Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-05-16 TOWN OF GROTON PLANNING BOARD MEETING Thursday, 16 May 1996 Board Members (*present) Others Present *George Totman, Chairman Joan E. Fitch , Recording Secretary *Monica Carey Peg & Don Palmer Sheldon Clark James R Henry, Attorney Jeff Lewis *Verl Rankin *Cecil Twigg *George VanSlyke The meeting was called to order at 8 * 10 p.m . by George Totman, Chairperson. G. Totman: We'll call this meeting to order. Has everybody read the minutes of the April meeting? M. Carey: Yes. G. Totman: Anybody want to make a motion that we approve , accept or reject. V. Rankin: I move that we accept them as presented . M. Carey: I'll second that. G. Totman: Thank you. Donald N. & Margaret A Palmer - Subdivision Revision - 320 Pleasant Valley Rd. - TM # 35 . 00- 1 - 1 G. Totman: We've got down here a Site Plan Review for Bill and Judy Booth . Tell you what. There's four of us here and we've got three things on the agenda and none of them are here yet, and Don and Peggy have come so why don't we handle them first if that's all right with you people. (Everyone agreed. ) I have no idea why they're here . P. Palmer: Carol said she'd put our folder out on the table . G. Totman: I've got that. So let's get going. D. Palmer: Let me start with a little background . We had an original proposal that was approved back in September of '95. The public hearing was held in October '95 . G. Totman: October 9th, 1995. D. Palmer: Thank you . In which we talked about subdividing a major parcel on Pleasant Valley Road into 6 lots running in acreage from about 6 acres to about 16, Since that time we have sold one of those lots and we've got a boundary change. We went through some open advertising last fall and this spring on the lots as they were approved, and found after talking with a number of people and a number of governmental agencies, there are some new restrictions that seem to be coming to the surface that cause us to come to the Board now for modifications. The first one is the new REDC which is the former Farm Home organization . There's a 3-acre limitation as far as lending funds for an undeveloped lot. This comes from some builders we've talked to and other people we've talked to . We took it upon ourselves and have contact with a party that's interested in one of our lots, and we're going with a new proposal to the REDC which is kind of a new venture for them also because they formerly were dealing with small parcels and mobile homes and so on up to one-acre lots. Right now, the former Farmer Home has just started getting into bigger parcel allotments. So we have one potential buyer that we used as a test case. We worked out an arrangement with this buyer where they're interested in purchasing from our subdivision about a 6-acre parcel. We proposed that to them, they submitted to 1 Groton Town Planning Board Meeting 16 May 1996 the REDC and they've come back now with a formal purchase offer for six acres. So this lends us to believe that they may be a little bit lenient if they're just getting into this and may be willing to extend beyond the three acres. The other agency that has some limitations is the FHA which appears to limit theirs to about five acres . And the attempt there is people will not subdivide , normally, less than a 5- acre parcel. So our request at this point is to modify our earlier proposal and do two things: one is to change the lot size on four of the lots - - the smallest of which will still be approximately 5 . 5 acres. The second part of the request is to add two new lots, designated on the map as A7 and A8. In all these cases, the smallest acreage would still be about 5. 5 acres and would lend itself to the local community up there. And the road frontage on the smallest one is about 190 feet, which is well within the tolerance of 150 ft. road frontage from the Town Ordinance. If you're willing to accept this revised preliminary tonight, as we're hoping you will, it allows us to do a couple of things. It allows us to go forward and to get the lots surveyed , which we've held off doing until we can see what the reaction was to our offering; secondly, is to go ahead with one sale we have on the table right now where we have a purchase offer, but it's for a smaller lot than we originally proposed . And the third thing is to go ahead and advertise for the remaining lots -- advertising somewhat smaller acreage -- in hopes that will advance the salability and improve the tax base for the Town . M. Carey: Now which lot has the purchase offer on? D. Palmer: They have given us a purchase offer at this point on A5 . V. Rankin: I see nothing wrong with it. G. Totman: The way it is now, or the change? D. Palmer: This is the changed map you have in your hands right now. M. Carey: This one is the changed? P. Palmer: A5 is pretty much the same . . . . D. Palmer: There's a slightly different boundary line on that. If you will recall, back in October it was advertised and there were a few people in the audience at that point, but there was no objection from anybody in the audience , so we don't anticipate there would be any objection or any concerns by changing the lot sizes somewhat smaller. G. Totman : You're still going to have a long, narrow lot, though . D. Palmer: Yes. G. Totman: I understand, but for the Board's benefit -- I understand what they're saying, but many times if you tell the people that large lots are not good , they'll look at you like you don't know what you're talking about. But I've had occasions many times lately where people will come in and want to subdivide their land because they have 6, 7, 8, or 10 acres of land -- they want to borrow to re-finance their home and the banks won't re-finance for anything more than 3 acres. It doesn't make sense to me because if you've got the land and you own it -- why doesn't D. Palmer: The banks want them to get rid of the extra land. G. Totman: So what you're saying is everything you're asking for is still within the Ordinance - - still within the scope. You're not asking for a change -- just a change in dimensions. The only problem I see with what he's asking for is, in my opinion and the Board can correct me if I 'm wrong, is that we can say that # 5 -- we have no problems with it -- but we're changing what was passed at the public hearing. I don't think there's any way out of that. I don't know any reason why anybody would complain about it, but if we didn't hold a public hearing, then somebody could null and void it because we did it wrong. And you don't want that. D. Palmer: I don' t want that, but my only concern is. . . 2 Groton Town Planning Board Meeting 16 May 1996 G. Totman: But my only concern here, and to answer your question, I don't think we can say to you we'll approve # 5 and then hold a public hearing. But what I think we can say to you is that we see no reason why we won't approve it the way it stands, and that we'll hold a public hearing just to confirm it. Do you follow what I'm saying? D. Palmer: I understand that. G. Totman : But that's not what you want. D. Palmer: I've got two concerns on that. One is that we've got a purchase offer on the table right now that I really don't want to walk away from for another month . G. Totman: I'm not suggesting that. I 'm suggesting to go ahead and do it. What I'm saying to you here is -- unless somebody nods their head in the opposite direction , we can't formally vote yes on it, but there isn't anybody here right now that I would say that would vote no on it. So you're on pretty safe ground . C. Twigg: On this one lot, this A4X - - you know that little pit that runs down in there? P. Palmer: You mean on Al ? G. Totman: No , A4X -- the new A4X - - what's that got to do with it? C. Twigg: You ought to run that line on that other lot over to that corner instead of having that little neck sticking down there . P. Palmer: The problem is -- that makes A5 larger and that's the lot that's being considered and they don't want more than 6 acres. C. Twigg: It wouldn't add much . D. Palmer: I understand what you're saying. G. Totman: There's going to be a jog any way you look at it. P. Palmer: But if you saw the way - - I mean, it's all woods back there . D. Palmer: They may slide that line one way or the other. All these are estimates in terms of acreage. G. Totman: Don, you're going to go back and have it re-surveyed now, right? D. Palmer: We're going to have the interior lots surveyed . We've done the perimeter survey and we surveyed off the lots that we've sold . G. Totman: Have you got any more questions? D. Palmer: I had a second concern -- just to bring it to the Board's attention so there's no misunderstandings later on. Under Al we have a flag lot situation now that does have adequate access to that back lot. The front lot that has the road frontage we've attempted several times to purchase that land and the owner is not willing to sell. So we would sell that with roughly a 23-foot access to the back parcel. Originally, we had carried that line over to the existing line . G. Van Slyke: Wait a minute now. What did you say the road frontage was on that one? P. Palmer: 23 feet. D. Palmer: Roughly 23 feet which would allow a road . . P. Palmer: a driveway 3 Groton Town Planning Board Meeting 16 May 1996 D. Palmer: . . a driveway to that lot, so the house would have to be positioned back away from the road a least 170 feet. G. Van Slyke: Are there buildings on the lot you're trying to buy? D. Palmer: There's not building at all on that. G. Van Slyke: The guy just wants to hang onto it? D. Palmer: Yes. We put a number of proposals to him, including buying it outright, or trading it for some land we had off to the west of our property as equal exchange, and he just didn't want to deal at all with us. So as far as I'm concerned, he's bought a parcel there and what he does with it later is his problem. I think he's going to buy himself some problems later on . When we surveyed it, we gave away a number of feet to square off that lot on the back side . There was some question where that line was; so we negotiated with the surveyor to square off at a 90-degree angle on the western boundary. P. Palmer: Which is the way the deed read . D. Palmer: So that would eliminate any possible later on if he wanted to change hands with that, but we squared it off to coincide with what the deed said . G. Van Slyke : What are you going to do with B 1 ? D. Palmer: It's already been sold -- that was a boundary line change . M. Carey: Okay. 1 remember that. D. Palmer: 131 has been sold and A3 . The one we're looking at now is A5 . G. Van Slyke: So where are you planning to make a boundary change -- between A5 and this one? P. Palmer: The boundary change is B1 . G. Van Slyke: Okay. G. Totman: You said B 1 and AW P. Palmer: A3's been sold. D. Palmer: A3 has been sold as a lot. 131 was a boundary change that was in the major subdivision last fall. G. Totman : Yes, I remember that. We did that already. I see no problem with the changes. Does anybody else? Except we'll have to schedule a public hearing for the next meeting and then take it from there . V. Rankin: Couldn't you talk this guy into buying that bought this other piece into buying this 5.6 acres too? D. Palmer: Extending that out further? He's really not interested in that parcel particularly. P. Palmer: He just wanted it to preserve his watershed behind there. . . D. Palmer: He's got runoff into a pond, so he wanted to have that field next to his pond so he could control the runoff into that. So we're looking for a public hearing on this in June? June, the . . . . . G. Totman: June 20th . We'll have a public hearing to revise a major subdivision . Okay. 4 Groton Town Planning Board Meeting 16 May 1996 Simmons (TM # 36- 1 -26)/Dillon (TM # 36- 1 -27) Boundary Change Request - NYS Route 38 - TM #s 36- 1 -26 & 27 G. Totman : Now that Mr. Henry is here, let's go back to what you took up all your meeting for at the last meeting. I think that's why Mr. Henry is here. At the last meeting you talked about a boundary change on two non-conforming lots in Peruville . I hate to make -- after looking it all over and studying it, and coming up with my best thoughts, let me just tell you what I think we should with it and then you can tell me whether I'm right or wrong. There's no way that George Senter can reject it and go for a variance because he doesn't make or reject zoning changes. He only issues building permits, and there's no legal way at all where he can do that. It doesn't say in the rules and regulations that the Planning Board has any authority to take a non-conforming lot and make it more non-conforming, or take . . . J. Henry: A non-conforming lot and make it less non-conforming. , G. Totman: Which in this case is both ways. It doesn't say you can't do it -- but it also doesn't say that you can do it. So in bargain, we do have authority under the subdivision rules to vary boundary lines. Thinking about all that, I would go on record as being in favor -- and taking the responsibility for -- taking a bad situation where the people have no choice. . . J. Henry: of what to do in taking the two lots and. . . G. Totman: Make one a little less non-conforming and the other will make it more non-conforming, but it will the people that have been using that driveway for many, many years own the land they've been using. And that land was created before zoning ordinances were ever put into effect. J. Henry: And so they were non-conforming at first. . . G. Totman: We're not making anything worse than , because we're only taking a few feet away from one and giving it to the other. They will still both remain non-conforming, and the usage will stay the same as it has been, nobody going up and down the road will notice any difference, they'll still use the same driveway, drive in the same garage, and out of just plain common sense I would defy anybody to try to get an Article 78 against us for making a common-sense move and approve the boundary change, which we have authority to do, under those circumstances. M. Carey: I wanted to grandfather it in last month , but nobody would go with me on it. G. Totman: Does that make any sense to anybody? Anybody got anything against that? M. Carey: No, I don't have anything against it. C. Twigg: We'd have done it last time, but we didn't know if we could or not. M. Carey: Everybody voted me down when 1 said I thought we could grandfather it in. G. Totman: It's not that you're grandfathering it because it was already there and I think it was confusing. I've talked with Lyle about it many times since then , and I just feel that it makes common sense that we do that. And by the same token, just to bring you up to date on something else while you're thinking about that, I have met with Lyle a couple , three times, and Lyle went to the Town Board meeting the other night. I thought that we'd have a note here from the Board as to what they did. I think Jim Henry was at the Town Board meeting . J. Henry: Yes, I was there. Lyle was not there . G. Totman: Oh, that's right. George Senter and you were there . Lyle came and told me what happened . But anyway, Lyle and I made some proposals and sent them to the Town Board about making some changes for this type of thing. Just to clarify those things. And so the Town Board, correct me if I'm wrong, said they agree with the thoughts on the changes 100% and didn't have any problem with it, but they sent it back to the Planning Board to go over and make a presentation to the Town Board to have it done. Anything that we've seen up to this point have it done. To get back with them and present it to them for their next meeting. 5 Groton Town Planning Board Meeting 16 May 1996 J. Henry: Get it to the Town Attorney. He wants to get all the input together because there's some other things besides that. G. Totman: Yes, there's some signs and other problems. D. Palmer: The whole idea was to . . . . G. Totman: Oh - - I forgot about you -- do I have it right, Don? D. Palmer: Pretty much . Basically, any of the problems that you've run into up to date, bring them all to the table at one time , rather than one-on-one as they come up . G. Totman: Bear in mind, though , right at this particular moment we can put them all together. But next month something might come up . D. Palmer: I understand . But as of that point in time, everything you have found needs to be cleaned up with an amendment and cross-referenced so you can bring forward whatever the original one was and what the change was. G. Totman : With that in mind, getting away from the subject a little bit, what I will propose to do is discuss these in case you've got any changes you want to make, but form a committee with two members of this Board to meet with Lyle sometime between now and next week to put all this stuff together that we're talking about so that we can submit it to the Town Attorney so they can have it for the next meeting. Now back to what we're talking about -- Simmons and Dillon -- does anybody want to make a motion? M. Carey: I'll make a motion that we approve it because I really couldn't see anything wrong with it to begin with . G. Totman: I agree, but you've got to by the technicalities . See , what we're doing is just putting in a reason for our actions. J. Henry: The last time it was approved with the condition of the variance. G. Totman: Yes, but you can't do that. J. Henry: And since that has turned out not to be the case , so what you need to do is approve it without that . G. Totman: From a lawyer's viewpoint -- not the Town lawyer -- does that make sense -- why we're doing what we're doing and by having the preference there? J. Henry: Yes, G. Totman: I think so. J. Henry: Because the Code Officer says, "Listen, I don't have any problem with it. There's no problem there as far as I'm concerned, so there's nothing to take to the Board of Zoning Appeals. " Everybody seems to agree that this is what should be done. There's an awkwardness in the Code now which the Town Board is starting to deal with by saying okay, give us a package of the things that need to be fixed up . When you do a recodification like was done last year, you get these bugs. G. Totman: Actually, we might have to go beyond the June meeting to get it done because there's quite a few things we've come across. And it's true with any Ordinance . You can have the best professionals in the world sit down and pass something, and the minute you put it out and start using it you find these things wrong. Who seconds the motion? G. Van Slyke : I did. 6 Groton Town Planning Board Meeting 16 May 1996 G. Totman : Okay. Any questions? All in favor? (All members present indicated they were in favor.) Approved . It will be in the minutes. J. Henry: George, the minutes won't be typed up for a little while. Can I get a letter from you -- or a copy of the minutes which might be a little long -- or a letter saying this was approved? J. Fitch: If you want, I can get something to Carol in the morning. (Note : The next morning, the Recording Secretary called Carol Marks and relayed the results of the vote on this matter. She, in turn, will prepare the requested letter for the Chairman's signature .) Bill & Judy Booth - Site Plan Review - NYS Route 222 (dba Frick & Frack's) - TM # G. Totman : Judy Booth . As I understand it, she is asking. . . . M. Carey: Well, they got their sign so why is she coming back here for? G. Totman : Because George tells them it's too big. G. Van Slyke: The Frick & Frack sign is too big? M. Carey: I didn't think we put anything in the Ordinance on signs - - signs, pg. 34. G. Totman: Signs is 316. 7 in the book. In that zone it's M-2 . And it says you can have one sign that's 12 square feet. That's 3 by 4. One sign. And this was another mistake -- because in an RA Zone in our Ordinance that we just passed last year, they can have two signs and each one can be 50 square feet. C. Twigg: Why don't you make a note of that. We ought to have a list of these changes. G. Totman: That's why I said we've got that list - - I'm making that with Lyle. P. Palmer: If they were on the other side of the road, they'd be . . . . G. Totman: If they were on the other side of the zone they could put up two 50-foot square signs, but because they are on the other side of the road they can have one 12-foot square sign which makes absolutely no sense. G. Van Slyke : That could be 2 by 25 feet. G. Totman: I'll give you all a copy (George makes and distributes copy to those present) . G. Van Slyke : So how big is their sign? I don't even see the sign. M. Carey: It's a 4 by 8 that's there. It's up there. G. Totman: What I'm talking about is right here. The reason I want you to look at this first is to see where some of the problems with the Ordinance is. Why we let this go through is like anything else -- we weren't paying attention or something . We sure spent a lot of time on it. My suggestion is M- 1 and M-2 are mainly for business districts. It's where you're going to need the signs. You're only allowing one 12-foot square sign for a business district, but in the agricultural zone you're allowing two 50-foot square signs. It should be the complete reverse. But I think we've got to change the number in M- 1 and M-2 to at least two signs. Most businesses almost always have more than two signs up front. How are you going to run a business without having more than one sign out front? I think where the problem comes in is what does the Zoning Officer call a sign out front? Like up there at Frick & Frack's that's one sign that's out there, 4 by 8. Now does the signs they have on the side of the building count as signs and that type of thing? And in some towns and areas, the zoning officer calls anything that's out there "a sign is a sign is a sign. " Like if it's a gas station and they've got these blue Sunoco things up 7 Groton Town Planning Board Meeting 16 May 1996 there, they're all signs . And some places make them take them all down . So they get variances and all that other thing. To me they are a part of the business and I don't do that over in - - but you do get them like that and I think you have to make provisions for that. They've got to have at least two signs, but my feeling is that 12-foot square sign for a big business out in the country is not really a sign. Driving down the road at 50 miles an hour, you're not going to read those small signs anyway. C. Twigg: Why do we have to regulate the signs outside of obstructing views and this sort of thing? I mean if a guy wanted to paint a sign on the whole side of his building, that would be a sign . V. Rankin: It'd look awful. G. Totman: It would look awful. These aesthetics is what they look at. It's a normal thing - - not to argue for it or against it. People complain -- people more so now than they use to . Remember when they use to have the Burgess signs on the sides of the buildings, and stuff like that? Nobody complained back then about stuff like that. But now you have all these people out there that really do . C. Twigg: Now like the Busy Bee overtown here -- Red Apple I guess they call it. They have signs out front every so often that they've got a sub special or whatever. G. Totman: Yes. But they're not permanent signs. P. Palmer: Those are temporary signs. They can have them for a set period. C. Twigg: Well, I look for those things when I pull into a place . G. Totman: We're talking about permanent signs. M. Carey: Let's go 50 square feet on M 1 and M2 . G. Totman: We can't solve that problem with this here tonight, but I just wanted to bring it up so you'd think about it. The only thing we can do here, and we tell everybody when we do site plan reviews that we have nothing to do with signs - - you go see George Senter. All right, they put up a sign up here and George says it's too big. But there's a clause in Site Plan Review, 441 .3, and if you follow down through it under O (M,N, O) it says in here, under preliminary applications, that the location , size, and design and construction of the proposed signs we can regulate as a part of Site Plan Review. And under 441 . 4 D , it says the location, arrangement, and size design, the compatibility of the buildings, lighting, etc. -- so we have the authority to grant a sign or signs other than the Zoning Officer. That doesn't make sense to me . It's a double standard, really. But nevertheless, with that particular sign up there . . . . what do you have in your package? G. Van Slyke: The application for a sign that's marked "disapproved - oversize per Section 316. 7 . " G. Totman: What I have is George approved it for a 12-foot square sign . But they want a bigger sign -- the one they've got up there is bigger. Somebody didn't even know how to make this application out - - they don't even ask for size . Well , anyway, what size sign do you want to approve , and where, on that properly? G. Van Slyke: A 50-square foot sign , but 30 feet in the air. P. Palmer: Oh , no -- it can't be higher than the building. G. Van Slyke : That's right -- that's a small building . G. Totman : They one they've got up there right now if 54 feet from the center of the road -- or from the edge of the road . G. Van Slyke : They didn't specify what size they wanted? M. Carey: They've got a 32-square foot up there . 8 Groton Town Planning Board Meeting 16 May 1996 G. Van Slyke: They want a bigger one than they've got? M. Carey: No . They want what they've got. So why not approve this size for them? They've got it up there. C. Twigg: Yes. Approve whatever they've got there . It's not obnoxious. G. Totman: That's not a good idea. Let me put it this way -- because of the fact that we find that the Ordinance itself got by us and didn't allow for the proper signage in that area, and across the road you can have two 50-foot square -- square foot signs -- and here they're running a business on this side of the road, and we feel that at least a sign of 50 square feet would be acceptable as long as it's acceptable for across the road in the same area. And from that we're going to go back and look to make the proper changes in the Ordinance because it was an oversight. Does somebody want to make that motion? G. Van Slyke : I so move . M. Carey: I'll second it. G. Totman: All in favor? (All indicated they were in favor.) Back to any other business before you close up and go home . Lorraine Faucett - 90 Old Peruville Road - Review Special Permit for Riding Stable - TM # M. Carey: We've got this riding stable Special Permit. How come that's back before us? What's the problem here? It doesn't give any information on this Special Permit, G. Van Slyke: Why are we doing this? M. Carey: Does she want more horses or something? G. Totman: I don't have that folder here. M. Carey: The only thing I can figure out is -- it was issued on May 19, 1994 -- but if there's no problem with it, how come it's before us? G. Totman: It is my interpretation from talking to Carol -- and I'm not sure whether this came from George to her or not -- but it's my feeling that the Special Permit says "no more than ten animals at any given time" and I understand she's got 11 animals. M. Carey: Oh , my lord -- we better revoke it right now! G. Van Slyke: Is there nothing else in this Town he can go check on? G. Totman: Does anybody have anything against changing the Special Permit to granting 12 animals instead of 10? M. Carey: Let's go 15 . She's doing a good deed for people down there? P. Palmer: Well, does she have room for 15? M. Carey: She could add onto her barn. C. Twigg: How many acres does she have? G. Van Slyke: Why do we have restrictions for "no off-street parking"? V. Rankin: She's got about 80%acres altogether. 9 Groton Town Planning Board Meeting 16 May 1996 J. Fitch: They usually have it wrong on these -- they say we will not allow off-street parking. That means they have to park on the street. G. Totman: I didn't notice that. G. Van Slyke: I'm sitting here looking at this -- we want them to park off the street. G. Totman : If you want to make a motion, change the motion to include that there will be no on- street parking. V. Rankin: You can't do that down there because there's no place to parking. M. Carey: No street parking then . V. Rankin: Leave the parking alone . M. Carey: How much parking does she have? V. Rankin: Not that much . G. Van Slyke : But she can't park off the street. What is the sense in that? G. Totman: We'll change number one to say "Off-street parking shall be provided. " V. Rankin: They can't there. They don't have any room to do it. M. Carey: But I don't think they're parking on the road , are they? V. Rankin: Yes, P. Palmer: Yes they are. G. Totman: They've got a barn and riding stables, but there's no place to park? P. Palmer: They're lucky they have a place to pull there care in off the road. It goes uphill . M. Carey: Then we don't want to change # 1 because she's in compliance . P. Palmer: But there aren't cars out there all the time. They really only have a couple unless they're having a big something -- an open house. M. Carey: No one's here to give us any guidance on it as to whether the stable would hold 15 animals. G. Van Slyke: Is that the only thing that's not in compliance? M. Carey: She's doing a service for handicapped kids. It's a good service . Let's just put up to 15 . G. Totman: I would agree . But I think we ought to do something with this # 1 . V. Rankin: There's nothing you can do . You're going to ruin the woman if you start. . . G. Totman: No. I don't mean to ruin her. It just doesn't make any sense. You might better not have it here at all . If you look at this, now that George has brought it up , they'll say what a bunch of dummies. Do you see what we're talking about here, Don? What a bunch of dummies this would be. P. Palmer: That was two years ago . That was a whole different Board. G. Van Slyke : Yeah , right. We were all here then . 10 Groton Town Planning Board Meeting 16 May 1996 G. Totman: I would rather not put anything down than to put down this. M. Carey: Let's put 15 horses down . G. Van Slyke: I make a motion that we delete # 1 and we allow her to have no more than 15 animals at any given time . M. Carey: I'll second it. G. Totman: All in favor of that? (All indicated they were in favor. ) Okay, so what we did was we eliminated # 1 , made number two number one, and changed the 10 to 15, for the minutes sake . M. Carey. Yes, C. Twigg: And change #3 to #2 . G. Totman: Yes, and change #3 to # 2 . P. Palmer: Which district is she in? In the M 1? She's got to be . G. Van Slyke: Perville isn't M 1 is it? I thought. . . . G. Totman: I'm not sure exactly where she is. P. Palmer: She's the second place on the left after the corner, right? Right about where . . . . she's not 2000 feet out. V. Rankin: Out of where? P. Palmer: Peruville . V. Rankin: Oh , no. She's right in Peruville . M. Carey: Okay. I make a motion we adjourn the meeting. G. Van Slyke: Second . G. Totman : Now -- who wants to volunteer to be a committee to meet with the ZBA to make recommended changes to the Zoning Ordinance? M. Carey: I can't make any guarantees. G. Totman: Okay, Cecil volunteered and Lyle and I , one of us, will get with you and set up a date . M. Carey: If that night's raining, I'll come, but I can't say. G. Totman: With Cecil not working regular hours, it would be nice if we could just meet in my office. C. Twigg: Do you have a list of some of the changes that we want to, then we can review them a little bit before we get to the meeting, right? 11 i Groton Town Planning Board Meeting 16 May 1996 G. Totmano Right. We have a motion and second to adjourn. All in favor? (All indicated they were in favor. ) The meeting was adjourned at 9905 p.m. Respectfully submitted , Joan E. Fitch Recording Secretary 12