Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-04-18 TOWN OF GROTON PLANNING BOARD MEETING Thursday, 18 April 1996 Board Members (*present) Others Present George Totman, Chairman Joan E . Fitch , Recording Secretary *Monica Carey Lyle Raymond, ZBA Chair Sheldon Clark James R Henry, Attorney Jeff Lewis *Verl Rankin *Cecil Twigg *George VanSlyke The meeting was called to order at 8*00 p.m . by Monica Carey, Acting Chairperson. Simmons (TM # 36- 1 -26)/Dillon (TM # 364 -27) Boundary Change Request - NYS Route 38 - TM #s 36- 1 =26 & 27 M. Carey: Okay, we're going to start the meeting; we've got a quorum. We've got Mr. Henry here to discuss this proposal on these two lots. Our biggest problem is both of these lots are non-conforming lots. Did you want to explain to the Board what's going on here? J. Henry: Yes. V. Rankin: This is out to Peruville, right? J. Henry: Yes, M. Carey: Remember the girl that used to be our stenographer? It's one of houses she used to live in . There's three little houses right there in a row. . . . J. Henry: The Dillon parcel is the old French house. And the Simmons parcel is the old Eggebraaten /Rafferty house . There never had been surveys done until these two surveys you see here, which showed that the driveway of the Dillon parcel is about half on the Simmons parcel. And also, a corner of Dillon's garage encroaches over the line . Between the parties they have agreed that Simmons will deed this triangle you see on both of the surveys -- you see it's marked out there . The triangle has 8 feet of frontage and then angles back to the back line in a triangular form. Deeding that over to Dillon would put Dillon's garage and driveway on Dillon's property after that. So it's a boundary change which is why it's before the Planning Board. There is also the issue that both of these lots are prior existing non-conforming lots. They've both been residences for a long time from before the Zoning Ordinance was put in place . The Dillon place has roughly 65 feet of frontage and the Eggebraaten parcel has 101 feet of frontage ; this would decrease by 8 feet the frontage on the Simmons parcel and increase it on Dillon. So it would make Simmons less conforming from an already non-conforming, but it would make Dillon more conforming on a non-conforming. It would go from 65 to 73 and down from 101 down to 93, C. Twigg: So what you're trying to do is figure out a legal way to do this? J. Henry: Right. I'm before the Planning Board to ask approval on the boundary change , but there is lurking this other problem which is it would require a variance which is the province of the Board of Zoning Appeals, C. Twigg: The Planning Board cannot give an okay to this because it needs a variance -- is that what you're saying? J. Henry: Yes, I think so. I think what we're really asking from the Planning Board is approval of the boundary line change contingent upon us obtaining a variance . 1 w Groton Town Planning Board Meeting 18 April 1996 C. Twigg: Do it. Get it done so the guy's got a place to drive his car in. V. Rankin: Why don't we turn it over to the ZBA? M. Carey: We can't. Right, Lyle? G. Van Slyke: We have to deny before you can. . . . L. Raymond: You can't appeal the decision of the Planning Board -- not before the ZBA. J. Henry: Which is why a denial from the Planning Board really doesn't help, I guess. So what we'll have to do is make some application to, or receive from the Zoning Officer a denial that can be appealed to the Board of Zoning. L. Raymond: Yes. If you look in Section 422 of the Land Use Development Code -- page 65. There's a note here that the power to hear and decide appeals is upon appeals by actions of the Code Enforcement Officer. Any order, requirement, decision or determination made by the Code Enforcement Officer. So it can't be just an opinion; it's got to be an order, requirement, or decision of some kind that he's made. And then you appeal that decision if you're not satisfied with it. That does not include decisions by the Planning Board . As I was just saying, I have checked this out over the years many times -- in training sessions I've gone to and other places and in various booklets and reports -- and everyone's been saying the only exception to acting on the decision of the Code Enforcement Officer is a recent law passed by the State where you guys are considering a subdivision and one of the lots doesn't quite meet the requirements, then it allows you to come before the ZBA and it's only in that case . M. Carey: Would this be covered under the grandfather law? L. Raymond: Well, a non-conforming lot is. . . . . M. Carey: Because it's been there and there's nothing you can do about it. C. Twigg: But when you change it, that's the problem. M. Carey: Yes. When you change it you make them both --- okay. G. Van Slyke: When you change ownership, right, it's like that? J. Henry: No . We are proposing changing this lot with a frontage of 101 feet to 93 feet, and that is changing a non-conforming lot. L. Raymond: A non-conforming lot is to have no change in its boundaries. C. Twigg: But what you've got to get from us tonight. . . . M. Carey: Is nothing. J. Henry: Well, at some point the Planning Board -- it's the Planning Board's province on boundary line changes as part of the subdivision regs. C. Twigg: In other words, you'd like to have a consensus from the Planning Board what we will do -- if we'll go along with the boundary change if you . . . J. Henry: Well, that's one way and then we'll have to come back. Or the other way to do it would be to have an approval contingent on the ZBA variance . And the way to go before the ZBA is to make application , get denied , and then appeal. There are many types of permits -= occupancy and so on. G. Van Slyke: It's too bad George isn't here right now. M. Carey: Why? What else would we do differently? 2 Groton Town Planning Board Meeting 18 April 1996 G. Van Slyke: If Senter was here he could let us know what we need to do. M. Carey: Right. Okay. I thought you meant Totman . G. Van Slyke: No. It would be nice if Senter was here so. . . . J. Henry: Yes, that would help us with which way to go. But I think if the Planning Board is willing to approve the subdivision question "Is it okay to change the boundaries between this lot? and just make that our contingency -- our approval is contingent upon this other governmental approval. But we have no , objection to the stuff that's within your province. M. Carey. Lyle, did you want to say something? L. Raymond: It just occurred to me if you approved that change and nobody applies for a permit, then it just stands doesn't it? C. Twigg: No. Because it would be contingent and if the Zoning Board never does anything, it's just like we never made a decision. L. Raymond: That's right. But contingent upon a pennit for what? You just can't say contingent upon ZBA approval because we can't act without a permit denial of some kind . V. Rankin: You've got to get the boundary change in there someplace. L. Raymond: Yes, but there's got to be a permit denial from the Zoning Officer on what he is empowered to give permits for or whatever. If George was here then, well, what does he have power to give pen-nits for. And he (meaning the attorney) just mentioned there were several kinds of permits -- occupancy, building, and so on, that he's empowered to undertake. C. Twigg: I don't think it has anything to do with the Zoning Officer, does it? M. Carey. Oh , yes. L. Raymond: What I'm saying is -- if you make it contingent -- it can't be contingent upon the ZBA, it's got to be contingent upon some -- it seems to me anyway. J. Henry: Well one thing you may be saying, and I'm not sure if this is what you're saying, is that the Planning Board, if they deem it something they want to approve, just plain approve it because that's what's within their province . L. Raymond: That's right. Because that lot is non-conforming now. And if you approve it, it still doesn't have adequate frontage . So if and when whoever the owner is of that lot with inadequate frontage goes to George Senter and asks for a permit for anything - - an addition to the house or no matter what they want to do on that lot -- George is going to turn it down because there's not adequate frontage . He has to turn it down because there's no adequate frontage. Then it will come before the ZBA because they're going to appeal George's decision see. Whoever the owner is. To us. That's what I'm saying. But if the lot stands and nobody asks for a permit, then there's nothing to appeal . That's all I'm saying. Now maybe I'm on the wrong tract there, I don't know, but that's the way I see it and you guys do your business. M. Carey: It is too bad George Senter wasn't here so we could find out what kind of permit. L. Raymond: Well, he gives occupancy permits, he gives building permits --- C. Twigg: Yes, but I'm not sure that George Senter has a lot to do with a boundary change . M. Carey: No, he doesn't. Not the boundary change. C. Twigg: And if we approve the boundary change, that is a legal lot and if they come to him for a permit, they are on a legal lot if we approve it. 3 Groton Town Planning Board Meeting 18 April 1996 J. Henry: I think that's under the old Code. But under the new Code I think the Planning Board's not supposed to approve lots that don't comply. C. Twigg: Who approves them under the new Code? J. Henry: Well, you have to get a variance. M. Carey: Right. L. Raymond: This gets complicated doesn't it? J. Henry: Under the old Code it allowed the Planning Board to make variances. M. Carey: Yes. George Totman told me today that under the old Code we were able to do this and when we did the codes we didn't put that back in. L. Raymond: Maybe there's a glitch there in our Code . . . . M. Carey. Right. Especially because I imagine there's a lot of non-conforming lots in Groton. L. Raymond: I sat in those sessions with you guys when you did the Code and we never thought of it did we? M. Carey: No. L. Raymond: Not that one . You might know something would slip through . V. Rankin: Why what was the matter with you , Lyle? How come you didn't do it? L. Raymond: I know. That's right. V. Rankin: Well, what are we going to do with this? J. Henry: I think we're back to the problem -- I don't want the Planning Board to do something it's not supposed to which is approve something that varies the Ordinance . So I think it's back to I would like an approval contingent upon obtaining a variance, and then leave it to us to work out the method by which we have to go through. This is red tape. The Planning Board just has to say do we approve the boundary change between these lots, but you have this problem and so you say we just approve it -- if that's what you're about to do -- contingent upon obtaining a variance . V. Rankin: I so move. G. Van Slyke : I'm going to second it. Do we have to do an environmental on this? M. Carey: Yes, I think we have to, don't we . We better do this before we vote on Verl's motion to approve the boundary change contingent upon obtaining a variance . Okay, here you go George . I'll let you have the pleasure . G. Van Slyke: Okay. Are we ready? We're doing the Part II Environmental Assessment, Board Member George Van Slyke then reads aloud Part H of the Short Environmental Assessment Form. Negative responses were obtained to all questions in Part H. Therefore, it was determined by the Planning Board, upon a motion made by Cecil Twigg, seconded by Verl Rankin, with all members present voting in favor, that the action, based on the information submitted, will not cause any significant adverse environmental impact, resulting in a negative declaration. M. Carey: Now we'll vote on the motion Verl made . All in favor? (All members presented voted in favor. ) 4 Groton Town Planning Board Meeting 18 April 1996 V. Rankin: We'll probably get sued and have to hire a lawyer. J. Henry: These parties are agreeable. That's where the trouble usually comes is trying to work that out. M. Carey. I guess we'll leave it up to you to come up with some ideas. J. Henry: The next step is to talk to George about how to end up with a variance application . Approval of Minutes - March Meeting M. Carey: Okay. We need to approve the minutes of the last meeting. Did everybody read them? V. Rankin: No. C. Twigg: I just saw them here. M. Carey: Well read quickly -- read them over. (Board members review minutes.) M. Carey: George made a motion to approve the minutes of the last meeting, Verl seconded it. All in favor? (All members presented voted in favor.) We'll close this meeting unless there's other business to come before the Board. C. Twigg: I'll make the motion to adjourn the meeting. G. Van Slyke: I second it. M. Carey: All in favor? (All members present indicated they were in favor.) The meeting was adjourned at 8*30 p.m . Respectfully submitted, Cam- �. G�'�✓f� Joan E . Fitch Recording Secretary 5