state, or all over the countryside , that graduated from college last year, that sit down here in the County, should decide whether we should put a hot dog stand out on Route 222 or not. If the County has agreed it's an Industrial Zone, why should every time we want to put one little thing out there have to ask these bunch of people if it's okay? 5 Town of Groton Planning Board July 28, 1994 L. Raymond: Wait a minute . All they are supposed to do under that law, as I understand it, is not look at everything, but only whether the proposed activity impacts on these things they cite here - - the County Road, the State Road, a municipal park, or something like that. Because the letter we got just recently, we had to do this with the Finton property which was within 500 feet of the State road ; so we had to send it. The letter came back that said we looked at it only for these things -- not for the things you are interested in, but only for what impact it might have on the State road . G. Totman: I agree with that. But when we were doing this ordinance, and before the Town Board can accept it, the ordinance has to go to the County also. And if the ordinance says we're going to make that whole area Industrial, and they say they agree to it, then they've already agreed to having an industrial on that road . That's my point. If you want to put a business in there , you're not going to want to put it on a Town road somewhere -- you're going to put it on a County road or State road -- except for novelty shops or something like that. But if you want any business, you're going to put it on a road that's heavily traveled. L. Raymond: My only point was, as I understand it from the letter and from reading this, all they look at -- am I right, Tracy - - is just to see if it conflicts with one of these things. G. Totman: Does anyone else have a comment on Section 406 as presented? CO Twigg: So this we can't change anyway? G. Totman: After listening to the conversation, what you can do is think about it when we 're doing what's allowed in certain districts and what we 're going to call Site Plan Reviews , CO Twigg: So if we don't call them Site Plan Reviews, " this doesn't apply? L. Raymond: This applies to any permit. G. Totman: But not a building permit. L. Raymond: That's right. That's where you just said that if they go along with the idea that this is all an Industrial Zone, and we're allowing certain things in there with the permit process, then that's not included. I got you. G. Totman: What I 'm getting at is the people there , like Tracy, are all graduated and brought up in rural areas, and understand what we're talking about. Five years from now we send things down there and there's a different staff, and they say "look, we don't like this. We don't want this on that road . " I can say wait a minute -- you've approved all this once. I want to avoid this if I can . L. Raymond: We've had to deal with this . We had to deal with it with John Pachai because he was next to the Village line . G. Totman: Does everyone understand what 'f' means in this section? I see Tracy has it circled with a question mark. M. Carey: That's my circle . G. Totman: Oh , I see . That's in there because of the law that took effect in July of 1993 , Supposedly it's supposed to be of help to the farmers. But if you talk to most farmers, it's a detriment to them because if they want to subdivide their land, they have to go through the same thing . What they're saying is "you're trying to stop me from making a living. " 11 L. Raymond: No , they can subdivide their land . All they have to do is stay 500 feet from their own boundary. G. Totman: But they've also got to go to all their neighbors and get these approval and it takes another 30-60 days to get it done . What it also does is trigger a Planning Board (not ours, but wherever they are - - and they're environmentalists, conservationists , and all those people) it gives them another tool to stop developing farmland and trying to keep it farmland, when the farmer himself is the one wanting to sell his land . I think it's an infringement of Constitutional rights, but it is a State Law. 6 Town of Groton Planning Board July 28, 1994 L. Raymond: How do they define boundary, Tracy? T. Smith: I guess it's the edge of the property. L. Raymond: Not just tillable? Because most farms have a whole lot of land . . . . G. Totman: This says agricultural district, now, not farmland . L. Raymond: Most of Groton is in an agricultural district. G. Totman: That's what I was getting at. These agricultural districts are up for review in 1997 and you 're going to see a lot of towns fighting to get out of this agricultural district to help the farmers. They originally were formed to help the farmers and for tax purposes, etc . , and a lot of people who live in the agricultural district, like maybe Jeff does, and he's not a farmer, they have to fall under these same rules. If you 're in an ag district and want to divide your land up, you've got to follow the ag district rules. And the farmer has to also . If he wants to give 3 or 4 acres to each one of his four kids, they get very upset about it. L. Raymond: There's a much larger question here . Atli the risk of raising this, you were mentioning about levels of government and what they're going to do, there's a much larger question here that faces the whole of society. That is, do we need to preserve agricultural land . And what's the trade off between that an individual rights as a farmer who owns that land? If, for the State as a whole, it would be a good idea to preserve agricultural land for other reasons, but that's going to impinge upon the individual rights of farmers. I 'm just pointing out that there's a controversy here we have not resolved within our own government system and our society. G. Totman: They're coming up with more ways to get more milk with less land and a lot of people, with other rules and mandates going on, farmers just can't afford to keep operating . Their land becomes available . People are electing people to office who are strong environmentalists who want to preserve all this land . Let's not talk this one to death ; we 've got a lot of stuff to go through . Any other questions on 406? G. Totman: Section 407 - ZoningBoard of Appeals, L. Raymond: This is pretty much a restatement of State Law. We have , by the way, chosen a Vice Chair to act in my place when I couldn't be there . That's John Pachai. G. Totman: The Town Board appoints the Zoning Board of Appeals and they can elect their own Vice Chair. The Town Board appoints their Chair. G. Totman: Okay , Section 408 - Violations: Procedures and Penalties. Here's one of these things, remind me Lyle when we get to the area of what goes to the ZBA and what doesn't go to the ZBA. L. Raymond: There's a page and a half in here we want to get rid of. G. Totman: What we're talking about and Lyle will be bringing this up -- when our ordinance says you can't have any more cars in your yard, junk cars, and that sort of thing, for some reason or other our Zoning Officer over the years has taken that to the ZBA rather than the court. We want to make sure when we do this that part gets taken out of there . They shouldn't be acting as judges. It spells out in the ordinance that you can't have junk cars, and it spells out in the ordinance what the penalties are if you 're going to have them. We want to make sure it says in here that the Zoning Officer go through the legal procedures to take them to court -- not the ZBA. L. Raymond: That's Sections 408. 6, 408 .7, and 408 . 8. This is the part we want to remove. I did some checking at the Planning office and looked at other codes for other towns that had zones, and we were the only Town in the County that has such a procedure . G. Tatman: Just to give you an example , and you get !la lot of them for those things -- this is my seventh year in Lansing, and I just did my second one in seven years. But I did, just this week, sent out a certified letter, an appearance ticket. I make up the appearance ticket, send it out, make out the 7 la Board Jul 1994 Town of Groton Planning i g B o y 28, deponent's part, the disposition, the whole works, and turn it over to the judge . The ZBA has nothing to do with it. It's more work for the CEO. G. Van Slyke: So what are we doing with this thing? G. Totman: I would recommend taking 408. 6, 7, and 8 out. 11 C. Twigg: But now these things have to be addressed . L Raymond: No, they're addressed. It will go directly to the town court. C. Twigg: Where does it say that here? L. Raymond: That's the point. Usually when we have had to handle it under this procedure, we have told the CEO almost every time that our decision is what we've rendered for the person to do, and if that person doesn't follow what we rendered, we've instructed him to go to the town court. CO Twigg: We have to make an explanation in here and tell the CEO what he has to do. L. Raymond: In some of the other codes, some of them were so simple -- just three or four sentences. All it said was that violations would be dealt with as provided under State Law. And it's spelled out in the State Law. That was it. And you look in the State Law and you' ll find that you're supposed to take them to town court. Co Twigg: So why can 't we do that? L. Raymond: We can . I don't see any reason why not. G. Totman: We 're doing the Land Use Ordinance . At the end of the ordinance , it says here -- violations and penalties -- if you've got junk cars out here , you 're in violation, right. It says "any person, firm, corporation , or any party violating the provisions of this ordinance shall be deemed guilty of an offense upon conviction and shall be subject to a fine not exceeding $250 or imprisonment for 30 days. . . . " It says that the "Town of Groton may institute any appropriate action or proceeding to prevent unlawful erection, construction, or alteration of any building, land, or other requirements of this ordinance. it It's spelled out right in the end here what it is . C. Twigg: What page are you talking about? G. Totman: I 'm not reading the Town of Grotoon, I 'm ' reading another ordinance . But something like that could be put in there just for that. L. Raymond: That covers the whole thing. Yes, very simple . G. Totman: It's not just junk cars. For example , suppose somebody has garbage , trash , and everything but a car all over their yard . He still has to do that. That's not an appeal. If the people don't like his decision, they can go to them for an appeal . But he is supposed to take them to court because they are not following the law. What we're suggesting here is eliminating all that and make sure something like this is in our ordinance -- at the end . If you 'll all agree with that, Tracy can take care of it. C. Twigg: So we're going to take out 408.6. 408.7 and I408.8. G. Totman: We are now at 408.9. G. VanSlyke : We did that. Leave that in there . G. Totman: 408. 10. G. VanSlyke : Leave that in there . 8 on Town of Grot Planning Board B July 28, 1994 III G. Totman: Section 409 - Amendments . We can t do nothing about that because that' s the law. Under 409 . 3 , Hearing - this is about the same way we're doing it now. Anybody have a problem with going down to 409 . 4. Notice? T. Smith: I think this might be one of the one that changed. G. Totman: It's 5 days; ZBA gets 5 days. L. Raymond: By the time you count in holidays and weekends, it gets to be more than 5 days. We've been counting just working days. G. Totman: I've been going by the State Code. L. Raymond: The State Code counts holidays and Sundays? G. Totman: I think it says just 5 days. L. Raymond: We've been taking that to mean an 5 wokn days when the Town offices are open . George is saying no, C. Twigg: I just had a car sand the insurance company wanted me to take pictures within 5 days of purchase . I purchased it on a Thursday and they said I had to have the pictures done by Tuesday, but there 's a weekend. But it says 5 days and the weekend ,' didn't matter. There 's no office hours to get anything done Saturday and Sunday, so actually I had three days. If you had a long weekend, you 'd have one day to get the job done. IL G. VanSlyke: Is the one we're reading without correction? T. Smith: I went through and needed to get the draft out to you . G. VanSlyke : But that was done before you made corrections. Maybe if you went through and told us what corrections you made , we won't have all these problems. T. Smith: I think that. . . . G. VanSlyke : We 're talking about this one right here,!. In ours it says 15 days, so your arguing whether there's 5 or 10, And you have it corrected as 10, T. Smith: I have it as 10. I think it's 15 in the old ordinance. G. VanSlyke : How come we're not going by what you've got for corrections? T. Smith: Because I just changed it according to the State Law. That's the only reason there 's a few changes in it. Then I went through and compared it. Co Twigg: We should change that to 10 then? Is that what you're saying? G. Totman: I've never heard of anyplace where it's 151 T. Smith: Fifteen was in this one and I think it was !wrong. 11 G. Totman: The appeals - - within 60 days from the time they get the question then they have to hold a public hearing. But they've got to notify in the paper at least 5 days. I don't think it defines what we call 5 days. L. Raymond: That's a good question. Maybe we ought to look into that further. 11 G. Totman: Well, she can look into it before we get our final draft. There's no sense arguing about it because we have to go by. . . . we don't set that anyway, the (',State does. G. VanSlyke : So we're not going to do anything with that? 11 11 ir 9 i I � Town of Groton Planning Board July 28, 1994 G. Totman: George , I don't think there's anything we can because we have to follow the State rules on that one. Where are we now? G. VanSlyke: (Reading second paragraph of 409 . 4) . . . "Also, written notice at least ten days prior to the hearing. . . " I j G. Totman: See , it might make a difference whether it's the Planning Board holding it or the Zoning Board of Appeals, too. I don't know why it should, but sometimes State law does funny things. T. Smith: I think it's different for different things. i G. Totman: I think it is. So Tracy's making a note and she's going to look that up. We could argue all night here and it's not going to make a difference because the State Law days that. So that whole thing, 409. 4 . . . . you always send your things to the County (talking to Lyle Raymond) , L. Raymond: Well it got so that there were enough of them doing this I just told Colleen and Carol to send them all notices, and that simplifies it. So they just added them to the list of who it all goes to . We don't have to decide every time. i G. Totman: 409. 5 - Voting. Why is that even in there . The Town Board can do anything we want to, not what's put in our ordinances. This is what the Town Board can do . I T. Smith: This is from the State Law, too, I think. i G. Totman: It's just to let somebody know, I guess. Most people come in and buy this and say what can I do and what can't I do. When you throw things in here that don't pertain to them, then they'll come back with all kinds of questions. Okay. Cot Twigg: So they'd all have to vote for it except one. G. Totman: What this is is a quotation of State Law. It's nothing we can change anyway. C. Twigg: I didn't say we could change it, I was just asking if my thinking was right. L. Raymond: I think you're right. G. Totman: Okay -- moving right along. 409.6, .7, and .8 are just more of the State Law. Right? I G. Totman. Section 410 - Appeals and Variances. L. Raymond: Here's a paragraph right here about the Code Enforcement Officer -- the middle one . He's required to "enforce the land use regulations as written, but that literal interpretation of the land use regulations regarding development of some lots may impose constraints which are not within the i legislative intent of the regulations. " That's a long way around of saying what we already covered here earlier. G. Totman: You don't want that in there . L. Raymond: That's right -- I don't know if we want that in there . G. Totman: What is said here is that you 're going back. So now maybe he can make some decisions. L. Raymond: Now wait a minute -- it says literal interpretation. G. VanSlyke: That means as it is read in the book. It's not his interpretation as he looks at it. He has to look at that book and say this is the way it is in the book. L. Raymond: And it says here he's required to enforce these as written . G. Totman: But if he's supposed to enforce them as written, what would be wrong with stopping right there . That's it. 10 Town of Groton Planning Board July 28, 1994 L. Raymond* That's it that's right, If this imposes constraints, the landowners always have the ymP Y right to appeal anyway. 11 G. Totman: Back to this user friendly business so people can understand it. We all understood if we put a period after "written, " but as you read that last sentence you have seven people here who've been working on this for quite a while . They're all wondering what that means. Now what's the guy over the counter at the Town Clerk's office going to know about what that means. L. Raymond: I think you've going a point there , George. Just stop it right there . G. Totman: Any questions on that? L. Raymond: Also this would confuse the Zoning Officer, present or future. G. Totman: What do you think, Jeff. You're looking at me kind of funny. J. Lewis: I'm just taking it all in . This interpretation has me kind of baffled . G. Totman: This is the time to ask questions. I think these sessions are great for our Planning Board because this is what it's all about. J. Lewis: I don't understand why a Building Inspector can't interpret? C. Twigg: Because it's not his job . I can understand, and we went through that here a few minutes ago, why you don't want the Zoning Enforcement Officer interpreting on an appeal. Literally speaking, the Zoning Enforcement Officer is interpreting the Zoning Laws. But when it comes to an appeal, and he comes and says "You can't do this, Jeff, because it reads right here you can't do it. " But Jeff reads it and says " I think maybe I could. I 'm going to take this to the Zoning Board of Appeals and get their interpretation . " The Zoning Board of Appeals' decision is what's final -- not the Zoning Enforcement Officer. G. Totman: Jeff, let me try something to see if it makes sense . I think maybe where Jeff is coming from is from a different category. We 're talking about zoning here , and building codes . Jeff might be thinking of a Code Enforcement Officer as a Building Inspector. And under that Code , he can make decisions. Is that where you 're coming from? There's a difference . From town to town, what they call the New York State Uniform Building Code, the contractors have a real problem with Code Enforcement Officers interpreting that Code ; and they're allowed to do that. I think you 'll find that they operate quite different from each other. Does that make sense? J. Lewis: Yes. L. Raymond: Setbacks, frontage , all that kind of stuff we have in the Code . C. Twigg: . . as written. The rest of it we're going to slash , right. G. Totman: Yes. Everybody agree? If you don't , say so. L. Raymond: This next sentence , too , . . . what is "unnecessarily rigid restriction"? M. Carey: I was wondering the same thing. I figure we can just get rid of that. G. Totman: Okay, I can understand that . Because here you 're putting in sort of another intent. The intent here is to not stop development. A Planning Board . . . . a guy comes in with a development and you make him do the SEAR. He can take, without this sentence here, is to not manufacture things to stop that development. With SEAR you can create all kinds of things like they're doing with Wal- Mart down in Ithaca right now. That's the intent of this thing right here -- the Town is saying we don't condone that type of thing. It's either there or it isn't there. Is that the way you read it? C. Twigg: Yes, G. Totman: Anybody have any ideas on it -- questions? 11 Town of Groton Planning Y Board Jul 28, 1994 L. Raymond: Nevertheless, I can visualize somebody (here in Groton saying " I think we 're getting unnecessarily rigid restriction" and if you go to Court on that with this in our Code , it' s going to be a difficult thing to interpret - - for the court or anybody else . Just what is "unnecessarily rigid restriction" unless, Tracy, is there going to be some definitions where this is defined? If it's not defined. . . . G. Totman: I think you 've got a good argument, ° but there 's almost anything in the zoning ordinance that good lawyers can help tear apart. If you try to make an ordinance that a lawyer can't tear apart, you 're not going to put anything in the ordinance. But I think what the intent here is that if you 're putting something in there and you 're requiring them to do things in the SEAR that you really haven't done with other people, that's not really conducive to what we're doing in the Town, then you're not doing this. But if you do what was done in the Town of Lansing, then the lawyer can pick it apart. If you do the normal things we do in this Town, we won't have any problem with that. So the reason you leave that in there - - supposing this Board changes immensely in the next five to ten years, and you get a whole bunch of environmentalists on this Board that don't want anything to happen, and they start putting the people through the hoops on SEAR, EIS, and all that. What you 're saying is then the lawyer could come in and say that and he'd probablybe right. Board's decision? G. VanSlyke : Leave it in there . CO Twigg: I say leave it. G. Totman: You're still questioning it, Lyle . L. Raymond: Yes. I can see it workingthe other way too. I can see the possibility of somebody, some Y P h' Y� corporation, proposing something in Groton that drives us all up the wall . We'd just as soon not have it and maybe we 'd like to use some real strict rules ourselves. G. Totman: They'd have to prove to the court, though , that we did . L. Raymond: Yes. G. Totman: Sorry about that, Lyle . Let's move onto Ithe next one . CO Twigg: The Zoning Board of Appeals is going to have to deal with that one . L. Raymond: That's right. It will come to us. G. VanSlyke : (Referring to Section 411 - Power to Hear and Decide Appeals) . Rights to make an appeal. . . . L. Raymond: This is one of the most solid things in the State Law, G. Totman: All right. From that we can move on . The only thing we 've got to decide on is what action we can take . We need to go over these , George -- Jeff is new -- what does the Zoning Board of Appeals do? How do they operate? We should know that when we're making the ordinance up . If we have a public hearing on this, which we're going to have to have, people ask us questions, we're going to have to tell them why it's there. L. Raymond: If a town has a zoning ordinance, you 've got to have a Zoning Board of Appeals. G. Totman: Now when we make a decision on the Planning Board, there 's no appeal to the Zoning Board of Appeals. If Sally Jean comes in here and wants to put a hot dog stand on Route 222 , and we say no , or we say no to a subdivision , the only recourse those people have is to go to the State Court of Appeals. Town Board -- nobody can change our decision. And they only have 30 days to do it. Any decision we make . C. Twigg: In other words, what we send to them is where we don't make a decision? G. Totman: No, I'm talking about -- forget what we're doing here now revamping the parts - - I 'm talking about our monthly operations. If we say n 11 o to somebody (the Planning Board) the only 12 Town of Groton Planning Board July 28, 1994 recourse that those people have is the New York State Court of Appeals. And they only have 30 days to do that. CO Twiigg: So who goes to our Zoning Board of Appeals? G. Totman: The people that want to do something and George says no to. CO Twigg: All right . L. Raymond: Some of that's got to do with the fact that in this Town the Town Board has delegated this to the Planning Board . In a lot of towns, they've delegated the special permits and all that stuff to the ZBA. That's not true here. G. Totman: They did pass a law, and it did take effect I think July 1 , 1993, citizens can take an appeal. Now if they grant a variance , or if George approves something they don't think ought to be approved, the citizens have so many days to apply and go to the ZBA and try to get his decision reversed . They never could do that before. L. Raymond: That's right in here. (Referring to Section 412 - Parties Who May Appeal) G. Totman: Tracy must have got that in here -- it wasn't in the old one . J. Lewis: Can it be any citizen -- or does it have to '' be somebody around there. G. VanSlyke : It's somebody near it. Could be neighbors. 11 L. Raymond: It says right in here " if they are neighboring owners or nearby residents" however nearby is defined . G. Totman: Section 413, L. Raymond: All this stuff about the appeal procedure by the Zoning Board of Appeals is right out of State Law, T. Smith : Yes. I think all this is. L. Raymond: All of it, in fact. This whole thing. G. Totman: If you all want to keep turning your pages, up to 416, 417 -- they're all out of the State Law. If you want to read them, fine . They're all out of the State Law book. L. Raymond: 4189 4199 420. G. Totman: 420 - Requirements for Granting Variances for Building on Proposed Public Land, 11 T. Smith: That is one of the few included in therelfrom State Law that wasn't included before . G. Totman: We would never have picked that up . L. Raymond: We used these questions right here with Glenn Munson -- and you'll note that right in the decision . G. Totman: This is good , because this wasn't in our old ordinance . All right. Site Plan Review - Section 422. T. Smith : This art with the Planning g Board , I was wondering if you wanted to include the part about your attendance and training. G. Totman: No . That's separate - local Town law. These are things the general public are going to be picking up. How much of the Site Plan Review is copied out of there. T. Smith: The same . Just about all of it is straight from there . 13 • i Town of Groton Planning Board July 28, 1994 G. Totman: If it's straight from there , we can 't change it anyway, unless you want to add something to it. L. Raymond: So we're up to ... G. Totman: Wait a minute . What's this one here -- Section 424 - Special Permits? Is this taken right out of the . . . T. Smith : This was out of the old ordinance . G. Totman: Let's make sure we all agree to this one . See if there's any changes we want to make in that . T. Smith: 424. 3 -- says that within a year the permit will be revoked if substantial progress in the work has not been made . G. Totman: That's an addition . T. Smith: Leave it there then . G. Totman: See , Jeff, now here's where the Zoning Officer can make a decision . If he thinks they're working on it and looks like they're going to get it done, then he'll give them an extension on it. Different from the regular ordinance itself. Co Twigg: Faye Benson was telling me that the house that' s being built across from his farm on Cobb Street, that they gave him an order the other day to either finish that or start tearing it down. G. Totman: Town of Groton? V. Rankin: I'd tell him to get out of here . G. Totman: What I'm saying is that, under the NY Building Code, he can extend the permit once . George can . He can extend the permit once, and after that if there's no progress and they aren't done , they've either got to apply for a new permit, or he can order the building to be left in a safe condition . Stop it there . It's within the State Law. And if he doesn't do it, then the State can come into the Town doing their audits and see if he's doing his job , and come back after the Town saying we 're not complying with the State Building Code. So you have to be careful. J. Lewis: Can he make them tear it down? G. Totman: Think about it . In New York City they made them tear 12 stories off a 44 -story building . . . . but that's the State Building Code, Every Code Enforcement Officer does it different. When you go from one town to another, most Code Enforcement Officers try to work with the people . I really believe if you work with people, you can get them to do what they're supposed to do. I think he (Benson) is over the limit and I would have taken him to court by now. It's not 9 : 30 yet, but I think we've had enough . Does everybody know where we stopped? We stopped with Section 425 , Planned Unit Development , CoT � This Planned Unit Development we're going to leave until next tune? G. Totman: Right. I think this makes it go better, the way Tracy's doing it. Instead of us taking it and reading it through , she's going through it, re-writing it the way she thinks we might accept it. She's going to keep doing this until we get the whole ordinance done. L. Raymond: I think she 's helped a lot. G. Totman: She's more familiar with the new laws that are coming along, and she 's incorporating those parts we have no control over. We have to have this done before September. 14 y u •. Jul 28 1994 Town of Groton Planning Board B Y The meeting was adjourned at 9:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, 7FtSch ecorecretary 15