Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-08-04 s TOWN OF GROTON PLANNING BOARD Thursday, 4 August : 1994 Board Members (*present) Others Present *George Totman, Chairman Tracey Smith , Tompkins County Monica Carey Planning Dept. Circuit Rider Sheldon Clark *Jeffrey Lewis Verl Rankin *Cecil Twigg *George Van Slyke The purpose revision of the Town of Groton's Land Use & Pip of the meeting was to continue the review/ Development Code , adopted September 10, 1990. This review is being accomplished with the assistance of the Tompkins County Planning Department, represented by Tracey Smith. This meeting was to finish work on Article 4: Procedures and Rules , commencing with Section 425 - Planned Unit Development, and start the review of Article 2: Land Subdivision Rules. G. Totman: It's about 7 : 45, and there are four of us here, and I know Monica's not coming, so we better get started . We ended up the last time with 424 and were getting ready to start 425, Planned Unit Development , Tonight, Tracey brought back Article 2 : Land Subdivision Regulations that we overlooked when we first started . Do we want to go back to this Article to keep it in order, and wait to do Section 425 when there are more of us here so more will understand what a Planned Unit Development is, and Tracey does not have the Planned Unit Development done up ahead . Is that right? T. Smith: It's in Section 4. . , G. Totman: You did have it in here - we just stopped. Okay. So we can do it either way -- finish off 425 and then go to 200, or start with 200 so we're not doing pieces back and forth . But it's up to you people . Co Twigg: What is the 200 section about? T. Smith: Subdivisions, Co Twigg: We should have everybody here on subdivisions because we do more of that than planned unit developments. We haven't had a PUD since I've been here . G. VanSlyke: Why don't we just finish that section off rather than go into another section and then have to come back to this. Will this complete the 400's? T. Smith: Yes. .Go Totman: Okay. Planned Unit Development. Go by this rather than the old book because some of the numbers are changed . T. Smith: Part of this is from Article 3 where we had that little section; I combined them into this section so it would be altogether. The Procedures is pretty much set, but some of the requirements you might want to look at. G. VanS1Yke. SPecific Objectives. I don 't see anything wrong with it. G. Totman: In most cases, a Planned Unit Development is done by the Town Board rather than the Planning Board. If you read on page 19, 425 . 3 g, it refers to the Town Board doing the Environmental Assessment Form. It's inferring in here that the Town Board is doing it. Town of Groton Planning Board August 4, 1994 T. Smith: On 425. 7. it says that they're going to refer the Site Plan Review to the Planning Board , G. Totman: "Site Plan Review of Newly Established . . . " G. VanSlyke: The Town Board has to approve the PUD before we can do a Site Plan Review on the PUD . T. Smith: Yes, they to approve. . . . G. VanSlyke: In other words, it doesn't come to us first; it goes to them and they vote on it, and we approve whatever site plans they're doing. T. Smith: It's a change in zoning, so they have to do it first. G. Totman: Once they've approved of the whole concept, and they've changed the zoning for that particular area, then the activities that go on here are done through Site Plan Review through us. I think it's good to discuss this so everyone has an understanding of it. It's a little bit different than a subdivision. Unless we change it, it's about the only part where the Town Board supersedes us in the original authority. G. VanSlyke: We have no control over it; we can't supersede the Board. G. Totman: I'm not saying it's wrong, George . The only people that can change zoning is the Town Board . And a Planned Unit Development changes zoning in a certain area. G. VanSlyke: So we have no control over it. CO Twigg: Not the way the ordinance is now. But you say that's a changing . . . . if it's in the ordinance that we could do this, it wouldn't be a change of ordinance. G. Totman: But it can't be, Cecil. Because the only people that can change the ordinance, once it's passed, like a Planned Unit Development which changes the ordinance, is the Town Board . Think about the Cornelius property. Remember that one? What they wanted to do was have a Planned Unit Development in there where they would have certain residential things, certain business activities, all on the same acreage so there' s a mixture of things. The ordinance doesn't allow that they way it is written. So you apply for a PUD , and if the Town Board approves the concept of the PUD and designates that area for that thing, then they turn it back to the Planning Board as a Site Plan Review, CO Twi ,g: Well, that's not such a bad procedure. G. Totman: That's right. Just so we all understand it. C. Twigg: There's no reason to change a procedure like that that I can see . G. VanSlyke: I don't see anything wrong with any of these sections. T. Smith: Everything in here came from your ordinance. C. Twigg: "A Planned Unit Development may be considered anywhere in the Town . " (Reading Section 425 . 3 a) Even in an industrial zone . G. VanSlyke: Sure , because you might have light industry there . In a Planned Unit Development you could have light industry or light manufacturing mixed in with it. That's what they were going to do with the Cornelius place wasn't it? G. Totman: They were going to have both . They were going to have a mixture in there . Or the Town Board can say they'd call this a low-density area, but they're going to pick out ten acres here and call it a Planned Unit Development. And the Town Board could say the only thing that's going to be in that area is industry or commercial-type activities. The Town Board can make that designation . Once that designation is passed , they turn it back to the Planning Board to do the Site Plan Reviews, G. VanSlyke : No, that's what we 've been talking about. 2 Town of Groton Planning Board August 4, 1994 G. Totman: Okay, we got through that. Now we're down to Section 402 - Building Permits . Does anyone have a problem with that? C. Twigg: " . . . not to be less than five acres. " Would five acres be enough? Of course , they could turn it down if they didn't figure there was enough acreage. G. Totman: That's true . And 300 foot of road frontage . Co Twigg: Why would they need road frontage? G. Totman: To call it a Planned Unit Development . Like if you're making a special area, you might want to make sure they center their activities toward the center of the road frontage , or whatever, so it's far enough away from the residential units. C. Twigg: Suppose they wanted it back off of the road . They'd only need a right-of-way or enough for a road. Maybe they wouldn't want it, like the Cornelius property, down on South Main Street. Maybe they'd want it back up so it connected to the Town resources. I don't see what the road frontage really -- if you're going to make a Planned Unit Development out of it, we're going to have to determine how much road frontage they need . If they're going to put the buildings on the road, every 300 feet isn't very much . G. Totman: But also, Cecil, if you don't require a road frontage , you would also have this behind some other activities which are already there . This would make it conducive to the other activities that are allowed in the area. If you cut it down to 50 feet, 100 feet, or whatever, and you have all this area out back that you're going to develop , then you're going to allow development of that kind of activity behind residential development that's already there . It would devalue their property. So if you go to 300 feet, it tends to put the area in back where their own land is and not in back of somebody else's property. C. Twigg: I think that 300 foot of road frontage ought to be taken out of there . G. Totman: We'll vote on it. C. Twigg: I don't see any reason for it being there because we're going to go over the whole thing anyway to determine whether the thing fits the area anyhow. So if it's something that's not going to fit the area, we're not going to approve it. So I don't see why you have 300 foot of road frontage there. Why should that be a criteria? J. Lewis: How much road frontage do you think they should have? C. Twigg: Just wide enough -- the 90 foot or whatever it takes for a road. They might want to go back in a mile or so before they start developing. J. Lewis: Are Beechwood and Hillcrest the same type of. . . G. Totman: That's a subdivision. C. Twigg: If they want to go back from the highway a mile before they start developing it. G. Totman: Where , in the Town of Groton, are you talking about that that could happen? C. Twigg: I don't know. But I say I don't see why you have a road frontage requirement. G. Totman: Where , in the Town of Groton can you go too far back without hitting another road or something? The back of other people's property? CO Twigg: Well, there probably isn't a place . But if there was . . . . G. Totman: I know you don't like road frontage requirements, and I 'm for cutting down the road frontage like we've already done in the other part, but for something commercial, or activities like that, I tend to think that 300 feet is good and gives us better control over that. 3 Town of Groton Planning Board August 4, 1994 Co Twigg: Well, we have complete control over this PUD anyhow. G. Totman: What I 'm saying is -- if you already make them start out that way, it makes it easier to have control over it. Otherwise , you could have somebody come in and say they've got 60 feet, because that's all you need for a road, and they're going to go back and spread out. And somebody is right next door to that 60 feet who really doesn't want them that close to them. Co Twigg: Well then we could just tell them no. G. Totman: Does everyone understand it enough to be able to vote on it? I think that's what we have to do . C. Tvigg: I see no reason for road frontage . We 're going to have full control over how they develop it anyhow. And if we don't think they've got enough road frontage -- well you've got 295 feet -- that's good enough. Or, we think you ought to have 1000 for the size unit you're planning. And they think 300 is all they need . And we're going to then say that 300 is not enough . G. VanSlyke: For a five-acre lot, though . See we're talking minimums here, aren't we? We're just talking minimums. We're not talking about what extent you're going to go to. I think we should just have limits for the minimum. This guy is going to go to the Town Board with this first. And they're going to look at the considerations here. And I must have at least 300 feet here ; I also must have a minimum of five acres. You need to set the minimum. You can't say you can't have any minimums, because what's going to happen is . . . . I'm trying to think of a good example of this. J. Lewis: There's a perfect example right up behind Doc Blatchley's isn't there . There's about five or six acres up in there where they have a right-of-way that goes up in there -- right off from Carpenter's. G. Totman: Let's put it this way. That 300 feet has been in our own ordinance since 1972 , That doesn't mean that it's right or wrong. C. TWigg: But we're changing quite a lot of other things. And we've never had a Planned Unit Development , J. Lewis: Why is it 300; why isn't it like any other. . . anything else you want to do where you've got to have 200 feet of frontage to build a house or. . . G. Totman: We're dropping that back. See , 200 feet of frontage was required for a house, and the feeling was that if you're going to have any type of mixed occupancy -- commercial, housing, or whatever -- that you should require more than you require for a house. So the 300 feet was established back in '72 . But this makes sense. Like if you put a Planned Unit Development in, and you put a road down through the middle, you've automatically got 60 feet there . But if you want to utilize both sides of that road, you're going to need more than 300 feet anyway. C. Twigg: But they may not utilize it . I said a mile , but if they go back say a quarter of a mile before they started developing anything. That's far enough behind people so it isn't going to effect them. G. Van Slyke: But what you're saying is -- okay, all they need is a roadway. What about running the roadway back. You've got 60 feet. Let's go up to Chipman's Corners there. I don't know how close those houses are together where that right-of-way is out to that field. You know what I 'm talking about? G. Totman: Yes I do, and I know what you're going to say. G. VanSlyke : I'm looking at people living here and here and you 're going to develop this thing with a PUD out in back, and you 've got a 60-foot road , and all of a sudden you 're putting light industry in there . So that involves truck traffic and a lot of things. People aren't going to be happy with that. You're not going to be happy with having something like that stuck next to you. C. Twigg: There might not be any industry in a PUD . It might just be houses. 4 Town of Groton Planning Board August 4, 1994 G. Totman: There's a lot of places where there might be 150 feet or 250 feet between a bunch of houses, but you have to have it large enough to discourage that kind of activity. I really think we're getting hunt up on something that really doesn't happen that often . For example , it hasn't happened in all the years we've had it here . It's only happened once in the last twenty years in the Town of Lansing. Co Twiggt And when it does happen, we 're going to have full control over how much road frontage they need. G. Totman: No we're not. If you put down 60, then that's all they're going to need. C. Twigg: Don't put down any. Why should you need any road frontage there? G. Totman: You said that about the houses, too. Cecil, maybe it's not right to say it, but there isn't an ordinance written anywhere that I know of that doesn't have road frontage on it for people who are a lot smarter than we are. You and I are at the opposite ends. Let's vote on it. G. VanSlyke: One of the reasons you have to have road frontage is you want to keep the character -- you don't want to have houses butting right up . . . . You're putting the restrictions on after the person comes in. You can't do that. G. Totman: Cecil, I harp at this all the time . If you'd go to these seminars on planning and zoning, the one thing they harp on is that you have to tell the people up front what's required and what isn't. You can't set the rules when they come in and you see what they've got and you set the rules for it. It's illegal to do that. All right. Let's bring it to a vote. We can set here until . . . . Cecil's not going to change and I'm not going to change . We can set here for another hour and talk like this . Let's just vote on it. Somebody make a motion that we go with 300 feet, or somebody make a motion that we go with no feet like Cecil wants. J. Lewis: I make a motion that we lower it to 200. G. Totman: Is there a second to that motion? Okay, George, do you want to make a motion? There was no second, so the motion's dead. Co Twigg: I 'll make a motion that we don't put any road frontage requirement in until they come in for the PUD . G. Totman: See , first of all, Cecil, that' s illegal . You can't do it that way. But is there a second to the motion? G. VanSlyke I'll second his motion. G. Totman: All in favor? (One aye . ) All against? (Two against. ) G. VanSlyke: I make a motion that they leave it the way it is in the ordinance . G. Totman: I 'll second it. All in favor? (Two ayes. ) All opposed? (One aye . ) Carried. Now let's move on . G. VanSlyke: Let's do this orderly now. Can we now, because we've been through this hassle for one section, can we accept what's in here for 425 . 1 , 425 . 2. and 425 . 3? The Town Board is the only one who approves PUD's, Cecil. All we do after they approve them is we go ahead and take care of the Site Plan Reviews within the PUD . We have nothing to do with saying what the PUD is. What we did here was set the minimum frontage , the minimum acreage needed to make this thing work. In other words, the guy coming in out front with a PUD for the Town Board, he knows he's got to have that minimum frontage and that minimum acreage . That's what you've got to set up front. C. Twiw* But I don't think that. G. Totman: Actually, point eight and point nine , unless you want to question them are sort of academic . 5 Town of Groton Planning Board August 4, 1994 C. Twigg: "The overall development intensity may not be higher than the highest development intensities permitted in any abutting district. " Now -- how can you do that? It says the " overall development intensity." So in other words you're going to have to have an acre per unit. Is that what that means? G. Totman: Per housing unit. Ce Twigg: How do you figure it for an industrial part of a PUD? G. Totman: When you're talking about density, you allow an acre of land. So for five acres you can have five houses, right? When you put an industrial PUD in, five houses is normally two and one-half persons per house . That's fifteen people . In light industry, or whatever it might be, there's nobody living there. You 're not talking about density here. T. Smith: You'll probably base it on lot coverage and setback. G. Totman: When we go through the Site Plan Reviews, we 'll go through the lot coverage -- how much do you want? Remember in other areas where we talked about 20% coverage, 30% coverage and things like that. J. Lewis: So they can only have fifteen employees. Is that what you're saying? G. Totman: No, no . We 're talking about density of people . Of course when the Town Board approves it, they're approving what they're asking for. We're only doing the Site Plan Reviews on what they've approved . They might approve whatever. But, in general, if you look at industrial PUD 's, there's a big building here that employs 10- 15 people , but you go down the road 700-800 feet before you get to the next place . They may not want to build that close together. So you really don't have to worry about the density, except for the fact of the percentage of land they're using on that parcel. (Referring to 425.3 e.) Ce Twigg: I just wanted a better understanding of that line . G. VanSlyke: What's your problem with that? Ce Twigg: Well, Jeff asked the question . Jeff apparently didn't understand it either. I understand it with housing. You're going to put in five units, you've got to have five acres. But now if you put industry in there, what does that mean? We don't have . . . it says the overall . How would we figure it for industry? G. Totman: We don't. The Town Board does. And they're the one who's going to approve this in the end anyway. But by the same token , going back to that Cornelius one, they were mixing residential with industry. And when you're doing that, we're saying sure , maybe the houses and the lots in that area would be closer together or like clustering, but the total density . . . . instead of using ten acres for ten houses, you might put those ten houses on three acres, but you still have to use the ten acres for open space or whatever. You can do that in a Planned Unit Development, G. VanSlyke: Let's use the Cornelius thing. This will help you with this. When they developed the Cornelius thing, all residential parts were abutting the Village . What this says here is that the development in the Cornelius place, that residential, could not be denser than the development that had already occurred in the Village which was the abutting district next to it . This is what that statement says. Co Twigg: But it would also abut the Town. G. VanSlyke: On the other side , but that district has probably not been developed . In an agricultural district, that particular area has not been developed . So you wouldn't put your residential abutting the agricultural side . They kept it to the Village side because they wanted to hook into Village water and that kind of thing. Co Twigg: So what would you use as the abutting. . . this PUD abuts the Village and the Town . So which density would you apply to the PUD? Would you apply the Village or would you apply the Town? 6 Town of Groton Planning Board August 4, 1994 G. VanSlyke: Whichever is higher. Read the statement. C. Tw1wo All right. The highest density would be the Town , but the highest requirement, where it says it can't be higher than the highest development intensity permitted by the abutting district. G. VanSlyke: So you wouldn' t go with agricultural because that's not developed . You go to the district closest to it that has the highest one. So it can't exceed the level of development of the nearest one . G. Totman: The Village has public water and sewer, so the density is less than half that. C. Twigg: So if we put in a PUD that abutted the Village , and we got the benefit of their sewage and water, then a guy could put say ten units on it. G. Totman: You're second -guessing now, Cecil, what could happen . What this is merely saying that if it's abutting the Village , it can't be more dense than the Village , the abutting district. It could be less dense. In the Village it's even less than half acres. But as long as they've got public water and sewer and is a salable lot, the Village's requirements, I think, are 75 feet, or something like that. But if the Town Board wanted to agree to that type of thing, it's their prerogative to do it. What we're saying here is it can't be tighter than what's already next to it. Okay? Any other questions on Section 400? G. VanSlyke: Can we approve 425 . 3 then -- or is there more to be discussed here? G. Totman: See, 425.4 is presenting it to the Town Board , G. VanSlyke : I just want to getup to that point approved. J. Lewis: We did approve that. G. VanSlyke : We just went back and discussed this one section. So everybody's in agreement we approve all this? G. Totman: Are we ready to go to 425. 4? Three out of four agree . We've approved everything up to 425 . 4 - Preliminary Proposal. This is where the applicant submits it to the Town Board . It's written exactly the same as in our present one. J. Lewis: And we really don't want to change that, right? G. Totman: I don't have any , problem with it unless someone else does. Okay, 425 . 8 . Very honestly, I don't have any problem up to the end of this Planned Unit Development. It's basically up to the Town Board from that point on . Do I here a motion that we give Tracey the authority to write up 425. T. Smith: It's already in here . G. Totman: Okay. Then we're going to go on . George made the motion, and Jeff seconded it. All in favor? (Two in favor; C. Twigg abstains.) Now back to 200. Tracey? T. Smith: This was the most confusing of all of them. The first section is pretty much standard . G. Totman: Now is there anything you've changed from the present ordinance? T. Smith: No . G. Totman: So this is what we've really been working with . T. Smith: And this one is pretty much in the same order, too . G. Totman: Somewhere in this ordinance , Tracey, I would like to see if we could incorporate , in the right place, where the Planning Board has the prerogative and authority in a subdivision to vary the road frontages. I 'm not thinking about five lots. In subdivisions, many, many times there's areas where you can get a lot better use out of the land -- for example , if someone applies for a subdivision 7 Town of Groton Planning Board August 4, 1994 that has cul-de-sacs in it, and the end of the cul-de-sac, the circle, could have a lot more lots and better use of the land by having the frontage less in the front and more in the back -- like pie-shaped lots -- even going down to 100 feet, then branching out to an acre or two acres, whatever you need out there . But because of the nature of the curve, if you required them to have 150 feet or 200 feet, they'd have to be larger lots in order to meet that road frontage. CO Twigg: They'd be tremendous lots out in the back. G. Totman: It's a waste of land to make them require those frontages . I 'd like to see that incorporated so it gives us a tool to work with . Would you make sure you put that in there? T. Smith: Yes. A question I have is the definition of a subdivision. If you divide it into five or more lots, or whatever, within a certain number of years - - it counts as a subdivision? G. Totman: I 'm glad she brought that up. What she's asking for to be put inhere is, like, if you sell one lot now you don't have to come in here . But if you sell two lots, that makes three so you have to come in for a subdivision on your property. What a lot of towns, and the County and the State does, they say if there's three years that go by since you've done that, then you're starting over again . C. Twice So you can sell another lot after three years. G. Totman: It doesn't amount to even coming back to us. You're starting over again with your one lot rather than having to come back to the Planning Board . You're not a major developer if you're only selling a lot once in a great while. Three years is a long time to wait. Does everybody agree that we put that in there? Under definitions. (Everyone agreed . ) T. Smith: Do you want it for three years, then? G. Totman: Yes. The County goes for three years. Co Twigg: Are we going to leave the number of lots the same -- the three. G. Totman: I think so. I like that idea. CO Tw1w So a guy can sell one lot. G. Totman: Yes, when we first did this -- and we changed this a while back, because it did say two lots, we went quite a few years letting them do one lot and them somebody caught it and said when they sell a lot it makes two lots and so the wording in ours was wrong. We changed it so it said three lots make a subdivision, which means you can sell one . But if you sell a second lot that makes three because the land you're already keeping makes it a new lot and a new tax map number. Everybody agree to that? G. VanSlyke : Where are we at this point? G. Totman: She's going to add that to the definitions. I 'm reading the second page . Does everyone agree with what's on page one? (All agree . ) The let's go to page two . Basically it talks about what is a subdivision, when you have to come in and apply, before any permit is granted . . . . I think one way to look at it is to look at what we've been doing -- is there anything wrong with what we 've been working with -- have we had a problem about it. Ce Twigg: Back on that first page -- I don't understand that b. 201 . 1 b . The regulation applies to "Any transfer of land from lot to lot by relocating . . . . " Is that what we 're calling a boundary change? But boundary changes are not applicable the way we're doing them . We haven't called that a lot in the past. Remember, they would come in with a subdivision and later come in and wanted a boundary change , it was all right because we approved the subdivision, the boundary change is nothing. G. Totman: But you're not creating a new tax map number. For example , you give subdivision approval for four lots and all of the lots are large enough . One of the people wants to sell 50 feet to the guy next door. He makes his lot smaller, but still a legal lot, all he's doing is changing the boundary. But he comes to us for approval because he's changing a subdivision . So the subdivision is a matter of record . If he did it without coming in here, with what we have on file here, George may not give him a 8 Town of Groton Planning Board August 4, 1994 building permit for it because it wouldn't be as he has on file here . If they want to change the boundary lines, they come through the Planning Board and it gets changed here so when George looks at it it's a legal lot. Do you follow me? What I'm saying is that when they're selling these lots off, George will not give them a building permit -- rightfully so -- because they have a legal subdivision. G. VanSlyke: They've already approved the subdivision. They come in and want a boundary change only. What's that got to do with a building permit? Because they changed the boundary , that doesn't change the requirements for what he needed to have a building permit. I don't follow that. G. Totman: Let me try again. When you buy one of these lots in a subdivision, after the person had it approved, you come in and say you want to buy one of these lots -- but I'd really like to have a smaller lot. I don't want that big lot. So the owner says, "If I take 100 feet off this lot and move it onto your lot, to make your lot smaller and that lot bigger, would you buy the lot then?" And you say yes. If he goes ahead and does it without coming to us, when you come in for your building permit, George looks up to see if it's a legal subdivision . And he sees that they have a subdivision -- but you 're showing me you have 200 feet of road frontage, and the paper George has says 250 feet. He says, "You 've altered that without going back through the Planning Board . It's not legal, as it's not what was passed by the Planning Board . " So, by law, he can't give you a building permit. G. VanSlyke: Okay, I see what you're saying. G. Totman: But I think Cecil's got a point here . I think if there's any transfer of land by lot to lot by relocating of lot boundary lines -- it really doesn't say. . . CO Twigg: Well, it's a little bit confusing to me because we've been approving these boundary changes and that's what we should call it. G. Totman: Instead of any transfer. The more you read it, and the more you look at it, it's saying the same thing . But I think if the general public tries to read it, they'll have problems with it. We started this thing to make it more user-friendly so people could understand it. C. Twigg: But this is saying a boundary change -- in other words, if a guy sold one lot they don't have to come to us . But then he says he didn't buy quite enough land. I want to change the boundary. Then he's got to come in for a subdivision. Is that. . . G. Totman: See if this makes sense to you. I would like to see it put in there that for a boundary change he's got to come in to see us if it was in an approved subdivision. If you buy a couple of acres of land off someone, and a couple of years later you want to buy another 100 feet from him, and you're not making any more tax map numbers, you 're making your lot bigger and the other lot still remains legal, that I would call a boundary change by itself, and that wouldn't be any different than buying a lot. He doesn't need to come to us to buy one lot. I'd like to have this worded. . . whereby they only have to come to us when they make boundary changes within the approved subdivision. If it's not within the approved subdivision, and just a boundary change out there , we would classify it or use it as if he's buying the lot because he's not adding any more tax map numbers. He's just taking two lots and there will still be two lots when they get done . As long as they're both legal . One of the reasons people will argue with you why they want to leave it in there is to keep the safety valve on there where people don't create illegal lots. They could do that by not coming to us. That's one of the reasons that's there. C. Twigg: But they could sell the first lot and it could be illegal. G. Totman: Yes, but they wouldn't get a building permit from George . Also , a building might already be on there and they don't come in for another ten or fifteen years. But they changed the boundary but created an illegal lot and nobody might find it for that time -- until they go to sell it or a new buyer comes along and wants to add on . George will say you've altered this lot and you better go back and see those people. So I guess you might get a problem with trying to take that out of there . But I don't think it's written here so you can understand it. Does that make sense. T. Smith: So you want to leave it in there , but say it differently? G. Totman: Yes. Does everybody follow this? I thought at first it would be good to do it just in subdivisions, but I see where they could get in trouble otherwise. 9 Town of Groton Planning Board August 4, 1994 C. Twigg: But we haven't been following -- in other words, if a guy should come in with a minor subdivision, up to five units, and then somebody wanted to make a boundary change within that subdivision, that would make it a major, according to this. G. Totman: Why? C. TwiM Because it's a transaction, the same as. . . . G. Tatman: But it's not creating any new lot. It means that they've got to come in and ask us -- they're not making any new lots -- so it doesn't change it from a minor to a major. You've still got the same number of lots. One just gets bigger, and the other gets smaller. As long as they're all legal, I don't see any problem with it. The only thing that's confusing is that this is under the subdivision section. Where does it say in the regular part of it that they have to come to us for a boundary change? We're only dealing now with the subdivision section . If you 're out there right now, and you talk to your neighbor who wants to buy 50 feet off from you , it doesn't say anywhere in the ordinance where that's a subdivision . T. Smith: Shall we put boundary change in definitions? G. Totman: I think that's a good point. Okay -- now we can go back on page two. See here, Cecil, on 201 . 4 -- it says "Plat Void If Revised After Approval" -- it relates back to what we were just talking about. Unless there's something that comes up that you want to change, let me know. I'm reading 205 now. If everyone agrees up to that point, we 'll just move along. T. Smith: I have a question on 210 where it says they have to submit the application to the Secretary of the Planning Board. Should it be the Clerk? G. Totman: That should be taken out of there . But Clerk's not the right answer. We don't have what you call a Clerk. I would just " submit to the Planning Board . " Normally they submit them to Carol. She accepts them and tells the Chair when one comes in and asks if he wants it on the agenda for the next meeting. So it's not considered "accepting" it. I think we better not put anything in there other than to submit it to the Planning Board . Good point, Tracey. On 210. 1 b , you can, if you want to, require them to submit 8 or 10 copies so we don't have to make copies for everybody. G. VanSlyke: So you're putting the onus of copying to them, right? G. Totman: Right. Instead of Carol. Because if they come inhere with only one set of things, she's got to copy this and copy that and put it all in a package to give to us. It's not unusual at all to require them to make whatever copies you need . I require twelve copies for anyone coming in to me at Lansing. It's in the ordinance . Nobody questions it. I use discretion on small ones ; if you want to come in with something small -- and you don't have copy machines - - . But if it's a developer, I have them follow the rules. Co Twigg: These little sketches you hand out to us are copied by the clerk? G. Totman: They only give her one set. I 'm saying that if that's in here, you can demand it, but if a little old guy down there comes in and she wants to do it for him, that's what I do where I work. I like the idea of doing that. We haven't had an awful lot of subdivisions, but you might have and she might have three or four requests in a week or so, and that makes her hustle all over the place. Ce Twi : Then raise it up, if you want to. G. Totman: There's seven of us, and one for the file and George. I would say ten copies. G. VanSlyke : Change that to ten instead of two? G. Totman: Yes. Now when big developers, Munson or Walpole , come in, they pass copies out to everybody. They're so used to doing it everywhere else , that's why they do it with us. They just assume everyone has the same rules. When I see those guys come in, I make them follow the rules -- but if it's the individual small guy, just use your discretion. Make it ten, then? (Okay.) 10 Town of Groton Planning Board August 4, 1994 T . Smith: Do you want to put the same thing in for Site Plan Review? I don't see it anywhere where you require a number of copies. G. Totman: Most of the Site Plan Reviews are small . There's nothing wrong with having it there and Carol could chose to do it. You can go back under the Site Plan Review and put ten in there. Now when we get all this done, Tracey, and you submit it as a whole package , are you keeping a record of what changes we've made? T. Smith: I can do that. G. Totman: Any body else got a problem with 210. 2? G. VanSlyke: What about the contours? Do we normally see contours on a site plan . G. Totman: No. Basically this is talking about a subdivision in general . We don't normally get into this except in a major subdivision where they're putting in roads and stuff like that it so you can check for drainage . We have never yet had what I call a major subdivision in the Town of Groton. It's another one of those things that's there that needs to be there in case it comes up . At the very end of this, you're going to see something that says we have the authority to bypass or delete whatever requirement we want to as the Planning Board . Why make somebody hire someone to do all that contouring, etc . when we know by looking at it ourselves that the drainage is okay. But if it's going to be a 20 - or 30-lot subdivision and they're putting new roads in, drainage ditches, etc. , then you're going to have to have contours to know where the water is going to flow. C. Twigg, It says here on 210. 4 that the Planning Board shall determine if the sketch plat meets the requirements of Section 212 and may, if the sketch plat is insufficiently complete , reject the application with reasons given in writing. G. Totman: There is no Section 212 . That's what I thought you were going to say. CO Twigg: It's the writing. Do the minutes of the meeting constitute "in writing"9 Or do you have to write them separately? G. Totman: I usually write them a letter. Or just send them a copy of the minutes. You can do it either way. Some want it on legal stationery so they can take it to their lawyers. In general, if you give them the minutes, it's okay. G. VanSlyke: It should be 210. 2 shouldn't it? G. Totman: Yes, because that's the one that refers to the sketch plat. Good point. Section 211 - Classification as to Type of Subdivision Review Procedure , T. Smith: I didn't do any of the diagrams yet. G. Totman: If you look at your regular ordinance , the one we have now, and turn to page 26, 1 think it would be wise to also include that under Section 211 . It 's more of a thought-provoking thing, but it gives people an idea of what you 're looking for and looking at. It also helps the Planning Board members who don't look at those things every day. It's a little checklist. Anybody have anything against carrying that over? (No indicated . ) G. VanSlyke: I have a question on 221 b . It says that "if the Planning Board determines that is necessary, the applicant must include an actual field survey. . " In the end we do, don't we , in a subdivision . G. Totman: We're talking about subdivisions now. G. VanSlyke : You're talking about a rural subdivision . We do require them to have a plat done by a licensed surveyor, don't we? G. Totman: In minor and major, but this is a rural subdivision. 11 Town of Groton Planning Board August 4, 1994 G. VanSlyke: But what does that mean -- we make the decision if whether or not they have to have this? G. Totman: On a rural. We don't get too many of those. But the definition of rural subdivision. . . T. Smith: A subdivision of land resulting in three to five lots, each of which is five acres or more . Does not include utilities; new streets , clustering, public open space or facilities; does not conflict with zoning, the official map , or any other Town development policy, and does not adversely affect the use or development of adjoining land . G. Totman: These are real large lots. G. VanSlyke: Okay, G. Totman: At 231 . 2 , after f, they ask for five copies. We changed the initial one from two to ten, so we should change this one to ten also . And leave out that "Clerk of the" so it is just to the Planning Board . C. TwiWe It says we only require one copy of the drafting film that goes to the County Clerk. Is that right? G. Totman: Like I said, we require that here, but they don't have to be filed in the County Clerk's office if they don't want to unless there are five or more . The deeds have to be filed so the assessment and tax maps can be changed, but the County doesn't consider a subdivision a subdivision unless it's five or more . G. Totman: Moving right along now -- 231 . 4 . Change the last sentence to eliminate the reference to the Clerk -- just make it to the Planning Board , T. Smith: Okay, G. VanSlyke : Under Minor Subdivision, which ones where the ones we allowed not going to a public hearing? Do all minors have to go to a public hearing. G. Totman: It's up to us if we put it in there. No, we don't have to. In fact, it says may. G. VanSlyke : Okay. We have that prerogative . G. Totman: In a major subdivision, I think we should take away the prerogative because that would include a lot of people who should have the right to know. What I look at with regard to public hearings is that if a guy wants to sell three lots, all within the ordinance, next door to each other, it's a subdivision. So you hold a public hearing on it. The neighbors could say, well I don't like that. So why do we fool them by having a public hearing when, technically, unless we can find something wrong with what they're suggesting, we can't turn it down anyway. When you hold a public hearing on something you can't turn down in the first place, why get the people there . There might be some who would just like that land to be open forever. They say well why did we come when you'll pass it anyway. Sometimes it's honest to tell them right up front that unless they can come up with something that showed it really and truthfully did not meet the ordinance, we would have a hard time turning it down. I 've never had any complaints in using that approach . There are certain times it's wise to hold a public hearing, when you think there's a lot of public things out there , but don't tie yourself down to it. That's why it should be may in there instead of shall. But when there's a major subdivision and there's a lot of roads and stuff going in and you 're impacting a large neighborhood, I think adjacent landowners should really know about it. G. VanSlyke: Is that where we're at, George, major. G. Totman: I'm comfortable up to there except for the fact that -- are you going through , Tracey, and taking out this Clerk of the Board all the time? T. Smith: Should that be the Chair or just the Planning Board? G. Totman: It probably should say the Chair of the Planning Board. 12 Town of Groton Planning Board August 4, 1994 J. Lewis: Does that mean people are going to be looking you up? Do you want people running from here over to your house . Or you could make a time when you 're going to be here so she could accept them on such-and-such a day. G. Totman: You can't do that, because the times I can be here , another Chair might not be able to. G. VanSlyke: Are we talking about the certification which is in 243 . 3? We're looking at the final approval which has to be signed by the Chair. G. Totman: That has to be Chair. But if you put Planning Board down there, they're leaving them here and it gets to the Planning Board . So what we're doing here, Jeff, is taking out the word "Clerk." We don't have a Clerk. J. Lewis: But we want to be able to leave it here . . . . G. VanSlyke: What you 're missing, Jeff, is that once this has been approved , the plat itself, the mylar or whatever, has to be certified by the Planning Board, G. Totman: They don't have, to look me up . They all bring them into Carol. The reason that's there is probably because it's taken from a State ordinance where a lot of the larger towns have a Clerk of the Planning Board. Okay, is everybody finished with up to 235? We can make it a matter of record then that we 've approved everything up to 240? For the record , we're going to go into major subdivisions now (Section 241 ) . . Before you go to this, it says that the provisions of 240 through 269 are to be followed . C. 1wiwe This requires a public hearing? G. Totman: Automatically, yes. G. VanSlyke: What does it mean -- "three required submissions? T. Smith: The sketch plat, the preliminary plat, and the final plat. G. VanSlyke: So he 's got to come back three times to the Board with this thing? If we 're going to make this user-friendly, shouldn't the guy know what that means? Of if he 's going to be a major developer, would he know that? T. Smith: I could put it in parentheses so they would know. C. Twigg: What's the purpose of three submissions? G. VanSlyke: What if they came to you one night with all of them? Then you could still set up the public hearing, right? G. Totman: You're talking about a major subdivision now, George . G. VanSlyke: Are you saying he's got to come to you first with a sketch? Then we approve the sketch . We send him back and he comes back with a preliminary. What does a preliminary look like? T. Smith: That's on the next couple of pages. G. Totman: Look at it this way. You want to subdivide your land, Cecil, and you go to the Planning Board with a sketch that says what you have in mind. We agree with your concept on the Sketch Plan Review. You don't want to have a surveyor prepare all these maps without us giving approval of the original idea, because you'd have wasted all that money if we said we didn't like it. So you come in with a sketch plan to get an idea of what the Planning Board will accept. Then you go have the surveyor put all the lots and roads in. Then you come in for your Preliminary Review. They might ask for the topo map then, and this and this. You might send him back for more information at the preliminary review; you don't approve it that night. You might come back four or five times, George . But if it's all on flat, level land, and you look at the preliminary -- which is stamped "preliminary" so it doesn't get confused with the final plat - and you accept that preliminary plat, that tells the world you have 13 Town of Groton Planning Board August 4, 1994 agreed to it up to that point, and you're going to approve that subdivision unless someone at the public hearing finds something wrong. There's no sense holding a public hearing until the Planning Board has agreed with the entire concept of what he's doing. You're telling the public that the Planning Board has reviewed it all, has accepted it, and is now going to have a public hearing to let everyone see what it's all about. And if there's no major changes after the public hearing, then you can approve it that night or wait 45 days. If there are any changes as a result of that public hearing, and the guy goes back and changes it, then you have to hold another public hearing before you can pass it. That's the law. Co Twigg: Now when we do these subdivisions, it says in here we may have a public hearing. Now that we've been doing is when we make the statement to approve the minor subdivisions, we say that we use the short form. Now ` according to this, we don't have to do that. Do we waive the public hearing? Why do we waive the public hearing? G. Totman: Somewhere also in here it tells you where it talks about the size of the trees, the contours, and all of that, you're going to the short form by the nature of what's being presented to you you don't need all that other junk so you go to the short form. There's a lot of specifics in there that I think we don't need. When you put a lot of garbage in something like this . . , like the size of the trees on the lot. Somewhere in here it says you've got to show where all the trees are on your map. J. Lewis: What's a topography? G. Totmam It shows you a map with all these lines on it that shows the slopes. If you look at it you can tell what the slope of the land is. G. VanSlyke : I 'd like to go back, George, and have her put in there the three submissions in parentheses -- the sketch , preliminary, and final. In that firs t section, right at the point where it says three submissions. I think it's important that we try to make it user-friendly. G. Totman: 241 . We're on 241 , right? We've agreed to the change in 240. Under 241 . 1 e, read that. This is what they want you to show. Where it says wooded areas -- I propose stopping at that point. Do you realize what we're asking somebody to do on a 30-acre parcel -- go out and put every single tree with a diameter of 8 inches ore more on their map . G. VanSlyke: Isn't the purpose of that to provide the Planning Board with a description of what the property looks like so they're not destroying a forest area? G. Totman: Show where wooded areas are, but not the individual trees. I 'm suggesting stopping right there at the end of wooded areas. Put a period right there. G. VanSlyke: But what would " and other significant existing features" be? Would it be like the water? Okay, how about just taking out from single trees to the word trunk and then continue on with and other significant existing features. . .? CO Twim Yes, you might leave that on . G. Totman: I wouldn't have anything against that, because that's not specific . Okay, now is there anything else on that page that anyone's got a problem with? Or haven't you read it yet? See a lot of that stuff means only if they're going to have sidewalks, public lighting, and that stuff. Okay - m - I never realized that was there before -- proposed lot lines with approximate dimensions. We want the exact dimensions; you don't do a survey with approximate dimensions. If you 're going to accept a preliminary plat of this subdivision, it's got to be done by a surveyor. G. VanSlyke : Then I 'll go along with you to eliminate the word approximate then. G. Totman: I see no reason for it. You're not going to pass a subdivision with approximate lines . We never picked it up before. G. VanSlyke : Are we going to 241 . 2 then and say ten? G. Totman: Yes. And also cross off "to the Clerk. " CO Twigg: Town Engineer? 14 Town of Groton Planning Board August 4, 1994 G. Totnmo Where do you see Town Engineer? C. Twigg: I see that in 241 . 1 o. Who's the Town Engineer? G. Totman: We don't have one. G. VanSlyke Let's go to 241 . 4. Who's the one who's going .to state when the date of this preliminary plat was filed? If we take out Clerk of the Planning Board . Does that become the Chair`? C. TVigg: We ought to take that Town Engineer out of there if we don't have one, George. G. Totman: Cecil, as long as we're going to put this clause on the end that the Planning Board still has the authority to make some decisions as to if we can omit something or not because of circumstances, then I 'm in favor of leaving in Town Engineer in case next year the Town hires a Town Engineer and they'll rewrite this ordinance to put it in there . As long -as we leave that clause in there , we can say we'll bypass that. But if you leave it in there and put the clause on the end that gives us the authority to omit something if we want to, it's automatic anyway because we don't have a Town Engineer, CO Twig*: But you've got that "substantial monuments of such size and type as approved by the Town Engineer. " If we don't have a Town Engineer, maybe you don't need the monuments. He's got to have some kind of markers, right? G. Totman: Let's just change that. Where it says "shall be located on the ground and marked by the surveyor." Where it says "marked by, " cross of everything from that point on, and add the words "the surveyor. " He's going to mark it when he does it anyway. Why put this other stuff in there? Okay -- moving along now. . . . down to the bottom, Tracey, 241 . 1 , just make it "has been filed with the Planning Board" like we did on the rest of them, and that the "Chair" shall note the date . . . . Okay, under 243, "the Planning Board shall study. . . C. Twigg: The Clerk of the Planning Board . . . on 244 - who's that go to? Just the Planning Board? What publication are we using? We have an official, but it says once in a newspaper of general circulation . The Shopper is more of a general circulation . I 've never seen an official newspaper -- that's not hardly general circulation . Yet we have to put it in there , right? G. Totman: I think the Town Board here in Groton did something different here . There's a State Law that says it has to be in the official designated paper. Normally, at the beginning of the year, every municipality has to name their official paper. I am not sure what the Town of Groton has designated, but it doesn't make any difference as long as. . . this is in 244 . How about in a Town-designated newspaper? The Town designates the newspaper. C. T�vigg: Well, then, that's what it should be here. G. Totman: We'll put down, here, the Town-designated paper. Then throughout the years, whatever they designate still falls within . . . . I 'll tell you what the State Law reads . If there's a paper published in your municipality, you have to use that. We don't have one published here , so they can designate a paper. At one time they used the Groton Journal Carrier, but I can 't remember. It's a supplement of the Cortland Democrat. But I think if we just put in the Town-designated newspaper. That covers it all . We do the same thing with the Planning Board too . The Town has agreed to let us spend the extra money to put it in The Shopper because everybody reads it. We put it in both papers. G. VanSlyke: One correction on 245 . 1 -- ground should be plural -- grounds. Right? And how about that last sentence in 245 . 1 . Up above they state sixty-two days after the public hearing. G. Totman: What that is, George , is a safety valve . The Planning Board just can't set on something. But if something comes up , and the developer or whoever is going to be on vacation for a month , or the Planning Board has a problem , they can both agree on an extension to another time . But it has to be a mutual agreement to have an extension beyond the sixty-two days. All right -- let's move along. It's eight minutes of ten and you've got a lot more to go. CO Twigg: We're going to finish it tonight? 15 Town of Groton Planning Board August 4, 1994 G. Totman: The way we've been going, with you disagreeing with everything, Cecil , in order to finish major, we'll be here until midnight. We've got four more pages to go. C. Twigg: Then let's quit. G. Totman: Let's quit at the end of page 10. G. VanSlyke: Let's quit at the end of 245. 6. That way we can start with Section 250 - the Final Plat. G. Totman: Okay, let's get to that point then. C. Twigg: You 've got to have a certified copy mailed to the owner, and a copy forwarded to the Town Board , G. Totman: This is a bunch of baloney. I 'd cross that whole thing right out. He's there when you're doing it, and he's going to leave and he knows what you did. G. VanSlyke: Hold on -- there might be a reason for that to be there . What if he's not there when we make our decision. Suppose a guy comes in -- we have 62 days to make the decision in. Does that mean he's going to be at every Planning Board meeting for the 62 days, or whenever we meet in those 62 days, to see if we're going to approve it or not? We might not approve it immediately after the public hearing, right? Does this mean the guy has to be present? You don't want the guy to be present at every Planning Board meeting. I think it needs to be left in there . J. Lewis: What if you wanted to ask him questions? G. Totman: I know you don't like to hear experience , but I 'll tell you what. I 've been doing this for seven years for and Ibe never seen it done, but it is in our ordinance. But it's never been done. G. VanSlyke: I think it needs to be in there . Suppose we have a public hearing and say we're not going to make a decision tonight. We want to discuss this as a Planning Board , because this is rather Important for the Town . So you may not want to say that tonight we'll go right to the vote, we may decide to do it at another meeting. Does a guy have to come to every meeting for the 62 days? G. Totman: Normally, it isn't the person that's doing this that's here -- it's usually people he's hired to do it. But if you paid a surveyor, and you've gotten to that point in your business, and you've got all the engineering done and have spent thousands of dollars already -- you're going to ask them when they're going to meet again, so if you have any questions you can be there to move this along. I have never yet seen a guy not show up at one of those meetings until it was passed . If you 've got any more questions, you can't get the answer because he's not there. G. VanSlyke: So you make the decision based on the information you have . That's the leeway that the Board calls for. J. Lewis: If you're going to do that, George, why can't you make the decision right tonight to pass it or not pass it? G. VanSlyke : Maybe everyone on the Planning Board doesn't agree that we ought to go right to a vote . Maybe I 'd like to be convinced of the information I 've seen that night. Why does a jury not come out ten seconds after they go into the jury room and make the decision and make the verdict? G. Totman: On that other thing, I think we made the decision that night. It's done all the time . Sometimes you don't if the evening gets late . G. VanSlyke: The public hearings I 've been involved with here don't amount to a hill of beans . They come in and a few people say their peace, you close off the public hearing and people leave, and we sit down and make the decision. C. Twigg: I don't see anything wrong with this being inhere , It says within five days. . . . 16 Town of Groton Planning Board August 4, 1994 G. Totman: Maybe you don't like to hear it, but I would say 99% of all the major subdivisions I've seen done, once you've got these public hearings, you've answered all these questions. What you're forgetting is you should not have held the public hearing if you didn't approve all these things ahead of time . G. VanSlyke : You're missing the point. You have the public hearing because you want to hear what the people who are interested in this project -- what their feelings on it are . The information you have up to that point has been exactly what they guy who's developing, or his representative, has been telling you . You 've only had one side of the story. You may not want to sit out there in front of all those people and discuss. . . G. Totman: They've got a right to stay and they've got a right to come back when you discuss this the next time . Everything has to be public . Every decision you make has to be public. G. VanSlyke: That's true . But the discussions we have before we go to that vote do not have to be made public. G. Totman: Yes they do. That's the law. G. VanSlyke: Let me ask you this, George. If everything has to be public , then why does the Town Board go into Executive Session and make decisions? G. Totman: They can't make a decision in there . G. VanSlyke: They come out and say what their decision is, but they made it in Executive Session, G. Totman: They can't do it. G. VanSlyke: School boards do it too . G. Totman: No , George , it's illegal. G. VanSlyke: What do you mean it's illegal. School boards go into Executive Session , they make a decision, and they come out and tell you what it was. G. Totman: They can't even do that unless it's a personnel thing, or a contract or like that . Something like this, you can't even go into Executive Session on. What I was going to say is -- you hold a public hearing and what you've heard from everybody, and the Chair can decide when to cut the public hearing off, now the public hearing is closed . Once you've closed that public hearing, and this Board sets up here and makes its decision, those people can't say anything anymore . They can listen. Ce TWI g: But you've never had a major subdivision here , but if we did, the Town Board should be notified within a reasonable length of time and they may not be there at the time you make the decision. G. Totman: What do you mean , the Town Board? They have nothing to do with it. CO TwiWe Well they should be notified of the progress of what we're doing. G. VanSlyke: What do you mean they have nothing to do with it. I don't know why it wouldn't be reasonable to leave this in and say the certified copy has to go to the owner, because his representative might have been there . I would certainly want some kind of notification that it was approved or disapproved . G. Totman: George , I 'll do anything you want. But I 'll tell you one thing right now -- I 'll be you a thousand to one that if you were the developer or the owner, you would be there. I have never seen that person not there . We 're not re-inventing the wheel here. They're doing major subdivisions all across the countryside . We agreed to leave it there, but we don't agree with it. You don't have to put it in there, that's what we're saying. We agreed that it's there . We don't follow it. G. VanSlyke: Why did we just go through this whole mess for? 17 Town of Groton Planning Board August 4, 1994 G. Totman: It really isn't done at all. Co Twigg: But if it's a State Law, it isn't going to hurt anything to leave it in there . G. Totman: When you work with something everyday, I think you see things differently. G. VanSlyke: We're trying to make this user-friendly here . And the Zoning Officer is not the only one who's going to use it. When I ask some of these questions, I'm not doing it to argue, I 'm trying to see if we can't clarify this thing to make it so somebody can understand what it is all about. J. Lewis: On 245. 6 -- we made mention back here in 245 , 1 , I think, that if it was deemed between both parties that it would be okay to extend that. This is saying nothing about that. Will this get us in trouble? G. Totman: Good point, Jeff. C. Twime But failure to act constitutes approval . G. Totman: You didn't understand what he said . If the Planning Board and the developer had agreed on another thirty days, then they didn't act within the 62 because they've already agreed to go another thirty days. C. Twigg: But wouldn't that constitute action if you extended it? T. Smith: If they fail to act within the time period described in Section 245 . 1 it shall constitute approval of the preliminary plat? C. Twigg: We're all done , right? The meeting ended at 10:08 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Joan E. Fitch Recording Secretary 18