Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-08-17 TOWN OF GROTON PLANNING BOARD Thursday, 17 August 1995 Board Members (*present) Others Present *George Totman, Chairman Roger Gleason *Monica Carey Joan E . Fitch , Recording Secretary Sheldon Clark Teresa Robinson , Town Supervisor *Jeff Lewis Don & Margaret Palmer *Verl Rankin Richard Tillotson !George VanSlyke Robert Walpole *Cecil Twigg Willis Sheldon Alan Hayes The meeting was called to order at 8: 11 p.m. by Chairman Totman. G. Totman: Let's dispense with approval of the minutes of the last meeting as long as we 're late getting started and we'll take up the boundary change of Richard Tillotson. Have you all looked it over? Do you have the tax map number? (Note: TM # 121 - 1 - 15. 2) He's selling a piece of land off of his property and it's not creating a new lot, it's adding to a lot because the buyer wants more land . In my estimation , it's a boundary change unless somebody else has a question about it . Because it's a boundary change, we have to do a SEAR and we have to approve it. First of all , we must decide , by a motion , that it is a boundary change or it isn't. Then we have to do the SEAR. Anybody got any-- C. Twigg: I didn 't understand it. G. Totman: Now's the time to ask questions. Co Twigg: I mean I don't have any questions on it, but I didn 't understand -- where is the boundary change? G. Totman: Have you got a little hand drawing there that looks like this? Co Twigg: Yes , G. Totman: The dotted line is the added part. Co Twigg: Okay. G. Totman: Okay? Co Twigg: Yes, G. Totman: Anybody got any questions? G. VanSlyke: It's 150-foot frontage? R. Tillotson: Well , I wonder does it make a difference if I - do I have to say 150 or can I go a little more or a little less if we decide that? That's what we propose, but is it going to make any difference as long as it's a boundary change anyway if we have a little more or a little less along the road? G. Totman: Have you got any idea of what you're talking about? I mean, it's kind of hard to make a decision -- R. Tillotson: He would take a little more of that land -- maybe go 50 feet further or I was thinking of going five feet less and leaving 300 feet there along the road, but he would take 50 more feet. Are you going to hold me to that 150 feet or -- Groton Town Planning Board Meeting 17 August 1995 C. Twigg: Well, whatever the map is that we okay, that's what we -- G. Totman: Well, if you want to okay that, when you have the survey drawn up whatever you put on the survey that we sign is what it has to be . You 're going to have a survey made, right? R. Tillotson: Yes, G. Totman: Because he has to borrow money to buy it. R. Tillotson: So we'll have to come to you guys again , right? G. Totman: No. If we approve the boundary change , and if you think -- I mean I don't mean to be -- if you think it might be 50 feet greater than this, and the Board agrees to it, then you bring the survey in that shows that and once it's signed by the Planning Board , it makes it official. Ce Twigg: In other words, if you don't know what the boundary is now, you could give us -- G. Totman: Well lots of times -- the reason I say that is lots of times when you have the survey made , it varies a little because surveys are never exactly the way the tax maps are anyway. So if it's within this range , I think we could handle it. Anybody else got any questions? Anybody want to make a motion that you feel that it's a boundary change . Ce Twigg: I make a motion that it is a boundary change. J. Lewis: I'll second that. G. Totman: All in favor? (All were in favor. ) George , would you like to do the honors and do the SEAR? Please . I 'll do the writing. G. VanSlyke: Ready to go? This is the back side. George VanSlyke then reads aloud Part II of the Short Environmental Assessment Form Negative responses were obtained to all questions in Part II and it was determined by the Planning Board , upon a motion made by George VanSlyke, seconded by Cecil Twigg, with all members voting in favor, that the action receive a negative declaration. G. Totman: Well you've done the SEQR and you 've decided it's a boundary change . We need an official motion now to approve the boundary change and it will become effective upon presenting the survey to have it signed. J. Lewis: One question on that. Is that going to not exceed more than 50 feet? You're not going to all of a sudden decide to go 200 more? R. Tillotson: What if we did? G. Totman: You come back. R. Tillotson: We 've got to come back anyway after the survey is done? G. Totman: No . You bring it in . R. Tillotson: What do you mean bring it in? G. Totman: Bring it in to Carol and she'll call me and I 'll come in and sign it. R. Tillotson: If we went the whole way it wouldn't change anything, as far as impact on anything . J. Lewis: But we don't know that. 2 Groton Town Planning Board Meeting 17 August 1995 G. Totman: But see, you're dealing with a body of government and it's bureaucratic - - this Board is acting in good faith for the Town of Groton. They can 't pass on something they don't know what they're passing . You wouldn't like it if your neighbors came in here and got a carte blanche approval on something and made out their dimensions later and came back to have it signed -- R. Tillotson: It's got to be signed anyway. G. Totman: Yes, it's got to be signed anyway. R. Tillotson: If you don't like it, you don't sign it. G. Totmam Well, if you change it too much from this, then I can't sign it. If you change it different from the way the Board passed it, then I can't sign it. R. Tillotson: So we 'll see if it don't pass - - G. Totman: Well , you've got the buyer here and he's agreeing with what we're passing. Correct? R. Tillotson: I guess. G. VanSlyke: We 're passing what we're looking at here , give or take -- C. Twigg: 50 feet. G. Totman: 50 feet on -- well, wait a minute, make sure we know what we 're talking about on which road. On Clark Street Extension . G. VanSlyke: In other words, this could be -- your boundary change could be 200 feet further down the road? Or, as you were talking about, you might want to get five or six feet less than 150? R. Tillotson: Yes. G. VanSlyke: So that you can get -- what are you trying to do there? R. Tillotson: There'd be two lots left. G. VanSlyke: Wait a minute. G. Totman: All in favor? G. VanSlyke: We didn't make the motion yet. R. Tillotson: Have you got one of these that gives the footage? G. VanSlyke: I 've got something that looks like it, I guess. R. Tillotson: If we take 145, it leaves -- where are we? G. VanSlyke: That's what I was trying to figure out. G. Totman: You're over here . R. Tillotson: It says there's 445 left if that's right. If you take 145, that leaves 3 , right? But when the surveyor goes down through there, maybe he won't find that many? J. Lewis: I make a motion that we accept this boundary change for Richard Tillotson, G. VanSlyke: I second it. 3 Groton Town Planning Board Meeting 17 August 1995 G. Totman: Any questions? All in favor? (All were in favor. ) Carried . Next, we have a rural subdivision, so they say. Did you all look at it ahead of time? C. Twigg: Which one? G. Totman: Rural subdivision. You have a rural and a major. We're doing the rural first. You've got a frontage of 233 feet, a total of six acres. (Portion of TM #35- 1 - 1 on Pleasant Valley Road) D. Palmer: Let me go through a little background just to cover the whole issue . The parcel itself is about 62 acres. Under the rural subdivision , we're asking for rural subdivision which will divide that parcel into three separate parcels, one of which is about 6. 9 acres which is the one that's delineated on the map that you've got -- in the middle . And that is directly across from Mike and Pam Warner who expressed an interest in purchasing that and we do have a purchase offer from them . So we 're interested in trying to get that approved . We have it surveyed at this point. We 've done a perimeter survey on the whole parcel. We have a survey on that 6. 8 acres also . C. Twigg: Where do you live in relationship to this? D. Palmer: We're about a mile and a half east, still on Pleasant Valley Road . Co Twigg: This is way down on Pleasant Valley Road then from where you live? M. Palmer: Way down? It's two miles up -- D. Palmer: About a mile and a half west of us. Co Twigg: Pretty near down to Cobb Street then. M. Palmer: No . Three miles from Cobb Street. Across the road from Sepos, Brong, Warner, Cooper, V. Rankin: You know where Babcock lives, Cecil? CO Twigir Yes, V. Rankin: Okay. Just up the road a little bit from there . G. Totman: Okay. It meets the dimension requirements that are given in the ordinance for a rural subdivision . V. Rankin: You said you were a half a mile up the road . It shows here R. Warner and Babcock and Babcock/Warner and you're right next to them. G. VanSlyke: They don't live on this parcel . V. Rankin: I know. I know where they live. I know all about it. I 've been going down that road for the last hundred years . G. Totman: Any questions of the applicants? C. Twigg: There 's no waterways on this - - no creeks or ponds? D. Palmer: Not on that section, no . C. TWigg: No buildings? D. Palmer: No buildings. G. Senter. Any wetlands in there , Don? 4 Groton Town Planning Board Meeting 17 August 1995 D. Palmer: Not in that part of it. M. Palmer: Not in the center. On the very northwest corner. D. Palmer: On the larger piece there is and we'll talk about that later. M. Palmer: But where this piece is, there 's no wetlands. It's all wooded brush and this time of the year you're down on your hands and knees to get through it. The only time you get through it is early spring and middle of the winter. CO Twiggy: West Groton sandy loam soil? G. Totman: Any questions? C. Twigg: Let them have it. V. Rankin: What do they want to do with it? G. Totman: There's a larger parcel than this altogether. But this part of it they want to sell as a rural subdivision into three lots, the smallest of which is about 6. 8 acres. V. Rankin: They don't want to sell the whole thing? M. Palmer: No. We're selling the 6. 8 acres. G. Totman: They're selling the 6. 8 acres and keeping the -- D. Palmer: We're selling the 6. 8 acres. V. Rankin: You want to sell that to Warren -- he's the one that wants it. Then you 're going to keep on each side of it. D. Palmer: That's right. G. Totman: Or they could sell it. V. Rankin: Well, yes. But right now we're talking one parcel? D. Palmer: Right. We're taking one parcel out of it. V. Rankin: Okay. G. Totman: Once you get that one parcel out, then you're going to deal - - if you've looked over your minutes you got, then you will deal with the other two parcels as major subdivision. V. Rankin: If we can do anything to help them save that crappy land, why let's do it. G. Totman: Let me explain something if I can . We have requests for two subdivisions. All practically on the same parcel of land as far as the tax map number is concerned . If nobody has any objections, what I would suggest is that we do the SEAR, the environmental review statement, on the larger parcel and then it would cover the whole piece instead of doing two SEQRs on the same piece of land . CO TWIW That would be very good if that's permissible . I would be very much in favor of that. G. Totman: Does that make sense anybody? V. Rankin: Is it legal? Co Twigg: Everything we 're doing is within this portion that you had surveyed? 5 Groton Town Planning Board Meeting 17 August 1995 D. Palmer: Yes. G. Totman: That's right. C. T WIWO And there's no wetlands or -- G. Totman: Normally, anytime - - D. Palmer: There's a small section of wetland in the overall big parcel. G. Totman: It's the same thing as -- just for example, if you had a subdivision and say you had 20 lots in the subdivision. Somebody comes in and wants to buy two lots, but they want to buy it as one lot, then it's another subdivision so they have to go to the Planning Board . But because the whole thing has had a SEAR done on it once, there 's no sense of doing it again because you 're answering the same questions. C. TWIWO Okay. I see . I didn't know if that -- M. Palmer: You're talking about doing the SEQR on the whole -- C. T�vigg: I mean, we don't always do things the sensible way. G. Totman: Okay. So , bearing that in mind , we'll hold that until we get to the next one, the SEQR part of it for the whole parcel . That will include this because it's part of the whole , same tax map number. C. T wigg: Okay. G. Totman: Just let the minutes show that that's why we did it that way, that's all. G. VanSlyke: I make the motion that we give them the rural subdivision and bypass the public hearing . C. Twigg: I 'll second that. G. Totman: Any more questions? All in favor? (All indicated they were in favor. ) Now this next one you want to look at a little closer because these people might be trying to sneak something by you here . D. Palmer: Under the major subdivision request, we applied for it as a major because the 62 acres was originally all one tax map number and we wanted to put all the information on the table so you could see it. It probably becomes an action of the Board whether or not it qualifies as an additional rural subdivision, but we put the approach as going in as a major subdivision. What we're look at is three parcels that were created from the rural subdivision, the first step . one of which has already been accounted for out of the middle , 6. 8 acres. The remaining items we have tentatively drawn lines in to show the lots as they may exist when we get to the point of selling. We 'll end up with about six lots aside from the original one spoken for. And they'll range in size from about six acres as the smallest up to as large as about 16 acres. We've already gone through and talked with the adjoining neighbors. Most of the neighborhood up there said that they are in tune with what we're attempting to do, giving them the opportunity if they want first choice on buying any of the land to exercise that right. We've had the DEC come in and look at the area. They have gone through and marked one small area on the westernmost parcel, the 16-acre parcel , which does contain a small amount of wetlands. It was originally estimated as it's probably not going to exceed one to two acres . It's a relatively small, just a finger of the stream end of the wetlands. The wetlands extend well beyond that. This is just the outer edge of it. And it's a low-level wetland . The biologist looked at it and he wasn 't concerned at all about any major impact. G. Totman: The lot that the wetland will be on -- what size is that lot? D. Palmer: That will be approximately 16 acres . 6 Groton Town Planning Board Meeting 17 August 1995 G. Totman: One lot. D. Palmer: That's right. G. Totman: With 316 feet of road frontage? D. Palmer: Yes, M. Palmer: No, it would be 507. G. Totman: And the wetland is in the back part of the lot? D. Palmer: It's on the road frontage. C. Twigg: No it's on the roadside . M. Palmer: Pleasant Valley's on the north . We're on the south side. V. Rankin: There's the wetland and there's the road , see . M. Palmer: The wetland does not come to the road . D. Palmer: It does not come out to the road. It sets back in. G. Totman: Another thing I was just thinking -- like the man has been there and he didn't see a problem. As long as you want to build a building and you're a hundred feet away from the wetland , then you can get a building permit. M. Palmer: I believe the letter we got from DEC does say that in order to do anything in there they would have to check with the DEC first to get permission. C. Twigg: In other words, the wetland has nothing to do with these people selling the property? G. Totman: As long as the potential buyer knows about it. You can actually sell a wetland without any chance of ever building on it as long as it's known ahead of time . It doesn't make any difference who owns it as long as they know they can 't build on it or do something with it. G. VanSlyke: So where is your road frontage going to be for 13- 1 ? M. Palmer: That is a boundary change. D. Palmer: We're looking at it as a boundary change M. Palmer: to the property just to the east of it, so it doesn't need road frontage . They have road frontage on that property. 13- 1 is a boundary change . G. VanSlyke: Okay. Wait a minute now. Let's check this out. This is Robert Warner and he lives - - okay, so this whole section is going to be added to his? D. Palmer: The B- 1 section we're looking at. We had originally looked at it as approximately 9 acres; after the survey, it may come out somewhat less than that, but we've got a tentative line drawn. M. Palmer: We were eyeballing a hedge and we thought it was about 350 feet, but it's only about 250 to 300 feet. D. Palmer: So this actual acreage may end up somewhere around seven to eight acres. It has been surveyed ; I just don 't have the final calculations back from the surveyor yet. They were up there last week and did that part of it. 7 Groton Town Planning Board Meeting 17 August 1995 G. Totman: This is what we have to call a developer's conference for a sketch plan review, conceptual review. And then if we approve of the concept of all this, then you 'll come back in another meeting with all of the drawings and the surveys and then we 'll give a preliminary approval and set a public hearing. Is that the way you understand it? M. Palmer: Yes. D. Palmer: If it goes as a major subdivision. G. Totman: So tonight, the only thing we can do with what we've got in the way it's set up is to give a conceptual -- approve of the concept of what we 're talking about. Once we've approved the concept, then they can go ahead and spend the money and have it drawn up on a regular surveyor's map so that before we schedule a public hearing, which we have to do on this, we've got to have the survey map. M. Palmer: These are as the attached instructions or - - G. Totman: Everything was presented very perfect. It's a good presentation with the concept we got and everything. M. Palmer: As we found out when we had for the proposed boundary change, when the surveyor got in there it wasn't as large as we had guesstimated . And if this is the time to ask for the waiver on certain sections of the major subdivision as not being applicable to the large-lot subdivision proposed -- there's not going to be any streets or lights or septic, sewer plant, or -- G. Totman: Are you listening to the applicant? CO TwiWe No , I was listening to the councilman here . G. Totman: The rules and regulations go through what's required in a major subdivision, and what they are asking for is not to have to follow the rules where they have to put the major utilities underground, put roads in - - there 's no roads involved , no major utilities. The only problem that they've got here is because it's over five lots, it becomes a realty subdivision which means that before we can approve it you have to have approval from the Health Department. D. Palmer: What does that mean? I read my book, but that wasn't in there . G. Totman: Correct me if I 'm wrong, Bobby, but let me make it sound simpler. A town that has no subdivision rules and regulations -- even though you don't have any, if you're going to divide up five or more you can't do it unless you get approval from the Health Department. They have to tell you which lots can have septic systems, which lots can 't. And the -- sometimes the utility company, the company by the nature of State Law if it's over five lots, has to put all utilities underground . Now, here you - - after you extract the three lots out that you did in the rural , how many is going to be left? How many other ones are you dividing up? Let's go back and look at it. G. VanSlyke: You can have still six others. G. Totman: There's going to be six others. G. VanSlyke: Unless if that last one is a boundary change -- G. Totman: Well , that makes five . G. VanSlyke: If they did the last one as a boundary change to this person R. Warner -- G. Totman: Yes. That's not a lot. G. VanSlyke: Then they 're back with five . And then would they have to go to the Health Department? 8 Groton Town Planning Board Meeting 17 August 1995 R. Walpole: Yes. Just let me give you a little more different view. And I think George can back me on this because the one we're doing on the Goodman Road, George , in Lansing -- the Health Department did not give its approval two weeks ago until they completely researched the tax map number to make sure that there was not some . . . . action that would trigger - - I think at this point if you unhooked the three units that you want to transfer, even with the boundary change you're coming off the same tax map number to establish five . I think you have to wait for three years. G. Totman: To get out of what the State calls a realty subdivision . R. Walpole: Otherwise, you're going to need big bucks. M. Palmer: But this is generated by once we get the survey done we send that down to the Health Department -- there's a special application form that they have. G. Totman: Yes , R. Walpole: Before they do the survey, you may want to make an appointment to have them look at M. Palmer: Right. The same way we did with the DEC. We had them come in -- G. Totman: Yes -- that way it would give you an idea. (At this point there were four people conversing at the same time . Lost transcript/JF) M. Palmer: What are they looking at at the tax map? They research back, the ownership -- G. Totman: Everything you do there 's always an obstacle . But it's better to check into it now because you could save a lot of money. You might want to change and make them some larger lots or something. You might make a couple of them a little larger or whatever. Ce TWI g: Or if you got the middle one sold , lob them altogether for this purpose . In other words, if you don't have sales for them now maybe you won't have a sale for them for three years. You can divide it anytime you wanted to -- the rest of them. Instead of doing all the dividing today. D. Palmer: Right, G. Totman: You could do it as a boundary change -- no problem. And those two lots -- then that one lot next to that -- you could come in for that one and that wouldn't trigger it either. Co Twigg: You probably don't want to sell them all this year anyway. M. Palmer: No , we don't really plan on it. D. Palmer: Other than that boundary change is the only thing we've got planned for right now. G. Totman: Why don't you check with him, then get back and we'll see about what we ought to do for the next meeting. In the meantime , why don't we hold up on the SEAR until we have the preliminary because they might change -- M. Palmer: Re-arrange our - - G. Totman: They might re-arrange -- G. VanSlyke: But we still have to do the rural that we approved . G. Totman: Yes. Now that we see that, we'll -- Ce Twigg: Do we have to do a SEAR on the rural? 9 Groton Town Planning Board Meeting 17 August 1995 G. Totman: Yes. Now we do because we're not going to do that now and the whole thing might change by the time -- C. Twigg: You're not even going to do the rural now? G. Totman: Yes. We're going to go back and do the SEAR just for the rural. Co T�vigg: Okay. G. Totman: And hold the other up until we see what the change is going to be. George? George VanSlyke then reads aloud Part H of the Short Environmental Assessment Form Negative responses were obtained to all questions in Part H and it was determined by the Planning Board , upon a motion made by George VanSlyke, seconded by Cecil Twigg, and with all members voting in favor, that the action receive a negative declaration. So actually -- M. Palmer: That one will depend on what we hear from the Health Department whether we re- apply or just -- G. Totman: Well, on this one here , I was just trying to see what we could do -- M. Palmer: If we re-figure it. G. Totman: Actually we -- Board -- as a Board we don't have anything against the concept or the presentation that they made . We can approve the concept of what they are doing and it would take care of what they call a developer's conference in case they come back the next time . As long as they don't expand on it . What they might be doing is making a lesser impact than it is now so that if we could approve the concept of what they're doing now, that takes care of the developer's conference . So next time they could come back with a preliminary and it might save a month 's meeting for them if we approve the concept now. M. Palmer: We wouldn't have to start from scratch, we'd just -- G. Totman: Does everybody understand what I 'm saying? CO T�vigg: I understand . G. VanSlyke: How quick do you want to do the boundary change? Is that the immediate future? D. Palmer: It's not really pressing. C. Tvigg: But you don't have to come - - they don't even have to come to us for that boundary change do they? G. Totman: Yes. Co Twigg: I'm wondering why would you have to come for a boundary change? M. Palmer: It's in the rules and regs. G. Totman: Wait a minute . The Board members are supposed to be telling the applicants that. The applicants aren't supposed to be telling the Board members, right? C. Twi g: No, but you could sell one lot or change one - - G. Totman: You're right; I agree with your concept and we should have caught them when we were changing them but I'm sure we didn't. They can sell one lot without coming to us. 10 Groton Town Planning Board Meeting 17 August 1995 C. Tavim But they can't just make a boundary change. G. Totman: Yes, C* Twigg: You know, as smart as we are George , you wouldn't think that little things like that would get by us would you? G. Totman: The Ordinance is written now so that you don't have to wait for years to change it. The Ordinance is written now so it's going to be loose-leaf. And if we make a change, they change one page. Because we're going to have to ask for a change on this flag lot thing. We'll talk about that before we leave tonight. Okay, the next thing on the agenda is Mr. Walpole and Mr. Yatsko . Where is Roger Gleason? G. VanSlyke: We got that later on in the week in the mail . G. Totman: But he's not here. A. Hayes: I'm waiting on Roger. G. Totman: Did he tell you he was coming? A. Hayes: He told me tonight was the night on a flag lot. He told me to be down here tonight and that he'd be here tonight on this piece of property I 'm buying off him . G. Totman: Okay. But anyway, we're doing Mr. Yatsko right now. Has everybody looked it over? Do you know what's being presented? Co Tavigg: This is up on Smith Road , right? G. Totman: Okay. Anybody got any questions? CO Twigg: Why should there be? G. Totman: That's what we 're here for tonight. CO Twigg: What are you suspicious of? G. Totman: I 'm not. IL Walpole: This thing is very cut and dried . Very clear. There are no wetlands involved . V. Rankin: Get up there and tell us about it so we can go home. R. Walpole: All the lots supersede -- these are actually designed for the 200-foot. And since the law has been changed to 150 foot, they're still 200 feet and they all exceed, except for one is the actual survey is 6 . 6 acres, and the rest of them are all 10 acres. Lot A has been sold and closed on and we have purchase offers on the rest of them which has triggered the subdivision rules and regulations. B. C. and D have not transferred yet, obviously, until subdivision approval . But the rural subdivision - - there 's no additional -- there's 36 or 39 acres here altogether. All the land has been used up creating four lots -- back to the back property line , based on a rural subdivision . The Health Department has given us approval of the pert tests on C, A and B . It does not affect major subdivision . Obviously, any building permits that the building inspector issues will have all the proper paperwork. . . C. Twigg: I can't conceive where there would be a problem. G. VanSlyke: Looks okay to me . G. Totman: Let's do the SEAR on it then. G. VanSlyke: Okay. 11 Groton Town Planning Board Meeting 17 August 1995 George VanSlyke then reads aloud Part 11 of the Short Environmental Assessment Form Negative responses were obtained to all questions in Part H and it was determined by the Planning Hoard , upon a motion made by George VanSlyke, seconded by Cecil Twigg, with all members voting in favor, that the action receive a negative declaration. G. Totman: Any other questions on the subdivision that's being presented? Do you want to accept it tonight? Do you want to go for a public hearing? Do you want to bypass the public hearing? Co Zw1we Let's bypass the public hearing. It's not affecting anybody and I can't visualize anybody wanting to -- G. Totman: All the lots are over and above what the Ordinance calls for. V. Rankin: I move we bypass the public hearing and approve the subdivision as a whole . J. Lewis: I second that. G. Totman: All in favor? (All were in favor. ) Okay. R. Walpole. In reference to the subdivision that Mr. Gleason filed here on Lick Street. In reference to Lot D there was a Board of Appeals public hearing that was conducted and it was ruled in his favor. It's 185 feet of road frontage . We are in the process of selling the lot and we have straightened out -- and I've talked with Roger on this -- we have straightened the lot out and there will be a survey filed here for your signature . I take it this thing still stands and the fourth lot will be approved when the survey map is presented. It's dated 8/20/92 for the record. Is that correct? G. Totman: As I remember it, yes. M. Carey: This is on Lick Street - - 1L Walpole, This is on the Lick Street subdivision. Because I 'm going to need a letter once we file the survey map so that Lot D is -- to take care of the attorneys. G. Totman: Okay. This is a subdivision that Roger came to us before on. You got your checkbook with you? R. Gleason, Oh, yes. G. Totman: You've got to pay us $20 before we can talk to you . Roger came to us with the idea of having this flag lot. I think I ought to just say, for the record's sake, for the minutes, what happened as I remember it. He wasn't quite sure at that time if he had a buyer or not and he wasn't quite sure -- whatever. Well , it was brought to our attention that when we passed the flag lot which said we could go down to 20 feet, inadvertently it was put in the Ordinance that it couldn't go beyond 50 feet. I don 't remember talking about it at the public hearing, but we did. The minutes show that we did . I can 't believe that I let it go by because it defeats the whole purpose of a flag lot, and most roadways are 60 feet now and this is 60 feet here . It would leave , in this particular case -- the object in the first place for passing a flag lot was to make better use of this land that's in back that nobody can use for anything because they didn't have the proper road frontages. And a lot of communities are doing that now . And I haven't ever seen one yet that had a maximum of the flag lot because there are some areas in our town, and in all towns, that inadvertently over the years are 100 feet, or 120 feet, or 80 feet, or whatever. And that was the original intent for these flag lots. This particular one is 60 feet. At the end of the meeting, I would like to talk about making a resolution from the Planning Board to the Town Board to change that one little thing in there . And just so you understand where I 'm coming from, I checked with Tracey Smith , the Circuit Rider from the County Planning Board , that worked with us in drawing this Ordinance and asked her how that 50 feet got put in there because I don't remember it at all through our negotiations . And as we talked about it at the last Planning Board meeting, nobody else did either. But in the public hearing it was brought up and discussed . So because it was, we can 't change it. So I would like to, after the Planning Board meeting tonight -- after we get through with our regular business -- make a resolution and go back to the Town Board and ask for that to be changed so it's in line with 12 Groton Town Planning Board Meeting 17 August 1995 other flag lot rules and regulations call for. Tracey told me that she had a bunch of sample ordinances that she looked at, and one of them had that in there , and inadvertently when she typed it up she typed it into our Ordinance . That's how it got there, according to Tracey. So bear that in mind . I really believe that as long as we have the power to approve subdivisions, and in some areas you have subdivisions that are on dead-end streets -- there are a lot of places that do -- and in those areas you have pie-shaped lots that are around the cul-de-sacs and you can vary the road frontage from the 200 feet or 150 feet down to 80. or whatever, as long as they've got the acreage and meet the Health Department requirements, we could approve this lot here for 20 feet up to 50 feet and it would leave him with the 10 feet in there that he owns that he can do absolutely nothing with . 1 , personally, don't think that we would be out of line in making a motion to vary that 10 feet in the Ordinance because of the circumstances of the lay of the land and the way it turns out because there's nothing else you can do with that 10 feet. Now, I 'd like to hear from anybody. R. Walpole. I 'd like to say something, George , in reference to that. Basically, based on our old subdivision rules and regulations that's been in force here since 1972 , it's always been the theory that whoever developed the property left a 50-foot strip there because this is what the requirements for a road section to go back in were . Even from the flag lot theory standpoint, if the Town -- just say for example the Town was 60 feet, NYS law still allows road frontage of 15 foot per flag lot - - four-unit flag lot. Am I correct on that? G. Totman: That's right. R. Walpole: So , technically, even the 60-foot, even when it was designed for a road to go back in, from the flag lot, going back to NYS law which is the 15 foot, the maximum flag lot piece of property that you could put was four units on a private road. G. Totman: Exactly right . If somebody wanted to buy that whole piece of land back there , following the State laws it might take a town that doesn't have any zoning or anything, the State says you've got to have at least 15 feet of road frontage . Theoretically, four people could buy that back there and come to the Town and ask for a private road which means that they have to maintain it themselves. All four people would own 15 feet of that road and it would be up to them if they want to maintain separate strips of 15 feet or not. But in the areas where it's been done before , they all get together and pay for the maintenance or plowing or whatever. And it's not an unusual thing, and a lot of towns are really encouraging it because they're getting development without having to maintain and repair the roads. There 's quite a few of them happening around the countryside now. And a lot of people that like to build nice fancy new houses like the idea because they can control their own surroundings. Nobody can tell them what they can do on their driveway or the road , and because of the cost of the houses, they know what kind of neighbors they are going to get. It seems to be something that's really catching on with a lot of people . But if you go over four, then the State says you have to form an association and it costs a lot of money and stuff like that. You can go over four, but then you have to form your own organization and all sorts of things. T. Robinson: And I thought at the Town Board meeting at the hearing we had, though , that was one of the things that we said that we didn 't want all along the road . CO Twigg: Driveways , J. Lewis: We're talking about one driveway here . T. Robinson: I know. I'm just talking about the concept. J. Lewis: My question that I have , I guess, is that if we okay this, we decide to do this, I 'm assuming that a house or some kind of living arrangement isn't going to be put back in here . How is George , being the Building Inspector and Zoning Enforcer, how is he going to see this and what is he going to do? Is he going to issue the Building Permit? G. Totman: He has to . Once it's been passed and it's documented and meets the rules and regulations and minimum requirements -- I mean , he could give a building permit if we only pass it with 20 feet because that's what our rules say. If you don 't pass it at all and that guy just buys it, then George can't give him a permit. 13 Groton Town Planning Board Meeting 17 August 1995 J. Lewis: Let me play devil's advocate here . Supposing somebody comes in here and it's a bad situation. I don't know how that would happen. We 've okayed this one and we didn 't want to okay the other one . G. Totman: From my experience , every decision that you make is on its own merits . Because of the lay of the land, the terrain, or marshes, wetlands, or safety, or whatever, it has to be on the merits of that particular property. J. Lewis: So we've got an out anyway? G. Totman: I think so. IL Walpole. This is a good point. Let me just give you an example here in the Village of Groton on West Cortland Street, Between Donald Palmer's and where Frank Clark lived there's a 10-foot strip of property there that divides both of them . Never, never, never should have occurred . It's still there . Ten foot by 150 foot. G. Totman: And does one of the guys on either side own it? R. Walpole. No. Somebody else owns it. G. Totman: This is what we're trying to avoid. I think we could withstand a challenge if we got taken on it. G. Senter. I don't disagree with what you 're trying to do, George, but I think based on the concept of the zoning that was passed by the Town Board , I don't know how you can go ahead and accept a 60- foot maximum frontage without going through the ZBA. Is that a right statement or not? G. Totman: Well, the Planning Board is in charge of passing subdivisions . G. Senter. I understand that. G. Totman: And that is a subdivision . They are allowed to make variances within the subdivisions on certain lots. G. Senter. It's up to you, I just G. Totman: I don't know. I can 't conceive of anybody wanting that 10-foot strip of land there . CO Twigg: In other words, unless somebody contests this it will be all right anyway. The only thing is if somebody contests it, right? R. Walpole, Correct me if I'm wrong, but the reason for the flag lot in the beginning that the Town Board wanted control over was that every application that came in involved a flag lot and was ruled a subdivision which brought it in front of the Planning Board so that everyone of them could be reviewed . I would guess that in a question like this, in order to get it cleared, have a public hearing. And then the Planning Board is off the . . . . . I don't think it needs Town Board approval . The Town Board already passed the law. Otherwise , send every subdivision through the Town Board . No , seriously. I don't care if it says 50 foot or a hundred foot. Then you don 't need the thing in front of the Planning Board . Send it to the Town Board anyway. G. Senter. On the other hand , why do you have the zoning? G. Totman: What's the Board want to do? C. TWI : I would be all in favor of passing --- G. Totman: Let's see . We've got one, two, three , four, five , six of the seven Planning Board members here. The Planning Board has got to make a decision . You either accept it as presented with the 14 Groton Town Planning Board Meeting 17 August 1995 recognition that the law calls for up to 50 feet, but if you pass it at 50 feet you're going to have ten feet of wasted land that nobody can use for anything. So you can say we 're going to pass it that way . If you want to pass it and hold it to 50 feet, Roger will be held with 50 feet and then Roger will remain the owner of the 10-foot by 280 feet and he can go to the ZBA if he wants to and request that it be included into that other lot. Or we can pass it in its entirety the way it is. There are six out of seven members of the Planning Board here. You make a motion and we 'll vote on the motion . CO Twigg: I make a motion that we pass this subdivision with a 60-foot pole . G. Totman: Do you want to stipulate the reasoning for it? Like because otherwise you 'd have --- CO Twigg: Because the remaining 10-foot would be a useless piece of property that would be a thorn in somebody's flesh down the road. G. Totman: We could be wrong on this, but it doesn 't make sense to me that anybody wanted it -- if the Town Board wants to call us on the carpet for it, so be it. But I can't see where it would make any common sense to anybody to want to take ten feet and say you can't use it for nothing else. It just makes absolutely no sense. J. Lewis: As long as you put it like that, let's go for it. G. Totman: There 's a motion on the floor. M. Carey: I'll second the motion . G. Totman: Any questions? All in favor? (All indicated they were in favor.) Did we do the SEQR or not? G. VanSlyke: No. We did this before the SEAR so we've got to do the SEAR George VanSlyke then reads aloud Part H of the Short Environmental Assessment Form Negative responses were obtained to all questions in Part H and it was determined by the Planning Board , upon a motion made by George VanSlyke, seconded by Jeff Lewis, with all members voting in favor, that the action receive a negative declaration. M. Palmer: Could I ask a question? What's our next step? What kind of -- we've given you a survey map signed by a surveyor. Do we need to do anything more? Do we need to file anything more? It's got his seal on it. G. Totman: Yes. On the rural, you mean . No, no, you're all done with that. Wait a minute -- let me go back now. That's all set. M. Palmer: We don't need to bring in anything more . But when you go with the major one, you need the large -- (At this point, everyone joined in conversation and none of this could be picked up by the recording secretary.) G. Totman: Okay. Let's - - I wish I could have thought and brought over one subdivision I just witnessed passed the other night. It was a four-lot subdivision with all four having the 20-foot strip . All four of them were off the main road. And it was passed hardly -- in fact, I would have had a problem passing this one myself as one of the lots had a complete 45 turn in it in 20 foot -- but they're going to share the driveway, but the land itself comes across like this and comes right straight down just like that -- and it was passed without a whimper, I was surprised. I thought they'd have trouble with it . Nobody questioned it. They all had at least two or three acres. J. Lewis: I don't remember passing that or agreeing to that. 15 Groton Town Planning Board Meeting 17 August 1995 G. Totman: I don't either; I really don't. And it was at that meeting. I can't deny it because it's in the minutes. J. Lewis: It blows my mind ; I can't believe it. G. Totman: I wouldn't have agreed to it if I 'd have thought about it. It defeats the whole purpose of having a flag lot. G. VanSlyke: Where 's a copy of the new Ordinance? CO Tw1we I thought so at the time . G. Totman: We don't have them yet; they're not printed yet. M. Palmer: It's in the draft. R. Gleason. Page 36, G. Totman: It's our fault because we missed it. We let it go by, we talked about it, and we didn't even pick it up then. Well, what I'd like to do -- discuss it, and if you all agree -- is to make a resolution going back to the Town Board whereas we inadvertently didn't detect it, even though it was brought up in the minutes, we didn't realize what was happen, and it wasn't the intent of putting that 50 feet in there. The 150 foot is in there right now for regular lots. There is some land in the Town of Groton that's less than 150 feet. This means they can 't do nothing with it if we leave it the way it is. This way here they could use that 110 feet or 140 feet as long as they don't build in the flag lot. And that part has got to get out bigger than the 110 feet or 120, even 149 -- they can 't build in that, because they can build in the lot behind it because that's the bigger one . That's what the whole thing is all about. But it's got to be written up right as a resolution and if you want to do it that way, we've got to present it to the Town Board and ask them to make that change back. And if we do it, what I would really like to do is to have somebody here to agree to take it to the Town Board to be able to explain it. It would be nice if more than one person could do it. But I can't make it because I have to work that night. J. Lewis: I'd like to make a motion that we have Monica Carey address the Board . M. Carey. I think Jeff Lewis should address the Board . G. Totman: I don't. M. Carey: How about Mr. Twigg? He's the one that brought it up here in the minutes and never did anything about it. CO Twiwe Well , you think more than one should do it. J. Lewis: I think Mr. Twigg should be there . G. Totman: To show that we all agree to it. They can read the minutes of the meeting, but I just think one person might present it, but if two or three people are there with them to say that this is -- I think this should be explained to them. Like Teresa says, she doesn't want a whole - - this isn't making four or five of them altogether; this is making use of the land that' s there . It's not making more than one, it's just saying that you might have 110 feet out here -- you can't do nothing with it. But if you 've got two acres behind it, you'd have that all lawn there , but George can give a building permit for the lot out back. C. Trwigg: Now what does the Town Board have to do to change this? G. Totman: Just make a resolution -- T. Robinson: No, no, no, no, no, no, no. They've got to pass a law. 16 Groton Town Planning Board Meeting 17 August 1995 G. Totman: That's what I 'm saying. They have to have a public hearing, make a resolution to change the Ordinance . I don't know how they do it here , but that's the way they do it in other towns. And we 're all under the NYS Rules and Regulations. T. Robinson: I don't think there's going to be any difficulty with it. G. Totman: I don't think so; you have to hold a public hearing. But a public hearing on a change like that -- T. Robinson: If you're going to do it and there's something else you want to change , you better do it at the same time . Ce Twigg: That boundary change -- G. Totman: We never even brought that up before or anything. I think it just slipped by us. C. Twigg: Maybe you want to put that in with it is what I 'm saying. G. Totman: I know they'll complain right off the bat . They'll say you only had it a month or two and you want to change it already. But it really wasn't our intentions and it slipped by us, really. M. Carey: Then there still would be a lot of land that would never be able to be used . G. Totman: I know. That's why we wanted to do it in the first place . G. VanSlyke: Okay. Let me ask one dumb question while we 're sitting here talking about this. Are we going to put a maximum? M. Carey: No . G. Totman: You've got a maximum M. Carey: 150 feet. G. VanSlyke: You can go up to 150 feet as your maximum? G. Totman: See, right now if you don't have 150 feet -- G. VanSlyke: Why don't we just put this out as a typo and say that was -- G. Totman: That's what I wanted to do, George, but it got brought up at the public hearing. It could have been a typo, but they got up and it got discussed and it's in the public hearing and there was some of them printed up and sold and are out to the public now. So it has to be done legally. I agree with you . That's what I wanted to do in the first place. G. VanSlyke: You know, if ---- G. Totman: But anyway, it's there and it's got to be done legal. G. VanSlyke: But the way this happened was that Tracey made an error -- G. Totman: Yes. And that's the way she explained it to me. J. Lewis: So, is Monica going to bring it up in front of the Board . J. Pitch: George, you have a motion on the floor. G. Totman: We have a motion on the floor? J. Pitch: Jeff Lewis made a motion to have Monica Carey address the Town Board . 17 Groton Town Planning Board Meeting 17 August 1995 G. Totman: Yes, but we've got to word this thing -- it's got to be worded so that Carol can type it up . J. Fitch: Are you making a recommendation or a resolution? G. Totman: We 're making a request to the Town Board to change a portion of the Zoning Ordinance that we inadvertently let go through without any intentions of it being there , even though it was brought up at the public hearing. We weren't sharp , we missed it. And it's the Planning Board's feeling that the reason they asked for a flag lot in the first place was to utilize and use the land that doesn't quite meet the 150 feet. It doesn't mean that they can build in that 140 feet, or 110 feet, or 90 feet, but it means if they've got that land there and as long as they've got the acre of land behind that that they can build on, then they can use that land. C. TwiWg: What about this boundary change thing? They going to put that in? G. Totman: Let's finish this first. You have to make two requests. C. Twigg: Okay. All right. G. Totman: Does everybody understand and agree that this is the way you want it to be? (All said yes.) Then we'll have Carol type it up and have Jeff tell Carol how we want it. Okay. M. Carey: And then I got to read that? G. Totman: She 'll read it and then she'll take it to the Board . Now, do you want to take that boundary change out -- see they can sell one lot now without coming to the Planning Board . C. Tw1g6: But they can't change a boundary. G. Totman: But they can't change a boundary. Co TwiW: That don 't make sense . G. Totman: I know the Town Board is going to say wait a minute you guys -- why didn't you pick that out before? If you want to present it to them, it's fine with me, but you might get some -- M. Carey: If we want to get this -- C. Twigg: Well, I think that went by us the same as the 50 foot did . J. Lewis: Hey, we 're all human , you know. We worked on that and worked on it and worked on it, so if we come up with a couple of mistakes -- let's get it fixed, let's not drag on with something that's not quite right. Let's get it the way we want it. CO TwIgg: But the Town Board read that thing, too. G. Totman: Back up a little bit on that. If you 're not working on it day in and day out like the Planning Board did, as the Town Board or any other board or a private citizen reading it, they wouldn't pick those things up because you're not working with it day by day. In the past, you've worked on some ordinance that we've changed, Cecil, when we've worked on them and worked on them and when they come out in print we looked at them and said okay. But six months later we looked at them and said that isn't what we did . The guy that wrote them up changes them, but we didn't pick it up. That happens. It's happened to us before. J. Lewis: So let's add the boundary change, too, at the same time . G. Totman: Well, it just makes sense. If Don Palmer wants to sell or buy 50 feet of land off his neighbor and he's not creating a new tax map number, it's strictly a boundary change . That's a lot less impact than selling a full lot. So a boundary change should be a lot easier to sell an elected Board than a full lot being sold without going to the Planning Board . 18 Groton Town Planning Board Meeting 17 August 1995 C. Twigg: I think we ought to put them both on. You have to have a public hearing for each one? G. Totman: They can do them both the same night. That's the way I understand it. T. Robinson: What I came for was to tell you that the Town Board wanted you to do something with the flag lot. That's what we discussed at the Town Board , G. Totman: Minutes of the June and July meetings. G. VanSlyke: I make a motion to accept the minutes of these meetings. V. Rankin: I second. G. Totman: All in favor? (All were in favor.) Does anybody else in the room have anything to be brought before the Board? V. Rankin: I make a motion to adjourn. CO Twigg: I second. The meeting was adjourned at 9 :38 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Joan E . Fitch Recording Secretary 19