Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-08-25 TOWN OF GROTON PLANNING BOARD Thursday, 2&4uiy 1994 as a� � t 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 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 Tracey Smith. This meeting was to complete work on Article 2: Land Subdivision Regulations, commencing with Section 250. Major Subdivision - Final Plat Application, and Article G. Totman: This is a work session tonight, and I'm going to turn it over to Tracey. T. Smith: We're going to start with Section 250 - Major Subdivision, page 11 . A lot of this is straight from State Law, so there's not really anything to change . At 250. 4. are all the requirements for the plat. You should see if you want to make any changes there. C. Twigg: What is this linen -- is it what we call mylar? Have we required that, George? G. Totman: Always . C. Twigg: I thought that was the mylar you always referred to . G. Totman: It is. I wasn't listening to your conversation. We always require mylar. Co Twigg: This says linen. G. Totman: That's what linen is really. C. Twigg: Now she says "no" (referring to recording secretary who also works as an engineering secretary and who had previously explained the difference between linen and mylar) . G. Totman: We require mylar. C. Twigg! Then we better change this. G. VanSlyke : Now you 're talking the final plat here , George. Do we ask for a mylar or linen. G. Totman: All right. Let me back up a minute . Everywhere you go, to every Planning Board you go to, they talk about the mylar and the final thing they file with the County Clerk. As far as the State is concerned, as far as the County Clerk is concerned, if it's not five or more lots, they don't care whether you file it with them or not. Most Planning Boards are now saying if it's a two-lot subdivision, a three-lot subdivision, you bring the surveyor's copy into us and we'll put a stamp on it. It's a see- thru stamp that you put on there that the Planning Board signs once it's approved . That's when it becomes effective, whether they file it or not, because it's not a State subdivision unless it's five or more . You leave that mylar in there just in case you go over five. It's in most all of them, but they don't require it. If you want to take it out, okay. But if you get over five you have to have it for the County Clerk. Town Planning Board Meeting 25 August 1994 Co Twigg: But that wasn't the question . G. VanSlyke : We're on 250. 4, George. That's not a mylar. It's a linen. Let's go back to 241 . 2 for just a minute . The preliminary plat can be a mylar because you need to have copies of that. G. Totman: These can be regular -- just like we've been getting. G. VanSlyke : But the mylar is the one you make the copies from. Now when we get to 250 .4, this is the final one -- the document of record that should be something that stands up over the years. Is that the reason this is linen? So maybe we want to re-word this . Is that the reason you asked us to look at this, Tracey? T. Smith: No -- I just thought you might to look at it in general to see the requirements -- I wanted to make sure that everything you wanted to see was going to be on the plat, because I think the one we took off before, like showing every tree . . . . G. Totman: When you were talking about the difference between the linen and the mylar, I don't think it's something we should get hung up on because the Planning Board very rarely ever sees whether it's mylar or linen, except for whoever has to sign it, they are always dealing with the copies. Once it's finally passed , normally the developer or his representative will bring that in the next day or so to have us put the stamp on it and sign it. I can't recall a time where I can see where the Planning Board itself has seen a mylar copy. This was done back in 1960. Co Twigg: Should we change this word "linen" to mylar. G. Totman: Yes, change it to mylar. T. Smith: Under 250. 1 and 2 and 3, they all mention Clerk of the Planning Board again. G. Totman: We crossed out "the Clerk." T. Smith: But the first one, getting the application, is that available from the Town Clerk? G. Totman: I would say from the Town business office . It's here in the office . It could be the Town Clerk, the Deputy Clerk. It doesn't necessarily have to be a particular person. I fact, anytime you see the Clerk mentioned, automatically cross it out and that will save some time here . G. VanSlyke: Let's go back to 250. 4. Are the dimensions a State regulation? T. Smith : No, it's whatever you want to require . Co Tw1we Where do these go? Do they go to the County to be filed, right? T. Smith: I imagine you keep one here , too, Co Twiggy Well the County must have a book they put them in right? They don't want one little one and a big one . They have a standard size . Because it says here they need two-inch border for binding, so I'm assuming they put it in a book. G. Totman: How would it be to ask for two of the sizes required by the County Clerk, and then ten of the size of 18 by 24? The County Clerk could change the size if they want. So you put in there two of the size required by the County Clerk. You and I are not going to draw these maps up , it's going to be a professional who knows what they will accept because that's his business. The reason I say the 18 by 24 also is because when we get the proposals for the applications for the development, if we can get the smaller size , it's much easier to mail them out to each individual Planning Board member. Let the applicant give us the size we require; we don't have the equipment to reduce the large ones. G. VanSlyke: Read the thing first. It says the final plat to be filed with the County Clerk. That's what 250.4 is saying. It's not what we're going to receive as the Planning Board . This is what goes to 2 Town Planning Board Meeting 25 August 1994 the County. The County must have its regulations about what the size should be . So why are we putting restrictions on how many we want them to provide? Why do they even have to provide us any? G. Totman: George, when they come in with the final, we want a copy of it to make sure it's comparable with what we 've been working with . G. VanSlyke: Why does every individual have to have a copy of a major subdivision? G. Totman: Each individual is going to vote on it. Do you want to know what you 're voting on? This has been in here all these years and we've never had a problem with it. If the whole Board only wants to have two copies of the size the County Clerk will accept, it's fine with me . I just think it's easier for all of us to get a copy of what we're going to vote on. If you want to vote on it, fine . They know what they're going to need. G. VanSlyke: That's not what it , says here . It says "The final plat to be filed with the County Clerk shall be printed upon mylar -- the final one, not the rest of them. T. Smith: Should I just get rid of that sentence? J. Lewis: No. That's telling" them that the final one has to be mylar. If we ask for any others, then they'll be whatever we ask for. G. VanSlyke: We're back to the same thing, George . You're assuming that all of these people in this big wide world know exactly what they have to do to do a major subdivision . We 're supposedly spending all of this time here trying to make this thing user-friendly. We don't, as a panel here of common everyday people, if we read something and don't see what exactly what the requirements are , then this thing isn't user-friendly. I think you're looking at it from your viewpoint; you work with this stuff every day. It's not an every day thing in our life . It's not our job to know all this stuff. So what we're trying to do is understand, in reading this thing, how can this be done to make it so when people look at this thing they'll know what to do . G. Totman: I fully agree with you . The only thing I 'm trying to tell you is that developers, when they come in, the surveyors, when they come in, this is their job. Very rarely do you ever see you , me, Cecil, or Jeff come in and file a major subdivision because we don't know how. From day one I said we needed to make this more user-friendly; but I also agree that we can 't try to re-invent the wheel. We aren't the first people to ever do a subdivision . And when you work with this day by day by day, you do have a little different feeling about it, just like when you teach school . I don't understand school teaching, either. I don't want to spend twenty hours on things that have already been written and proved in the past that they work. J. Lewis: I understand what he's saying. If you read that part, you know you're going to have one copy that's mylar. If you ask for ten other copies, it should be written someplace else. M. Carey: Put it in 250 . 3 . Put another sentence on there that we ask for ten copies for the Planning Board members, if this is such a problem for everybody. It tells you in 250. 3 what they have to have when they come to us for the final plat. G. VanSlyke: Take a look at 250. 3, Monica. This refers in 250. 3 to 250. 4 for what the requirements are. Right now, the only requirements are "the final plat to be filed with the County Clerk. . . " If we're going to require them to provide us with copies, it should be stated in here someplace in 250. 4. G. Totman: Wait a minute . Go back and read 250. 2 , and then go back and read 250 . 4 . After you read 250. 2 , 250.4 covers only what goes to the County Clerk, What 250. 2 covers is what comes to us. So if you want to make it simple in 250. 4, just say "whatever the County requires. " Make it what the County Clerk requires at that particular time, and then the copies to us. M. Carey: But if you want extra copies, put it in 250. 2 or 3. CO Twigg: "A subdivider intending to submit a final plat for the approval of the Planning Board shall provide the Planning Board with a copy of the application and three copies of the plat (one in ink 3 Town Planning Board Meeting 25 August 1994 on drafting film or an acceptable equal) , the original and one copy of all offers of cession, covenants, and agreements, and two prints of all construction drawings. " G. VanSlyke : So the Planning Board has nothing to say about 250. 4. C. Twigg: I think we should put it in there if we want ten copies. T. Smith: You want ten, then? G. Totman: Keep putting that in all the way through ; we did something like that last week, too. T. Smith: I 'm talking about a thru k. All the little things this requires . I think in the preliminary we changed a few of the requirements. C. Twigg: Is this something we can just change like in the preliminary, or should we go through them step by step? T. Smith: These are a little bit different, a shorter list. G. VanSlyke: Are these the basic requirements as far as State Law is concerned? T. Smith: Most of these are left up to the local boards. G. Totman: I would like to strike I. " (George reads 250.4 0 As I understand it, we don't have any control over deed covenants. According to the attorneys I've talked with and listened to, we can't tell people what they can put in their deed covenants . It's their own private business and I don't think it should be in there. C. Twigg: If that's the case, then it should be scratched. G. Totman: As long as they are not required by law, and they meet the standards we set, I don't think if they want to make it more strict it's there business, not ours. Does anybody have any questions about my suggestion to eliminate "f'? CO Twigg: No . They have trees here in 'k" -- street trees. That doesn't mean like what we struck out before about all the trees on the whole lot. G. Totman: This says street trees. It doesn't bother me, but it's up to the Board. I think it might be there for when you have an area with some really nice trees and maybe they've been there 40 or 50 years and they're good maple trees and the developer just comes in and indiscriminately takes them out putting in driveways. It changes the character and the nature of the land . This way here you get a chance to talk about it. You also are leaving in our rules and regulations - - the privilege of the Planning Board to eliminate or waive any of these restrictions as they go along . You're leaving some of this in here in case you have a large development you want to have some control over -- you can pick out the ones you want to worry about, or bypass them like we do sometimes when we bypass a public hearing. But when you get to a major subdivision, you'll have to hold a public hearing anyway; that's bylaw, Everybody up to 241 ? Tracey. . . T. Smith: Most of this is pretty standard. It's just the process that came out of the State Law. Let's skip to 254 which describes the process where the developer puts up a specific guarantee for doing the work. G. VanSlyke: So you're saying that all of these things, 241 to 253, are all pretty standard? G. Totman: Yes. T. Smith: Yes, 251 . . . .252 , G. VanSlyke: Can I take you to 252? It says that we have to have a hearing by the Planning Board ; that's a public hearing, right? (Tracey affirms. ) Then later it says that if the Planning Board deems 4 Town Planning Board Meeting 25 August 1994 the final plat is in substantial agreement with the requirements, then we can say that we don't have to have it. So we're leaving ourselves some leeway -- is that the point here? Are we going to leave ourselves the opportunity to say everything is in order and we feel a public hearing is not necessary. T. Smith: You still would have had to have one for the preliminary plat. G. Totman: George, where are you reading where it says you may not. G. VanSlyke : Actually on our sheets it is 241 and 242 . They are numbered wrong -- it should be 252 and 252 . It's Section 252 , Major Subdivision - Public Hearing and Review of Final Plat. This is the final one. So my question is it says within 60 days we have to hold a hearing, but then it says later on that if we thought the Planning Board has already done a preliminary plat approval , and we feel that everything is in conjunction with that, then we have the ability to waive. G. Totman: You hold your preliminary public hearing. It says shall, so that means you shall -- you don't have a choice. You've held your public hearing on your preliminary plat, and then you come back in the next months to do your final approval. If that preliminary drawing has not changed any from preliminary to final, then you can decide whether you want to have a final public hearing or not or leave it the way it is because what you've explained to the public has not changed. G. VanSlyke : Okay. Should the word "public" be back in that first sentence . T. Smith : Yes. I put that in. G. VanSlyke : I guess the key word is "shall, " right? G. Totman: Are you reading 254, 19 29 3, and 4 now? J. Lewis: Why do you have to put up a performance bond? Why does the Town need protection on a subdivision? G. Totman: They're still reading 253 - so they're not ready yet. What are you reading, Cecil? C. Twigg: I'm still on 253 . 3 . But this is all approved, right? M. Carey: If you don't have a Town Engineer, then what do you do? G. Totman: Planning Board , C. Twigg: This must be streets and sidewalks that you're bonding the subdivider for. G. Totman: So far, here in Groton, we haven't encountered new roads, sluiceways, sidewalks, or anything like that. But when you come in and put in these things, the only way you can make the developer responsible for them. For example, when you get into that involved work where there will be two or three roads, ditches, sluiceways, drainage fields coming off, and you put ten houses on a field that's never had them before, there's going to be a lot more water running off than there was before . So you tell the developer he's got to do all these things . Then he's going to build a road and he's going to want building permits before he gets it all done . You might tell him he ' s got to at least have a gravel road in before he can get a building permit. At some point, you say he can do this, but in order to make sure he's going to do all this, your Town Engineer, the Planning Board , or whatever. . . . like the road is going to cost $200, 000 to build . Once he gets started and starts tearing all this up, he's got to give us a bond for that to make sure he completes it. C. Twigg: So if he don't, the Town can. G. Totman: The Town can go ahead and do it themselves or hire it done and charge it to that bond. Now as he moves along, maybe getting some of it done in sections, he might get you to approve up to that point and reduce the cost of his bond down 75% or 50% and then he moves on to go farther. At that point, maybe for the first part, he can get building permits so he can sell some lots to get some money to do the rest of it. Does that answer your question? 5 Town Planning Board Meeting 25 August 1994 J. Lewis: Yes. I think you should have something stated in here as to how much. I think it should be like 10%, or 60%, or 100% of the price of the job for the bond. You should have something stated in there as to how much, rather than leave it wide open . If you okayed it for Joe Blow to come in here and do it for 10%, the Planning Board okays it, and I come in here and you zap me for 100%, the first thing I 'm going to do is sue you for discrimination. CO Twia, For a 100% of the total job? M. Carey: (Reading 254 . 1 ) . " . . . a performance bond to cover the full cost of the required improvements. " So it says full cost. It doesn't say 100%, it says full cost. G. VanSlyke : So what it's really saying here is we're going to designate to him what improvements he has to have on this property before he's issued a building permit for any one section, right? G. Totman: I think you're on the right track. You're the developer, Jeff. You think you're a quarter done , 30% done, and you want to be able to sell lots. You come to the Planning Board, or a designee of the Planning Board -- it might be a Town Engineer -- it depends -- and say "I know I've got all this to do yet, but I'd like to sell some lots up to this point. " The Planning Board, or the Town Engineer, would give you a punch list -- saying this is what needs to be done . These items have to be done . You know you're going to build the road to Town specs, but you have to do this, and this, and this, and this. It's going to cost you so much money. The Town Engineer usually figures that out, or someone you hire to do it. And that's what you bond for from that point on. There's a punch list. Either the Planning Board does it, the Town Engineer does it, or somebody. . . If it's a large project that was going to be done all at once, then probably we should hire someone like a Clerk of the Works and it would be charged back to them to keep track of them and make sure they're doing everything. We either hire a part-time Town Engineer or someone to do that for us. If that were to happen, I would strongly recommend it. None of us are qualified to do that sort of thing. But then he would make up a punch list for that developer. He would come to the Planning Board and they would make an agreement on it. G. VanSlyke : Then we wouldn't make the decision ourselves as to what the bond is? We would get it from some expert who would tell us. J. Lewis: My next question is -- who rides herd on this guy? Isn't making up the punch list something we do. G. Totman: In our particular case, we don't have a Town Engineer. I think we're second-guessing now. What would we do if we had a major project like this? I personally think we would ask the Town Board to let us hire a part-time Engineer to keep track of that for us. I don't think any of us has the expertise to follow this through . 'These are jobs where , for example , you could hire Gary Wood or any other engineer out there that would contract for those part-time jobs. T. Smith: On Section 255, it's related to 254 and they talk about changes made to the project. It says they can be allowed by the Town Engineer on approval of one person from the Planning Board . J. Lewis: No way. V. Rankin: It says here by a, delegated member. Isn't that right, Tracey? J. Lewis: All right. C. Twigg: . . previously delegated member of the Planning Board . That' s a little different. G. Totman: For example . If you have something big going on, you don't want to call a Planning Board meeting every time something like that happens. It's not an unusual thing when you have three or four working subdivisions going at one time , to designate a member of the Planning Board to be in charge of that particular project . He reports back to the Planning Board . But the little, small decisions they make are done by him so you don't have to call a meeting every time you turn around . Not just any member of the Planning Board -- it has to be the one who's designated to be in charge of 6 Town Planning Board Meeting 25 August 1994 that project. It shouldn't be the chairman . If there are any other decisions to be made, then you have to call a meeting. C. Twigg: Or if that Planning Board member decided "this is too big for me ." G. Totman: Cecil, after you've made a couple of mistakes, you don't make decisions alone very often . J. Lewis: What happens if you do make a mistake? V. Rankin: You get sued. G. Totman: Well, it depends on the nature of the mistake . Was it an economic mistake that cost somebody a lot of money? Or was it a personal opinion mistake that would bother somebody? Those they don't bother too bad. G. VanSlyke : I guess the question would be, then, if the Planning Board designated an individual from the Board to make these decisions, would that person be bonded? G. Totman: You're all bonded by the Town. I don't know why that needs to be there. C. Twigg: If you were the one they came to, and you were the guy the Board had designated to make those decisions. . . G. VanSlyke : The whole purpose, George , is we're trying to -- by designating one Planning Board member -- is trying to save us having meetings every time something comes up . G. VanSlyke: Also, George , it doesn't say it's automatically that way. It only happens if this Board designates somebody. C. Twigg: It doesn't automatically happen because we got to approve it before it happens. G. Totman: I don't see anything wrong with it. But it's a good point to bring up, though . J. Lewis: You're going to have a major subdivision here one of these days. V. Rankin: I've been waiting years for that, but I haven't seen it yet. J. Lewis: Well hang on another three . C. TwiW Are we going to need to expand our industrial zone? J. Lewis: You got it. Co Twigg: How far we going to go? Are we going to go down to Clark Street or LaFayette Corners? T. Smith: I think we can skip down to 258 . 2 . G. Totman: So 254, 2569 579 58, Everybody feel comfortable moving through those? T. Smith: On 258 . 2 it says that in filing the plat with the County Clerk, it says if not filed because of the Planning Board then it becomes null and void . I think it should be the responsibility of the applicant. G. Totman: That's right. You 're right. Stop right here . I 'm uncomfortable with that thirty days also . I 'm not sure what the State Law requires . But, Jeff, you want to subdivide land and you come in here and get 15 lots approved, and you're going to have a cul-de-sac and road running through it and it's going to cost you a lot of money. If you file it with the County, you 're going to automatically be taxed for lots. You get it approved and hold it for 90 days, or whatever, and I don't mean forever, to see if there's some real interest out there. You give it to the real estate people and say if I do this, can you sell 7 Town Planning Board Meeting 25 August 1994 these lots. I've got the approval. Give them 90 days or whatever to get a feel for it. If he doesn't get any takers at all, then he's saying there's no sense in my really doing this. Why should I file it and have to pay taxes on each individual lot around there that's going to set there for a few years? He's not going to know that he can do it until he gets approval from the Planning Board , It's just thought-provoking. Does it make sense? So when you say here "thirty days, " I think six months would be better. J. Lewis: I'd agree with that. CO Twigg, Subdivisions take quite awhile to get moving, G. Totman: Once they've got it the way they want it, then they run it by the various people. If they don't get any takers and it don't sell, or anything like that, and he's already got if file with the County Clerk because it says he has 30 days, now he's paying taxes on all those lots. J. Lewis: You can blow off 30 days just trying to get stuff done, G. Totman: If we're going to put any time in it at all, I'd like to have it at least six months, CO Tw1 g: Does there need to be a time there? G. Totman: How would it be this way here -- I think you should have some kind of a filing date . C. Twigg: He wouldn't really have to file it until he sold his first lot. G. VanSlyke : What's this got to do with what he does with it? All they're saying here is that once we approve this major subdivision, and it's not saying how much time he has to start construction , he should be filing this with the Clerk. J. Lewis: We're not saying that. G. Totman: George, what I was saying was -- when he files it with the County Clerk, that triggers the assessment department to assess each and every one of those lots as building lots. So if he gets it approved here tonight and goes and files it tomorrow, then he's automatically getting assessed for building lots instead of that big open field out there . And if that sits out there and he doesn't get any takers on it, and he doesn't get any encouragement to start on it, he's going to be paying the taxes based on building lots rather than a ten-acre field. J. Lewis: He may want to wait three years. . . . G. Totman: So he might get it approved and suppose he waits three years , We've given him six months or a year and his time's up so he comes back and says I haven't done anything, and there's nothing changed , can I get it re-approved? You could give him another six months or whatever we deem, How about if we have Tracey check on what the State Law says on this and take the very bare minimum of what the State Law says, G. VanSlyke : That might be our best bet, G. Totman: Okay. J. Lewis: Then if the State Law says ten years, , , , G. Totman: Well -- what could that do to us, really? It's his land. C. Twim I didn't realize they did it that way, I could see where that could slow a guy down to where he might not have the 15-lot subdivision. He may only do five and then come back for another five, and then come back for another five, But it would be nice if we knew what his total plan was. He might not want to tell us if it's going to cost him all these bucks. G. Totman: Well, they can tell us, Cecil. We can know what his total plan is , He might come in and say he's got 50 acres and this is what I 'm planning on doing, and I 'm going to do it in five stages. The 8 Town Planning Board Meeting 25 August 1994 one stage he'd like to have approved now and you know what his total plan is, but he only wants it approved for 15 lots. When he gets all done with the roads and everything, then he'll come back for stage two; but in the meantime, most of it stays undeveloped as far as the tax map is concerned. Do you follow me? CO Twim Yes, G. Totman: Let's move right along, T. Smith: Section 259 says that if there's streets or parks on the plat that they're not Town property . The clustering is pretty much out of State Law. I didn't know if you wanted to do anything more with that -- specify the amount of open space that would go with it or anything like that, V. Rankin: We have to go by State Law anyway, don't we? G. Totman: Do you all understand the difference between a subdivision and clustering? Correct me if I 'm wrong, Tracey. We require an acre of land in a subdivision and 250 or 150 feet of road frontage -- regardless of what it is - - if you want to cluster and a lot of your land is on a side hill -- three acres of it are pond, wetlands, or whatever, you do a cluster and as long as you've got public sewer and water and meet the Health Department rules and regulations, you might have the properties all clustered in one area of that land on half-acre lots instead of full lots. But still the total number of people on that ten acres stays the same. You can cluster them off to a corner or something and create park land or whatever and utilize the land you couldn't have used otherwise , If you 've got ten acres of land and half of it is on a side hill, you only really can put building lots on five acres, But by clustering it, you can put more of them on the five acres and utilize the other part for the density, Does that make sense? J. Lewis: So clustering would be just like a trailer park, only houses. G. Totman: Something like that. Do you have a better explanation, Tracey? T. Smith: No . G. Totman: Let's move right along. Tracey. , T. Smith : Let's move to Section 272 . I don't know how much of this you want to keep in or if you want changes or anything like that. G. VanSlyke: Again, is this basically State Law? T. Smith: No, these are guidelines you set up for the developers, G. VanSlyke: Well, is this common? Are these common dimensions for most towns? T. Smith: Most of the time this part isn't even included , M. Carey: We don't know enough about it to know if they're doing it properly or not. We'd have to have the Engineer tell us, J. Lewis: When in doubt, leave it alone . If it's not broke, don't fix it, CO Twiggy: But I think if anyone is going to put in. . . I mean we have control over where the streets go anyhow. G. Totman: What gives you that control? C. Twigg: They have to be so wide, and if they're coming out in the wrong part of an intersection . They aren't going to let them bring a highway out at the crest of a hill, right? G. VanSlyke : You mean a street. 9 Town Planning Board Meeting 25 August 1994 C. Twigg: A street, If they were going to build a street that was coming out right at the crest of a hill, the Highway Department wouldn't allow that. G. Totman: What I'm saying is they are looking at this to decide what they are or aren't going to be allowed to do. You say we're not going to allow them. Where in here does it say we're not going to allow them to do that? CO Twigg: We have to approve of all they do, G. Totman: This is sort of a guideline . The only thing I might add in here , and I hate to say "to the Highway Superintendent, " but somewhere in here it should say up front that he should check with the Highway Superintendent to meet the current Town road specifications, C. Twigg: Throw this out and put that in. G. Totman: There's nothing here that hurts anything, Cecil . Read a little farther though . I 'm on 272. 2 . C. Twigg: (Reads 272 .2) . G. Totman: This brings it to the Planning Board's attention that they should be watching for these things. And it says for 20 lots or more you should have at least two street intersections, so you're not putting everything all on one lot. Those are things that's telling us to look at them. C. Twigg: Well this looks good, but when you come to block size, it says "blocks generally shall not be less than 400 feet. . " This 272 . 2 is kind of nice to be in there, because it really isn't saying anything -- it's just telling them what they should be looking for, But it doesn't have measurements and restrictions , G. Totman: Cecil , read it more carefully. That 272 . 3 . What it does in there. . . and it says generally 400 feet. . . it doesn't say anything specific , but when you go a little farther --- like blocks exceeding 800 feet -- the Planning Board may require a 20-foot easement through the block to provide for crossing of underground facilities, pedestrian traffic, or whatever, It's saying that when you look at it and it's more than 20 building lots, in planning for the future you may require them to do these sort of things. It doesn't mean you have to. But it leaves it in there so you can do it if you want to do it. V. Rankin: Sounds good. G. Totman: If anybody wants to vote yes or noon some of these, let me know. Otherwise , we'll just go on if we don't hear any objections. Where are you, Tracey? Are you reading 272 . 5? What is your explanation of this? T. Smith: If there's a subdivision with really large lots, if they want to go back and subdivide again, they can do that. Co Twigg: Now that's what I was saying before . If a guy come in with a subdivision and he wanted to put the streets all the way around so he's got five lots and this is another lot that's all part of the subdivision. . . T. Smith : One big lot? C. Twigg: Yes, And he come back later and. , . , G. Totman: Cecil, we require one-acre lots minimum , But this guy comes in -- like John Hicks, where every one of his lots are over two acres. What Tracey's saying, and you correct me if I 'm wrong, is he comes in and we approve two-acre lots. We're saying, to protect the future of the Town, we'll approve your subdivision with two-acre lots, but you show us where you're going to put the houses so that in the future if someone else comes along, those lots can be divided in two. You can't put the house right in the middle of that thing. That kills somebody else from subdividing those lots later on , 10 r Town Planning Board Meeting 25 August 1994 M. Carey: We can't require them to do that. G. Totman: Yes you can. V. Rankin: If he's got two acres and wants to put the house in the middle of it, what difference does it make . Maybe he doesn't ever want to divide it. (G. VanSlyke: But it kills a guy from ever developing it later. Is that what you're saying? It's his land and he should be able to put his house where he wants to. V. Rankin: That's the way I feel about it. G. VanSlyke : Let's check this out. Let's look at Old Stage Road , some of those guys bought pretty big from Gleason . They have pretty good-sized lots. They have all kinds of territory way out front, but he wants to put his house in the back. Now they've got that whole thing up front. If he has a two-acre section and his house is back in the back, how are you going to tell him where he's going to put his house when he buys that two acres. That's what I'm asking. G. Totman: Let me put it this way -- it's not unusual. G. VanSlyke : You're looking down the road saying maybe sometime the Master Plan of the Town is going to change? G. Totman: Time out. Remember what we said earlier -- we are reserving the right to waive these certain requirements in our ordinance . Like we reserve the right to waive a public hearing, or we reserve the right to tell them what size trees they can put in there . We made that decision right up front. Remember that? My feeling is to do that with something like this . Some dividers don't have to be told this . They automatically do it on their own. There are some subdividers that, from their experience of selling lots and doing other subdivisions -- you come in and buy a lot in my subdivision . You want to know where the guy who buys the next lot is going to put his house. You want to know if it's going to affect your view. You don't want to buy it if the other neighbor can build a house higher than yours or plant trees higher than yours or block your view. You want to know where those other people are allowed to put their house . . That's what sells those lots, because everyone knows ahead of time what the rules and regulations are . If you have open space, and nobody knows it, you don't get the kind of development you want. Some developers might not care . Some people might not care . But in the areas where they've made those particular rules and showed the lots right on the subdivision, those people who come in and buy the lots they'll even go right down there and measure them to make sure they are being put in the right place because it's in their deeds that this is the way it's going to be and that's why they bought their lot: They fight over it and go to court over it. That's what makes the lots worth more money. V. Rankin: But if the guy has two acres and wants to put it way in the back, he's not blocking anyone's view. G. Totman: Not normally around here . G. VanSlyke : Again, you 're talking about someone who is in the business of buying property , subdividing it and setting it up . We've got people in the Town of Groton who are farmers and have no clue whatsoever what they're doing. . . . G. Totman: We're into major subdivisions now, George . Those fanners are minor subdivisions. G. VanSlyke : Well, some of them get to almost major. G. Totman: This is preparing us for what Jeff is talking about -- one of these days we're going to get hit with something and we ought to have the tools to work with . It doesn't mean you've got to do it -- we can waive that. Let's come to a consensus so we can move on. Anybody got any problem with 272 . 6? That means we 've accepted everything up to that point. When you're looking at these streets here , you 've got to make sure that don't give you some things in here that might not be in the current 11 Town Planning Board Meeting 25 August 1994 highway regulations -- where it says "at least 500 feet. " Five or ten years from now the highway specs could change and then you'd have to go through and change all these little things , C. Twiw, You have to go to Corny whenever you put streets in anyways -- so he can plow. . . . G. Totman: Sometimes on an intersection you can't have any plant or growth within so many feet of the road right-of-way. Right now they're 50 feet wide and you can't be within 10 feet of that road right-of -way, That would mean within 25 feet from the center of the road . Next year they change the road ROW in the Town from 50 to 60 feet and forgot all about this was in here , Five years from now, someone comes along and puts up a beautiful home on the corner and puts their plantings out there and nobody realizes that by changing that road from 50 to 60 feet ROW it means another ten feet they'd have to go back on their yard . What they should do is come back and change this to conform to the road specs. They don't think to do that. Current highway specifications -- because that could happen sometimes, V. Rankin: Why don't we just make it "current highway specs"? What do you think, George? G. Totman: I think that with street jogs, and most of those cases, we should put to "comply with current highway specifications. " Does anyone disagree with that? G. VanSlyke : No. But all these different titles should be in here . G. Totman: Or what you might do , Tracey, is leave this here and then add " or current highway specs, whichever is more strict," Moving right along to 273, J. Lewis: Street Design -- "All required improvements shall be constructed or installed to conform to the Town Specifications which are found below. " G. Totman: The Town Highway Superintendent and the Town Board make the road specs, I guess starting with . 1 , I would say "obtained from the Town Highway Superintendent or the Town Engineer, " Right now we don't have an Engineer. On 273. 4, Tracey, I think instead of using the numbers in there , go with "current highway specifications, " These figures change . . T. Smith: I have a diagram with the numbers on it for there, Do you want to take it out? G. Totman: I'd say take it out and leave it to "the current highway specifications, " T. Smith: Okay, G. Totman: Grades, gravel base, and all that stuff. That whole thing , , , , C. Twigg: 273 . 7 -- "Adequate ditches shall be provided by the builder. The minimum ditch grade shall be 0. 5 percent, The Town will run the ditches . " Does that mean the Town will put the ditches in? Or will take care of them after they're put in, G. Totman: There's a case there where once the road is accepted , the ditches in the road right-of- way -- you don't have to say the Town will maintain them, because they automatically do it, C. Twigg: But what does that mean? The Town will run the ditches. G. Totman: It's a good point to bring up, Cecil. Think about stopping, period, right at "builder. " We don't need to say the Town's going to take care of them. Let's cross that last sentence out, On to 273 , 10 -- same thing in there . Take out the figures and just refer to the "current highway specifications, " T. Smith : On the other ones - - take out the figures or leave them in and say "or highway specs, whichever. . " G. Totman: Either way. Whichever is more strict, That way we're not opening ourselves up , 12 Town Planning Board Meeting 25 August 1994 M. Carey: What is the lighting system? "Shall be in conformance with the lighting system of the Town . " G. Totman: Some towns have street lights. What it means that if they're going to put in a development and put lights in they have to get approval before they put them in. Now . 14 has a point there . It says "When not indicated on the . . . . the classification of streets shall be determined by the Board) . " They're here, but I have a question if these should be there . Leave that in there or not? I think ROW width should still be what the highway specs call for. What if they change these next year? We have just told Tracey that wherever it talks about materials , etc , to use "current highway specifications" or whichever is greater or whatever. Wherever it mentions that, she's going to put down current highway regs. The Planning Board approves the concept of where the roads are going to go, but I don't know of any Planning Board that would accept. . . . like when we approve a subdivision, and before he can get any roads approved , he has to go to the Town Engineer and / or Highway Superintendent and get the roads approved by the Town Board . V. Rankin : Then the Town Highway Superintendent tells him what he's supposed to put into it. C. Twigg: What are we putting it in here for? J. Lewis: (Referring to 273 . 15) What is a "road metal"? Is it a culvert? M. Carey: Must be something they did back in the olden days. V. Rankin: That's all Highway Superintendent . G. Totman: Cross off 273 , 15 , We 're automatically saying all the way through "Town Highway specs. " Bear in mind what we just said a few minutes ago . Anywhere it says anything about specs or figures, etc . , Tracey's going to go through and put down "current highway specifications. " Let's just get out of those things. We're now up to 274. M. Carey: We can name the street names? T. Smith: Doesn't the County have to approve the street names? V. Rankin : I think the Town names the streets, don't they? M. Carey: It says there that they have to be approved by the Planning Board . Don't you want a Jeff Lewis Street? G. Totman: Before you get carried away, read 274. 2 . See if you read it the way I read it. It doesn't say that the Planning Board is going to name the streets. It says the Planning Board approves of the names. If I have a subdivision with four streets and want to name them after my four kids, the Planning Board then checks with the County to make sure there are no other roads in the County by that name. It says that right in here . And it's really more important now than when this was written up because of the new 911 system. The developer names the streets, but the Planning Board has to approve the names. Before they approve it, they check with the County to see if there's any other ones. If there isn't, and they're not pornographic or something like that, who cares what he names them. We don't name street names. Everybody agree with what this says about streets? (All affirm.) Lots. T. Smith: I have a question on 275. 4 . Town Driveway Law? J. Lewis: It depends on where it is. The Town has one set of specs, the County has one, and so does the State . G. Totman: And Jeff is exactly right. You can't even buy a piece of land and put a curb cut on a State highway unless you get permission from the State DOT. A driveway is called a curb cut. It also goes on that the driveway grades between the street and setback line shall not exceed 10 percent -- I guess this is still sort of normal, but we'll go again with the "current highway specs. " 13 Town Planning Board Meeting 25 August 1994 CO Twigg: Then it will make a difference whether you're on a Town highway, village highway, or the State . . . . G. Totman: Or the current highway specs. That way it protects us, I think. I have no problem up to 276. 2 . 1 don't have a problem with any of 276, I don't have any problem with the rest of it and I 'm up to 277. 6, C. Twigg: You haven't read that, George . G. Totman: I read them before I got here . Why do you think she gave you these ahead of time? A lot of this stuff in 277 you can do -- park spaces -- things that don't bother us now. It doesn't hurt to leave them there. Before we go any farther, if the rest of you agree, suppose you have 50 acres of land and you want to subdivide 20 acres up front. The rest of the parcel of land might border on a road or two in the back, but up front you put in a road with maybe ten lots on each side . Try to envision that in your mind . What I'd like to see put in the subdivision is that when you do that, you leave the road that you put in either straight ahead , or you make a long road that's a thousand feet long, maybe somewhere in between you put designated 60-foot strips out to the edge of the next property so there could be a collector road put in . You're planning for the future of that land in case it's ever developed . So if you take a long strip of land and put this in there, you're not preventing back lots from being developed, but making it so if they are developed , you have more than one access to a public highway. If something happens up front, you can get an ambulance or fire vehicles to them because you have other access to them. So you leave that designated space there for future expansion of the land. C. Twigg: We had that back in here . It's already in here. G. Totman: Is it in there? I know I want it there, but I don't know what section it's in . But I think this is important. CO Twigg: (Reading a portion of 272 . 3) . " . . . the Planning Board may require . . . " on page 17 , There's another section where it says we should save room specifically for streets someplace . M. Carey: It's just above, under Arrangement (272 . 2) . It's right there . G. Totman: Maybe I missed it. I just want to make sure it's in there . Now does everybody agree with this whole section? (All agree. ) The last section is what we've really been talking about -- waivers (Section 280) . (Everyone reads. ) Okay? Tracey. . . . T. Smith: There 's a thing now that's new in the State Law, about a year ago, about ag districts. It's if a site plan or subdivision occurs in an ag district they have to do an Ag Data Statement. We didn't include that in here anywhere .' It's basically the names and addresses of the adjacent farms -- how many acres, what they're producing. It's basically so that they know what's going to go in and that sort of thing. J. Lewis: If those people move in there and put a housing development in and then all of a sudden the farmer spreads manure out there on the field , which he 's been doing for 35 years, and all of a sudden these people start having a fit. . . . T. Smith: This is different. G. VanSlyke : In other words, they want to know if that thing that's being put in there is conducive to the kind of activity around it? G. Totman: What happened is people were moving into areas and buying some land off a farmer and then immediately started complaining and trying to stop him from spreading manure on Sunday morning, or whatever, and there were lawsuits all over the nation on that sort of thing. Different states, one by one , started doing things to protect them. The .farmer is the one who sold the land in the first place, then the people turn around and sue him because he's spreading manure . I think it was in '81 or '82 they passed a law saying that if whoever bought land in a farming/ agricultural district had to be told up front, and it was supposed to be in writing, that they knew they were buying in a farm/ ag district and those things could happen. That passed . And now you have all of these do-gooder groups 14 Town Planning Board Meeting 25 August 1994 coming in here and they say they're trying to protect the farmers, but what they are is a lot of these land trust operations -- people who want to save all this land for future use -- in a lot of towns they call them CAC committees. These people are nothing more than very extremists/ environmentalists. So they got the State to pass a law (my version of it anyway) to supposedly protect farm land . But what they're doing is trying to restrict the farmer so much he can't even sell a couple of acres of land to buy a new piece of machinery because he's got to jump through all these hoops. Most of the farmers I 've talked to are against this 100% because it's detrimental to their activities. But if you listen to the Governor or assemblymen that passed it, they say they're trying to protect the farm land . What they are trying to do is put the farmers out of business and let the land go dormant. It's my feeling that Tracey's right, it is the law, and I don't think we have to put it in our subdivision regulations, but I think we have to follow the people follow all the pertinent State laws that are in effect at that particular time . If we make a statement like that in our subdivisions, it covers those things. T. Smith: So put something general in here like that? G. VanSlyke: Are you going to put that in under a major. Are you saying this is for a major subdivision. This is an addendum to the major subdivision? T. Smith : You could do it at the very beginning. G. Totman: Tracey's got the right idea - - at the very beginning - - all subdivisions will follow all current local and State laws. , up front. So whatever they are , if they are something new that's come along, we can say to these people that this is the State law and we've covered it up front -- they've got to follow the current laws. By the time we get these printed, what we 're saying now could be changed . Make a statement up front. . . . G. VanSlyke : Doesn't 281 do that? G. Totman: Up front we're making a point to say to them that five years from now some State law has been passed and we've got to make sure they follow those . If you don't say you have to follow current State laws, then you might have to make up an insert to put in here . But if you put it in up front, we won't have to do this every time the State Law changes. All right -- next meeting. What do we want to be prepared for? T. Smith: Not all of 300 -- just the parts we missed the first time through . Then you wanted to look at the Land Use Activities again - - regarding Site Plan Reviews, G. Totman: Next week -- so we don't have to spend a lot of time reading this -- Section 300 -- we've done the majority of it. We're actually going over it again . I want you to think about this one very seriously because this is where districts or activities are permitted . We've got to go through and re- evaluate that and be thinking about when you're doing it what areas we are going to make low density, high density, rural agricultural, etc . because it makes a difference what you're going to allow in certain areas. We've got the map. G. VanSlyke : My question is -- when we went through and did this, supposedly we were going by the way the thing was. M. Carey: Yes -- off the top of our heads. G. VanSlyke : That's why we got in trouble , right? But wasn't there some discussion earlier about again looking at the map . . . . G. Totman: That's what I want to talk about. That's really what I'm saying George . You can go through and do all you want to, but then you go through and put where the zones are and then say "wait a minute , that's right in dead center of McLean or West Groton -- we won't allow this there . " We have to be prepared to do this again, do the map, and then go back and see if they still comply with each other. G. VanSlyke: So what are we going to do first? Are we going to do the map first? Or are we going to go through this thing? 15 Town Planning Board Meeting 25 August 1994 G. Totman: How about looking at the map the way it is now and , if there are any major changes we want, make those right there . Then go back through and do this. And by that time we might want to change the map accordingly_ . So we're planning for the future of the Town . Look this over so we don't have to sit here and read it that night. It's 9 : 50. Jeff moved and Monica seconded that we adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 9*050 p.m. Respectfully submitted, oan E. Fitch Recording Secretary A.. 16