HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-09-01 i
TOWN OF GROTON PLANNING BOARD
Thursday, 1 September 1994
Board Members (*present) Others Present
*George Totman, Chairman Tracey Smith , Tompkins County
*Monica Carey Planning Dept. Circuit Rider
Sheldon Clark Lyle Raymond , Chairman, Town
*Jeffrey Lewis of Groton ZBA
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 a review of Article 3: Land Use Regulations.
G. Totman: We've got a lot of work to do, and we seem to move faster if we turn the meeting over to
Tracey. We've got to finish this up because we've got to go back and do that one section where we're
going to put everything in, and we still have to do the map. Then we've got to go back through , and I 've
saved this to last, that's why I wanted Lyle here -- to look at the things in the ordinance that have been
giving us problems over the years. Obviously, the Zoning Board of Appeals notices that more than we
do because they get all those problems. Lyle's made a list of those things and we have ourselves, over
the years, talked about them but haven't always written them down . One night is going to be devoted to
just that type of stuff. If we aren't careful, we're going to be here until the middle of winter if we stall
too long. So. Tracey, what did you do between meetings?
T. Smith: I handed out Section 200 which is all the corrections we finished up with last week; I
also passed out Section 100 which we will probably get to in a couple of meetings or so. That's the first
section with all the definitions in it, and I've added some as we went along. When someone thought a
definition was necessary, I put one in. You can change it or leave it or whatever.
L. Raymond: This is the corrected version nova?
T. Smith: Right. What we should start on tonight is Section 300, We got into it a little bit. The
first part we have to look at is 307 , and 307 .2 is something I added in -- a little paragraph on flag lots.
G. Totman: What did you use for the description of flag lots?
T. Smith: I'm not sure . I must have gotten it from one of the towns in the County. But there's a
diagram in Article 1 on page 5 that shows a flag lot.
I
G. Totman: It should be somewhere lso they can get an idea of what a flag lot is. What she's saying
is she added Section 307. 2, but if you look at the 100 she's passed out, on page 5.
M. Carey: On page 4 of Section 109, I'm reading the definition of flag lot.
G. Totman: Okay -- she's on 307 now. Everybody agree with what she's put in there for flag lots?
C. 1kvigg: That sounds pretty good.
G. Totman: Move on Tracey.
L. Raymond: Did you guys go over up to 307 last time?
G. Totman: Yes. Why, do you have a question?
Town of Groton Planning Board Meeting 1 September 1994
L. Raymond: On 307, 19 lot dimensions. We had problems with this. This came up with Mr. Walpole
and Mr. Pachai. What do you do when it says in the regular regulations that you 're not supposed to
create a lot that doesn't meet the required dimensions and, in effect, is illegal? The question we ran
Into is how do you enforce that and at what point does the hammer fall on the person who does this.
Because, obviously, you can go ahead and create a lot as long as you aren't going to have any permitted
use on it. Then who is it that enforces this thing? As George Senter said when we asked him, he said he
didn't monitor all the lots that are created around the town in terms of enforcing anything. We finally
came to the conclusion, based on kind of ,a default type thing, that the hammer falls whenever they
ask to do some activity on that lot that requires a permit, which then brings in the frontage
requirements, etc. But the fact is, the thing says you're not supposed to create it in the first place . But
there's no way to enforce it. My question is why the hell have it in that way then if we aren't going to
enforce it? It's a problem. We split hairs in the Zoning Board of Appeals on this thing by saying that if
evidence was provided to us that someone who came before us for a permitted use, and it was clear on
the record that the same person who was asking for the permit had just recently created a lot without
adequate frontage , therefore that would be , in our opinion, the point at which you would deny the
action or permit based on that alone. But what about a lot that was created ten years ago, well after the
Code was enacted, but has gone through a couple of owners' hands since then? Now the person who
comes to us and asks for a variance to build something that George Senter has denied a permit on
because it's an illegal lot, we find out from the record that the lot was created ten years ago and was
Illegal for any permitted use. Well, we kind of split hairs in our interpretation -- the best we could do --
and say we would base each case judged on their merits as each case comes along, because the person
who asks for the variance is not the person who created the lot in the first place ; although supposedly
the person who purchased the lot should have known, if they wanted to use it for a permitted use, that
the dang lot was created and should know what the Code requirements are . But we know that's not, in
reality, in most cases, a lot of times they don't. So in going back to this thing on lot dimensions here,
and wondering if there's some way we can fix that, or are we satisfied with the situation the way it is
and just the way we're enforcing it now? Do you follow me, George?
G. VanSlyke : Can you give an example of that?
L Raymond: Yes. Mr. Walpole ,
G. VanSlyke : In other words, this thing was created ten years ago?
L. Raymond: No, no. He created this thing -- he applied for a permit within a few months after he
created it and he had gone to a previous hearing and he was on record as knowing very well what the
situation was and he went ahead anyway. He divided the lot. He created the lot. But our problem was
that when you get into a situation like in the case of Mr. Pachai where it came up afterwards. There
was a lot that he had purchased which had been made in an illegal way, because it didn't have enough
frontage, and it was after -the Code was passed . The lot should not have been allowed to be created
without having adequate frontage in other words. That's what the Code says. But nobody enforces it
until somebody asks for a permit. And if there's ten or twelve years before you ask for a permit, that's
only when the law comes down on you . My point is, should we have it in there if we're not going to
enforce it? Or do we want a different enforcement mechanism for this? How important is this,
anyway?
M. Carey: When you create a second lot, doesn't that have a tax map change?
G. Totman: Yes, but it's after the fact. Let me see if this makes any sense. In the Town of Groton,
you can sell one lot without coming to our Board. In the Town of Lansing, you have to go to the Board
for every lot, and that can't happen there. But in the Town of Groton, we had it this way once but
changed it to give people a chance to sell a lot. So it does give you the opportunity to sell your kid a lot
with a 100-foot frontage. George can't give him a building permit for it, but you can sell it if you want
to. But in most cases, I 've noticed in the last seven years, the lawyers the people have to take care of
transactions never carry out a transaction unless they call the local building department to see if
that's a legal lot or not. I think they're solving that problem for us. You can't depend on it 100%, but
it's getting more and more that way. You could go to making every lot a subdivision, but I don't think
that would be a proper thing to do in our Town; I don't think you 'd ever get it by. If you can do a
subdivision, or sell a lot without coming to the Planning Board, those things are going to happen. You
2
Town of Groton Planning Board Meeting 1 September 1994
asked the question about the assessment department and the tax map . They don't care. They are not
our policing agency. They record it, and about every three months they send a list of those
transactions back to each town. That's when they would pick it out here, but three or four months
have gone by before we find out.
M. Carey, But if our Town picked that out, couldn't they go back and notify the owner that he had
purchased an under-sized lot and if he expects to have any activity on it, he's going to have to purchase
additional land?
G. Totman: It could save problems, yes. That's right.
L. Raymond: There are certain activities you can carry out without a permit. You can recreate on it,
cut wood on it, log on it -- there's things you can do.
M. Carey: But if they are given a notice . . .. .
G. Totman: But in the same token - and we just got through talking about flag lots --
M. Carey, Right. But we're not talking about a flag lot. We're talking about we need the
minimum amount of road frontage .
L. Raymond: See, you've got in here "may be altered only if the resulting lot meets the minimum
area frontage yard requirements. . . " and so on here you see . Only if it meets the minimum area. It
says, in other words then, that it's an illegal lot. It's a problem we've run into.
G. Totman: Have you thought of a solution?
11
L. Raymond: The solution that we came up with in the ZBA which was not necessarily a great one,
was that if the person who created the lot was the same one who came to us afterwards and asked for a
permit -- no. But if it's a person who comes to us who had one of those lots created ten or fifteen years
ago, but still within the Code, and shouldn't have been created, and now they're coming to us asking for
a variance, how do we treat that? How does that differ from Mr. Walpole? Well, we said first of all the
main difference was this wasn't the person who created the lot. On the other hand, supposedly the
person who bought the lot should have known .
G. Totman: I think there's going to be a case where you're going to have to just do it that way. How
many have you had like that in the last five years? You've had two that I know of. I know there was
one sold a few years back that doesn't have any road frontage, and the guy built a building on it and got
away with it, in this Town. He doesn't live too far from you either. How would this be . Make an
asterisk or something, Tracey, so we don't forget it, and we'll move along with the rest of our stuff.
Maybe we can think of something between now and then -- or look at some other ordinances to see
what we can come up with .
L. Raymond: The problem we have is this comes before the ZBA. And we find out that some guy
created it ten years ago and it says in here it's an illegal lot. Do we deny a variance based on that?
That's our problem.
G. VanSlyke: So this usually occurs when a parent decides he's going to give his kid some land?
G. Totman: I don't think that's been, the case yet, but it could happen that way.
11
G. VanSlyke: Why would you give your kid a section of land that doesn't meet the minimum
frontage requirements or minimum area requirements?
M. Carey, Some people don't even realize we've got zoning.
G. Totman: I really think what Lyle's talking about is 10- 15-20 years ago; people didn't care what
we did down here. It's my land and I'm going to do with it what I want to. If I want to divide it, I'm going
to do it. These people are getting fewer and fewer in this world today. They know if they don't follow
the rules they're not going to get a building permit. And they know that, unfortunately, they had to
3
• Town of Groton Planning Board Meeting 1 September 1994
learn to live with the rules. If you look at the tax map right now, page by page, you could pick out on
almost any page a lot here or there that was created a long time ago.
L. Raymond: But after the Code was passed. Which means any of them created before the Code was
passed are non-conforming . They're grandfathered . I 'm talking about the ones that are not
grandfathered. You go back quite a ways on this Code, '72, so you've got over 20 years.
G. Totman: Like I said, the lawyers almost always call this office now to find out if it's a legal lot.
They don't feel they are doing their job right if they transact a deal with their client and find they
cannot build on it. So I 'm not quite as worried about this as you are. You're worried about it because
they come to you and don't come to me . Let's move along -- we'll see if we can come up with something
on it. Can we leave the flag lot now; does everyone understand how we've got it in there? Next. . . .
T. Smith: The next page and a half I left the same. You might want to just take a look at it and
see if there are any changes you wanted to make -- up through 315.
L. Raymond: What about the unregistered vehicles business, George. I noticed this unwritten rule
we were going by -- you could have at least one unlicensed vehicle in your yard. That was an unstated
assumption on the part of a lot of people in the Town. Do we want to fix that -- the old one said none.
The reason I'm raising that is because we're trying to get rid of this -- the Zoning Officer kept putting
these cases before us instead of going to the Town Court. We had to deal with that.
G. Totman: It's 8: 10 and Jeff Lewis just arrived. What I would like to do in there , Lyle , is where it
says "All yards must be kept free of abandoned, inoperable, or unregistered vehicles -- I would like to
have it inserted in there so it sounds right. . . "or more than one unregistered vehicle. " The reason I 'm
saying to leave the one in there is if your kid goes to college and you want to keep his car for the winter,
or whatever, we'll make a provision here so they can have at least one car there . Does that sound
reasonable, Lyle?
G. VanSlyke: Well unregistered means not licensed, right? What about the guy who has a camper or
motor home . . .
M. Carey: That's what we're trying to say. . . .
G. VanSlyke : If you 're not going to be using the vehicle six months out of the year, why would a
person want to keep the insurance on it and keep it registered for that period of time.
G. Totman: We could put that right in the same paragraph . George , do they really take the
insurance off for campers when they're not using them? What happens if they catch fire and burn up?
G. VanSlyke: I don't know. I don't own a. . . . .
C. lwigg: Well, you can leave the fire and this sort of thing on it. People do that. You still
insure it for something like that.
G. Totman: He's talking about an RV home, I think. You drop the insurance -- that means you
have to take the plates off. If you drop the insurance and that catches fire setting out in the yard, is it
covered by insurance?
C. Twigg Well, you 've got two different types of insurance -- collision and liability. You keep
the collision on it. 11
L Raymond: Well suppose your house catches fire and it burns up your motor home, too. Do you get
the insurance for the house and not the RV?
G. VanSlyke: If you've got a fire and it's parked in the garage and your vehicle goes up in the garage,
you don't have to have comprehensive on the car in order to get the insurance, I wouldn't think, would
you?
4
Town of Groton Planning Board Meeting 1 September 1994
G. Totman: We're getting too tied up in this. I think they ought to at least have one. If you have a
Code official who really wants to be tough-nosed, he doesn't have to go by that anyway. He can go by
this book, and this book says they can't have any that's showing. This Code book that he goes to
school to learn how to use says 'Junk vehicles, material, and equipment shall not be stored in open
areas on the premises." So if he wants, he can go by this. In ours, I'd like to at least leave it so they can
have one. Okay, does everybody agree with Lyle's version of that?
T. Smith: I have a question about lot coverage - 315 . How do we determine lot coverage?
G. Totman: She couldn't find anywhere in our regular ordinance where it talked about lot
coverage .
T. Smith: Lot coverage isn't defined in the old ordinance; the only thing I found that even
referenced it was in Section 315 it says that a covered porch isn't considered part of the building. This
is one of the things we have to sort out or find out how it's actually done.
M. Carey: I guess the only time I 've ever seen when you needed something like that is if someone
came in after we determined what size square footage we wanted, and if somebody came in and tried to
use this as their actual square footage to make up whatever they needed.
C. Twigg: That might be why they took it out. Then they can't call open space part of the
building.
G. Totmaw Lot coverage is also for environmental reasons. You don't want to cover all your
property up with blacktop or all those roofs. Usually it's a percentage of the area you have to leave
open for drainage and stuff like that. It's in all ordinances that I knew of.
CO Twigg: It probably wouldn't be too bad if one lot owner did that, but if you have three or four
in a row who paved their whole lot, you could . . . .
G. Totman: You get it more in commercial areas than you do in single-family houses -- where a
guy comes in and builds a house and blacktops the rest of his land and all his water runs on all the
neighbors, and the ditches aren't made to cover it. And also for the aesthetics; you can't have flowers
or make it look decent around there.
C. Twigg: On a commercial lot, if a guy had to have 75% or 500/6 coverage or open -- what would a
commercial lot want with a bunch of open land out back? If they paved their whole lot, but they put in
drainage so it drained properly -- in other words, maybe we should have it say that if they do it this
way, if they cover more than 500/6 or whatever we say, they have to have approved drainage . In other
words, the parking lot would slope to drains on that property and the runoff would go to the proper
place . They'd have to have approved drainage if they cover more than the percentage we say.
T. Smith: In the medium;density district, non-residential uses can have 80% coverage .
G. Totman: I thought you said it wasn't in there.
T. Smith: Well, it doesn't say what's included in that 80% -- just the building, all the parking
lots, or what.
G. Totman: Oh , I see . I was positive it was in there . I'm sorry, I didn't follow her question . It's
there, but she's asking what do you call coverage -- just the roof of the building, the porch , the parking
lot -- usually it's only anything that makes the rain water go that way. That's as simple as I can make
it. But it's so that when water comes down it doesn't get into the ground.
T. Smith: Because then Section 315 and 316 don't say that -- because it doesn't apply to decks,
unroofed porches, and that sort of thing.
L. Raymond: When we dealt with that under the Mobile Home Ordinance -- additions they put on
mobile homes in terms of calculating space , we on the ZBA said it had to be livable space ; in other
words, it had to be enclosed so you could live in it. If they added on a kitchen or a bathroom, we said it
5
Town of Groton Planning Board Meeting 1 September 1994
had to be livable. We wouldn't have counted this kind of stuff here because it's all open air. We said it
had to be closed up and meet the Uniform Fire & Building Code. Same requirements as the rest of the
building.
C. Twigg: But that doesn't mean it's coverage -- just because you're not counting it.
L. Raymond: We only counted :the living space -- that's how we defined it -- in terms of the square
footage of the building. But open air porches we wouldn't have counted.
G. Totman: You're looking at a different thing, Lyle .
L. Raymond: I understand, I was just mostly remarking here that's how we handled it for our
purposes -- for whatever good it did .
G. VanSlyke : Tracey, did you take this medium density district -- is that percentage right from the
original ordinance? 80%?
T. Smith: I'm pretty sure, yes.
G. VanSlyke : Even if they did 80% in the medium. . .
T. Smith: We changed it from 40 to 80 for medium.
G. VanSlyke: Well they still have 20% where they can do the drainage bit, or have the trees, or you
could. . . . right? If you're going to put a parking lot in, you probably would put in some kind of
landscaping to make it look halfway decent. You just don't want a building stuck there with one big
old blacktop parking lot. .
G. Totman: You and I wouldn't. But some people would because it gives them extra. parking spaces.
Somebody will complain about taking ° away their parking spaces, • What did we originally wind up
with, because we spent a lot of time on that?
T. Smith: We changed it to 80 from 40,
G. Totman: Did we leave it the same for residential as we did for non-residential?
T. Smith: We changed that from 30 to 50.
G. Totman: Her question only, to bring it back up , is what do we want to include in it . My
suggestion would be to include anything with a roof over it, or any type of covering that would create
water runoff. Does that make sense , Tracey? Does everybody agree to that? Okay.
G. VanSlyke : So we're eliminating 315?
G. Totman: No, no, no. We're adding this to it.
G. VanSlyke: Well 315 says a covered porch or terrace is not considered part of the building. . . .
C. 1w1W But it's still coverage.
G. VanSlyke: That has to be clarified, doesn't it?
T. Smith: I think the term "open space" is confusing. Is it an area that's completely open, bare
ground, that can absorb the water, or is it just something that doesn't have a building on it.
J. Lewis: We said anything that sheds rain water.
Co 7w1W So if you paved, or had a concrete patio, that's not open area for the purposes we're
talking here -- for drainage and so on, right? It's not part of the building, but it's not open area either.
6
Town of Groton Planning Board Meeting 1 September 1994
J. Lewis: That's the way I understand it. It makes sense to me.
G. Totman: One of these days we'll have to deal with it; but this particular thing right now will be a
long time before we -- I say a long time, but it could happen tomorrow -- but it hasn't happened for 20
years and we've loosened it up from the way it was before. Put it that way.
L Raymond: When you get ready, I want to go back to 313, Does the State Uniform Fire and
Building Code say anything about where fuel tanks should be located?
G. Totman: No .
L Raymond: It doesn't? I'm kind of surprised.
G. Totman: You can put them in the house if you want to.
L. Raymond: The reason I'm raising this is because it says fuel tanks must be located at the rear of
the building, and she says it says exactly what it did in the old one . Well my God, I don't know about
you, but I know quite a few that are located on the side . They're not in the front, but they're located on
the side by the driveway, or whatever. Either propane or fuel oil .
M. Carey: You have to put it wherever your furnace or stove is.
L. Raymond: So I'm wondering if we should look at this.
C. Twiggy And another thing, now. Christofferson up there built a house, put the rear of the
house toward the road. . .
G. Totman: I knew he was going to throw a clinker in there .
C. Twigg: He did. He put the front of the house on the back side so they could watch their horses.
J. Lewis: Yes, but it's the front side of the house now.
L. Raymond: Well, it depends on how we define the rear.
C. Twim The house was built, and if you looked at the plans and the house, this is the rear of
the house. . .
G. Totman: Let's change that, okay? Let's change it to read "All open- air fuel tanks for a
residential building must be located so they're not visible from the road. "
M. Carey: How would I hide mine?
C. TwiW She'd have to put it inside .
M. Carey: If you're coming up the road, you're going to see my tank.
L. Raymond: Same with our house .
G. Totman: Do you have a trellis? What I meant was the object of this is not for safety, it's for the
aesthetics. You've got a new home. You put a tank outside. What would it cost to cover it up so it wasn't
visible from the road?
M. Carey: It would mean buying a bunch of shrubs.
L. Raymond: You could even put up a little section of board fence, I suppose .
G. Totman: I bet it wouldn't cost $50 to cover that thing up . You go up to Grossman's and buy three
or four pressure-treated posts. . . . .
7
Town of Groton Planning Board Meeting 1 September 1994
M. Carey. Take the house on the corner of Lick Street and Stevens Road. There's a doublewide
there. Now you can see all four corners of that doublewide. . . .
J. Lewis: How you going to cover it up, George?
G. Totman: I don't care. Take it out.
L. Raymond: Wait a minute . What I see here is they want it removed from the front. Can we word it
in such a way so that it can be located anywhere, except in front?
C* Twigg: That might be a way. These big propane tanks are never put next to the building
anyway. There must be a rule on that.
G. Totman: I think they have to be 25 feet away. There's a lot more serious things we've got to get
Into than this.
L. Raymond: Well the way this is worded right now, we're in violation of the law right in this Town,
and that includes me . All open-air fuel tanks must be located otherwise than in the front of the
building, or something like that.
G. Totman: Let's move on. Next. . . .
T. Smith: I have a question on ° 317 . 6 . It's saying that people who don 't conform to the
regulations for excavations for old cellars, and things like that, must go to the Zoning Board of
Appeals.
G. Totman: That's one we got to change.
T. Smith: To the Town Court?
L. Raymond: Wait a minute here. We have other wording we came up with about enforcement of-this
Code generally, that it would be taken to the Town Court. It applied to the whole Code .
T. Smith: I don't know if it was the whole Code, or something specific .
G. Totman: How about in the very end, when you get all done? This part should come out of there
completely. We should eliminate . 6 and . 7.
Co Twigg: You don't need . 8 either.
M. Carey: We all understand it, so let's go on.
G. Totman: These things are always at the end -- enforcement and violations.
L. Raymond. So the Zoning Officer has his instructions as to what to do when he sees a violation.
T. Smith: The next section is Offstreet Parking (318) . I guess the thing to consider here is if you
want the parking requirements to stay the same, or if you want to make them more or less; these are
listed in 318. 2 .
G. Totman: I think we should bear in mind this is only relating to cases where we are requiring
offstreet parking, not for individual homes.
L. Raymond: Should we say something in here about drains, and since the storm water regulations
coming down the line, should we add something in here about meeting all State requirements for
storm water regulations, especially if you get into the real big parking lot and commercial activity.
They are going to have to if they are above a certain size.
T. Smith : I put a general statement in Section 104 just saying that in addition to this Code,
everyone has to adhere to any applicable State law.
8
Town of Groton Planning Board Meeting 1 September 1994
G. Totman: What you're talking about, Lyle, is where other towns have strict rules on dumping,
and things like that, they are now taking them out of their local laws because the DEC rules and
regulations are so much more strict than the local laws. People generally don't like rules and
regulations anyway, and here's a case where if you're going to cite somebody, don't let them get mad at
the local official, go to the DEC. Don't make the local politician responsible for them. As long as she
has it in there that they have to abide by the rules, wherever. Okay. Signs, Lyle . The reason I say Lyle
is because the ZBA has had trouble with signs.
L. Raymond: Well mainly because the old sign ordinance in the Code wasn't very consistent and so
we had some problems with that. Did you just copy this over?
T. Smith: Yes,
L. Raymond: Well the first thing is how many feet from the right-of-way?
CO TWI g: You hate to give that Zoning Enforcement Officer a lot of authority, but I just don't see
how we can be real strict with signs because I think each situation could be different. You've got
corners and if they're too close to the corner they are obnoxious. You can't see by them or you can't see
through them.
G. Totman: Time out. What we're saying is the problem we're having is the ordinance says they got
to be 10 feet back from the road right-of-way, which is totally ridiculous. The road ROW, Cecil, if you
look at it and stand on the edge of the road ROW, that's the reason that's there so you can see around the
corner. If they don't get into that road ROW, the sign doesn't block the corners. I personally feel that I
would not be uncomfortable with just not putting any regulation on where they can put the sign in
front of their house.
CO TWIM 'Cause they can't put it in the ROW without getting in trouble .
G. Totman: George Senter and I have talked different times, not together, and we 've gotten the
same answers from the Highway Superintendents in three towns and from the State Highway Super,
and from the County Highway Super about signs. They all individually had almost the same answer --
why are you coming to us? As long as we don't hit them with our snowplows, we don't care where they
are .
C. Twigg: Take it out of there then:
G. Totman: Where do you put your mailbox? Do you put it 10 feet back from the ROW?
M. Carey: Mine goes back far enough, but they hit it this year.
C* Twi g: It's still in the ROW, though.
G. Totman: If you're going to get 10 feet back from the ROW, you're going to be back in the middle of
your lawn anyway.
L. Raymond: We had a case over to McLean where the house itself wasn't even that far back. So
where were they going to put the "sign?
G. Totman: There was another one over there before you got on the Board where they wanted to
start a hairdressing shop. They would have had to put the sign in back of the door going into the shop
if you follow this rule. But, obviously, they got variances. So why have it in there if you're going to give
them variances to do it? That part of it where it says 10 feet from the road I would just like to see
eliminated .
G. VanSlyke : I don't see it in there.
T. Smith: I think we eliminated it another time . It was on page 56, We scratched this out at
another meeting. 319.2 .
9
Town of Groton Planning Board Meeting 1 September 1994
G. VanSlyke: These other things have to be in there, don't they? The illumination. . . .
G. Totman: We're only talking about the 10 feet.
G. VanSlyke: But that isn't in this corrected edition of hers.
L. Raymond: Oh, I see. You already took that out.
C. ZWIWO This 319 . 3 is pretty good, but this 319. 2 doesn't sound right. If a company, or
whatever. . . . if you're looking for someplace, boy these signs are nice. If you ever drove truck and had to
deliver stuff, and you got to read a d_ _ _ little sign like that going 50 miles an hour down the road .
G. VanSlyke: If you're going 50 miles an hour down the road , you're not looking for a placel
C. Twigg: But you're in traffic and traffic's moving 50 miles an hour; you can't slow down to 10
miles an hour to read signsl
G. VanSlyke: Then you go down the road, turn around, and come back.
C. Twigg: But it may not be on the main drag. It may be back in a little ways. And it's nice to
have a sign -- even if it's not on their property?
G. VanSlyke : So what's your point? You mean that if you own property next to this business and
they wanted to put their sign on your property to say that their place is there. If you're going to have a
sign that large, it's got to be on your property. You can't put it on somebody else's property.
C. Twigg: What difference does it make whose property it's on?
G. VanSlyke: Well, it might make a difference to the guy who lives next door to you .
C. Twigg: Well you see these great big billboards along the road, advertising motels and these are
great big signs that are not on the motel property.
G. Totman: I'm glad you brought that up, Cecil, although I hate to keep going back. For example,
you've got a business that's been there a long, long time and your buildings are right on the ROW. You
can't very well put a sign in the ;ditch for your business, so you want to advertise your business. I 'm
thinking about one up on Bird Cemetery Road . The guy fixes foreign cars -- Hewitt. All of this
buildings are right up close to the road and there's hedgerows and trees there and he wants to put a sign
up. Somebody goes up there -- and it's ungodly enough to find Bird Cemetery Road -- but after you get on
the road, you 'll drive right by the place if you don't know where it is. What I'm getting at is if you make
him put a sign on his own property, you're not going to see it. So he wants to put his across the road on
somebody else's property. Even though the other guy says he doesn't care if he puts a sign there -- I give
you permission to put your sign there , but George Senter says you can't do that because the ordinance
says you can't. I guess what I'm saying is that three square feet is too small.
L. Raymond: You also have a discrepancy here . I was just figuring out what we ran into that we
couldn't figure out. You look at 319 . 7 -- it says "The maximum size of signs on any property shall be
regulated according to the following guidelines. " Like Rural-Agricultural, you can have two up to 50
square feet. Then you go to 319. 2 , it says you can't have a sign larger than three square feet on the
premises they advertise. But any property includes the premises they advertise.
G. Totman: What this means is. .
L. Raymond: But it says any property -- and this means yours. This is where we ran into a problem
how to interpret this thing. One apparently says you can have two signs 50 square feet; the other one
says no, you can't have more than three square feet. How do you figure that one out?
G. Totman: I guess I don't read it the same way. I don't read it the way you're reading it, Lyle . In
the zones it tells you what size you can have.
10
Town of Groton Planning Board Meeting 1 September 1994
C. Twigg, You're not reading that right. It says "Unless otherwise provided for in a Site Plan
Review, signs larger than 3 square feet must be located on the premises. . . " In other words, he could put
a small sign across the road -- it's the big signs he's got to have on his own property.
L. Raymond: So if it's on his property, you say on one of them here, if it's larger than 3 square feet
you have to go through Site Plan Review.
Ce TW1W That's if he puts it on someone else's property.
L. Raymond: It says any property over here on 319 . 7 . It doesn't say someone else's property -- it
says any property.
CO Twigg "The maximum size on any property shall be regulated according to the following
guidelines. . . " This is not on any property over here, this is on someone else's property.
L. Raymond: It doesn't say that. It says any property. I don't follow it. We on the ZBA got into a
hassle over this.
G. Totman: Time out. 317 . 7 is in there for the size of the sign, period -- not the location . 319 . 2 is
for the location, not size .
L. Raymond: What do you say, George. Let's take that 319 .2 and just knock the d_ _ _ thing right out
of there. Just go with this chart over here.
G. Totman: What you're doing is taking out the part that says you can't have a sign on somebody
else's, property.
J. Lewis: If I want to put a sign on your property advertising my business, and you say it's all
right, why the h _ _ _ should we argue? But if you're willing and I 'm willing, you know.
G. Totman: There's a few of you here in this room that I wouldn't allow you to put any sign on my
property because you give me a hard time .
CO Twigg: What about these guys that do roofing jobs and stuff and have a sign?
G. Totman: They are temporary signs. They are covered.
G. VanSlyke: Are temporary signs covered in temporary signs?
L. Raymond : Any sign that is movable is temporary and not covered under this. The ones you
wheel out. Look at the butcher shop on Route 38, He can pick that sign up and move it anywhere he
wants. It's not stuck in the ground. I call that a movable, temporary sign.
G. Totman: You have certain rules and regulations for signs. Then all of a sudden this guy wheels
this thing out. The person you turned down who wanted to put up a nice looking sign because it was too
big, or whatever -- this guy wheels one of these in, then you have to go back and change your ordinance
to protect the people you turned down. You can say -- all right, if you take it in at night and only bring
it out in the day, it's portable -- or something like that. But if you just put it out there and leave it, and
it's on wheels, it's not fair to the other, people you turned down -- his sign might be bigger than theirs.
You have to have some control over it.
L. Raymond: Do we need something in here about these signs that are supposedly movable, but they
don't move them?
CO Twigg: We refer them to the Zoning Board of Appeals.
L. Raymond: Oh, wonderful, Cecil.
11
Town of Groton Planning Board Meeting 1 September 1994
1
L. Raymond: Well we throw . 2 out but I m wondering if we need something in here about covering
yin � � g g g
this moveable stuff. Do you think this covers it?
M. Carey: Maybe we could have 319 .2 say something about moveable signs.
J. Lewis: I don't go along with that, because if I 'm building a house for someone and I got a
movable sign to put it, it means I've got to load that d . . . . thing in my truck every night or else. . .
G. Totman: No, it doesn't cover people like you . That's like a political , real estate, or construction
sign . They are there while you're doing your work; after you 're gone , you take the sign with you . I
don't know of anywhere around where those kinds of signs are covered. The Village of Lansing, three
years ago, tried to control political signs and they really got pounded down on it.
L. Raymond: So this big .sign down on 38 for the real estate agent that's been there for years and
years and is stuck in the ground with two permanent stakes. . . .
Ce TW1gg: That's not there any more.
M. Carey: It fell down.
L. Raymond: Good. It's not the only " place you see these signs that they stick up there for years
before they sell them. And they don't have to get a permit. The poor slob who wants to do business and
wants a sign like that has to get one . Doesn't seem right.
G. Totman: All right. Movable Temporary Signs - 319. 2 .
Co Twigg: Now if a guy was a sign manufacturer. . . . .
G. Totman: Cecil, did you ask for the floor. Do you want this meeting to go on, or do you want to
talk about a lot of foolishness? 319. 2 - excluding construction, political, or real estate , shall not be
left up more than five consecutive days in a row. I 'm just throwing this out.
C. Twigg: But a political sign would be up. . . . .
G. Totman: I said excluding! See -- you weren't listening to me . Excluding political, real estate,
and construction signs. A temporary movable sign. You're going to have a jamboree this weekend in
your restaurant -- you rent one of these things and bring it out there. We want to make it so it's not
going to be a permanent fixture where it's out there so long the wheels are froze up and it won't turn
when you bring it back in. . . The reason I threw out the five days -- and we can make it anything you
want -- is so that it won't be out more than five consecutive days.
Co Tw1gg: I saw Jeff Lewis' sign up where he was building a set of steps or something and it took
him two weeks go do that.
G. Totman: We've excluded that, Cecil!! That's construction.
Co Tw1gg: That's not called a temporary sign?
G. Totman: I said EXCLUDING construction sings. Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding.
J. Lewis: And before you bring this up -- real estate is excluded too. You've hit the other two, so
it's darn sure you're going to hit the third one. One question I have -- that puts the meat market sign in
that category, right?
G. Totman: I'm not sure about that. They might be legal -- I'd have to go back. I don't think George
would have allowed that sign to be out there if it wasn't legal. George is pretty strict.
L. Raymond: I would say 30 days -- more like 30 days.
T. Smith: What if they put it out for 30 days, bring it in a day, and put it out for 30 more days?
12
Town of Groton Planning Board Meeting 1 September 1994
L. Raymond: You can always play those games.
G. Totman: Five days. You've got to have something. George isn't going to go out there and count
those days, but it gives him something to work with if somebody complains because the sign is out
there for too many days. George isn't going to count 30 days any better than he can count five days. But
if the neighbor says he knows the sign's been out there for two weeks -- and the business down the road
couldn't put their sign out because it doesn't meet your thing -- it's not fair. You might say -- it might
mean a lot of wording -- but say five consecutive days with a limit of how many times he can take it out
and put it back -- like three times. I 'm not sure exactly how you'd word that. You 're not supposed to
make any of these ordinances so that the Code Enforcement Officer has to make an interpretation --
that's against the law. He's got to see it in black and white, one way or the other. If he makes an
Interpretation of it, then he can be beat in court -- so it has to be so he understands it also. Okay, can
we leave it and see if Tracey can come up with something on that and bring it back to us?
L Raymond: Do you have examples from other ordinances about movable signs at all?
T. Smith: I think I can probably find something.
G. Totman: I think that will be better. I hate to tell you this but I'd like to go to 317 . 2 -- I want to
talk about that. Read it.
M. Carey: Oh, my gosh . That's wrong.
G. Totman: If you determine the building is hazardous and should be demolished, are you going to
wait a year to make them do it?
CO TWIM Or, by the same token, maybe the guy wants to fix it up . Maybe the wind knocked a
tree on it or an automobile ran through it and took a corner post out and now the thing is unsafe. So
you 've got to demolish the building because some automobile came through and took the corner post
out?
J. Lewis: What's wrong with giving a guy one year to get this thing taken are oP
G. Totman: If there's a building next door to you , and you 've got young kids playing around ,
climbing in and out, and there's a danger of the roof falling in, would you want to give the guy a year to
fix it if you were complaining about it? It either isn't dangerous or you aren't going to wait for a year --
to me it doesn't make any sense.
J. Lewis: There's a difference between a building that's been crashed into by a car and is going to
be repaired, because that's repairable. And a building like the garage that's set over here by the old TC3
school building -- there was a garage in back of that house, and the SOB has been ready to fall in for the
last 15 years, and nobody has ever done anything about it. They finally knocked it down. I 'm telling
you that it's a wonder that somebody didn't get killed . That thing was leaning, ready to fall, and. . . .
G. Totman: In light of what Cecil said here, it said it should be demolished or brought up to Code
within . . . . Now let me just say this before you jump down my throat. By the time the Code Officer cites
him for it, he's already talked to him about it and now he's going to cite them about it. So I think it
should be 30 days.
M. Carey: I agree.
C. Twigg: Say like if a, flood came through and took a section of the foundation out on a
building, and the thing is hazardous. Here's kids playing in the creek, not playing in the building -- in
the creek below it, or across the creek. This building could come down anytime. You can't wait a year
for something like that, but you don't want the building demolished, necessarily -- it might be a good
building.
M. Carey: Bring it to Code within 30 days.
13
Town of Groton Planning Board Meeting 1 September 1994
J. Lewis: Is there a code that says you've got to put a foundation under a building like that if it's
blown out by water?
C. Twigg Well if it's hazardous.
J. Lewis: Who's going to determine if it's hazardous or not?
G. Totman: The Zoning Officer.
C. lwlgg: That's a little scary -- one guy has the authority.
G. Totman: Are you familiar with the old house the blind man, bee man, used to live in in
Peruville? I got word once to evict him. Here was a blind man , living in a house that was falling down .
People were turning him in . They had looked up the law and said "you are responsible -- you could
cause the man's death because you didn't evict him from that building. " It's in the NYS Code Book and
you're supposed to go by the Code. Those things are already there . Just change this and make it so it
"must be demolished or brought within Code. " To make it easier on somebody, when I say the 30 days
-- within 30 days they must get a permit to do it. Doesn't mean they have to do it within 30 days, but if
they come and get a permit, that means the intent is there. It might take 60 days to do it, but they've got
to do it. So if we can word it so they have to get the permit to demolish it or bring it to Code within 30
days, then their permit could give them up to a year. You got it now?
T. Smith: Yes. There's the same thing in 317, 1 , . 3. and .4. The one year -- do you want to change
them all to 30 days?
G. Totman: Yes. Make them all the same way.
L. Raymond: This means you 're adding this permit requirement that they have to get a permit
within 30 days to do something about it?
T. Smith: Right.
G. Totman: You know, 317. 3 really doesn't even need to be there.
L. Raymond: It's the difference between derelict and damaged, I guess.
G. Totman: Point 3 and .2 aren't any different, I don't think.
C. Twigg: You know that place across from Fay Benson's on Cobb Street? The guy built the
garage first and then he put the house up. Fay told me the other day that they came along and told him
to either finish it or tear it down . He's got a roof on it, hasn't put any siding on it, a few windows. . .
J. Lewis: Who is "they"?
C* TVjW He didn't say.
L. Raymond: What town is he in?
C. T IW Groton ,
L. Raymond: Well, then "they" had to be George Senter. Who else?
Ce TWIM He hasn't really done ;too much on the house.
M. Carey: I wonder if the guy ran out of money or something.
Ce Twim He does a little, but he doesn't do too much. He's got the holes cut for the windows. . . .
14
Town of Groton Planning Board Meeting I September 1994
G. Totman: It's plain and simple . The law says you can renew the permit once and there's a time
limit on the permits. If he's given him a permit in the Town of Groton, it's for a year. If you renew it
once, it's two years. After that, where's his intent?
C. Twiggy I understand it. . .
G. Totmant The Code Officer can't just keep going ---- after awhile he can't just keep checking on
this guy to see whether his two years or three years is up . And it would be a way for someone to
circumvent the Code after awhile. He doesn't need a C of O anyway because he's not borrowing the
money to do it. So he's going to wait out the Code Officer. We're back now to 320.
T. Smith: The next four sections are on nonconformance. Do you want to keep these here, or put
them somewhere near the beginning -- right from the start.
G. Totman: Actually, I think they should be in 100. They go up front. One of the things we want to
do is to make it more user friendly. So if they are looking for something like that, it's going to hit
them up front instead of trying to find it down through the ordinance . Anyone disagree with that?
Okay.
G. VanSlyke: Is this all of them?
L. Raymond: You know, this thing here in Section 321 . . . " any structure on which actual
construction was lawfully begun prior to the effective date of adoption or amendment of this code . . . "
Who are you kidding? This Code was adopted in 1972 . You mean if somebody started construction
before 1972 and hasn't finished yet . . . . what do we need that in here for. Talk about simplifying.
G. Totman: Lyle -- we -- lawyers I'm thinking about now. They would definitely want you to leave
it in there. You're adopting a new code now.
L. Raymond: All right. Okay.
G. Totman: This Code's date will be the date we adopt it -- not 1972 ,
L. Raymond: Then does that apply to the creation of these lots then? We're not supposed to go back
to 1972 on the creation of these new lots where they are grandfathered? When we do this new thing, all
these lots will be existing and now will be grandfathered, so we don't have to worry about anything if
that's true . I don't mean to raise a problem here, but. . . .
G. Totman: Because any lot created after 1972 would have been wrong anyway. We 're not
correcting those things.
L. Raymond: But you said we're adopting a new code . We revised the date then which we're going to
use.
G. Totman: You're right. We're revising the code. As of the new date, these new things that we're
putting in this Code will take effect from that date .
L. Raymond: Yes. So you've re-set the clock.
G. Totman: I think this is a technicality here .
L. Raymond: Then let's get rid of it
G. Totman. Well, if we get rid of it we might be causing ourselves more problems. I think the
person you should talk to is Fran Casullo. I think he would tell you to leave it in there.
L. Raymond: Any construction that was done prior to the effective date. . . .
G. Totman: What harm does it do to leave it there?
15
Town of Groton Planning Board Meeting 1 September 1994
L. Raymond: It's just a matter of simplifying. Making it more user friendly.
G. Totman: Fran Casullo is the Town Attorney,
L. Raymond: It does say effective date of adoption or amendment of the Code . We'll leave it to the
lawyer then.
G. Totman: Pick, pick, pick. I have you hear to help me, not to pick things apart.
L. Raymond: Well I'm going to leave at 9: 30 -- I 'll make that announcement right now.
G. Totman: Next.
T. Smith: Section 322 gets into the nonconforming lots we were talking about before.
L. Raymond: These are the ones we considered on ZBA that were created before 1972 . When people
come before us, we look up the record. If it was created before 1972, they haven't got to worry.
G. Totman: Although when you're doing that, I think you should change c . I 'd say it should be if
the Health Department approves. We 're saying here that the Health Department will approve the
development of the nonconforming lot. The Health Department rules change daily sometimes, and
their requirements ,' if it' s truly a nonconforming lot, they make variances , but they don 't
automatically approve . This is deceiving to someone. You've got some small lots out there that I 'm
sure the Health Department wouldn't approve putting a septic system on. So this says that they would .
I think it should be upon Health Department approval. Follow me on that? Lyle, the one problem you
had I want to make sure gets in here -- did we take care of about when we talk about 150 feet of road
frontage, we did put the word continuous in there . Forget it -- we took care. of it. One of the things
people don't realize is that if we have an ordinance that says 150 feet, and a person comes in and wants
to build a house and they only have 149. 5 feet, George cannot give them a building permit. He cannot
make that decision that half a foot makes a difference. And if he does, he's in trouble with the law.
J. Lewis: Unless they shorten the ruler and he reads it 150 feet, right?
G. Totman: Tracey . . . . keep plugging.
T. Smith: Just keep going through the nonconforming activities part. This will bring us up to
the part we already did.
G. Totman: Now before Lyle leaves, ' let's decide what we're going to be doing -- what's left?
T. Smith: We have to go back and look at the Land Use Activities again . And then the Zoning
Map, and then Section 100 I put marks where there were questions about the definitions or had to add
a definition.
J. Lewis: We 're going to do the map before we do that, though, right?
G. Totman: When do we meet again to do this? Let's make sure we all understand this before we all
leave .
M. Carey: We're off for two weeks.
G. Totman: Today is the first. Our regular meeting is the 15th . So we will be doing this again not
until the 22nd .
T. Smith: I won't be here.
G. Totman: Now when are you getting married? The 24th -- what's the 22nd got to do with it? You
take off after you get married, not before. Anyway, on the 22nd we'll go over this and what she 's going
to do between now and then is write up everything we did tonight and write a cover letter to us telling us
where we stand and what we've got to do up to that point. October 6th should wind it up . If we get
16
Town of Groton Planning Board Meeting 1 September 1994
w
together on the 22nd, and Jeff asked the question, do we want to do the Zoning Map before we decide
what we're going to put into zones, or do we decide what we're going to put into zones and then go back
and do the map?
G. VanSlyke : I think it's more realistic to do the map first, locate the areas, and then go back
through to determine . . . .
C. Twim Well we should change the' map afterwards too. If we get down. . . .
G. Totman: It makes a difference where we put some of these things. I don't have a solid viewpoint
on what we should do first.
C. Twigg You almost have to do the map -- at least preliminary -- to know what areas you are
talking about. You might find out some of these areas we did on the map when we get into figuring
what we're going to put where -- maybe we could change the map then.
G. Totman: That's one thing we've got to do that's going to take time . And then we need to go over
these lists of things we've got. Lyle has said to us over the last three or four years these things and we
want to make sure we've covered them. We want to go through what we've got and go through the list of
them because that's one of the reasons we're doing all this -- because we've been having problems with
it. We could do that that night without Tracey easily. With Joan taking the minutes, Tracey could pick
It up from that. If Tracey gets to us what we've done tonight and what she feels we should be doing next,
then on the 22nd we'll hopefully get most of it buttoned up. I don't think it will take that long to do this
if we're really serious about it.
C. Twigg" I'm going to be gone for the regular meeting in October.
L. Raymond: I 'll let you know if I have a problem on the 22nd.
G. Totman: Okay. Our next meeting is our regular meeting on the 15th. If we don't have anything
before us that night, we'll start right in working on these things. I really would like to finish this up by
the first week in October and then she could do the finishing touches on it so that sometime in the
month of October we could meet with the Town Board once we've got the package together. And ask the
Town Board if they would like to ,jointly sponsor with us on a public hearing rather than us have one
and the Town Board hold one . If we do it together, and we agree, and jointly hold a public hearing,
which is legal, it saves all that confusion . That's what I hope to do sometime in October.
The meeting was adjourned at 9*40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
oan E. Fitch
Recording Secretary
17