HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-10-27 TOWN OF GROTON PLANNING BOARD
Thursday, 27 October 1994, 7:30 p.m.
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 Robert Walpole (8 :45 p.m.)
*Cecil ltwigg
*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 the revision of the Town Zoning Map.
G. Totman: Bob Walpole left some stuff here for us to look at. . . .
L. Raymond: How come this is not going into the Industrial part?
G. VanSlyke: This is going into the Village, not into the Town. This garage that they are renovating
is in the Village, isn't it?
L. Raymond: If it's going in the Village, then why. . . .
G. VanSlyke: I thought it was R & H that they were taking.
G. Totman: No, no. This is up on South Main Street,
M. Carey: This is the barn up on South Main - Cornelius'.
G. VanSlyke: No, no. There's no car dealership on South Main Street. I 'm reading the page where it
says expansion project.
G. Totman: They're buying the car dealership for the monument place.
G. VanSlyke: That's R & H.
G. Totman: But they are going to use this place up on South Main Street for storage. That's what
this is for.
G. VanSlyke: I'm reading about this expansion project.
G. Totman: He's telling us why they need expansion. I haven't read it, but I assume that's what it
is. The business is going to be down here, but what he's (referring to R. Walpole) talking to us about is. . .
G. VanSlyke: Yes, it's storage. But I was just answering his question why it's not in the Industrial
Zone . He asked why it wasn't going to be put in the Industrial Zone,
L. Raymond: You think they'd be drawn to the Industrial Zone like bees to honey.
G. Totman: He's being smart because he doesn't believe in the Industrial Zone.
Groton Town Planning Board October 27, 1994
G. VanSlyke: But our Industrial Zone would not be place that they -- they are not really looking to
build new.
G. Totman: No. They are using that because it's already there.
G. VanSlyke: They are looking for something existing, not to build something new.
G. Totman: You're right. One-hundred percent. Lyle is just trying to egg something on here . Okay,
we are all assembled in church today to hear Tracey's sermon. Luckily for Cecil, we postponed the last
meeting for the finishing of .the map so Cecil could think he had input on it. Anyway, we're going to
finish the map tonight and touch on any little things and whatever time we get done we'll check to see
where we stand from there. Maybe we'll have it done enough so Tracey can take it and spend a couple
three weeks doing her homework and putting it in a presentable form whereby we can present it to the
Town Board . And we won't have to keep having these meetings. So it depends on how much we
accomplish tonight whether we can do that or not. Tracey has been keeping pretty close track of what
we should and should not be doing tonight to finish it up. I think on the map the only thing we've
really got left to do is the Commercial and Industrial area on the Cortland-Groton Road. And, before I
forget it, let me tell you one more thing that I told Tracey tonight. Just make sure you guys agree so you
don't think we're doing something behind your back. When we get done here we're going to have the
map and we've talked about going so many feet in and around the Village for this Medium Density
Zone and in any of the zones where we've picked a definite designed area for the zone. About the 18th
of November, the County is going to have what we call a digitized map ready for us that will have every
tax parcel on it that we can lay in front of you. What I think is a good idea, and I asked her to do , is
once we've got done what we've done here, then take this map we've got and go, using our guidelines, our
500 feet as a designated point, but run that zone like where we go around the Village or have made one
of those zones, along the tax map numbers of that land. So we're not cutting up a property by a tax map
number. Do you follow what I 'm saying? Everybody agree to that idea? (Everybody agreed. ) I think
that will solve some problems later on. Then when we do get the map, the back part of it won't be a
straight line. If it's a property that doesn't go back 500 feet, it will go 500 feet on the map . But if a
property goes back 600 feet, it will jog in and out like that.
Ce Twigg: But we're wording in the Ordinance that a property that faces the highway or faces this
inner boundary that it will include the whole property -- that tax map number. If part of it gets in the
tax map number, the whole thing does.
G. Totman: Everybody agree to that? Okay.
C. TWIW That will save us a lot of trouble trying to find. . . .
G. Totman: Well, all of them aren't made that way; but I think. . . .
Ce Twigg: But wouldn't it be simpler if we worded it that. . . that might be more accurate than us
drawing, trying to figure out where the line should be .
L. Raymond: And we were going how many feet back from the highway in each case?
G. Totman: Five-hundred.
L. Raymond: For each highway. So it would include all the properties facing on the highway,
bordering the highway, and going back 500 feet. So it wouldn't include all of the property, though .
Because properties go back farther than 500 feet.
G. Totman: What I'm saying is, Lyle, if it goes back more than 500 feet, that 500 feet goes back with
the property. So if you only go back 300 feet, it will go back beyond your property line. But if your
property line goes back 400 feet, it will jog out and take in your property line .
L. Raymond: I hear what you're saying.
T. Smith: What if it's a huge big parcel that covers the whole. . . .
2
1
Groton Town Planning Board October 27, 1994
L. Raymond: It would be simpler to keep it to the 500 feet, I would think, as long as it faces the road.
Then it's pretty understandable that way. You are going to have this jigsaw puzzle following lot lines
I
round the place.
C. Twigg: If you've got a big parcel, you could run halfway to West Groton. Nobody owns quite
that much, but if somebody did, it could go quite a ways.
K Carey: We'll just have to take a look at this map.
G. Totman: He means deep, off the highway. When you change zones, then it's got to change
wherever the zone changes. But I 'm talking about along the road where that zone is. If it goes from
Medium to Rural, that's where it stops. There. But I'm talking about in the back of the properties.
CO TWI g: Well, you'd have to go on the front, too. Like Talbot's property would go more than 500
feet up the hill. So you're going to have to include all their property, right? But you want to include it
going back. Why would it be any different going back than up? What is your reasoning for including
all the property? Why would you want to include all the property? Back.
G. Totman: You're out in the country and you're starting a business. The front part of your
property you can have a car business or whatever you're putting there . It's all legal. You own 1000 feet
back. There's nobody else going to be able to do anything else back there because you 've got all of this
business up front. But if you don't make it legal so what you're doing up front -- on that particular
property now -- I'm not talking about a strip of somebody else's property. If they happen to want to put
in, as part of their business, another building out back or move their showroom out back a little
farther because they own the land, and we make it just 500 feet, they come down to George and say we
want to do this. George says no, because the zone only goes 500 feet. So then they'll go to the Zoning
Board of Appeals and ask for a variance because they've got all of this up front and we've got this nice
going business here . We only want to go back 25 feet, or whatever, and so they could try to prove a
hardship case to the Zoning Board of Appeals. What hurt would it do as far as we're concerned if that
business did go back another 100 feet? Nothing else can go in the front of that area anyway. That's
what I'm talking about.
L. Raymond: But the area that surrounds, that juts out into the interior somewhere or out away
from there, other property on another road that could even be in another zone.
G. Totman: I said I'm only talking about the property behind where it fronts on the road.
L. Raymond: I know.
G. Totman: If you get on the road and the zone changes, then that doesn't effect that. I'm talking
only about the property in back of -- not down the road.
L. Raymond: I understand. But if you take the property that goes back from the road in each case,
and it's going to go back different distances according to where the properties are, some are going to go
way back and others are going to be strips, different angles, or whatever. So therefore you're going to
have an uneven line . And depending on what the zone is on the other side , it's conceivable that you
might end up with a piece of property that's zoned Medium Density, or whatever, and not be too wide,
but it's surrounded by property that's zoned Low Density. And then the folks in the Low Density area
are going to say, hey, we don't want this thing sticking like a finger out into our Low Density area.
Granted, this may not be all that prevalent, but I'm just grabbing at something that if you go all around
the Village of Groton, you might find that in some cases. Maybe that's too far-fetched. Maybe this is
not all that possible .
C. lwigg: We could look it over and see if there's anything like that. We'd have to be careful. If
we go around the Village say 222 because everybody knows that. If we went from the Village line up
the hill 500 feet, but we could get up there to where they only had 100 feet left on that side of the road.
What can they do with a 100-foot strip? It's not a building lot.
G. Totman: If you'll read somewhere in our Ordinance, it will tell you. . . .
3
Groton Town Planning Board October 277, 1994
Ce TW1 g: We would be making a non-conforming lot.
G. Totman, If you'll read in our Ordinance, it will tell you that. . .
C. Twigg: Do you know what I 'm talking about, Tracey? Say the guy had 600 feet of road
frontage from the Village line, and we're going up 500 feet with this new zone . . . .
G. Totman: See, when we talk about 500 feet, Cecil, we're talking about going from the road back.
L. Raymond: Oh, I see what he's talking about.
G. Totman: But what he's saying could happen.
Ce Twim But we're going up the hill 500 feet also on this particular road.
G. Totman: Can I say something?
CO TWI : If it makes sense.
G. Totman: Somewhere in this Ordinance, if it's not there now, even in the old one it should be
there, it's going to say that when part of your property is in two zones, the major part of your property
prevails over 100 feet into the other zone, or something like that. It says that in most all ordinances.
There's a clause in there to cover that.
C. lwigg: Okay. All right.
G. Totman: What you said is a good point. We just want to make sure that she can look up to see
how it's done in other areas to cover that type of thing if that happens.
L. Raymond: Well in that case , then, the guy who's -- if that's true, George, "darn it, " run that
backwards. I've got a 75-acre inland parcel. I 'm on a road we've zoned Medium Density. Of that 75
acres, only 25 acres of it is in the Medium Density zone . And if we go by that rule, then the 50 acres left
over is going to prevail and I can say I 'm going to do what I want. We're doing it backwards, but that
rule would prevail.
Co Twlgg: That's very true .
L. Raymond: I hate to keep bringing these up, but nevertheless I guess that's the way you've got to go
about it.
C. Twigg: I think there's some pitfalls there that we're going to have to watch pretty close.
G. Totman: Let's bear in mind that that problem has had to have been solved someplace . We're not
the only town in this great country of ours that's made an ordinance, so let's leave it up to Tracey to
talk to the experts down in the County to make sure that doesn't happen in our Ordinance .
M. Carey: Let's get on with this and do our Industrial Zone.
J. Levels: Let's get it done before Twiggy has to take another vacation.
C. Twiggy So we don't know where this Medium Intensity Zone is going to. . . .
G. Totman: We've already done that. We did that while you were out.
L. Raymond: 500 feet on each side of all these roads running out of Groton.
Ce TWI g: But have we decided if it was going to go property lines?
L. Raymond: Only as far as going into the interior, away from the road as George said. Along the
road, it's mostly figured out, I guess.
4
1
Groton Town Planning Board October 27, 1994
G. Totman. I just want to make sure -- does everybody agree to it? I'm open one way or the other;
I'm only making a suggestion. I just thought it might be a good idea.
C* TWIM I don't know. I 'm not familiar with this. I don't know what the pitfalls are except
what we've just brought up here . The people must do this in some. . . .
M. Carey. What do you suggest, Tracey?
T. Smith: Maybe I should just do the map with the straight 500 and 1000; then you can look at it
and see how it covers the lots. Then we can see how many problem areas there are.
G. Totman. We've gotten every part of the map done now except from the Village going towards
Cortland out to Lick Street or Salt Road or whichever way you want to do it. Right now, it's called an
Industrial Zone .
L. Raymond: I haven't seen any industry out there . I was just making that point. Of course, twenty
years may not be a fair trial . Maybe we should wait forty and be patient. I 'll instruct my
grandchildren to pick up the thing.
CO TW1 g: Now these High Intensity areas are something you've done just recently and you just
made this map, right?
T. Smith: It's out of the Master Plan you did last year, I guess.
G. Totman, We've got every part done except between the top of the hill out of the Village towards
Cortland. We told you that at the last meeting , while you were out piddle-farting around someplace,
that we would wait until tonight to do that part of it. That's what we're doing now. We kept our word .
So don't screw us up or we won't do that for you again. So----there's some feelings from some of the
Board members about why do we have an Industrial Zone. And just briefly, so we all understand it,
and I 've told you before and I 'm going to do it again whether you like it or not, it was done at that
particular time because it was the consensus between the Town Board and the Planning Board to try to
direct something somewhere in the Town. It was done through the suggestion of the County Planning
Department to make an area to try to encourage development in a certain direction in the Town. There
hasn't been much new development in that area of the Town over the years. But by the same token,
there hasn't been any major development anywhere in the Town of Groton. In deference to all the
towns around us who've seen a lot of growth, Groton really has not. So you can look at it and say
there's been no industrial growth up there, but if we had the same growth in the Town of Groton that
Cortlandville, Dryden, or Lansing has had, we could have very well seen some up there. But we haven't
had that yet; probably it will taken another four or five years before it gets to here.
L. Raymond: I like the way you say yet.
G. Totman. Listen, I 'm talking now. And so that was the purpose of it at that time. I have no
problem with leaving it there because it's been there and we haven't had any problem with any of the
people who live up through there on that except for somebody that wanted to put a house between a
business. You wouldn't get that allowed in any zoning ordinance that I 'm aware of. Remember when
the Fenner's came in and wanted to put a single-family house out behind his business? The only other
thing is if somebody really violently wanted to change that, I would suggest making it a different zone
that the Medium Zone . Right now we have Rural Agriculture, Low Density, Medium Density which
allows a mixture of things. Keeping in mind that could be a possibility up there and it's an area where
you really don't want a lot of single-family homes down through there because it's one of the busiest
highways in the Town of Groton. If you've ever listened to anybody talk about planning for the future,
you don't put single-family houses on the most-traveled roads. You don't encourage it, anyway. So if
you didn't want to make an Industrial Zone, I would suggest making that particular area down through
there a medium-type zone , only in that area require larger lots -- like two to five acres. Larger than
normal so the normal person building a house is discouraged from building in there so you won't get
the quick development of homes. Even if you don't get industry in there , it's still an area where you
don't want to have a lot of kids running around, back and forth across the street. Just try to digest that
for a minute and see if it makes sense.
5
Groton Town Planning Board Odtober 27, 1994
L. Raymond: George mentioned that, because we talked about it down at the zoning conference. I
told George I wanted to think about it. I have. And I like it. So on want George to know that on the
record. To me, it seems like it introduces a little more flexibility than what we have in that zone now.
At the same time, it reserves in part what some of the intention was there if somebody does want to go
in there , there are lots big enough to accommodate a commercial or industrial that might want to
move in there. I kind of like that idea to be very frank about it.
C. 1wiN: You mean put an acreage size and road frontage size and extend the road frontage just
in that -- would we have to develop a zone for that to do that?
G. Totman: Yes. A different type of zone. You could call it a Medium Zone 2 -- you could have a
Medium Zone 2 and a Medium Zone 1 .
L. Raymond: A modified Medium Density. That would make it conform more closely to what we're
doing the rest of the way around the Village on the other State roads -- down 38 both ways, and
whatever. It's a compromise between those two. That's why I like it.
J. Lewis: But if we do that, and we have a business that comes to us and says we 'd like to know
where we can do this type of business, any type of business can still go in in that zone?
G. Totman: There's another thing we do have that we can use -- what we call PUD or P-U-D ,
Planned Unit Development. If you have a large business that wants to come in, I think our Ordinance
says it has to be at least five acres. Then you can go through the PUD process and it essentially re-
zones that area for that particular thing. Do you follow what I'm saying. That's what happened over
where UPS is. That was not zoned for that type of commercial activity. But it was a large enough area,
and you don't see it from the road , but there's three factories down that road past UPS that employ a
total of about 200 people. That whole area was re-zoned to what they call a PUD .
M. Carey: Well, I'll agree with George and Lyle. I like the concept of this idea.
C. lwlgg: Yes. That isn't quite so bad . It doesn't confine the people to selling it for industrial
purposes only.
L. Raymond: That's right.
C. lwigg: You've got a little bit of leeway there and have it develop. Because to put that in there
as strictly industrial, when industry has been going the other way -- he tells about South Cortland,
Cortlandville, or Ithaca. They are located differently. They are on main highways. They're on Route
13 headed for the thruway. We're not. We're off in the corner. And industry has to have highway
access.
J. Lewis. I can remember when Dryden wasn't any bigger than Groton.
C. lwigg: But the highway goes through Dryden .
G. Totman, At one time, one of the main routes on the drawing board for 13 took it right through
the Town of Groton. It took it just up the hill above the cemetery in McLean.
J. Lewis: Why didn't it happen?
G. Totman, Politics. Cortland and Tompkins County couldn't agree where it was going to meet
over in Cortland County. It was strictly a political thing. They had a map made with about three
options to there. Basically, the people in the Cosmos Hill area -- and that was before it was developed
like it is now -- they had their own ideas and were very influential people in Cortland County. They
fought it every minute.
C. lwigg: But if something that drastic happens, we're going to have to re-zone this thing
anyway..
6
Groton Town Planning Board October 27, 1994
G. Totman. If you want to talk about this concept, the one thing you want to talk about is how
much greater . . . right now we're suggesting to the Town Board 150-foot lot frontages. If we're going to go
with say 5-acre lots, we ought to suggest at least 300-foot road frontages with a five-acre lot. That way
it fits in with the purpose we're trying to do.
C. ZwiW Now how far are you going with this zone?
G. Totman: I'd say go all the way to the Salt Road.
CO TWIM Now that makes more sense .
L. Raymond: And also, I think we ought to go both sides of the road .
G. Totman: Both sides of the road, all the way to the Salt Road.
M. Carey. There's an awful lot of houses between Lick Street and Salt Road .
G. Totman: I know it. But they're there.
M. Carey: Yes. I guess it would probably be a good idea.
G. Totman: Does everybody agree we take it from the Village line to the Salt Road?
M. Carey: Sounds good.
J. Lewis: Okay.
CO TWI : Are you going to take out the Medium Intensity Zone up there?
G. Totman: It starts at the Village line, I said . The Medium Density Zone is going to butt up to that
500 feet out all the way around.
L. Raymond: It's all going to be Medium Density, except this will be a Medium Density something.
G. Totman: We'll call this M-2 ; the other one's M- 1 .
T. Smith: How far back do you want to go?
L. Raymond: If we're going to be consistent with what we did everywhere else around the Village. . . .
CO Twi g: Well, if you've got five acres and you go back 500 feet. . .
G. Totman. But you can't go by that. Cecil, because one lot might have 500 feet of road frontage
and only go back 300 feet.
Ce TWI g; But I'm saying if you had 300 feet and go back 500, how much acreage is that?
G. Totman: Three times 5 is 15 -- that's . .
C. TWIW 15,000 square feet.
(Note: 300 x 500 is 150, 000 - not 15, 000)
G. Totman: What is there, 46, 280 square feet to an acre?
Secretary: 43, 560 square feet in an acre.
C. 1wim So that's not more than 5 acres. You'd have to have more than 300 feet of road
frontage .
7
Groton Town Planning Board October 27, 1994
G. Totman: That's why I said follow the boundary line.
C. Twigg: In this case, you'd have to.
G. Totman: I can see some of the arguments; that might not be a good idea. Maybe they should use
the variance route if they want to go more than then 500 feet. I think Tracey had the best idea. Let's put
it on the map with the 500 feet all the way around. Today's the 27th. On November 18th we're supposed
to have access to the right map if we can figure out how much they're going to charge us for it to get it.
That's the next thing. I'm going to talk to Tracey's boss. Assuming we're going to get it, we can have it
all done this way and then look at it maybe on an overlay to see what it would effect if we did it the
other way.
L. Raymond: I agree. We do need that as a visual.
G. Totman: Because we've got to have it before we can hold a public hearing. Looking at it that
way, if we finish here tonight, I will immediately ask the Town Board for a joint meeting. At our joint
meeting, we don't really have to have that map completely finished as long as we've got the concept. If
they agree with the whole thing, then we can hold a joint public hearing sometime around the last
week in November. We can have the map done by then. So let's finish this then. Are we pretty well
done with that, then?
T. Smith: I think so.
G. Totman: Okay. Tracey. . . . .
T. Smith: The M-2 zone is going to have the same uses as the other M?
G. Totman, Yes, just require more land .
L. Raymond: Are you going to make a motion on that?
G. Totman: Does everybody agree? (All agreed. ) Cecil, this other thing you were talking about
where a boundary line might break in a person's property - - this is how it's done in this zoning
ordinance : It says "When a lot is divided by a different boundary, the regulations/ requirements of the
least restricted district may be extended for a distance" and this one says 50 feet in the more
restrictive district. This is the choice of wording for this one place . But it's basically how you do that.
I would rather say 100 feet than 50, but. . . . 100 feet, either way. Does everybody agree with that concept?
M. Carey: Yes.
L. Raymond: It's worth trying.
Ca TWI g: Well -- it would have to be worded so that this person's got 100 feet over here -- I mean
he couldn't just take the last 100 feet and make something different of it. It would have to be in
conjunction with what was in the other piece of property, you could go into the other zone with the
same rule?
G. Totman: Either way. You're right on the end of a district, so what is another 100 feet?
Ce TWI g: That's what I say. But -- if the guy took that to read he could take the last 100 feet that
was in this district and do what he wanted to with it, it would have to be something that he was doing
with the rest of the property. He couldn't just take the 100 feet that we're allowing him. He couldn't
change the ordinance to go with the next door property and then not use the next door property for part
of it. That's what I 'm saying. He might come in and say, well -- I can do whatever I want with this last
100 feet. I can put that in this one or that one or either way I want to.
V. Rankin: I don't know why the H he'd want to.
G. Totman. What difference does it make?
8
Groton Town Planning Board October 27, 1994
C. TW1 9: No, it wouldn't.
G. Totman: Anybody disagree with that concept?
CO TW199: You missed my point, but that's okay. I 'm not too good at explaining what I 'm
thinking, I guess.
M. Carey: No, because I've missed it too.
V. Rankin: I think we all missed it.
Ce Twigg: Well, I'm saying. . . . .
V. Rankin: We don't want to hear it no more -- let's go on. . . to H with it.
Ce TW1 9: Say you go up 222 with the Medium Intensity Zone. And the guy's got a hundred feet
left up there that isn't in the Medium Intensity.
L. Raymond: What do you mean "left up there" -- you mean going up towards Salt Road?
Ce TW1 g: Going up towards Salt Road. I know we got that all straightened out -- I'm just
hypothetical. But theoretically he can do a hundred feet this way or a hundred feet that way of that
line .
G. Totman: Depending on what zone he wants to use. That's right.
C. Win: So if he comes down here and says I 'm going to take this hundred feet and change it
because I'm allowed to -- not necessarily using the rest of it -- we've got to be careful how we worded it so
he couldn't come in and just take the last 100 feet of this zone. . . .
L. Raymond: Oh, I see what you mean. The adjoining zone down the road could come back this way
a hundred feet onto this zone. That's what you're saying?
CO Twigg: Yes. And not necessarily need this other. He might just want to change this 100 feet. . . .
G. Totman: Let me read this back to you. As usual, you were not listening to me when I read this to
you. It says -- "When a lot is divided by a district boundary, the regulations /requirements of the least
restrictive district may be extended for a distance of so many feet into the more restrictive district. It
said "the usage may be extended." It doesn't say you can start a new one. You're extending your usage. I
think that takes care of what you're talking about.
C. Twiggy Okay. It probably will never happen.
G. Totman: This doesn't say he can do something different. It can be extended.
L. Raymond: It's not a change of use.
C. ZWJW Yeah . I heard what you 're reading. I'm not getting through to you and I guess I 'm not
going to so we'll. . .
V. Rankin: You're not getting through to me, either.
C. Twigg: Well that's no surprise.
G. Totman: Okay. Okay. Tracey, where are we going now?
T. Smith: I think the last two things we have to look at are flag lots and ECHO Housing, and
that's what I passed out to you .
G. Totman: Did everybody get a copy of this flag lot and ECHO housing?
9
Groton Town Planning Board October 27, 1994
G. Totman: Let's do the flag lots first.
T.' Smith: It says that the flag lots can be put in if the land is a funny shape, or a regular lot
wouldn't fit in, or whatever. It says that a lot has to have a minimum area of two acres -- and it's pretty
standard in the ordinance I looked at to double the size of the regular lots that may be in the back.
That's why that's there .
L. Raymond: And the flagpole stretch is not calculated in that either.
T. Smith: Right. You can't have this huge long driveway and a little quarter-acre lot at the end of
it .
L. Raymond: It doesn't say how long the access road has to be.
C. Twigg: Whether you got access roads or whether you got a bush pile along the road, I don't
know what the difference would be .
J. Lew1S: What's wrong with a flag lot? What's the detriment of it?
C. Twigg: Before you came, he was telling about this one town that had a driveway back to a flat
lot, a driveway, a driveway -- they had five or six driveways, one right after another, that went back to
lots. There's something about the town didn't like that.
L. Raymond: There are a variety of reasons. One is that it didn't fit in with the idea of what they
were trying to promote along the roads. Having a whole row of access driveways coming in, you know.
And I assume they felt this was a circumvention of subdivision rules. They were selling off single lots,
each one with a wandering driveway that comes out somewhere parallel to each other. They had so
much land. You put a two-acre lot in, I suppose the way people go back on their properties today, you
could wind all over H and go back and have four or five of them back in there. Ten acres with five two-
acre lots.
G. Totman: But if they've all got the required 20 feet. . .
L. Raymond: The question is -- does it bother us or now. I'm not saying one way or the other. But to
have all these 20-foot driveways come out next to each other. A whole row of mailboxes -- if we don't
care, it doesn't matter.
C. Twiggy I don't think it would really make that much difference .
J. Lewis: What difference does it make whether it's a driveway or you drive along a farmer's
field and they've got roadways up there?
G. VanSlyke: The driveways are in succession with one another?
L. Raymond: Yes,
T. Smith: Right next to each other.
L. Raymond: That's what I heard. Yes. It happened in this one town.
G. VanSlyke: How do you allow something like that?
L. Raymond: With a flag lot.
G. VanSlyke: Yes. But a flag lot doesn't take precedence over your regular frontage, does it?
G. Totman: You only need 200 feet for a flag lot.
10
Groton Town Planning Board October 27, 1994
G. VanSlyke: Yes, but supposedly the purpose for a flat lot is that you're only using it in those
circumstances where you haven't been able to fulfill the rest of it.
L. Raymond: Well then, we need to say that if that's true.
G. VanSlyke: That was my understanding of what a flag lot was. Here you've done all the division
and here's all the properties around it -- here's this thing in the middle you've got access to. I don't
know how they could even allow them to start out here and put all these lots back in here and have a
whole series of driveways coming down. That's a stupid waste of land as far as I'm concerned.
L. Raymond: What we need -- and you think that's in the definitions, Tracey? It says it's only to do
with residual. . .
G. VanSlyke: By the Planning Board, whenever the land involved is of a peculiar shape or size , is
subject to unreasonable property or parcel limitations. . . . Okay, that means that it doesn't conform to
the regular regulations.
L. Raymond: That's right. Because it's a residual lot left over. That's what it amounts to.
G. Totman: It says flag lots shall not be used to avoid the construction of roads. You might also, if
you're having a real question about that, think about putting flag lots in for Site Plan Review,
M. Carey: That might be a good idea.
G. VanSlyke: Well, aren't they anyway?
M. Carey, No .
T. Smithi They only get subdivision review.
L. Raymond: No. Not with ours, would it?
G. Totman: In other towns that have subdivision for every lot they are automatically a
subdivision. Normally, this is in the subdivision rules and regulations. But in our Town we allow a
lot without it.
CO wigg: Well -- in that case, if they put in more than one, they'd have to come in for a
subdivision anyway.
G. Totman: That's right.
G. VanSlyke: Okay. Let's go to your -point now. Check 206. 6 on the back side where it says "shared
driveways." I think that answers your question.
L. Raymond: Okay. Two more flag lots. . . . .shared driveway? To prevent side-by-side driveways and
multiple entry points. . .
G. VanSlyke: In other words, if you've got several flag lots. . .
L. Raymond: No, wait a minute . The shared driveway, though , ends up with a tree -- that's what we
had so much trouble over before .
C. lwigg: Yes. But this here -- they can't go more than four and then they have to call it a
highway. They can't call it a driveway anymore.
L. Raymond: Yes. But if you put four in with a road, doesn't that come under our subdivision rules?
G. Totman: If they sell more than one lot, it comes under our subdivision rules. The only thing is,
though , read that paragraph a little farther. I didn't read that. I'd like to take out the last sentence.
11
Groton Town Planning Board October 27, 1994
Period , And I'll tell you why after you read it. That last sentence gives the thought in the people's
minds that they could get a bunch of them together. We don't want to encourage that.
L. Raymond: The shared driveway thing is G. Totman: Supposing you've developed the roads in front and you 've got this one lot left and you
don't have enough for a real lot. But it's a very deep lot. So you break that into two. It means you can't
have any less than 20 feet. So you sell two lots out in back -- each has two acres, but they're going to use
this pole up here for their driveway. What I think it means is to encourage them to both use the same
driveway, even though they each don't have . . . put the driveways next to each other, or use the same
driveway so you only have one entrance coming out into the road. Do you follow me?
L. Raymond: I certainly do.
G. Totman: Okay?
G. VanSlyke: What you're saying, George, is this front part on both sides of this thing are already
developed. And you've got this stuck back in here and you want to utilize the space and you've got two
guys that want to buy and split the property back here. You're trying to encourage them to have a
driveway between them so they can have access to them as long as they've got the 20 feet.
G. Totman: What's going to happen, George, is one of them might buy 20 feet and one buy 60 feet,
depending on how much land is there.
G. VanSlyke: Let's look at it this way, George . Suppose this is my piece of land here. And I 've built
out in front here and I've taken up this much of the parcel. And I've got all of this back in here that I 'm
going to sell to somebody else. Okay. I own this up front.
G. Totman: Where's the road?
G. VanSlyke: Well, the road's right here. So I've got this access back to the back here that I want to
try to get rid of. So I'm going to sell it to somebody else. So that's where the flag lot comes in, right?
Now, if I own a bigger section back in here, and I 've got two purchasers, all I have to do is provide them
with 20 feet. . .
G. Totman: Each. Each one of them. . . .
G. VanSlyke: So I've got to have 40 feet? That's almost big enough to be a road, isn't it? What's a
road, 60?
G. Totman: Yes - 50 in the Town of Groton. What you're saying is you've got to have at least 20 feet.
That guy has to own at least 20 feet out to here. The State Law says he's got to own 15 feet anyway.
Supposing you have 100 feet here. This guy only wants to buy 20 feet and this guy wants to buy the
other 80 feet. What we're encouraging them to do is put their driveways right next to each other and
they'll probably end up sharing them. So they only got one opening.
G. VanSlyke: Wouldn't that be the smart thing to do as far as maintenance?
G. Totman: Yes. And you've only got one opening coming out on the road.
G. VanSlyke: Okay. You want to knock out that last sentence?
G. Totman: Yes, Definitely. You 'll never get by the Town Board with that in there .
L. Raymond: I agree.
M. Carey: I was going to say the same thing.
G. VanSlyke: The less you promote a flag lot anyway, the better off you're going to be, I think. Now
what are we doing?
12
Groton Town Planning Board October 27, 1994
T. Smith: Does anyone have anything else on flag lots?
G. Totman: You're going to take that last sentence out of there, right?
T. Smith: Yes,
L. Raymond: I thought we'd agreed on that.
X Carey. We really don't have anything in here saying how far back they have to go to be
considered a flag lot.
L. Raymond: It says 1000 feet maximum length for the driveway -- right here on 206. 5.
C. 1Vigg: Why do you limit it to a thousand feet? Some of those houses there on Spring Street
must be back more than a thousand feet aren't they?
G. Totman: Most places limit them to 600 feet, Cecil.
C. Twigg: I just wondered why you do that.
G. Totmam It's. a private driveway. You don't want to go too far back in because # 1 people have
trouble with their insurance for fire protection. The building inspector when he gives the building
permit is supposed to make sure they've got access to that.
L. Raymond: But what about the sentence before that about turnaround area? Why do we need to
require turnaround area? We don't require it in other residences along the road that may be 80 feet
back from the road .
T. Smith: A thousand feet -- like if there was fire truck that had to get back there, it would be
really far for it to back it. Emergency vehicles. . .
C. lwigg: A thousand feet is not far to back a truck. You can drive it backwards as easy as you
can drive it forward.
G. Totman: Time out. Did you ever drive a fire truck?
C. 1Wvia No .
G. Totman: When youre got multiple tankers coming in and out dumping water?
Ce TW199: I see what you're saying.
R. Walpole, Very seldom do we put these 18-ton trucks off the road anymore. We very seldom ever
put them off the road -- I don't care what type of driveway there is. We will put in a 4WD main pumper.
C. Twigg: So we can take that turnaround out of there?
L. Raymond: Yes,
G. Totman: I don't have any problem with a thousand feet.
L. Raymond: I 'll go with that.
T. Smith: What about 206. 7 the uses that are allowed? I've worded it so only residential uses
could be used for a flat lot.
G. Totman: Does everybody understand what 206. 7 means?
L. Raymond: If you want to put other use back there, we've got Site Plan Review. Right?
13
Groton Town Planning Board October 27, 1994
G. Totman: Probably a guy that makes his living off apartment houses might not agree with me,
but one of the reasons I think for having something like that in there is these people know their
neighbors and like it because it's that type of a neighborhood. They don't want a whole bunch of
apartment houses out in back of their houses. Normally those people come and go and don't have the
consensus of the neighborhood atmosphere. They just come and go. So if you only allow one- or two-
family homes back there, you're not really ruining the character of the neighborhood . I think it's good
to have it there, just in case. Okay. Everybody all agree on that? (Everyone agreed.) ECHO Housing.
And then we're going to be all done .
T. Smith: 305 . 2 says who can live in an ECHO unit. It has to be a relative of whoever owns the
property and the house and lives there . The ages I found range from about 52 to 60, I just took 55,
which is in the middle, but we can get whatever you want.
J. Lewis: I thought we decided not to have an age on that.
T. Smith: And make it for the disabled, too?
J. Lewis: What if my mother's in a wheelchair and I want her to live there?
G. Totman: But you ve got to have an age on it, Jeff, I think. And also have the disabled in there.
Otherwise, an able 40-year old can request this. You've got to have a reason for requesting. I would go
for 62 . Normally people of 55 are not . . . .
T. Smith: The highest I saw was 60,
G. Totman: At 55 you're not a senior citizen yet.
G. VanSlyke: AARP you can join at 50.
CO wig*: If we put in the handicapped would that cover it?
G. VanSlyke: Does that include you??
J. Lewis: I don't know if it would or not. They'd have to prove it.
L. Raymond: Wait a minute . This Section 305 is elder housing. Are we doing a section just for elder
housing? And then have another provision in the Ordinance for other contingencies such as
handicapped, disabled, what-not, at whatever age. We're only dealing with elder housing here.
T. Smith: Right.
G. Totman: The object of it is when your parents or in-laws get so old they can't care for
themselves anymore, rather than going to a nursing home -- this isn't providing them a place to live
just because they've reached 55, The object of the whole thing is to provide a place for these people to go
rather than go into a nursing home . If you retire and you're able-bodied at 55, it's a self-created
hardship. It's not because of age or physical disabilities.
J. Lewis: So if my father has a heart attack at the age of 55 , and he still can get up and walk
around and all that, but he can't work, and he lives far enough away where I can't get to him quick
enough, I would want him close to me so I can keep track of him.
G. Totman: He's had a heart attack and the doctor deems he can't do his normal work anymore,
and he goes on social security -- he qualifies. I've had two heart attacks. But I don't want elder
housing.
C. TwlW You come out of yours all right so you were self-sufficient. But it might be a person
that had a stroke and they really needed someone around to keep track of them.
G. Totman: That's what these things are for -- for those type of people.
14
- Groton Town Planning Board --- - - - - - October 27, 1994
G. VanSlyke: So why do you want to make this 62 age, then? Why do you put the age constraint on
there? You don't plan on having anything happen to you until you're 62 years old?
G: Totman: If it happens to you before 62 , then you qualify because the doctor or whoever you got
says you can't work anymore or shouldn't be alone . I'm just going by what I 've read and the way
everybody's done it. The object of elder housing or ECHO housing, is to take care of somebody who's
got a need -- a need. And it's only for while they've got that need. If you open it up to anybody over 40 or
50 or whatever and they don't have some kind of a doctor's, , , the doctor says you can't work anymore.
This was designed so people didn't have to go into these expensive nursing homes; they could be with
their families and the families could watch over them . It's not designed to take care of everybody
that's old and able-bodied .
Ce TWI g: So we're going to have to change the wording, the verbiage, a little bit to not just say
62 . 62 or disabled, or. . . .
G. Totman: I think you've got to have them both in there .
L. Raymond: So even though you 're calling Section 305 as a total elder cottage, it's going to cover
younger people if they have a doctor's certificate? Is that what you're saying?
G. Totmam Somebody that's got a statement from a doctor can come for a Site Plan Review, The
Board will say "you qualify -- you've got your statements from your doctor. " You might not be 62 , but
you qualify.
Ce Twiw Do we include this in the elder cottage, or do we have another paragraph for that?
G. Totman: I think we should have two paragraphs. You've got to spell it out as to what qualifies
you for it. If Tracey does it, you're going to have to accept what she puts in, unless you want to have
another meeting.
J. Levels: Let's get it done here.
G. Totman: Okay. What age do you want to come up with? I go for 62 ,
G. VanSlyke: I think leave it 55 .
G. Totman: How many people retire at 55? You're defeating the purpose of this thing when you say
55, You 're going to run into a buzz saw with people. A lot of towns are having trouble putting this in in
the first place.
V. Rankin: 70.
S. Clark: I say 65.
L. Raymond: 62 .
M. Carey: 60.
J. Lewis: I'll go with the 60,
G. Totman: We've got three 62s, two 60s, one 55, and one 70,
M. Carey: We'll go with 62 , (Everyone agreed.)
Robert Walpole was present to see if anyone had any questions on his
Application for a Special Permit to operate a storage building at 801
South Main Street. Mr. Walpole was acting as agent for Ted Marchell.
15
Groton Town Planning Board October 27, 1994
G. Tatman: Everybody read this up. On November 17th we're going to have a public hearing. Mr.
Walpole is here to see if we have any questions on what he is proposing.
R. Walpole: What is there in reference to parking?
G. Totman: Reference to parking -- "There shall be no on-street parking and adequate parking
supplied for each employee. "
G. VanSlyke: Can I ask you a question? If they're going to bring stuff down to put into this storage,
are they going to leave trucks parked there to unload from?
IL Walpole: He's going to make a parking area and loading dock.
G. VanSlyke: Can you give us an idea of the extent he's going to be doing this? How many trucks
does he figure to put there? That would help to know what parking needs to be available. If they could
let us know how many trucks there at a time.
C. 1*1 He's going to put in adequate parking, but it's going to be his vehicles that's going to be
there. It's not public parking. He's going to put in parking for whatever he needs. I don't think that
should concern us too much as long as we don't have to figure out for public parking.
R. Walpole: It won't be public . It's strictly private.
G. VanSlyke: What kind of restrictions should we put on it then? Is he going to have a sign?
R. Walpole: He has to confirm to the sign ordinance.
G. VanSlyke: So that's no big deal. What else do you want to know from us?
R. Walpole: I filled in the Site Plan Checklist and you have it there. There was that and a one-page
environmental form. I didn't know what the Planning Board was really looking for.
G. VanSlyke: I don't think we've ever had anything where they wanted to go with just storage
anyway.
M. Carey: Just have a sketch plan so we know approximately where he 's going to park his
vehicles to make sure they are off the road. He won't need lighting, advertising -- it's just going to be a
simple warehouse.
R, Walpole: Okay. Good.
G. VanSlyke: Now when are we doing this open meeting?
G. Totman. The 17th,
R. Walpole. Question. Does this get shipped to the County, or do you have to approve it first before
you ship it to the County?
G. Totman: We probably should send it to them; we never have before.
R. Walpole. The reason I say that is because can it go down now instead of waiting -- or does it have
to go down after the public hearing. . . .
G. Totman: Tell you what we'll do. Can I have a copy? We'll do this legal. (Gives it to Tracey. )
Technically, the County has up to 30 days to react. So if we don't get an answer back by the 17th. . .
T. Smith: You will .
G. VanSlyke: I move we adjourn .
16
Groton Town Planning Board October 27, 1994
V. Rankin: I second.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
4F P
Joan E. Fitch
Recording Secretary
17