HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-10-13 Y
TOWN OF GROTON PLANNING BOARD
Thursday, 13 October 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 discuss a list of problem areas received by the Chair from Lyle Raymond.
G. Totman: (The meeting was started at 7: 50 p.m.) Let's shoot for a deadline for tonight's meeting --
say 9 : 30, And what we don't get done, we'll have to come back and do again -- so talk all you want to.
Tracey. . . .
T. Smith: We talked about going over a list of problem areas.
G. Totman: Yes, but did we finish the reap up?
T. Smith: No, because Mr. Twigg wanted you to wait until he was here.
G. Totman: That's right. We told him we'd wait for that.
J. Lewis: Why isn't he here?
M. Carey: Because he's in Florida.
J. Lewis: You didn't wait for me to do the map. Why do you have to wait for Twigg?
G. Totman: Lyle gave us some notes from the consensus of the Zoning Board of Appeals for when
we start re-doing the Zoning Ordinance, which we are doing now, he asked us to look at. I have a whole
bunch of memos here from Lyle. That's one of the reasons I wanted Lyle to come to these meetings to
look over the ordinance as we're writing it to see if we can't correct some of the things the ZBA is
having a problem with. This doesn't mean that we should change the ordinance just because they have
a request for a change, but some of the things we've already corrected, in our minds, like the setback
for signs which is unenforceable the way it was set up. One of the things he had in there was "home
occupations. " The ZBA has a problem with what do you call "home occupations"? Now have we
touched on that yet?
T. Smith: We started, but there's still questions on it.
G. Totman: Lyle, do you remember that? Here's what your problem was. Would you read what
we've done so far -- I think you've got it there, Tracey.
T. Smith: Do you want me to read the definition?
G. Totman. Yes,
T. Smith: A home occupation is a subordinate use of a commercial or service nature which is
not detrimental to the residential character of the lot on which said home occupation is located, or the
Town of Groton Planning Board Meeting October 13, 1994
surrounding neighborhood. A home occupation shall be limited to those residential lots containing
an owner-occupied dwelling . Home occupations shall consist of such things as hairdressing,
tailoring, teaching, and similar activities. Professional occupations, such as doctors, lawyers,
architects, and realtors, home offices. . . . A home occupation shall produce no offensive noise , traffic
vibrations, dust, odor, heat glare , electric disturbance beyond the property it occupies. A home
occupation may not entail the outward storage of materials, equipment, or other items of commerce,
or the uncovered parking of more than one commercial vehicle. And then we talked about possibly
limiting the number of employees and using the performance standards instead of listing the
occupations.
L. Raymond: What you gave me here was not from the Board of Zoning Appeals.
G. Totman: It was from you.
L. Raymond: That was from the Rose Hill Inn training session which I gave to the Board of Zoning
Appeals.
G. Totman: Lyle, let's back up a little bit. What she just read was not what was in our ordinance,
it's what we propose. I just wanted to see if you felt we covered it good enough.
L. Raymond: The training session was putting emphasis on performance standards because they
said that the home occupation definition is changing so darn fast that it changes faster than you can
put the ordinance out. Especially with computers.
G. Totman: A lot of times -- and this is not one of the things we put in there and Tracey just hit
upon it -- is that a home occupation for a hairdresser -- you've got to decide if you want to call a doctor's
office a home occupation, because he always has hired help -- a receptionist, nurse, whatever. And
that creates a lot of activity in a residential area. You might want to -- and you can look at it that way
-- say a home occupation is that, but then go back to see where we classified it in the classifications for
the zoning part of it, and maybe we don't want to put that in Low Density; we might want to put that
just in Medium Density and Rural Agricultural, or something like that. A lot makes a difference when
you're thinking about what you want to put in there as to what zone you're going to put it in .
L. Raymond: Well, my notes here that I took at the discussion they gave at the Rose Hill training
session said that one of the things you could include was no employees other than the owners of the
business; that would exclude the doctors right there, because they have employees.
G. Totman: The only reason I said it the way I did, Lyle, even in a rural neighborhood, or a Low
Density, there wouldn't be nothing wrong with somebody having a hairdresser shop or sell knick-
knacks. But using it in the general terns, you exclude it from that if you say you couldn't have
employees.
AL Carey: That would eliminate a lot of the problem.
G. Totman: So maybe we should make a second classification to it so that you would allow it in a
Low Density if they didn't have employees. Can we word it in two different categories -- one with and
one without employees?
L. Raymond: I don't see why not.
G. Totman: Then when you're putting it into categories in the Zoning Map , in the Low Density
area you'd have it where you had no employees, but in the Medium or Rural you'd have it where you
could have a place.
L. Raymond: We could put a limit on employees, I suppose, if we wanted to . Say no more
than. . .whatever.
X Carey: Five employees in the Medium?
2
Town of Groton Planning Board Meeting October 13, 1994
L. Raymond: If you have more than five employees, then you're probably going to need Site Plan
Review anyway.
G. Totman: Well you will . A home occupation is going to be a Site Plan Review. Automatically.
It's an automatic Site Plan Review,
L. Raymond: Okay.
G. Totman, Anything other than residential uses, the way we've got it set up right now, it's Site
Plan Review. So that will cover parking and all that sort of stuff. Can you rewrite that for us?
T. Smith: Did you limit the number of employees at all?
G. Totman, Not in the ones -- we're going to have two categories under home occupation -- one with
employees, and one with no employees. Then we can put the one with no employees in Low Density.
L. Raymond: With a regular zoning permit, or with Site Plan Review?
G. Totman: With Site Plan Review -- all with Site Plan Review. Even then, you'd want to check to
see if they had the parking.
L. Raymond: I'm satisfied with what you're proposing, George, as far as I'm concerned .
W Carey, I think it sounds good .
G. Totman: Does everybody agree with what we talked about? (Everyone agreed.) How about non-
conforming uses -- did we spell out what is a non-conforming use?
T. Smith: I have another question on home occupations. The one with employees -- do you want
a Site Plan Review if they are in the Rural district?
G. Totman: I think we pretty much covered that. Anything that's not the normal residential
occupation is going to be Site Plan Review. So if you move into an area that's all residential, and
somebody wants to do something else, people should have a chance to know what's going to happen
there .
AL Carey. I don't think we've talked about non-conforming.
G. Totman: See what we've got in there for non-conforming.
T. Smith: Okay. I talked with Jean (?) when we looked at the ordinance a little closer. She said
that even if the owner of a lot didn't create the non-conforming lot, you should not grant a variance.
But the ordinance still allows a single-family home on a non-conforming lot.
L. Raymond: Oh, sure.
T. Smith: So there's still a use for it. And if they want to take action, they have to take it against
the person who created the lot -- the owner who subdivided it and made it non-conforming.
L. Raymond: But it's not non-conforming if they created it after the Zoning Ordinance was passed .
Non-conforming is only those created before, as I understand it. Before it was passed -- so that
wouldn't change it. Under the present ordinance, if they create it afterwards, it's not non-conforming,
It's an illegal lot. I want to qualify that -- an illegal lot for permitted uses that require frontage and all
that stuff. It's not illegal for other things.
G. Totman: One of the things also that you might, in your ordinance where you allow certain
things -- this will come up new because we're doing some changing here -- like supposing a gas station.
A gas station -- or it could be anything -- we don't have any gas stations in the Town anyway -- it's non
-conforming, so it's .allowed to be there. Normally, if they are closed down, or burned out, or whatever,
if they stay out of business for one year, then they've lost their non-conforming status. I don't think
3
Town of Groton Planning Board Meeting October 13, 1994
anywhere in our ordinance it has that year in there -- it's got to be somewhere in there where they lose
that status. That was one of your questions a year ago, Lyle.
L. Raymond: Yes. We don't want to confuse non-conforming, Tracey, with creation of illegal lots.
It's easy to do that. We're strictly dealing with lots that were created before the Ordinance was passed.
And they don't meet the present requirements. So those are all non-conforming lots. If we deal with
that first, we can deal with the other one.
G. Totman: What are you referring to?
L. Raymond: This requirement in the first ordinance that says "thou shalt not create a lot that
doesn't meet all the frontage and other requirements. " The problem we ran into was enforcement. It's
not enforced . The only time it gets enforced is when somebody applies for a permit for a use that then
requires the frontage and other setbacks. As long as they're not using it for any of those permitted
uses, then they can still create the lot. Well, but it says technically that you're not supposed to create it.
I was thinking about that on the way down. I'd have a notion to remove that from the Ordinance for
two reasons. One is that it isn't going to make any difference because if the lot doesn't meet the
requirements, when they come in to ask for a permit, that's when we're going to catch them anyway. It
doesn't make any difference if it was created illegally or not. Okay? And the second reason is -- as you
pointed out earlier, George, comparing us to Lansing -- and that is our subdivision ordinance doesn't
require every single lot to be recorded and checked over. Since we're not doing that, then why keep it in
there and make it a problem and have it in the Ordinance?
G. Totman: To have what in the Ordinance?
L. Raymond: That you can't create an illegal lot. It's just creating a problem.
G. Totman: Our definitions tell what a legal lot is.
L. Raymond: I know, but it goes further than that and says you shouldn't create an illegal lot. I
would say let them go right ahead and create it -- if they don't want to use it for a permitted use that
requires something, so what?
G. Totman. As long as we legally state in there what is a legal lot. What I was thinking about is if
we've got it stated what is a legal lot, and it's already been on the books since '72 , and we've got it all
recorded here, and you drive into the Town of Groton there are signs up saying Zoning Strictly
Enforced -- so if someone creates one and the Zoning Officer does not give them a permit -- the new
buyer or whoever -- because it was created -- they have no recourse, regardless of whether we have it in
there or not. I agree with you. If you can do it right, take it out. Because they'll lose in court no matter
what.
L. Raymond: That's right.
G. Totman: And before they buy a lot, they should check to see if it's a legal lot.
L. Raymond: That's right. Yes. But going back. . . let me find it here. . I had a bunch of notes on that
stuff. Yes, Section 307 -- just to refresh our memory here as to what the original says. Lot Dimensions
-- it says a "lot may be reduced or altered only if the resulting lot meets the minimum area, frontage,
and yard requirements prescribed by these regulations." There's your illegal lot statement right there .
What I'm saying is, as you just said, if they alter the lot or create one that doesn't have these, as long as
they are not using it for some permitted use that requires that, then it doesn't matter. But when they
come in to get their permit, they are going to get caught up with anyway. So this creates a problem.
This sentence in here . . . .
G. Totman: What number is that?
L. Raymond: That's Section 307 -- page 54. That sentence, because of the way it is, is a problem for
the ZBA on how to handle that. I would just take that sentence out like you just said, George, and let it
go by. . . .
4
Town of Groton Planning Board Meeting October 13, 1994
NL Carey: But it says a "lot may be reduced or altered only if the resulting lot meets the
minimum area, frontage, and yard requirements. . . "
L. Raymond: That means you've reduced a larger piece of land by selling off a lot that doesn't meet
the requirements -- either frontage, or whatever, I say that since we're not enforcing it at that point,
and we're only enforcing it when somebody comes in and asks for a permit to do something on that lot
and it doesn't meet the frontage. Well, that's what we're doing anyway. I would just take that sentence
out of there.
G. Totman: Which sentence are you talking about now?
L, Raymond: The first one . The very first one.
G. Totman: "A lot may be reduced or altered. . . ."
L. Raymond: to , , only if the resulting lot meets the minimum area. . ." In other words, you can't sell
off a lot off a larger one that doesn't meet the minimum area requirements.
G. Totman: What bothered you about that?
L. Raymond: Because do we, if somebody asks for a variance, turn them down just because that lot
was created?
G. Totman: But they can't create an illegal lot, This says it's got to be legal when they create it.
L. Raymond: Yes, That's what I'm saying, But there's no enforcement on it.
G. Totman: Why would you get a request for a variance on this.? It's got to be legal. I t says here it's
got to meet the minimum frontage and all that sort of stuff.
L, Raymond: I know. But somebody that doesn't have the frontage . . . .
G. Totman: But is says here they've got to have it in order to create it,
L. Raymond: Wait a minute, Somebody comes in to us and asks for a variance on a lot. We look up
the history of that lot and find out whether it's non-conforming, you know, or all this other stuff,
because obviously they don't meet the frontage. Okay, we find out that lot was created after the Zoning
Ordinance was passed and, therefore , it was created according to this language, illegally, So do we turn
the variance down on the basis it was created illegally? Or do we turn it down only on the basis of how
much frontage is lacking? Or if it wasn't created illegally, then we would look at it from a frontage
standpoint and say, well, usually we 've been looking at a rough estimate of if it's more than 30%
reduction in frontage, then. . . . .
G. Totman: Lyle, supposing you take that sentence out of there. It's gone now, okay? And
somebody still does the same thing, You've got to look at it the same way, whether that sentence is
there or not.
L. Raymond: When they come in to get a permit, But this one here is more all-inclusive because
there's nobody can create that lot. Even if they haven't come in to ask for a permit, It says nobody has
the right to create one of these lots in the Town ,
G. Totman: That's right.
L. Raymond: All right. But -- nobody's enforcing it. We found that out when we were looking into
this when we were talking with George Senter about it. Nobody's enforcing it, so technically everybody
who creates one of those lots is illegal -- even though they haven't come in and asked for a permit for
any use that requires a permit.
G. Totman: That's right, They're illegal.
5
Town of Groton Planning Board Meeting October 13, 1994
L. Raymond: My question is -- why are we making everybody illegal under this when, technically,
why bother with it?
G. Totman: Even if you take it out and they still do it, they're still doing it illegally.
L. Raymond: I know. But if you take that out it won't be illegal to create that lot.
G. Totman: Yes, but they can't get a building permit for it.
L. Raymond: That doesn't mean the lot's illegal, though . It only means it doesn't meet the
requirements for the use they ask for the permit for, It doesn't mean the lot itself is illegal. Do you see
the difference there? They could be prosecuted under this, if George Senter wanted to, The way this
language is set up, he could look at every transaction that takes place in the Town, just like you could
in Lansing, and go to those folks and say "You created a lot that does not meet the frontage
requirements in this Town. . ." It says right here -- so if he wanted to, he could take action against them
and prosecute them even though they never had asked for a permit to do anything on there that
required frontage like that, It says right here that you can't do that. And these regulations say 200-
foot frontage right now, Period, As I understand it, I 'm just saying that if we're not enforcing it, why
have that sentence in there and gum up the works, Why don't we just take that out? And, as you
pointed out, George, when they come in to ask for a permit and they don't have the required frontage,
then we will judge it on that basis anyway. But not on the basis that it was just an illegally created lot.
There's a bunch of semantics here that we're involved in. But, nevertheless, why should somebody be
illegal if they created or purchased a woodlot or something and that's all they're using it for.
J. Lewis: The only thing I don't understand is if they created the lot illegally, and then three
years later they come in here and apply for a building permit and get turned down, then they go for a
variance to do that, and then, if you didn't know they were illegal because we took that sentence out, all
you're going to look at is the frontage and make your decision based on that, Now, if the guy created an
illegal lot, why should he be able to build anyway? He knew it was illegal when he created it.
G. Totman: Lyle, you almost had me convinced a minute ago,
L. Raymond: When we got into this with Bobby Walpole over here, . . .
G. Totman0 He knew he was wrong.
L. Raymond: We have it on record that he knew he was.
G. Totman: Like I said -- you almost had me convinced . Then I got to thinking what you were
saying, But, then again, this is the Planning Board and we're planning for the future of the Town of
Groton. And we're trying to create lots and do everything we can to make lots created that are of the
right size . So if we take anything out of the Ordinance that would tell somebody that they're not really
creating anything illegal if they create a small lot, what you 're saying is they just can't build on it.
L. Raymond: No .
G. Totman: What we're trying to do is preserve the land in the Town that can be used. If we take
that out of there, we are not doing our job as planning for the future and preserving the land that all
can be used for something. Follow what I'm saying?
L. Raymond: I hear what you're saying for the Planning Board, But for the ZBA, we get one of those
cases and since this is almost like an open and shut case here, . . . .
G. Totman: I'd say that if you got that on ZBA, you wouldn't even have to spend 15 minutes on it,
L. Raymond: I know but let's get a lot that has say 10 feet short on frontage, Normally, I can tell you
right now, we'd probably give them a variance if they're 10 feet short on 200 feet of frontage. That's not
substantial and probably would say it's not going to alter the character of the neighborhood, and all
this other stuff. And we'd probably give them the variance. But, if we find it's that kind of a lot, we
wouldn't even look at the ten foot, we would say it was created illegally and we 'd just say no.
6
Town of Groton Planning Board Meeting October 13, 1994
G. Totman: Now are you talking about a lot of record, or a lot that's being created?
L. Raymond: Being created? I'm talking about a lot of record. One that was created sometime in the
past since the Zoning Ordinance was passed. So, if you read this thing the way we're looking at it, this
is an outright statement that says you can't create one . So they come in and have a ten-foot shortage.
And they are the sixth owner down the line from the one that created it in the first place. They want to
do it, but say they don't have the frontage on this, we're ten-foot short, and we'd like a variance .
Normally, we'd probably give it to them. But when it says right here, outright, that you're not supposed
to create a lot of that size, like you said, our alternative may not be an alternative. We may have to
follow what this says and tell them outright that we can't get it to you because the lot was illegal in the
first place.
G. Totman: But in this particular case, the person that's asking didn't create it.
L. Raymond: That's right.
G. Totman, But if the person who created it asked you, you'd have an outright turn-down.
L. Raymond: That's what happened to Bobby Walpole. That's why we did it.
G. Totman: But if somebody bought it and it was only five or ten feet short, then you would give
them the consideration.
L. Raymond: Yes. That's what we'd like to do.
G. Totman: I think that's the way it should be.
L. Raymond: I'm just saying that the way we were dealing with it on the ZBA it was causing us a
problem.
G. Totman: That's why you're here. We might not always agree, but that's why I want to make sure
you're here.
L. Raymond: We haggled over this thing, too.
G. Totman: Lot Dimensions - - how did we get on Lot Dimensions, anyway? We weren't even
talking about lot dimensions.
L. Raymond: It started out from the non-conforming lot thing we were talking about. And we were
saying that non-conforming lots is one thing, and illegal lot is another. They are not the same thing
necessarily. That's where we got into this whole business. You said the things ZBA has struggled with
we were going to go over. And this is one of them. We thought we had a little trouble with trying to
interpret that. What we got down to is if this lot is created illegally, then at what point is it enforced.
And we found out from George Senter there isn't any enforcement until somebody asks for a permit.
But technically, everybody, whether they ask for a permit or not, under this language in here -- even
where they created it or if they purchased it, and they own the lot that was created after the Zoning
Ordinance was passed, no matter what they're using it for, it's illegal, technically.
K Carey: We. do have a definition of a lot, right?
L. Raymond: Yes. It's 200-foot frontage.
M. Carey: Why do we have these lot dimensions. . . .
G. Totman: Well, if you look at the definition of a lot, and this is the Ordinance, if you look at it
the way Lyle's looking at it, it's saying the same thing as this says, only it says it in a different way.
L. Raymond: Which one are you looking at?
7
Town of Groton Planning Board Meeting October 13, 1994
G. Totman: The dimension of a lot -- ,in our new one.
L. Raymond: What's the new definition you've got down here . Refresh my memory.
T. Smith: The lot, or the lot dimension?
G. Tatman: Well, what do we have for a lot? What is a lot?
G. VanSlyke: An area of land with a single ownership of record. Lot refers exclusively to
development lot unless indicated otherwise.
G. Totman: No size or anything, George?
G. VanSlyke: Not in there.
G. Totman: Do we have another one under lot dimensions?
T. Smith: Back here in the district regulations how a lot is supposed to be .
G. Totman: Here. It's in the Ordinance how big a lot is supposed to be.
L. Raymond: That's right.
G. Totman: So if somebody creates one -- what I'm getting at Lyle -- in here it says a lot has to be an
acre -- regardless of what the dimensions are, it says it has to be a certain footage/frontage, and it has
to be an acre -- it's what it says in here. So if they create one that doesn't meet that, they're doing the
same thing as this sentence here says.
L. Raymond: Well they can create one with more than an acre, even though they don't have the
frontage, unless we're going to obviate that with the flag lot.
G. Totman: But that's a Special Permit, the flag lot is. We're going to allow that with a Special
Permit. Say we've got 150-foot frontage. It says in here in our new Ordinance, if this passes, that a lot
created needs 150 foot of frontage and an acre of land. So anybody that creates one smaller, that
doesn't meet those requirements, is committing the same crime as. . . . .
L, Raymond: . . . this one here. All right. But then when are you going to know that? So they go and
sell off lots along the road, and they leave a piece left over that doesn't meet the requirements -- when
does that become enforced?
J. Lewis: I see what you're saying.
G. Totman: I don't know how you can enforce it, to tell you the truth . But , they're illegal. The
majority of towns have ordinances, and most lawyers always call the local town office to see if it's a
legal lot. They do that all the time. They never used to do that. Because you drive into a town and the
size says Zoning, are you going to buy a lot before you check to see if it's a legal lot?
L. Raymond: I wouldn't. But I know some people who might not check. And I don't know as I want
to rely on lawyers to necessarily do that every time.
G. Totman: We've got to put it in our Ordinance what the requirements are . There's no sense
putting it in there if we're not going to hold them to it.
L. Raymond: So my only point is -- all you've got to do is remove that sentence in here.
G. Totman: Lyle, we've already done that. In our new one we are not copying that.
L. Raymond: All right. Okay. Then you solved it.
G. Totman: What she read is in our new one .
8
Town of Groton Planning Board Meeting October 13, 1994
L. Raymond: You solved part of it, but it still leaves open the question the fact of what happens if
somebody has a residual piece left over.
G. Totman: They only way you're going to solve that. . . .
G. VanSlyke: May I ask a question. You keep making a big point about this lot being drawn up. Now
If a person is going to develop their land, they're either going to do a subdivision of some sort -- but in
the process of doing this, we're going to know if they are going to be establishing non-conforming lot.
We're going to look at their subdivision. We're not going to let them go through here without looking
over their subdivision are we?
G. Totman: The only exception to that, George, is that in the Town of Groton you can sell off a lot
without telling anybody.
G. VanSlyke: Okay. In other words, you can sell one lot and it . . . .
M. Carey, can be non-conforming on that one lot.
G. Totman: Some towns have every sale of a lot is a subdivision. That would cover that. But even
then, Lyle, you've got the same thing there . Supposing they sell a lot and don't come in for a
subdivision. It's about three months before it gets back from the Assessment Department to the town
hall and then you've got to have somebody hired to go over it and make sure it's legal. Whoever buys it
might not use it for three or four years. Then he comes in for a building permit; then that's when they
find it out. And they've even got that in towns that have one-lot subdivisions.
G. VanSlyke: So what are you saying to re-write this thing so that won't happen. You're never going
to keep somebody from doing that as long as they can sell off a piece of their property as a lot.
G. Totman: I will say though , Lyle, over the past five or six years I 've seen many, many people
come in to check to see. You've got a good point, but we've got to have it in there someplace what a legal
lot is.
L. Raymond: Maybe in the end we can.
G. Totman: We did change that some.
L. Raymond: I agree . You have changed it some by taking this out. Maybe we can't do any better
than that.
G. Totman: We aren't done yet. Keep it on the burner -- we might come back to it later. George,
we're not going to finish doing the map we worked on last week because those of us who were here --
Cecil asked us if we'd wait and do it when he came back. That's why we decided we'd do all this other
stuff to catch up . In our Ordinance we are also putting in the rules and regulations of what the zoning,
ZBA does, their regulations, and stuff like that. It's important that we think about this -- somebody
gets a variance granted for whatever on a particular piece of land. And then they sell it to somebody
else. The question is -- how long does that variance hold with that property? We want to make sure we
have something in the Ordinance that tells the Zoning Officer and the ZBA -- does that stay on that
piece of property forever? Or does it leave when that person sells the property? I know what my
feelings are on it; but I want you to think about it. Everybody hasn't dealt with that problem before.
You give somebody permission to put a granny apartment in their house , and it's not in the Ordinance.
So they've spent good money putting an apartment in the basement -- on the back of an attached
garage . Your question might be -- is that variance still standing when granny doesn't need that
anymore . Are we telling those people to go ahead, spend your $ 10,000 to fix that up, and when that
lady passes on you're going to tear it all apart? I guess my personal feeling would be it's not going to be
detrimental to the neighborhood to pass at that particular time and grant the variance . I think it
should stay with the property, unless it's vacated for a year like everything else. Then it becomes non-
conforming again.
9
Town of Groton Planning Board Meeting October 13, 1994
L. Raymond: If we allow granny apartments, as you call them, they're not going to need a variance
anyway.
G. Totman. I was using that for an example. It could be something else. So what are your thoughts
on that?
L. Raymond: It probably should be, although the variance could include a time limit on it. But if we
don't include a time limit, you're saying should one be written into the Zoning Ordinance as to what we
can do. In other words, it would limit us on the variance that we can grant. That would come down to
that provision about having "sunset" provisions that they talked about over at Rose Hill. They told us
that it should be included right in your code.
G. Tottnan0 Sometimes somebody might move -- we're going to get into ECHO housing, too . So
maybe a lot of this that's bothered in the past might not be a bother just by the nature of the way we're
doing the new ordinance. I know there's been cases where a mobile home has been moved on the lot for
their grandparents to live in -- like in McLean on Stevens Road. I would think that would be a ZBA
decision to say -- okay, we're going to allow you to do that to take care of them. It's there until they
either go into a nursing home or pass on, or they don't need it anymore. Then they got 90 days to get it
off there .
L. Raymond: I think what they're saying here is to have a sunset provision in the code -- they said
through Special Permits -- that's what's in my notes from the training session . That we should allow
those type of things through a Special Permit. In that case , it says the sunset provisions through a
Special Permit, not a variance . They said the courts are much more likely to uphold it. Also, if you
have a sunset provision, it occurs to me it would allow you to, when the person using it is no longer
using it, and they want to use it for something else, or sell the place or whatever, then with this sunset
provision it doesn't say you could continue. It only means the town would have the chance to review it
again at that point to see if it's a good thing to continue that or not -- to continue the Special Permit
under a sunset provision. So we'd have another go-round at it. The danger is that they'll turn it into a
rental unit. . . .
G. Totman: Like I say, when we make a section in the Ordinance for ECHO housing, granny flats,
or whatever they want to call it, that would be covered under that.
L. Raymond: Yes. And it should be done in the code through Special Permits rather than through
variances. That would mean that the Code Enforcement Officer, under the code, then could look at this
-- no he couldn't either -- It 's got to be a Special Permit -- it would have to go to the Planning Board.
You would permit it and there would be a sunset provision in the Special Permit. But that would mean
that somebody has got to look over that thing and keep track of it. And when that use ceases,
somebody has got to notify them. You don't hear from them anyway, and they've got to know it's run
out and the sun has set.
G. Totmanto
. For the sake of everybody, where do you derive the word "sunset" in relation to what
we're talking about?
L. Raymond: It means the Permit has come to an end. There's an end to it and it doesn't run forever.
G. Totman: I just wanted this for clarification in the minutes and for the people . Just to move this
along -- when you wrote that up we weren't even thinking about ECHO housing then, and so that will
take care of that part of it when we're doing that.
J. Lewis: If I move my mother into my house and then she passed away and I didn't bother to
say anything -- I just went out and rented to some people I knew real well who were friends, how are
you going to stop that?
G. Totman: I don't think you are because there's a difference there . You're doing in the basement
of your house -- is a two-family allowed in that area? If they're allowed in that area, it doesn't make
any difference as long as you get a permit to build that apartment. This is only if it's something that's
not allowed in that area and then your mother leaves you, or whatever, and you rent it out to somebody
10
Town of Groton Planning Board Meeting October 13, 1994
else, then you're opening yourself up until somebody turns you in and you're taken to court. It might go
for a year or so before you get caught.
L. Raymond: There 's a difference too in just having your mother in the basement. You're just
adding an extra bedroom. She would be staying with you, using the same kitchen facilities and
everything. But, in this case, we're referring to the fact that you divide the house off with separate
kitchen and everything -- then it becomes an accessory apartment. So there'd be a difference.
G. Totman: Okay, I think we've covered most of the stuff we've gotten from the ZBA.
L. Raymond: I had my own list here of stuff. That business about the mobile home definitions -- I
guess we've covered that. Just to check here -- the travel trailer. I don't recall as we got back to that.
J. Lewis: Anything 40-foot or less is a travel trailer.
G. Totman: Wait a minute -- we're taking away that 840 square feet. So if they meet the
requirements of the Building Code and the Health Department what difference does it make what size
it is? Whether it's a trailer or travel trailer.
L. Raymond: Okay. Maybe that does solve it then.
G. Totman: But they've got to get a building permit, and that living unit they put there has to meet
the Building Code and the Health Department requirements and setbacks and everything else. Under
our old one -- and the only reason it was put in there -- because we were having problems with old
trailers coming in that other towns wouldn't allow. So we put a requirement of 840 square feet and let
It cover everything. But that was the largest mobile home made at that time . But now the whole
concept of the mobile home business has changed since then, and we're talking about granny flats
which is much smaller than '840 square feet. And even if you don't go for a granny flat, supposing
you've got the regular farm out here . Sheldon, for example , has a big 300-acre farm there and doesn't
want to maintain that house anymore . He wants to take a little acre of land off in the woods
someplace and put up a little 2-3 room house for him and his elderly wife to live in and not have lots to
take care of. What's the difference whether it's that or a travel trailer? As long as it meets the code.
The ones we had a problem with, the travel trailers you're talking about. . . .
L. Raymond: They were claiming they were using it for recreational use. And actually they were
living in it and everybody knew it.
M. Carey: They still are .
G. Totman: What I'm saying is -- that was because we had an 840-square foot limit and they didn't
meet that.
L. Raymond: It didn't make any difference. They weren't claiming it was a living unit -- they said it
was a recreational vehicle and we're using it for recreation and prove to me we aren't.
G. Totman: Well, everybody knows they were living in it.
L. Raymond: I know. We knew that. But how are we going to prove this? They said they were using
it for recreation. They swore this in the hearing.
G. VanSlyke: So what are you going to do about it?
L. Raymond: That is the question we had -- we told them they had to have a permit. That's what
George told them. They said they didn't need that because they were using it as a recreational vehicle --
it's got wheels on it and it's parked in our yard -- even though everybody knew they were living in it.
M. Carey: It's got a woodstove in it and skirting around it.
J. Lewis: Does that affect you, too, as far as somebody coming in for a month or two -- saying
they want to bring their camper in and park it.
11
Town of Groton Planning Board Meeting October 13, 1994
M. Carey. That would be considered recreational use.
L. Raymond: That's what we're getting into -- the definition of recreational vehicles.
M. Carey: Then we ought to put a definition in for recreation.
G. VanSlyke: And it should be mobile '', -- they should be able to move it around. Not just left in one
spot, but capable of being moved to another spot for maybe a time limit.
M. Carey: You've got to put a time limit on it.
G. Totman: Let me just ask a question of the Board -- and don't think of one specific instance,
think of it in general. Is there something wrong with somebody buying a small, one-bedroom mobile
home -- say it's a recreational vehicle and it's brand new and meets all the codes. And they've got an
acre of land and they want to bring it in and set it up, meet the Health Department's rules and
regulations. Does somebody 'have a reason why that should be wrong?
J. Lewis: No .
M. Carey: As long as they've met the regulations.
G. VanSlyke: . Like a camp kind of thing? Or to use it for a residence?
G. Totman: I'm single, okay. As long as it meets the codes. Say I travel a lot. I work on the gas
line and want someplace to call home -- so I buy a couple acres of land in Groton, buy a small travel
trailer, maybe put up a garage to put my tools in. But I've got a place so whenever I've got two or three
weeks off I can call it home. I set the camping trailer up, put skirting around it, put in the septic and
the well. What would be wrong with that as long as it meets all the other codes?
L. Raymond: Suppose I put it in there and don't want to pay the expense of the septic tank and stuff;
and the Zoning Officer comes around and says I'm doing just what you said . And I say no, I'm using it
for recreational use -- I'm not using it for' residential use.
G. Totman: I don't buy that argument.
L. Raymond: But we don't either. But we'd like to have something to stand on.
G. Totman. I could take that to court and win. I'm serious. In fact, to me, and he didn't buy it
either. He made it go to you, right?
L. Raymond: Well, he's playing games with us. We know that.
G. Totman: What I'm getting at, Lyle, is that in that particular case -- the way I understand it -- I
find somebody out there who's not complying with the Ordinance. And they say we are . And I say no,
you're not. So I give them a citation. They still won't do it in 30 days. Then I turn it over to the court.
That's the way I want the Ordinance to read.
L. Raymond: Under the new thing we're doing -- that's what George did. He cited them . And then
they came back to us for a variance, you see. But under the new one when he cites them, he's going to
take them right to court.
G. Totman: That's exactly right. So you're changing the concept of what we're talking about.
L. Raymond: Well maybe that will take care of it. Yes.
G. Totman: Does everybody follow what we're talking about? I think it's important that as we're
doing this we should really. . .
L. Raymond: Well it's these little extreme cases. . . . .
12
Town of Groton Planning Board Meeting October 13, 1994
G. Totman: We're going to take those little knicks out of there that are causing the problems. The
way our ordinance is now, you can't do that. That's why we're trying to change it. When we have our
public hearing and meet with the Town Board, we want to make sure they understand it and, hopefully,
they will agree with us. The one that you and Monica are talking about -- I don't even think they meet
the health standards. I would have gone to the Health Department first with them. The first thing
they look at is underneath to see where the septic is going. If it's hooked up, it's there. It's permanent.
It's not recreation. And theirs is hooked up.
L. Raymond: I know. They ran a pipe down to their regular house system.
G. Totman. I can see the pipe running right on top of the ground . So that's not recreational use.
Okay -- ECHO housing. We haven't talked about that at all . Let's take five minutes for a coffee break.
(Break)
G. Totman: What do we have now, Tracey?
T. Smith: One thing I, noticed In the definitions was the definitions of recreation cabin and
rooming unit. We never really decided if a recreational cabin was something people could rent out, or
if it was Just something someone had in their back lot that they used for themselves.
L. Raymond: Rent it out for recreational uses you mean?
T. Smith: Right.
L. Raymond: If it's allowed for recreational use, why shouldn't you be able to rent it for recreational
use? As long as it meets the definition of recreational use, does it matter?
G. Totman: That's a good point she brings up . I know some people that have a hunting lodge right
here in the Town. And I'm sure it doesn't meet any of the Codes. If you build a structure out in the
woods, and you don't have running water to it, then the Health Department doesn't require you to have
a septic system. They don't ;care as long as you don't have facilities for water on the inside . So if you
have a hunting lodge -- recreational --
T. Smith: This definition requires Health Department approval of the water and sewer.
G. Totman: If it's going to be used for . . . . .
L. Raymond: Are you talking about commercial recreation or something?
T. Smith: When we first started talking about recreational cabins it sounded like it was
something someone would have on their back lot that they used for hunting and things like that.
G. Totman: To take care of the problems in the future, we have to think about it because some
people do put cabins up. Somewhere's up on Lick Street, these guys have a camp that they go up to and
stay all week. I 'm sure that really isn't up to Code . It's not something to rent out to people to live in,
but it might be rented out to somebody for a weekend to use for a hunting camp .
L. Raymond: There is one danger with those things. And that is that sometime in the future that
can get turned into permanent living quarters.
G. VAnSlyke: Real quietly. I don't know what we can do about it.
L. Raymond: I would hate to be so strict so as not to allow people to put a little cabin on their lot
somewhere .
G• Totman: You're talking about trying to control those little lots that are non-conforming. It
would be worse trying to control. that. They would be so few and far between I don't think it would
cause us that much problem. If you've got a Job like George has got, and you're out traveling around, it's
13
Town of Groton Planning Board Meeting October 13, 1994
amazing how many people call you to say "How come so and so's got a cabin out in the woods? Did they
get a permit for that?" You could follow a lumber truck to see where it's going to go. A lot of times you
find something going on without a permit. People know what the rules are and turn things in like
that. But we do have to have a definition in there about what is a recreational. . . . . If they build it in
their back yards, that's a building and they are going to get a building permit for it. We're not helping
Tracey come up with a definition.
T. Smith: Let me read what's in there now. "A residential building containing a rooming unit or
dwelling unit conforming to the minimum floor space requirements of a rooming unit, including
sanitary facilities meeting Health Department requirements. "
G. Totman: So what's wrong with that?
T. Smith: It sounds like you don't want it to be that strict.
L. Raymond: She just said "Health Department requirements." It's in there and it's part of it.
T. Smith: Right.
G. Totman0 Well if it's a unit without water, it still meets Health Department requirements.
L. Raymond: That's true. I wasn't thinking of it that way.
T. Smith: That might be okay, then?
G. Totman: I would be comfortable with that if everybody else is.
L. Raymond: They didn't say water?
T. Smith: It just says sanitary facilities meeting Health Department requirements.
L. Raymond: Okay. So George is probably correct then.
T. Smith: There is another one in the definition section that's related to what we're talking
about -- ECHO housing -- the accessory apartment. It's a separate unit within a house for a senior, and
it says it's not for rental. If it's there and has a separate kitchen and bathroom, it would be easy for
someone to start renting it out after the person is gone .
L. Raymond: Have you seen this thing that was put out -- thoughts on developing elder cottage
ordinance . She makes a differentiation here about elder cottage and an accessory apartment. An
elder cottage is more of what we had in the old Ordinance here, as I understand it, as detached rooms --
a separate structure on the same lot. But it is connected to the primary residence, whereas the
accessory apartment is part of the primary residence . She's got a lot of examples in here for various
ordinances and how they've written this up. You ought to have a copy of that.
G. Tatman. I just gave her one -- it's the same thing. And what do we want to call it? Do we want
to call it an elder cottage? Do we want to call it ECHO units, granny flats? There's a lot of different
things you can call them. We've got to call it something in our Ordinance . ECHO housing is quite a
familiar name they're using.
L. Raymond: But ECHO is an acronym. Should we use an acronym, or should we use a description
everybody understands?
G. Totman: ECHO stands for Elder Cottage Housing Opportunity. It says in here that ECHO units
are detached, one-story portable housing units which are designed to be located in back of or side of a
primary house . They are designed for elderly persons who are relatives of persons in the principal
house on the property. That's a good definition of it.
L. Raymond: That wasn't restricted just to older people, right? Where you might have some people
who are retarded or needs' help or are disabled and you'd need to have a provision for that, too.
14
Town of Groton Planning Board Meeting October 13, 1994
G. Totman: (to Tracey) Do those things help you out any?
T. Smith: Yes. I'll read through them.
L. Raymond: I see in here she divides this -- elder cottages -- as separate things.
G. Totman: For accessory apartment, if we allow them in areas now, and we didn't before, so we
might not need that.
L. Raymond: Maybe.
T. Smith: So you want to get rid of the accessory apartment in here?
G. Totman: No. No. No. No .
L. Raymond: No. No. She uses the words "secondary units" in here, too.
G. Totman. Tracey's going to go through those -- what do you want to call them so we can put it in
the Ordinance?
M. Carey: What does ECHO housing -- say the definition for us again.
T. Smith: Elder. Cottage Housing Opportunity,
G. Totman: Parentheses "ECHO Housing."
M. Carey. I think that's pretty self-explanatory right there.
L. Raymond: She says in here "elder cottage" and then in parentheses, to explain it, she says "a
granny flat or an ECHO unit." But she uses elder cottage as a generic term for it. She says sometimes
these are used interchangeably.
G. Totman: I 've always called them granny units, but somebody will call you on it because
sometimes it might not be granny -- it might be grampy. So if you call it the full name and just put
ECHO in parentheses, but the right name will be in there.
L. Raymond: I think that's the right way to do it.
M. Carey: That's what I said in the beginning.
T. Smith: One of the other questions we didn't take care of was the temporary sign thing and
how long they should be left in place.
L. Raymond: Have you seen this? I picked it up in one of my travels and it's got more in here than
you'll ever want to know about sign control. What does it say in here about temporary signs? I haven't
read it over.
T. Smith: I think we probably have it in our library.
L. Raymond: You must have . It's been out a while. Maybe the differentiation in here between
temporary and permanent will help us out a little bit.
G. Totman. What do you call a temporary sign, first? What do we have down for the definition of
a temporary sign?
T. Smith: Excluding construction, political, and realty signs, moveable temporary signs shall
not be in place longer than blank.
M. Carey: Do we have any temporary signs around Groton?
15
Town of Groton Planning Board Meeting October 13, 1994
G. VanSlyke: There's one at the Groton Hotel -- that's pretty temporary.
L. Raymond: Whoever wrote this calls it a portable sign. A sign whether on its own trailer or
wheels or otherwise designed to be moveable and not structurally attached to the ground, a building, a
structure, or another sign.
G. Totman. That's a good definition. I 'd take that for a definition . Why don't you give her that,
Lyle, and I'll bring some more to the next meeting and give you one back, if you would .
L. Raymond: Yes. I will. Because I think that will help us out a little bit. If somebody else has
already thought this thing out, why should we spend lots of time on it?
G. Totman: I agree.
J. Lewis: We hashed, this one out before . Twiggy was here and we got into the meat market
sign. . . .
T. Smith: Then you asked me to look into it and I sent the one from Cayuga Heights,
J. Lewis. I thought we put a limit on it -- so many days.
G. Totman: We talked about it, but I don't think we ever came to a decision.
T. Smith: I don't think you did.
G. VanSlyke: It can't be a flashing light -- is that what it was?
G. Totman: I'd say thirty days, if somebody's got an event they want to advertise .
L. Raymond: They've probably got some advice about that too in there. I haven't read it all through .
G. Totman: As long as it's not up for more than, I 'd say, thirty days. Like for civic events.
L. Raymond: In Varna, out in front of their fire house they've had a temporary sign out there that
might just as well be permanent, asking for fire department volunteers. That thing's been out there
almost permanent. Maybe it's not there now, but it was there for months and months.
T. Smith: Now, what about convenience stores and supermarkets?
G. Totman: Well it's not a supermarket unless it does over a million dollars worth of business a
year. You've got a point. We do differentiate between convenience stores and supermarkets.
M. Carey. Convenience stores don't carry all the products that supermarkets carry. And they
have less parking space than a supermarket.
T. Smith: Because they're smaller usually.
J. Lewis: They don't have grocery carts --- that's how you can define them.
G. Totman: Where are you looking, Tracey? Page 10?
T. Smith: Yes,
G. Totman: Page 10 says convenience goods such as groceries, gas station, drugs, and sundries. On
the other one, it says retail sales of clothing, hardware , and furniture . . .
T. Smith: We don't care about the size? Just what's being sold?
G. Totman: Well, they are both allowed in the same areas.
16
Town of Groton Planning Board Meeting October 13, 1994
T. Smith: Except for the Industrial .
G. Totman: Yes. I see what you're saying.
T. Smith: If you take it out of Industrial it won't matter. Let's take a look at this thing Tracey
asked us, and then we'll close the meeting and talk. She's asking about the difference between sales
convenience stores, and regular supermarket stores. We allow them in all the areas with a Special
Permit, except for the regular retail selling like hardware stores and stuff we didn't allow in the
Industrial District, but we did allow the other .one. Let's just allow that other one in Industrial, too,
because if we're going to have an Industrial area, we don't want to allow anything in there but that type
.of thing anyway. Just cross that one off out of there then.
T. Smith: Yes. That takes care of it.
G. Totman: Next week is our regular meeting which will be the 20th . And then actually we don't
meet again until third of November. No, we've got one on the 27th when we'll be working on the Zoning
Map . Hopefully by the third we can have this buttoned up.
T. Smith: Did you get the highway regs?
G. Totman: No. Because they don't really have any. And besides that, I couldn't understand why
you wanted them.
T. Smith. Because we were going to make the Ordinance general for the street requirements and I
wanted to make sure the specific stuff was actually in the highway regs.
G. Totman: It is my suggestion that highway regulations -- distances, depth of the road, type of
gravel, and all that stuff, can change from time to time . Wherever it makes a reference to highway in
our Zoning Ordinance, I think it should state "as to the current highway regs. " This way if they change
the regulations two or three times over the next five years, we don 't have to keep changing the
Ordinance. The Town of Groton hasn't put a new highway in since the Ordinance went into effect back
in 1972 . So they have what Corny goes by, but they don't have written highway regulations. If they're
going to put a major subdivision in and do that kind of work, they've already gone to the surveyors
who have already checked with the highway department as to what the regs are . He will set down with
them and tell them what they've got to do. Granted, they should have them, but they don't. If you're
going to put in something that's going to require roads, I don't know if any John Q. Citizen who can do
it without going to a developer, somebody like George Schlecht in Dryden , or whatever. They
automatically meet with all these people ahead of time before they even go to the Planning Board.
They cover all their bases. Adjourn? The meeting is adjourned.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:31 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Joan E. Fitch
Recording Secretary
17