Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-12-15 w JOINT MEETING - TOWN OF GROTON TOWN BOARD & PLANNING BOARD Thursday, 15 December 1994 Town Board Members (*present) Planning Board Members (*present) "Teresa Robinson, Supervisor *George Totman, Chairman *George VanBenschoten *Monica Carey Lewis Sovocool *Sheldon Clark Carl Haynes *Jeff Lewis Donald Cummings *Verl Rankin *George VanSlyke Others Present *Cecil Twigg Francis Casullo, Town Attorney George Senter Sr. , Town Code Enforcement Official Lyle Raymond, Town Zoning Board of Appeals Chair John Pachai, ZBA Member, Tracey Smith, Tompkins Co. Planning Board Circuit Rider The meeting was called to order at 7 :30 p.m. by Chairman Totmana G. Totman: For the minutes purposes, for the members who are not here , I think we ought to just state a purpose of the meeting so people understand what we're up to. About three years ago, in January, the Planning. Board had asked the Town Board, many times, for changes in the ordinances they saw were causing some problems for the Zoning Officer and for the Zoning Board of Appeals. Most of the requests for variances we were getting were being passed because they really didn't fit with the scope of what we were doing in the Town of Groton, or what we'd like to see done. And as we went to the Town Board asking for changes, we got a strong statement from this Town Board that "Why don't you re-do the whole Town Ordinance and incorporate everything at once instead of making many changes along the way?' From that point on, we contracted with the Tompkins County Planning Board , through their Circuit Rider Program, that's why Tracey's here tonight, and re-did the Comprehensive Plan which the Town accepted last spring. From that point on, we went to work and re-did the Zoning Ordinance . Our philosophy when we started, and until we finished, was to try to make the Ordinance more "user friendly" along ;, with looking at some of the problems the Zoning Officer reported he found were causing problems or people couldn't understand them. Many things that came before the Zoning Board of Appeals just didn't make sense, and we need to clarify things more and make it so that when somebody picks up the Zoning Ordinance they can understand it better. Through that process, the Planning Board met three times a month just doing that from April until November. They asked Lyle Raymond, the Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals, to sit in on the meetings with them, and we voted -- and I don't know :, how legal it was -- but we voted amongst ourselves to make Lyle a voting member of that group that was re-doing the Ordinance so we could have good, strong input from the Zoning Board of Appeals. Basically, this is coming from not only the Planning Board and the input the Zoning Officer gave us, but with strong input from the Zoning Board of Appeals. We wanted to make sure everybody knew whatwe were doing, so we asked the Clerk to send copies of the minutes of each of our meetings to the Town Board so if they saw anything at any particular time that we were changing, they could then alert us at that time so we wouldn't have to make massive changes in the final draft. Obviously, there will be a "few changes here and there, but hopefully by doing it that way, the Board members would have the opportunity to make any comments. Everything we were doing appeared to be okay on the surface, because we didn't get any feedback from anybody along the way. Tonight we have the draft that we are presenting to the Town Board for their approval . The reason we're doing this together tonight was to see if we could come to a consensus where we feel we all can stand up and show the public . The way we have to do it is have a Public Hearing. You can do it in two different ways, as I understand it. The Planning Board can hold a Public Hearing , then give it to the Town Board. Then the Town Board can make changes in it, accept it or reject it, and then before they pass it they have to hold a Public Hearing also. So what we're suggesting very strongly is that we all go over this together and then hold a joint Public Hearing. This is legal and it is done around the State that way. And it would Groton Town Board & Planning Board Meeting December 15, 1994 save having two public hearings over the same document, and it would also help the Town Board answer questions from the public by having the people here at the joint meeting. So before we get into it, I 'm not sure how you want to do it -- page by page, or whatever. I hope everybody has gone over the draft because we've had them out about two weeks now. I asked Tracey Smith to come here tonight and give everyone a little synopsis of what she sees we've changed. We can go from there, and if anyone wants to go into it any deeper, we can go page by page or whatever you want to do. So are you prepared with what I asked you to do? T. Smith: Sure , G. Totman: Okay. T. Smith: The major changes are in the memo that I sent out to the Town Board with the draft. I'll go through it article by article and give you the big changes that were made . In Article 1 , we brought the non-conforming use information up to the front with all the other general information, so it would be easier to find and make a little more sense. And then In the Definition section, we alphabetized the definitions and added definitions where we needed them on ECHO Housing and things like that that were changed in the Ordinance . In the second Article, the first thing that was changed was Section 201A . Under d, that would allow the Planning Board to reduce the frontage requirements when there's a subdivision and would only apply if there is a flag lot or a cul-de-sac where you'd have less frontage on the circle at the end of the road . G. Seater, I have a question. On a minor subdivision -- is that the way you want to do that? If you have one or two flag lots. . creates a minor subdivision. T. Smith: Right. Flag lots are only allowed if there's a good reason -- like topography makes it necessary to do that way or something. That's why they want to review all of them. G. Seater. Is that why only its only one. . . . . . 0000446 6000666 . . . . , two flag lots makes a minor subdivision? T. Smith: You've always had three or more lots before. G. Totman: The reason is, George , by putting a flag lot in we don' t want people just indiscriminately making a flag lot. The flag lot is something special and for a special use of the land, so what we're saying is -- it's legal, but you've got to come to the Planning Board to see whether it's really needed or not so you bypass the normal procedure. G. Seater. Okay. That's the land to one to two flag lots for that one particular parcel -- not two flags on one pole, but two flag lots. G. Totman: You've got to have separate poles. They could be next to each other, but they have to have separate poles. L. Raymond: If you've got a shared one, we ve got a provision for that. G. Totman: Yes. But they've got to own the land. G. Seater. I was surprised. . . . . . . . I thought you could have flagged that some other way in relation to Site Plan Review or whatever. I'm just commenting, you know. G. Totman: Well, if you go to a Site Plan Review you still have to come before the Planning Board, G. Seater. To me, this kind of confuses a minor subdivision definition . You 're saying one flag lot creates a minor subdivision. 11 G. Totman: It's not unusual. In most towns, every lot is a subdivision anyway. The regular lot meeting all the requirements stays the same as it's been . But if you want to do a flag lot -- there's some members of the Town Board that question a flag lot -- so rather than indiscriminate flag lots popping up without coming to anybody, we made it that way. 2 Groton Town Board & Planning Board Meeting December 15, 1994 G. Senter, I feel that's a problem. G. Totman: That's so we could have control over flag lots. G. Senter. I think you could have control over it a different a different way than going to a minor subdivision . L. Raymond: We've got Site Plan Review. G. Totman: They've got to go through Site Plan Review anyway because they've got to go before the Planning Board , G. Senter. But anytime anyone comes in, they have to go through you for minor subdivision approval for a flag lot. G. Totman: Yes. They do for a Site Plan Review, too. L. Raymond: So they're going to come before them anyway. G. Totman: Either way, they've got to come before us. G. Senter. I think that's confusing, Lyle. If you're trying to make this thing user friendly, I think that's confusing. I don't mean to bring it up at a bad time, but it's just a point. L. Raymond: Well you could, I suppose, separate that out and say minor subdivision -- and then have a separate category saying minor flag lot subdivision. Would that help? G. Senter, I think it'd be easier for people to understand. L. Raymond: You'd have regular minor subdivision, then you'd have a . . . . . well, it makes sense to me too, I think. T. Robinson: It's confusing. L. Raymond: Yes. George -- did you hear what I was saying? Just for clarity, have the minor subdivision as it always was, then separate the flag lot into a separate category -- minor flag lot subdivision. In that case, it separates it out a little better so you're just dealing with the flag lot in that sense. G. Senter. It also gives you a section in the Land Use Regulations that's ' particular to that situation , L. Raymond All that would do is just separate the language out here, but may clarify it a little bit. G. Totman, The requirements are still the same . No matter how they do it, the Planning Board is the only one to deal with it anyway. T. Robinson: It isn't that. It's confusing to read it. T. Smith: I can change that. J. Pachai: I didn't get my copy, so it's fresh material for me. What about a pre-existing. . . . G. Totman: They are all grandfathered. Anything pre-existing. J. Pachai: So if it's currently a flag, it's pre-existing. G. Totman: Okay, Tracey. Where were you? 3 u Groton Town Board & Planning Board Meeting December 15, 1994 T. Smith: Article 2. The other thing that was changed in the second article was the Street Layout and Street Design section - - 272 and 273 , We made it more generic and referred everything to the highway specifications. That way, if these aren't used for five years or something, if the normal dimensions and stuff for the roads change , then we don't have to update the Ordinance because it just refers to the other document. G. Senter. On page 11 you have the same problem with rural subdivisions. G. Totman: I really don't understand what you 're getting at, George . But I 'll go along with it. I thought we made it quite clear that way. G. Senter. I think to make it user friendly, George, you're going to have to define the two. If nobody agrees with me, I have no problem with that. I'm just saying it's not user friendly when you can stick flag lots when you say three to five total lots and one to two flag lots. G. Totmim. Whatever, Hi, Verl, L. Raymond: I'll support George just a little bit that way. When I first leafed through it, I realized that whole section was about subdivision procedures . Then suddenly here's flag lots and until I thought about it, I said well wait a minute , is this part of the subdivision, or is this meant to be a separate section. And so I see what he's raising here. T. Smith: I can clarify that. L. Raymond: It's just a matter of how the format is set up. G. Totman, Are you done with what you were doing in the generalities. . . T. Smith: There's a few more. G. Totman: Why don't you go through those first. T. Smith: Okay. Article 3. Section 320 was added re ECHO. The land use chart, Section 341 , we changed the symbols in there so it would be a little easier to use. And after that, in District Regulations, 342 to 346, the big changes we did were making the lot frontage less and allowing greater coverage on each of the lots. We also added a Medium Density Two District. It's a mixed use district, but it emphasizes non-residential usage in place of the residential usage and requires a lot larger lot. And that's all the general stuff. L. Raymond: You changed the square footage for the housing. It now says this conforms to the State Uniform Fire & Building. . . . T. Smith: Right. There use to be a minimum requirement in there. G. Totman, A minimum requirement of 840 square feet which was put in way back in the seventies for a specific reason -- because that was the largest mobile home available , so they couldn't bring a small camping type in and call them homes into the Town. But now there's a lot of efficiency building going on -- ECHO Housing -- they call them granny flats some places -- and there's some people that retire and buy a couple acres of land and build a nice little home . It might only have 650 square feet. With our old ordinance, they couldn't do that. They had to build a bigger home. So when this was put in there was no State Uniform Building Code, and there is now since 1984, So we felt that instead of having a minimum requirement for square footage, we could control it through the Building Code instead. Does everybody understand what we're talking about when we added the provision in there for ECHO Housing? J. Pachai: What are the requirements of the State Code relative to square footage? G. Totman: Relative to square footage -- really there's no minimum, John, it's just so they meet the Building Code. You can build a 320 square foot home if you wanted to. If you had acreage and wanted to 4 Groton Town Board & Planning Board Meeting December 15, 1994 put a little dinky -- instead of having a camping trailer, you build a little home with a kitchenette in it, you can do that. T. Robinson: (Asks question -- but can't hear what she's saying) . G. Totman: Wait a minute, Teresa. We don't tell you how many people can live in your house -- or Dutch's, or his. We can't. That would be almost unconstitutional on a regular single -family home saying how many people can live in there . There's a definition of what is a family and what isn't a family, but a family might be twelve people and we can't tell them they can't live in one of these houses -- if they all want to bunk up on top of each other. It won't happen, of course , but you can't make a law saying how many people you can have in one house. T. Robinson: No. I'm not saying that. That's why I'm asking. J. Pachai: If it's an unhealthy situation, it would fall under the Health Department's jurisdiction. L. Raymond: I wonder if the question raised here was one that occurred to me, George, after I set in the meetings it sounded okay at the time . But I wonder if we hadn't ought to add just a little bit of a phrase to that. All it says right now is that it meets the Uniform State Fire & Building Code . And for somebody who picks up a copy of the Ordinance at the Town Clerk's Office and expects to find everything they want to know or do in the Town, they look at it and realize they've got to go and consult another code in order to 'find out what's going on. So shouldn't we say or add a little bit to that and just say meet the State Uniform Fire & Building Code and then after that say square footage variable , or whatever? G. Totman: I say no, because I don't know of any other town that has a square footage. It's not mentioned in any other ordinance I've. . . . L. Raymond: Yes. But we're referring to that by the way we say it. And somebody who's not --- they say where the hell do I find a copy of the State Fire & Building Code to find out how big a house I can build . G. Totman: Everybody that wants to build a house gets a building permit. And George tells them what the Building Code is. L. Raymond: But before you get the building permit, if you come in here and ask to see the Town code to find out what it is I'm going to have to meet in this Town before you can go to George. And I read over the thing and say, okay, I've got a lot here and I'm just wondering what the rules are. . . . G. Totman: Lyle -- can I tell you from experience? George and I do that, and that problem you're bringing up -- to my knowledge in the seven years I `ve been doing it and George has been doing it five years -- it hasn't come up. People come in and ask for a building permit and ask the Zoning Officer what can I build or what code do I have to meet. G. Senter. Yes. They always come to me or George. . . . L. Raymond: I probably know too much . Because if I went to a town, I wouldn't go to you guys at all. The first thing I'd do is go to the Town Clerk and ask for a copy of the damn Town Code and I'd read the thing over carefully before I even went to you. I 'm probably not the none. J. Lewis: To be honest with you , as a builder, 90% of the time they'll come to me and say this is what I want to build . What have I got to do? The first thing you tell them is you've got to get a building permit. L. Raymond: I understand. I understand how it is and how most people do it. I 've been in the business too much and I personally would want to read it because I know very well, having been in the business, that what the Zoning Officer says and the ordinance tells me is variable depending upon what the interpretations are. And I want my own interpretation. I want to read that thing first. Then I would come to the Zoning Officer. Then I would ask. . . 5 Groton Town Board & Planning Board Meeting December 15, 1994 G. Totman. If you get this first, it tells you you've got to see the Building Code. That book costs fifty dollars . L. Raymond: That's what I 'm saying. For me, that's not right. And occasionally there are people like me who want to get a copy of the Town Code and they expect to find everything in the Code that should be there . And when they see that little cliche in there that says this depends upon the State Fire & Building Code and I 'm not familiar with that then suddenly I realize I've got to find another whole code and I don't know where to find it. G. Totman: Well, the person who gave you this has got that Code book right there. She has a copy of it right there. J. Lewis: It's probably not even going to come up unless George says no, I'm not going to issue you a building permit for such and such and such and such, and then they are going to say give me a copy of the Code. I want to read it. G. Totmame Lyle -- what would you suggest to put in there? Are you suggesting take it out and not refer to the Code? L. Raymond: No, it's fine. I 'm just saying that since it refers to that, then the question I would have is how big a house can I build. G. Totman: Then you go see the Zoning Officer, L. Raymond: I wouldn't. I 'd want to see it in the Code. Before I go to you guys, I want to see the material you guys are referring to. I don't want to hear it from you . I want to see the material you are referring to. I'll make my own interpretation and then I 'll come to you and ask you the questions. So I can ask intelligent questions of you . I 'm saying this with full admission that I 'm not the norm. I'm definitely not the norm. V. Rankin: I understand that. L. Raymond. I work down to the university. I do this all the time and this is the way I would do it. G. Totman: Believe me, Lyle , that's not the way the general public does it. L. Raymond: I understand that, but. . . . G. Totman: Okay. Let's move on. J. Pachai: George, you state that the State Building Code does not state any specific size . Then why is this listed under minimum size dwelling? We're really dealing with construction. G. Totman: Let's just take it out if it's going to bother everybody. J. Pachai: Doesn't this just deal with construction standards? (Many people all talk at once -- unable to transcribe.) J. Lewis: It's not square footage. . . G. Totman. It's egress and that. Male : On page 46, does that answer your question? 320.3 Unit Size. We're still talking ECHO, right? L. Raymond: No. ECHO Housing is covered. I'm just talking about regular housing. G. VanSlyke: Lyle -- what are you trying to infer here about this? Do you want us to put in our Code the State regulations? 6 Groton Town Board & Planning Board Meeting December 15, 1994 G L. Raymond: No . I just would like to know that the State Uniform Fire & Building Code had no minimum requirements. Just what he said . I'd want to know it was variable. So I would say it should be stated in there that there is no exact minimum amount -- it depends on meeting the Code . And it doesn't say that now. You don't know what the hell the Code says. It just says meets the Code. I wonder sometimes if we ought to take that right but, J. Pachai: My recommendation woould be to remove that from minimum size dwelling and put it under other specifications. G. Totman: The only reason we put' it in there and George, I think, will agree with me , that we want to make sure people know that if they build a house they have to build it under the - everybody in New York State has to build in accordance with this Code. J. Pachai: But not under minimumi size dwelling. It doesn't fit the heading. L. Raymond: I'll go along with that. G. Totman: It says minimum size. If you meet the New York State Building Code, that meets the minimum size. J. Pachai: Yes, but you said repeatedly that the Code doesn't call for a minimum size . G. Totman: But when you get into the Code, like George was just telling you. . . . sizes of rooms -- you add them all up and you're going to come up with a minimum size, but everybody comes up with a different size room. So you`ve got to go by that Code to get that minimum size. T. Robinson: Why don't you just put an asterisk in there and say. . . . G. Senter: Just take out minimum. G. Totman: John, George and I deal with the public every day on this and we felt it needed to be there for that reason. J. Pachai: I think it needs to be in there. I just. . . . . �i G. Totman: I think there's a lot of things in the Ordinance that would bother people a lot more than that because everybody that has ever come to me wants -- says to explain the Uniform Code to me. And I do as it relates to what they want to do and what their question is. And George gets and does the same thing. And so when they come in and say what size can I build, I say what do you want to build. According to the NYS Code, your kitchen has to be a minimum size, there's a minimum size for your bedrooms, there 's a minimum size for your living room . But there's not a minimum overall size; because you might only want one bedroom and one living room -- or maybe you don't want a living room. So that means one of the rooms' has to be like 140 square feet or something like that. r V. Rankin: Then this is talking about each room. G. Totman: But a Zoning Ordinance is not meant to be a building code ordinance, period . It just refers you to that. There's no ordinance I know of anywhere that deals with the building code itself. It's completely different. Most people you might consult with, like your people at seminars we go to, or whatever, they will tell you very, very strongly to keep the two separate because they don't interchange. So all we're doing here is referring them to that Code they have to go to. G. Senter. That Building Code is only this thick. And the reference material that goes with it is three pounds of stuff. G. Totman: There's no way you can just tell them what the Code is. G. Senter. And when you go to that book to look at it, you've got to know what you're looking for. 7 Groton Town Board & Planning Board Meeting December 15 1994 G. Totman: If I gave anybody in this room that Building Code book, and you had a particular g question, I guarantee you it would take you over an hour to find it. You've got to know how to use the thing. J. Pachai: That's not really the question I was raising. It's strictly since it doesn't refer to a specific overall size , maybe that should„ be under a different heading instead of under minimum size dwelling. I think I understand what it means, but I'm not sure that the everyday person could pick this up and. . . . L. Raymond: I agree. G. Totman: There is no minimum size. So what we're saying here is -- if you want to know what the minimum size is, you go to the Code book that gives you the sizes. L. Raymond: Then couldn't we just say what you just said -- there is no minimum size. l G. Totman: But there is a minimum size. It's in the Code book. If we say there is no minimum size. . . . L. Raymond: But it doesn't say that (there. It doesn't say there is no minimum size, George. J. Lewis: But if you want to get the minimum size, you've got to go to the Code book. 11 G. Totman: Lyle, I 'm sorry. I 'll tell you you 're going against everything I 've learned in my profession in this argument. With every day that I work for a living, like you work for your living, this Is. . tome, what makes more sense to everybody that I 've dealt with than anything we've put in this Ordinance . And I can't understand why you don't like it. It doesn't make sense to me why you don't like it . L. Raymond: I guess to me it's confusing. G. Totman: George works with it and he agrees with it. People that come in and talk to us every day would like to see that there. I know they would. Because I deal with it every day. I think there's a lot of other things in there we should spend more time on that bother the people. When you deal with something daily and you're arguing with somebody that never deals with it -- I, I, . . . . . You can take it out if you want to, but I'll go to the Town Board and ask them to put it back in. I feel that strongly about it. I hate to be that strong, but I really believe that we put it there because George and I wanted it that way because that's -- we deal with the people. G. Senter. I agree with George. 4 L. Raymond: Well -- okay. J. Lewis: On to the next area. { G. Totman: We've gone through th'e major things that were changed. Does anybody -- I'm assuming everybody here has read it -- have anything that stuck out at them that they'd like to talk about or ask questions. J. Lewis: Lyle? I G. Totman: Other than Lyle. Incidentally -- in all fairness to Lyle, let me do something else . I don't know if I made enough copies or not. . . T. Robinson: I have one. G. Totman: Lyle made some suggestions of things we should look at. L. Raymond: This is fine tuning -- (that's all. 8 i l Groton Town Board & Planning Board Meeting December 15, 1994 G. Totman: Some of them I agree with him on and some of them I don't. L. Raymond: Just like we just did. G. Totman: You got one, Teresa? Okay -- everybody got one? L. Raymond: We have a new ship here and this is kind of a shakedown cruise you know. G. Totman: If nobody's got anything they'd like to bring up, maybe we should go over some of the things Lyle's got. He went over it with a fine-toothed comb, which is good. His first question is, on page 3. Section 112 , last paragraph , under'' creation of remainder lots that do not meet frontage and area requirements -- he says shouldn't a statement be added unless approved as a flag lot. L. Raymond: Under Section 276, because the flag lot will allow you to have a lot without the usual required frontage. G. Totman: I don't see anything wrong with changing that, adding that in there . Anybody else? I'm relying on you to keep track of these, right? T. Smith: I am. II G. Totman: It's on page 3, just before you get to Section 113, Everybody agree? Okay. Section 120, on page 4. I'm not sure what he's -- I put a question mark on this after I read it because I'm not sure what he's getting at. p G. Seater. Can we go back to Section 112? It says here that no part of the land may be developed as a' building lot which does not meet minimum frontage and area requirements, . but you have a flag lot in here already. j G. Totman: Where are ,you reading, this? G. Seater. Section 112 . Lyle has unless as approved as a flag lot here . I don't see any problem with that, but doesn't it already say that? G. Totman: Where do you see no permit can be issued? L. Raymond: That's not the one I was having a problem with . It was nor may any division of the land be made which leaves remaining any lot with frontage or area below the requirements stated in these regulations. That was the one I was having the problem with . G. Seater. Does that not take in is flag lot also? G. Totman. As for frontage, yes. L. Raymond: But there is a comma ,and then there's a further phrase there that's. . . . . G. Totman: I guess what Lyle's looking at, George, is just to make it very, very clear to them where we stand. That's why I really didn't understand what he was getting at, but I didn't question it because I don't think it changes anything. He's just looking more for clarity. L. Raymond: Because it goes back'ij to a long discussion, you'll recall, we had over lots that are left over. Do they become illegal lots. . . . I just wanted to. . . . G. Totman: Let's go to Accessory Apartment. He thinks it could be made clearer if we state it as a permanently attached addition. L. Raymond: The reason I 'm sayinlg that is because I got to looking at Detached Room and Elder Cottage, and Accessory Apartment, and I got to thinking how do these differ from one another. And they do, it looks like to me. And so when I come to look at it and say how do they do this, it appears that in order to differentiate it from a Detached Room, the Detached Room is not attached to the dwelling. It Ij 9 ii Groton Town Board & Planning Board Meeting December 15, 1994 looked like to me, if I read this right, , the Accessory Apartment was intended to be permanently attached to the dwelling. That would separate it. If we didn't do that, then why the hell do you need the Detached Room as separate? G. Totman: Let me see if I can clear up something else , Lyle, from where you are coming from for the benefit of the rest of us. In our regular Ordinance, the one we have now, it's very vague on having # 1 the 840 square feet and somebody wanting to put in an apartment in a garage type thing, and we've had some requests for variances mainly because they already built them before we caught them, but nevertheless we had some requests for variances for an apartment in the garage and it wasn't attached to the house , the garage was not. In order to get around that, Lyle very astutely found a loophole in the law to allow what he calls a "detached room. " So we wouldn't have to tell these people who spent all this money on this garage for their mother-in-law that she had to move out, he came up with a part dealing with a "detached room" bit. L. Raymond: It's not really a loophole. It's written in our Code . G. Totman: It wasn't readily available to the normal person reading it. L. Raymond: Right. p G. Totmaa: So that's why Lyle puts more emphasis on this than the rest of us because the Zoning Board of Appeals has had that happen to them two or three times. I see no problem with adding that in there . Anybody else? Page 5 . He says Building Line, L. Raymond: I understand the concept, but I 'm confused by the wording. It's not user-friendly wording for me . To tell you the truth , people who are in the business probably know what a finished grade is, but I can't define a finished grade . I don't know just what it means. I wouldn't know where to start drawing the line from . So I suggested possibly it might help, not necessarily, if finished grade was added to the list of definitions somewhere in the front so you can refer back to it to see what a finished grade is. I'm sure, George, it's probably' perfectly obvious to you and all the guys who work with it all the time, but it isn't to me. G. Totman: I wouldn't be against crossing that one part out of the Ordinance. L. Raymond: The whole thing about Building Line? G. Totman: Yes. Because it's not useful to anybody that I know of. L. Raymond: By the way, I'll buy that idea. G. Totman: That refers more to the building of a house when you 're checking for the average building grade and finished grade and all that stuff. I don't see where that has a spot in our Ordinance , period . G. Seater. Wait a minute. What you're saying is there's an overhang of the building and you have your . . . . . . . . . . . . . . on a projection and you draw a line vertical to grade, that's your building line. It's not the edge of the building. G. Totmaa: But what's that got to Id with the Zoning Ordinance? G. Seater. It's your setback requirement. G. Totnm, On your building setback it's got to be like 12 foot from your boundary line -- that includes the eaves, so you measure from the . . . so if your eaves hang out this far, you measure from here to here and then you go from there out to your building line. Most people understand that, George, but they wouldn't understand this part right here. L. Raymond: Then why don't we say it that way, then. That it starts with the eaves. That makes sense to me. I understand it now. But" the way you've got it worded now it isn't understandable. al 10 Groton Town Board & Planning Board Meeting December 15, 1994 G. Totman: Usually it refers to the yard lot line . G. Seater. It says with the most'^ projected exterior point of the building. What does that mean? That's the most exterior point of the buuMing. L. Raymond: The part I had the most trouble with was the finished grade business here . Where do you start? G. Totman: Finished grade really doesn't have nothing to do with that figure . G. Seater. Well, finished grade '1is where the vertical line comes down from the most exterior projected point of the building. L. Raymond: It says "intersection .of the finished grade and a vertical plane. . " G. Totman, George . If you've got eaves up here and they hang out over here, you bring it down to the ground. The ground could be finished up to the edge of the cellar window, or finished grade could be three feet down, but it's not going to change the distance to the yard line . It's not going to change that line at all. G. Seater. It's still the same point. G. Totman: It's confusing inhere is what he's saying. L. Raymond: That's the way it appears to me. G. Totman: I think it's something N acey must have slid in onus. G. Seater. Leave grade in and take out finished. A lot of people don't realize , that's the building line. It's the exterior projection. M. Carey: I didn't realize that. G. Totmaw Just leave "finished" out and you'll be all right. G. VanSlyke: When you're looking at that though , dropping that line from the eaves down, that's okay. But what if your grade slopes. G. Seater. Doesn't matter. G. Totman: We'll just take "finished" out and that will satisfy it. Okay. 1 L. Raymond: You mean' by finished grade then it's just a line that goes down from the eaves to the ground -- that's all you're saying? G. Totman: Finished grade is the ground where you mow your grass. 1 L. Raymond: Okay, because to me finished grade means like you build a mound and build your house on it and maybe where it drops off, maybe 20 feet from the house. G. Totman: This is actually wrong,', I think. George's definition is right. We agree on that. But that finished grade, whether it goes down three or four feet, doesn't make any difference. Just put "grade" and then it all comes together. li G. Seater. I don't know what finished grade has got to do with it unless you're talking about landscaping, planting grass, and everything. L. Raymond: If you just said a line, P 0 J. Lewls: If they didn't have finished grade and it was just subgraded. . . . (tape ran out here) . �f 11 Groton Town Board & Planning Boardl! Meeting December 15, 1994 G. Totman: Okay. Section 120, page 5 . Detached room again. L. Raymond: Now you missed the Clomprehensive Plan here . G. Totman: I missed it because Tracey was supposed to have done that already. This is one of her errors, because if she'd done her job right, that wouldn't be in there. L. Raymond: Okay, then. So it's already corrected. T. Smith: It will be . G. Totman: It's all supposed to slay "comprehensive" all the way through it. Back to Detached Room. What he's saying here, and correct me if I 'm wrong, Lyle , where it says a room which is functionally part of it should be permanently attached . L. Raymond: Now wait a minute here . Functionally a part of a dwelling unit or group, but physically separate from it -- I should say "permanently detached," -- the accessory apartment is permanently "attached. " And that's what separates it. And then the detached room is permanently detached. That differentiates it again from an elder cottage and accessory apartment. G. Totman: Okay. Nobody disagrees with that? Page 6. I guess Lyle's asking the question is that strip of land for that flag pole that provides access to a flag lot to be an easement. My answer is no. I� G. Seater. Where are you? L. Raymond: It's under "easement. " I'li It says a driveway to an interior lot. Well, that's what the pole on the flag lot is. And so, therefore . . . . G. Totman: An easement is land that's not owned by the person that's building. L. Raymond: Okay. So therefore what I 'm saying is if the easement is a legal driveway to an interior lot, then can you count that as the pole for a flag lot? G. Senter. I say no. The land has to be owned by the people. G. Totman: What we're saying here, ! Lyle, is for future reasons we're setting it up where they've got to own the land up to the road. L. Raymond: That's all right, but you'll notice what I said at the end here -- if not, then the definition of easement . . . . . G. Totman: We do have some land in this Town, Lyle, that is landlocked , and they get to it by. . . .there's some people who buy a piece' of land for hunting purposes. . . . L. Raymond: I understand that. 1� G. Totman: They don't want to build) on it; they don't care . So they have an easement. If they want to build on it, they've got to buy the easement. L. Raymond: Okay. What I'm saying is that somebody can look at this thing, I could, and if I'm looking at this again. . . . G. Totman: You're not going to build l'Iin the near future or anything are you? L. Raymond: No, but it says a driveway to an interior lot. I 'm Mr. Smith, and I would want to know whether then if I have an easement to an interior lot that will qualify as a flag lot. . as an entry to a flag lot. And I think we should say that this is prohibited somewhere here to make it clear that's not the case. You'll notice that I said that and I was assuming it probably was, but it's just not clear and I think it should. be. Because that into your lot Tlisomebody bought for a hunting lodge, the next thing you know somebody else buys it and decides they are going to put a house in there . And they say, "Well, hell, I got 12 Groton Town Board & Planning Board Meeting December 15, 1994 an easement out here and you've got flag lots and it says that you can have a drivew Tay back, why can't I have it?" And we should tell them that this is not allowed . G. Senter. An easement is where a person has legal rights short of ownership. L. Raymond: Yes, right, J. Lewis: For a flag lot you have' to have ownership right? M. Carey: Maybe we ought to make something saying the whole lot has to be owned. G. Totman: You won't get a flag loft passed unless part of your land goes all the way to the road, 20 feet. G. Senter. Does it say that in a flag lot? G. Totman: Yes, L. Raymond: Does it? Male : I thought 11 knew the Code pretty well, and I don't remember -- you 'll have to tell me where easement is used in the Code. Ake there other places it's used in the Code? Is there any place that it's used in the Code? G. Totman: It isn't. Male : Then why °are we defining it? G. Totman: Because they do exist . There are lots out there that people have easements to get to them. We're recognizing something that's already there . J. Pachai: I don't find any problem with defining easement in the definition section. L. Raymond: That's what we're lookIng at. J. Pachai: I don't see any problem in defining it, I just wondered why it's there . F. Casullo: I think it might be just there more if you're trying to make this all little bit more -- I guess the term that you 're ;using -- user-friendly -- and the fact of the matter is that there are plenty of people that have properties that are subject to this and it just makes things clear for a person that's picking this thing up to see what exactly an easement means or is defined as, because there's going to be a number of people that may go buy properties or a vacant lot that may be subject to. . :. J. Pachai: I 'm just thinking in terms of all the other terms that aren't used in here that would be useful to know the definition of. F. Casullo: I agree . But you have to stop somewhere. You have to stop somewhere and I guess it certainly is up to you guys if you want to take it out, take it out. If not, it's up to you . G. Totman: Well it's being used all over. Verl Rankin's got a farm. And a lot of the farm he uses he gets to by easements. L. Raymond: I think that under flag lot we should say that thin strip of land connecting to the road to provide legal access cannot. . . . . G. Totman: That hasn't happened in any other town I've been associated with. T. Robinson: What? Iil G. Totman: What you were just telling Dutch . 13 Groton Town Board & Planning Board 11Vleeting December 15, 1994 u T. Robinson: What was that? G. Totman: About flag lots. T. Robinson: What? G. Totman: That as soon as this happens, Bob will have flag lots all over the country. T. Robinson: That isn't, what I'm talking about, What I'm talking about is. . . .well, you go on with your. . . G. Totman: Well, if you don't like something that's in here , you ought to share it with us, That's what this meeting is for, T. Robinson: You've got this shared driveway -- if two to four flag lots are proposed in an area, a shared driveway will be encouraged to prevent side-by-side driveways and multiple entry points to the public road. G. Totman: Wait a minute, Where are you reading that? Y g T. Robinson: Page 37, G. Totman: Go on with what you were saying . . another way of what? Ir T. Robinson: I was just saying that was one of the reasons we were objecting. . . . 11 I G. Senter: If you've got four flag lots back there, you have to have at least 80 feet -- so they could all use the same driveway going back i'S what you're saying, T. Robinson: It doesn't read that way, G. Totman: The reason we did it was if you had four lots back there -- we're only saying encouraged . Supposing you have three.' flag lots back in a particular area, We're encouraging them to get together so you've got one curb cut instead of three curb cuts. ` T. Robinson: I understand, . . . . . . . { G. Totman: So that all three flag lots instead' of being on each side of a given lot, they will try to get them all together if we could so you've got less people coming out onto the highway, to make it safer on the highway. That was our main intention, T. Robinson: You also understand What I'm talking about? G. Totman: I don't really, no, T. Robinson: You don't? If you have one -- I'm always thinking into the future, . . II G. Totman: That's what we're doing here. II T. Robinson: I know, but sometimes the fact gets lost and all of a sudden you say, well -- what have we got here -- four openings going in and we 're only using one, right? Are these going back over different people's properties? How are you going to set something up like that? 1 want to know how something is going to look with four of them. 11 G. Totman: You really can't known how they are going to look ahead of time. That's why they've got to come to the Planning Board and it has to be approved like a subdivision. 11 J. Lewis: The flag lot is going to be behind another piece of land, so you're going to go over. . . . . 14 1, Groton Town Board & Planning Board Meeting December 15, 1994 G. Totman: There's no two that ar& going to be the same. Male : Are you saying that if you have four flag lots you'd have to have 80 feet of driveway? J. Paehai: But those people could share their own driveways, right? G. Totman: Right. G. Seater. Because each one has to have the 20 feet of road frontage. (J. Pachai: And each of these are what, two acres? Over an 8-acre area -- 8 acres, plus, . . . .which is pretty good size . G. Totman: Teresa, let me show you something. This particular piece of land here, over in another town, was promoted by the Town Board and the Planning Board, and the developer worked with them to come up this. And this is different uses of flag lots. If you look at it, it's neat the way they are doing it. The thing about it is that the real estate people are telling me that the flag lots are selling quicker than the other lots. I wouldn't want one . But people are funny like that. You can't tell how it's going to be because of the way some people sell their lots. Certain lots get wound up in back and a person might buy five acres of land and put his own ,house on it and, after his kids get grown there's enough land back there to give each one of them two or three acres of land. So he develops a flag lot situation . J. Pachai: Bottom line is it's got to be approved. G. Totman: That's right. J. Pachai: If you have one flag lot now and you decide you want to make two flag lots out of that even though the first flag lot is pre-existing, now you're into a subdivision as soon as you want to second. G. Totman: They've got to come to the Planning Board. The way this is written up, they've got to it come to the Planning Board even if they create one. You ,just can't do it. You've got to come before the Planning Board to get it approved. G. Seater. I wouldn't let them doli' it. L. Raymond: So you're not going to, do anything about this business of the flag lot. You don't think you need to. . . . G. Totman: I think we've got it covllered. We're not going to give them a flag lot as an easement. L. Raymond: I'm thinking under Ithe definition of flag lot -- it says having a thin strip of land connecting to the road to provide legal access of which does not include of which an easement will not suffice, or whatever. An easement over this thin strip of land will not satisfy it. You're saying that definition of lots implies ownership. 11 J. Pachai: And here it says a dri eway to an interior lot. J. Lewls: Let her fly. L. Raymond: Okay. That's all. I just raised the question. G. Totman: Very good point -- even though we don't agree . On page 8 it's talking about an interior lot; does an easement count as a frontage? No. The answer is no. L. Raymond: All right. Is that clear in that? An interior lot which has no frontage on any public street. . . and you're saying a definition II f lot by itself would exclude a permanent easement of some kind. G. Totman: Yes. Not exclude a permanent easement. . . . 11 15 p Groton Town Board & Planning Board Meeting December 15, 1994 it L. Raymond: You exclude it in terms of frontage. 11 G. Totman: Let me put it this way. I 've got a lot over here and I put a house on it. And I 've got 40 acres in back. L. Raymond: And I've got an easement over a strip of land as access. G. Totman. And I'm going to rent all that to the farmer. I don't want him using my driveway, but over on the other side I've got room and could give him an easement to get to that back parcel. L. Raymond: That's right. ii G. Totm , And I could give him a 20-year easement, or permanent easement, or whatever. I might even sell it with that easement in there in the deed. But it doesn't mean he owns it -- they only have an easement to get back there. L. Raymond: So you're saying the legal definition of a lot will preclude anyone claiming that since they have an easement, they have frontage? G. Totman: That's right. L. Raymond: Okay. We have an attorney here . Will you say that's the way it will be interpreted? F. Casullo: I feel safe with that. L. Raymond: Okay. I'll go with it. u G. Totman: Do you know what notes on this one are, Lyle? i� L. Raymond: What's that? G. Totman: Okay to change. Now, "what he's suggesting here . . . let me back up a minute . For the benefit of the people that didn't come to our meetings, we had what we call an Industrial District, for example, along Route 222 . A lot of controversy over the members and some of the citizens in the community is why do we have that up there? Because it's been there for 20 years and in the 20 years' time that we've had, nobody's ever used" it or done anything with it because it's in an Industrial District. We've had no people come in and say, "Oh, you've got an Industrial District; we're going to put something In Industrial. " They've come in and looked over the Town, and you 'll be surprised in this because Lyle and I fought over this one, too -- but, anyway, they come in and look at the Town and they'll say "This is where I want to build. " And they'll come and ask for a variance or change or PUD . The people that are smart enough to have this big business and spend a million dollars or whatever know more about where they want it than we do. So what our feeling was is that we're going to change that and, instead of calling it Industrial so that the only thing that can go there is Industrial, to keep the people happy that live up there, we're going to call it an M-2 District. This will have much of the same requirements -- things that you can do or not do -- as you do in an M- 1 , only make the lot sizes larger -- five-acre lots to discourage single-family homes on a major highway and sort of to keep it open for the type of development we'd like to see in the first place . Did I come out with that all right, Lyle? L. Raymond: Yes . I think so . And the thing I was getting at here is that when you read the description of the M- 1 , it says it's a mix of residential and non-residential. But the preponderance, it says, is toward the residential. And I was just saying that to make it clearer, that the M-2 will also have a mix of some residential and non residential, but the incidents of non-residential activities is considered appropriate . So the balance is a little bit more the other way. That will give a signal to the Planning Board and others when you're looking at this saying -- and also justifies why we have a five- acre lot size, and a 300-foot frontage in there . Because when you read it the way it is now, the differentiation between M- 1 and M-2 didn't seem to be all that great, if you read the way it is. . . G. Totman: Except for the lot size��. 16 Groton Town Board & Planning Board Meeting December 15, 1994 L. Ra ond. Except for the lot size. Yes. But the purposes didn't somehow come out. And I realize ym P P rP what it was we were really after here. G. Totman: You understand what he's saying? T. Smith: Yes. i� G. Seater. Fran, do you understandithat? F. Casullo: When I get all done, I 'm go11 ing to ask to make sure you understand all this. I understand what he's saying. i G. Seater. A higher incidence of non-residential activities is considered appropriate . What does that give you more: of? !; . . . L. Raymond: It only says, as I look atllit, the same things as for M- 1 . But when the Planning Board looks at the situation in M- 1 , the statement says they are to look at this as being more oriented toward residential use. And if we say this in here, we're saying the M-2 is going to be looked at with the idea that we're more oriented toward non-residential use here, but it is allowed if we some other case. But the signal to the Planning Board and ;others making the decision is that we're going to make the decision a little bit more balanced the other way. G. Seater. So anything that goes into M-2 has to have a Site Plan Review? G. Totame, Yes. To answer your original question, most all of those questions would go to the Planning Board before it got I to you. L. Raymond: Because it's all under Special Permit, G. Totman: Yes. It relaxes it a little'' bit, but not enough . Being that's the busiest highway in Town, you don't want to encourage residential development down through there. That was one of the reasons behind it. G. Seater. It makes sense. G. Totman: Okay? Page 12 . As we look back at it now, normally as you make an area one way or the other, you do it both sides of the road -- if you make a new zone it should all be down the same strip of road on both sides. It's normally done that way. When you're making a certain area Residential, or whatever, across the road should be about the same type of business or occupation. Page 12 , Section 316. 2 L. Raymond: Let's re-visit the sign business here. G. Seater. Oh, boy. L. Raymond: Which is something that ZBA also has had some confrontation on. G. Totman: What is your question? What is a temporary sign? L. Raymond: Yes. .1 read the sign here -- Temporary Sign. It says "related to a single activity or event. " I understand that part. But what I 'm wondering about is the "movable it sign that a permanent business wheels out every day when they are open and then they take it away. Somehow or other, that's not a single activity or event, obviously. So where does it fit? And that was why I was suggesting that maybe we ought to add another category called the "Movable, Semi-Permanent Sign . " This would then come under the same requirements as'' a "Permanent, Unmovable Sign. " But which would be wheeled in or taken away whenever the business is not open for business. J. Pachai: I see the same trap here we ran into on Lick Street with the camper trailer when you're actually dealing with something that's registered as a motor vehicle type of registration. It's got plates on it, but you're telling them you can't park a sign or trailer in front of their thing. 17 Groton Town Board & Planning Board Meeting December 15, 1994 II L. Raymond: No you're not. J. Pachai: Then what does a person "do who goes and paints a sign on a truck that doesn't run but they keep it registered and push it out and pull it back? I'm just playing devil's advocate here. T. Smith: It would have to meet the requirements for the zone. G. Totman, I would say that if a business puts the sign out every day that they're open, even if they take it back in every night, they come under this time limit on temporary signs. But then, if it becomes permanent, they have to get a permit. L. Raymond: But it says "temporary ( sign related to a single activity or event. " That's what I 'm having the trouble with . It doesn't say it;' has to do with a permanent business. It says a single activity or event. G. Totman: Yes. Okay. Y L. Raymond: So I 'm just saying that somehow the sign that is movable, it says designed to be movable . Well, the sign that the permanent business has that's designed to be movable doesn't fit in here because it's not covered. A single activity or event is not a permanent business. G. Seater. I think what you ought to do for movable signs, if you want to Lyle, is make them the sign as permanent signs. L. Raymond: This is what I suggested -- a movable, semi-permanent sign. Well, we could cross that out and just say (George Senter speaks at same time as Lyle -- can only pick up Lyle on tape) -- if a thing is designed to be movable, how can you say it's a permanent sign? G. Seater. Because it sits there all the time . But they are not going to move that sign in and out every day -- I guarantee you. L. Raymond: All right. I can live with that. . . . G. Totmim. Just take the word movable out of the whole thing. Because that sign up there's a if permanent sign -. the one you're talking about. It's there day and night -- 365 days a year. That's a permanent sign. G. Seater. Absolutely, G. VanSlyke: When they talk about," a temporary sign, I think you're referring to the ones like the little sandwich things. . . q G. Totman: We've got that covered.; G. Seater. What Lyle's talking about is a good point. I understand what he's saying, but I just don't know how to word it. L. Raymond: There may be another way to do this. I'm just saying that somehow that just falls through the cracks, that kind of a sign:' G. Totmam I don't know if you'll remember it or not, George, but it used to be years ago when they talked about building permits or whatever, they'll say this is not a building because this is on skids, so I don't need a permit. It's like a sign -- I don't need a permit because it's movable. I agree that could get the Zoning Officer in a lot of trouble. George has a good example of one up here at the meat market. G. Seater. That's a permanent sign. T. Robinson: How long is permanent? 11 18 l • Groton Town Board & Planning Board Meeting December 15, 1994 f I' G. Tatman: I don't know. You and I've been here for 63-4 years. T. Robinson: Well if you don't understand, I'll explain it to you, G. Seater. As long as they're in business. G. Totman: Permanent means forel J. Lewis: But maybe they tell you they are only going to be business for two weeks, T. Robinson: I'm talking about 365 days. G. Totman: That's permanent, Obviously. T. Robinson: Go up and get Bernhardt for his sign, II G. Totman: That's political. L. Raymond: That's right, h J. Pachai: I'd like to go back to that trailer sign business, How does that fit into the picture in regards to zoning. It's really more of a parking regulation than it is a sign regulation when it comes to a sign that's mounted on a trailer. Right? I G. Totman: Where are you reading that? 11 J. Pachai: That's the problem, I'm not reading it, When you're dealing with a trailered sign, that's a movable sign that's on wheels. It's registered with the DMV, How does that fall into this category, Doesn't really fall under a parking situation -- parking of the trailer as opposed to setting of the sign? If If G. Totman: In the past course of our -- talking here in Groton -- what are you referring to where we' might have had a problem like that? J. Pachai: Well, I 'm looking to the future, George. But I'm also thinking in terms of Hilltop , Isn't that one on wheels? I think that one is, 1You can go down and rent them and they are on a trailer with a registration on the back and I 'm ,just thinking of stating something relative to the parking of it or the parking of a trailered sign within so many feet of the road. That way, at least they'd have to pull it behind. . . . G. Totman: Even though that's on wheels, John, it's beyond the limit we allow for movable, so then it becomes a permanent sign. As a zoning officer, that's the way I would understand it. We have a thing down there that they can be up so many days, Beyond that, they have to get a permit for a permanent sign because it becomes permanent, L. Raymond: I would agree with thatIf 'I G. Totman: Don't you read it that way, George? 11 G. Seater. Yes, I have no problem with that, G. Totm $ Okay -- anybody else got any problems? 11 11 L. Raymond: I've got two more I didn't have on that, G. Totman: That don't count -- J. Lewis: We've allotted you your time! ! We ain't puttin' up with no more of your questions, Lyle! G. Tatman: Go ahead, Lyle, If If 19 ? Groton Town Board & Planning Board Meeting December 15, 1994 I� J. Lewis: Let her rip. �I L. Raymond: All right. The mobile home definition. J. Lewis: What page are we on? L. Raymond: On page 9. Mobile home „definition, Section 120 on page 9. If you read the definition, it says that a mobile home contains one dwelling unit. Okay? Now if you go back over here on page 6 and look at dwelling unit, it says "it is a structure designed or used for living quarters. " Now what I 'm getting at here is something from the ZBA to stand on in terms of these dang people who live in recreational vehicles and say they are a dwelling unit. Now if you define the mobile home as a dwelling unit, and then you go back and say, "Well, a dwelling unit is a structure used for living quarters" that makes it hard . I would strike out "used for" and say a "structure designed for living quarters" in which case then the recreational vehicle is not " designed for living quarters and we have something to stand on . G. Totman: They're not? L. Raymond: Of course not. Not for permanent dwelling. J. Lewis: It doesn't say permanent, though . L. Raymond: That's right. i G. Totman: Just let me put it this way. . . . L. Raymond: We still need a little bit of something more. . . . 11 G. Totman: Wait a minute. I 'm assuming you 've got something against somebody living in a mobile home towed behind your car - a recreational vehicle. When you buy a recreational vehicle today, it has to meet HUD rules and NYS rules for a dwelling unit. They can be put in parks. Supposing you pull it behind your truck and park it. You buy a couple acres of land and you have a septic system put in according to the Health Department, you drill a well, and you park this here in the summertime. In the wintertime you take it and go to Florida. Now we allow regular mobile homes, so what is wrong with that guy doing that same thing as Tong as he meets all the other requirements? As long as he meets all the other requirements, I see nothing wrong with it. As long as it meets the Building Code . J. Pac met What Lyle is thinking of, in particular, is a situation where somebody plants a trailer like this on a piece of property that already has a home on it, that just meets the minimum requirements for one dwelling. G. Totman: They can't do it because the Health Department steps in. X Carey: The Health Department hasn't stepped into this place . 11 L. Raymond: If they are hooked up to the sewer and water system of the primary dwelling then, the way you're defining it, it comes under Detached Rooms, G. Totman: When they bring another dwelling unit on, John, they've got to get a building permit. J. Pachai: But it's a motor home,,',. . . 11 G. Totman: They've still got to getl1a building permit, or you can take them to court. Wait a minute . Let's back up a minute. In my seven years in the Town of Lansing, I've had two come in in that great big vast 75 square miles over there . And where they've come in and done that, they are better looking than a lot of the neighborhood that's around them. J. Pachak It's not a matter of looks, it's a matter of how the ZBA or what the ZBA has to stand on. 11 20 Groton Town Board & Planning Board Meeting December 15, 1994 G. Totman: Wait a minute. It won't get to the ZBA if they do it this way because we have taken -- and that's one of the things we haven't talked about and we should -- up to this point, if the Zoning Officer has a problem like with junk cars or whatever, he's been taking them to the ZBA rather than the courts. Most all other ordinances anywhere say that if the Zoning Officer cites them for doing something wrong, and they don't comply and he gives them written notice, and 30 days, and a certified letter, or whatever, he's gone through the proper procedures, then the way the new one is written up now, he doesn't go to the ZBA. They are not a court -- they are a variance procedure . He goes strictly to the Town Court. He gives a citation and issues them an appearance ticket to the court. G. &mter. That's the way it should be. G. Totm s, And that takes care of y uour problem. We've changed it to meet the other ordinances around that are like that. J. Pachab I think Lyle is right onll the other point. It could actually, in the case that we're thinking of, become a detached room. G. Totman: No. That's a separate dwelling unit. If I 've got a 980 square foot trailer and I move it into Town, I've got a thousand square foot trailer and I move it into Town . I 've bought a lot. I 've got my septic system in, my well in, ,I 've done all' these things. I come in and ask for a building permit. George checks to make sure that the trailer, number one, was built after 1976, makes sure it meets the State Building Code . Under this rule here, he doesn't object to the size of it. He just sees that it meets the Building Code, regardless whether it's 200 square feet, or 1000 square feet, it gets the same treatment. J. Lewis, So your windows have to have the same egress and all that, right? M. Carey: Like recreation trailers ,'! are? G. Totman: They have a standard they have to go by though. They are living quarters, George. G. Senter. They're a camper. G. Totman: People live and sleep irIIthem, I 'll have to check to be sure . I know they're approved by somebody. V. Rankin: If they can stay and live in one of those, then let them live in it. G. Totman: Anyway, that's the wayj� we wrote'things thing up. L. Raymond: We've got two families on one lot without ample frontage. F. Casullo: My primary reason for;; being here tonight is to make sure you're set with this, and the one continuing problem I've had over the course of the year with you is your concern that you want to be able to take this into the courts. That'silwhat George was saying. I went through this 'real quick. I didn't see that language in here that would allow . . . . . . G. Senter. I didn't either. Sectiori 410. . . . i F. Castillo: . . . .George the right to do what he so definitely wants to do. G. Totman: No. That's the way it'sil l intended. Do you agree with that? F. Casullo: I agree with that. M1 V. Rankin: Why isn't it in there . G. Totman: Lyle, you sat there when we did it. L. Raymond: Well it was at the end, right here in the last section -- 450. 1 , Violations. What you 're saying is it doesn't say it right out that it needs to go to the Town Court. I see what you mean. it 21 1 r Groton Town Board & Planning Board Meeting December 15, 1994 G. Totman: With the majority of the people right here , why don't we take this and have the attorney re-write that to do what we're saying and then give it to us so we can have her put it in there. Is that agreeable with everybody? L. Raymond: Yes, F. Casullo: The only question I had as I was reading that was the concern that it says the "fine shall be established by resolution of the; Town Board ," I don't know if I want the Town Board -- and please correct me if I 'm wrong -- it's a violation-by-violation basis, with you guys, by resolution, setting the fine, I don't want to leave the Town Board open to that, G. Seater. If you read that, though , it only refers to the contractor, owner, tenant, builder working on a subject ,lot or structure. JI F. Casuno: I read this real quick and I didn't like this. . . . V. Rankin: The Town Board shouldn't be setting any fines. G. Senter. I'm not qualified to and the burden shouldn't be put on me, G. Totmaae Well, the judge will ask you right up front -- what's in here, what's its limits? Most judges won't even touch it if you don't put it in here. F. CasI I'll draft 450 for you. . . J. Paehai: On mobile 1^homes, we're saying that a modular, even though it may be of the same construction materials as stick-built, is because that's transported by trailer. . . . G. Totmwee Yes, It's a (mobile home,'l G. Seater. A modular I not a mobile home , G. Totmaa: Oh, I thought you said double-wide. A modular is not a mobile home . They are very distinguishable, J. Paehale That's what I 'm getting iat. Because a mobile home could well be a modular. G. Totmane No it can't. , That's whyjwe put it in there that way, John. Modulars come on flatbeds. J. Paehaie, No, they also come on A trailer, G. Totn=@, A modular is picked up off the trailer it comes on and it's set down, . . . G. Seater. Did you put anything IIn here about the 1976 date for HUD approval. G. Totman, On trailers? G. Seater. Yes. G. Totman: No, I didn't. The only reason I didn't was because Gary Higby advised me not to. He claims that they can beat you in court on that one. G. Seater. Does Lansing have that? G. Totmane I use it, because I can't get any attorney to agree with me to put it in there because. . . . . G. Senter, If we could put it in there, they could beat us in court? They could beat us in court if it's not to there. Does that make sense? 22 )► Groton Town Board & Planning Board Meeting December 15, 1994 • m comply, but the only thin is George, is G. Totman. True. I 've not had an problem getting the to co , YP , g g PY Y g g that it does say that they have to meet the NYS Building Code . And any trailer built before 1976 does not meet the Building Code. So you don't want to put that in here. What they've got to do though, George, is prove to you -- like I 've told' a couple three of them who've come to me -- that's fine . It's a 1970, but I know most of them were built with 2x2s and they don't have the proper Energy Code thing. You'd have to tear that trailer apart and rebuild it, so it's cheaper to buy one that meets the Code . So I really don't have a problem with that. u F. Casullo: If the Code Enforcementi Officer is comfortable with it, or if he has a problem he and I can go. . . . Ir G. Totman: Well, the Zoning Board of Appeals is meant to be a Zoning Board of Appeals. If George says, no you can't do it according to the; Code, then the safety valve is they go to the Zoning Board of Appeals and maybe there's a reason to issue a variance . But the junked car ordinance, for example, says you can have no more;; than one junk car and you've got a junk yard, and you haven't got any license or whatever -- that's not a variance . That's a law. He gives them proper notice and all that, and then he takes them to court. In fact, you've got court appearance tickets in there already made out. But you can't use them the way the Code reads. L. Raymond: I thought the old code says that was an option . . . . . 11 The tape runs out" here and the transcriber switches to the second tape which picks 11 up with the following . ..... F. Casullo: . . . . .you can have it with,joint. That way you have more people here that were involved 11 in the process. Instead of having two, you can do it with one and set it for about 8 o'clock. T. Robinson: Is that legal? F. Casullo: Yes. That's,, no problem , as long as we have the public hearing, P g P g G. Totman: And I think the people1 would be more comfortable, because if you hold two separate public hearings, I don't care', how good you are, you might not answer the same question twice in a row at a different public hearing. !i So if they look like the Town Board and the Planning Board are agreeable 11 on it, then they are getting the same answers to the same questions. I just think it's better. F. Casullo: I think the next question is when do you want to do it? I don't know if you want to do it at your January meeting, because that"s your organizational meeting for the year. G. Totman: I would say do it at a special meeting. h F. Casullo: I was going to say do you want to do it at a special meeting, or at your February one. That's up to you. G. Totman: This is something that will probably take an hour or two and you won't have too much time for a regular meeting.; L. Raymond: I have one -left, you know. M. Carey: But Jeff said your time was up, though. L. Raymond: I know. G. Totman: Go ahead.' J. Lewis: Get it out,, Lyle. You've got five minutes. L. Raymond: It has to do with 320. 4,, and this goes back to ECHO Housing, J. Lewis: What page? 23 Groton Town Board & Planning Board Meeting December 15, 1994 � u L. Raymond: Page 46. What I'm referring to is 320.4 c that says "No ECHO unit shall be permitted on a lot that is non-conforming in size . " Well, first of all, every ECHO unit is going to be a special permit anyway. It's going to be reviewed by the Planning Board. And the second thing I thought of when I saw that is all the older lots that don't conform to the present thing in this Town. And the fact that a lot of the folks who live on those small lots are not very wealthy. They are some of our poorer residents. And these are the very people who may have older parents or whatever who would be most up against it in terms of trying to know what; to do with them because they don't have any resources. And I think you should just take c and delete it and leave it up to the Planning Board on an individual case-by-case basis to decide whether or not you can put an ECHO housing unit in there. G. Totman: Aren't you the one that asked us to put it in here in the first place? h L. Raymond: It wasn't me ,' I didn't ask to put that in there. I would just delete that. You can review it anyway. G. Totman9 By reading it the way it is, it's assuming an ECHO housing unit is going to be put on a lot all by itself. There are a lot of houses, as Lyle's saying, that are already on lots that are non- conforming. They've been there for years. And do we say to them, just because it's a non-conforming lot, that they can't have their mother-11 ln-law -- as long as they meet the health requirements? It shouldn't make any difference . L. Raymond: You're going to review it anyway. G. Totman: We didn't look at it thatlway. . . . L. Raymond: These are some of our 'poorer residents who may be up against it more than anybody else on what to do. V. Rankin: I move we cross that out for our own benefit. G. Totman: He's talking about poorer residents, Verl. 11 T. Smith: What about e? It's sort of the same thing that George said that if you have a small lot you must still meet all of the other yard requirements. J. Pachai: They always have the option of going for a variance if they have a unique situation. ii L. Raymond: That's true. That's true. That's true. G. Totman: I tell you what -- if weli' get this passed and the Zoning Board of Appeals starts giving a whole lot of variances on it, somebody'lls going to. . . . . J. Pachai: I'm thinking in terms of a situation where a person has a lot of frontage . . . . . . . G. Totman: Wait a minute. Verl's got a question. V. Rankin: I'm trying ';to find about the shrubbery being planted along the road. I think you got 20 feet and it ought to be closer to. . . . . G. Totman: Only on corners, are you talking about? V. Rankin: Yes. That's what I'm talking about. i, T. Robinson: We don't have that inithere? V. Rankin: Yes we do. J. Pachai: Will you repeat that, George? ?A f i Groton Town Board & Planning Board Meeting December 15, 1994 G. Totman: He's questioning on our corners we've said that you can only plant so close to the corners. Section 307 - Clear Vision Area. !I What that should be saying, Verl, when we're saying 10 feet that means 10 feet beyond the road right-of-way. So that would probably make it 20 or 30 feet. We have to talk from the line they own :l They don't' own only up to the right-of-way. J. Lewis. And you know how you farm,fers are ; there's no way you're going to. . . . . K Carey. You're going to plant right I to the edge of that road. J. Lewis: That's right. And who's going to stop you, Verl? V. Rankin: I move we adjourn. 'I J. Lewis. I second the motion. The tape, was shut off here at 9*30 p.m. �I Respectfully submitted, Joan E. Fitch Transcriber I 25