Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-01-30 TOWN OF GROTON JOINT WORKSHOP MEETING Thursday, 30 January 1997 Town Board Members Present: Teresa Robinson, Supervisor; Council Members: Dan Carey, Deputy Supervisor; Donald Palmer, Ellard Sovocool. Town Planning Board Members Present: George Totman, Chairman; Board Members: Monica Carey, Verl Rankin, George Van Slyke, Cecil Twigg. Town ZBA Members Present: Lyle Raymond, Chair; Board Members. John Pachai, Mary Adams, Steve Thane . Others Present: Francis Casullo, Town Attorney; George Senter, Sr. , Town Zoning/ Code Enforcement Officer; Joan Fitch, Recording Secretary. Workshop Subject: The purpose of the joint workshop was to discuss zoning/ code revisions to the Town Land Use Regulations, as put forth by the three boards present. Reference Materials: Reference is made in these minutes to the following documents, a copy of each is appended hereto to form a complete record of the workshop: A. Memo/ Letter of 12 / 19 /96 to Board Chairs from Attorney Casullo w/ attachment containing proposed changes. B. "Proposed Changes in the Town of Groton Land Use & Development Code," by committee who met in June, July, and August 1996 . C. Letter of 12 / 20/ 96 to Lyle Raymond, ZBA Chair, from John Pachai, ZBA Member. D. A page entitled "Additional Comments," as provided by Lyle Raymond, ZBA Chair at this workshop. The workshop was opened by Town Supervisor Robinson at 7: 06 p.m. All those present introduced themselves. Supervisor Robinson then stated the purpose of the workshop. She asked Planning Board Chair, George Totman, to open the discussion. Mr. Totman said that his Board had prepared some suggested changes in the Code, and that a committee was formed consisting of Lyle Raymond and John Pachai of the ZBA, and Cecil Twigg and himself of the Planning Board. Proposed changes were generated (Item B above) , approved by the Town Planning Board. These changes were submitted to the Town Board where they were approved, and a public hearing date set. However, the public hearing was not conducted, and additional revisions were then suggested by others. Town Attorney Casullo then suggested that those present review the proposed amendments to the Code as contained in Item #A above. Everyone agreed. Proposed Change # 1 , Section 120 (of Items A & B above) Mr. Casullo read the change proposed by the committee, followed by their rationale (from Item B above) , and then read the proposed amendment to the Code that he had prepared in response to the committee's report (Item A above) . Mr. Pachai stated that the attorney's definition of Site Plan Review was actually a definition of a Site Plan. Everyone agreed, and it was decided to delete the word "Review." Everyone present was in agreement with this revision. Proposed Change #2 , Section 202 . 1 (b) (of Items A & B above) Mr. Casullo read the change proposed by the committee, followed by their rationale (from Item B above), and then read the proposed amendment to the Code that he had prepared in response to the committee's report (Item A above) . Everyone present was in agreement with this revision. 1 Town of Groton Joint Workshop 30 January 1997 Proposed Change #3 , Section 203 (of Items A & B above) Mr. Casullo read the entire change proposed by the committee, and then read the proposed amendments to the Code that he had prepared in response to the committee's report (Item A above) . Proposed Change #4 - Re: Section 223 (of Item A & portion of Item B above) Mr. Casullo read the change proposed by the committee, all three sections, followed by their rationale (from Item B above) , and then read the proposed amendment to the Code that he had prepared in response to the committee's report (Item A above) . Regarding the change to Section 223 , everyone present was in agreement with his proposed amendment. Regarding Section 234. 4, (Item #5 of attorney's proposed amendments [Item B above]) , everyone present was in agreement that this revision should be the same as for Section 223 . Regarding Section 253 . 4 of the Code (Item #6 of attorney's list) , everyone was in agreement that this should be deleted in its entirety. John Pachai noted the inconsistency in the wording of Section 223 and Section 234.4 wherein Section 223 refers to the "Chair of the Planning Board," and Section 234.4 refers to "the duly designated officer." Mr. Totman contributed that the former should be used because the Chair of the Planning Board would be responsible for designating the person to sign the final plot/ plot in his/ her absence. This was so noted by the attorney who, with everyone in agreement, will make this change . Proposed Change #5 (of Item B above) - Re: Section 276 . 3 (Item #7 of Item A above) Mr. Casullo read the change proposed by the committee, followed by their rationale (from Item B above) , and then read the proposed amendment to the Code that he had prepared in response to the committee's report (Item A above) . Mr. Twigg asked if the words "buildings, structures, and accessory buildings and structures'' would prevent the placement of a "waiting-for-the-school bus building." CEO Senter replied that this would not be applicable as this type of "building" was less than 100 SF in area and did not require a building permit. Discussion ceased, and everyone present was in agreement with the attorney's proposed amendment. Proposed Change #6 (of Item B above) - Re: Section 316 .6 (Item #8 of Item A above) Mr. Casullo read the change proposed by the committee, followed by their rationale (from Item B above) , and then read the proposed amendment to the Code that he had prepared in response to the committee's report (Item A above) . Everyone present was in agreement with the attorney's proposed amendment. Proposed Change #7 (of Item B above) - Re: Section 316 . 7 (Item #9 of Item A above) Mr. Casullo read the change proposed by the committee, followed by their rationale (from Item B above) , and then read the proposed amendment to the Code that he had prepared in response to the committee's report (Item A above) . Lyle Raymond stated that the words "except as may be approved by the Planning Board following the procedure as specified in Section 441 , Site Plan Review and Approval" should be deleted in their entirety. Everyone present was in agreement with this. A discussion was held relative to the "Sizes" shown on the chart in this section. The wording "Not to exceed 100 square feet" was confusing to some, and the attorney was instructed to clarify this by changing same to read "Total area of all signs not to exceed 100 square feet." Discussion ceased, and everyone present was in agreement with the attorney's proposed amendment as revised. Proposed Change #8 (of Item B above) - Re: Sections 342 . 2(a) , 343 . 2(a) , 344 .2(a) , 345. 2(a) & 346 .2 (a) (Items # 10- 14 of Item A above) Mr. Casullo read the changes proposed by the committee, followed by their rationale (from Item B above) , and then read the proposed amendments to the Code that he had prepared in response to the committee's report (Item A above) . Regarding Item 10 ( 342 .2) everyone was in agreement with the attorney's proposed amendment. Regarding Item 11 (343 . 2[a]) , everyone was in agreement that the word "either" should be replaced with the word "and." Regarding Item 12 ( Section 344 .2 [a]) , everyone present was in agreement with the attorney's proposed amendment. Regarding Item 13 (Section 345. 2[a]) , and Item 14 ( Section 346 . 2 [a]) , everyone present was in agreement with the attorney's proposed amendments. 2 Town of Groton Joint Workshop 30 January 1997 Proposed Change #9 (of Item B above) - Re: Section 441 . 3(o) (Item # 15 of Item A above) Mr. Casullo read the change proposed by the committee, followed by their rationale (from Item B above) , and then read the proposed amendment to the Code that he had prepared in response to the committee's report (Item A above) . Everyone present was in agreement with the attorney's proposed amendment. Attorney Casullo stated that instead of re-numbering/lettering everything because a sub-section was deleted, it was his suggestion that a notation be made that the item was deleted due to a revision dated . . . . . After a short discussion, and input from Planning Board Chair Totman, it was agreed by everyone present that the wording should be "Deleted and reserved for future use." Proposed Change # 10 (of Item B above) - Re: Section 441 . 4(d) (Item # 16 of Item A above) Mr. Casullo read the change proposed by the committee, all three sections, followed by their rationale (from Item B above) , and then read the proposed amendment to the Code that he had prepared in response to the committee's report (Item A above) . After a short discussion, it was agreed by everyone present that the words "and signs" should be deleted. John Pachai stated that a comma should be placed after the word "lighting," not a period. Attorney Casullo concurred. Additional Suggestions (pg. 3 of Item B above) Regarding adding "motorized vehicle race tracks" and "outdoor shooting ranges" to the activities listed, Planning Board Member Monica Carey stated that it was better not to specify these two activities as she felt they were covered on page 52 of the Code under Land Use Activities, i. e. , recreational uses. A discussion of wording, "private," "public," "commercial," ensued. George Totman stated that the word "commercial" should be deleted, but other than that these activities, he felt, were covered. Everyone present agreed. The second item pertained to Section 430, Guidelines for Granting Variances that involve public access. Attorney Casullo referred the discussion to John Pachai who was the author of Item C above . Mr. Pachai read his comments (first and second paragraphs, page 2, followed by the third and fourth paragraphs of page 1 of his letter) . Mr. Casullo stated that it was his understanding that Mr. Pachai was talking about deleting a good portion of section 430. Mr. Pachai said that what he was recommending was eliminating 430 as it relates to granting variances involving public access, and add guidelines for imposing conditions on variances and incorporate the public access concerns that aren't specifically dealt with in 428 and 430; in other words, Use & Area Variances. He then recommended adding another paragraph to Section 422 outlining the authority to impose conditions granted in Section 267-b. 4 . of Town Law. His letter provided an attached draft of his recommendation. He stated that public access variances are truly an area variance. Lyle Raymond referred to Section 431 , page 72 , as an example, where it says the ZBA may impose requirements as a condition to granting the variance. He suggested using a variation of this statement and add it to Sections 428 and 429, and delete Section 430 in its entirety (reference Item #s 2, 3, and 4 of Item D above) . The statement he proposed adding read, "The BZA may impose any reasonable conditions that will protect the health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood or community granting such a variance within the scope and purposes of the Code." Mr. Pachai then suggested putting this same wording under Section 422 . Everyone present agreed to these proposed revisions, as stated. NYS Allows ZBA to Deal Differently With Variance Requests Mr. Pachai reported that the State now allows the ZBA to deal with a variance request that does not come directly from the Code Enforcement Officer, but rather from a Planning Board action, relative to subdivisions and site plan reviews. He suggested revising the Town's Code to reflect this change, which has been in effect since July 1993 . Mr. Pachai acknowledged that the current Code contains a "disclaimer" which incorporates any changes made since the enactment of the Code. Mr. Totman responded that he felt it should remain as is, because no one wanted to have to change the Code every time the State revises its regulations. Everyone present agreed that there should be no change. Amendment Procedure Town Attorney Casullo stated that the Amendment Procedure, Section 410 of 1963 , must be followed, specifically: • There's no problem with the authority • Referral to the Planning Board. Planning Board members present concurred that they were in agreement with the proposed revisions as reviewed at this workshop and saw no reason for them to be re-submitted to them. 3 Town of Groton Joint Workshop 30 January 1997 Attorney Castillo stated that he would take all the revisions agreed upon at this workshop, put them in their final form, and send a copy to everyone the same as before. This would be placed on the Agenda for the Town Board Meeting of 11 February 1997, at which time a date for the public hearing could be set (perhaps at March meeting) . Approval could then take place at the March meeting and the revisions would then become effective in March. Everyone was in agreement with Attorney Casullo's proposed time schedule for implementing the new revisions to the Code. Supervisor Robinson thanked everyone present for attending this workshop. The meeting ended at 8* 10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Joan E . Fitch Recording Secretary 4 T POMEROY, ARMSTRONG, BARANELLO & CASULLO , LLP Attorneys and Counselors at Law WILLIAM J. POMEROY 16 TOMPSINS.STREET DONALD C. ARMSTRONG P.O. BOX 828 JAMES J. BARANELLO CORTLAND, NEW YORK 13045=0828 FRANCIS J. CAsuLLo (607) 756-7501 JEFFREY G. POMEROY ----- FAX (607) 7534913 LELAND Be TAYLOR, OF COUNSEL SERVICE BY FAX NOT ACCEPTED December 19, 1996 Re: Amendments to Land Use and Development Code Town of Groton Dear Sir/Madam: As you may be aware, this office acts as legal counsel to the Town of Groton. At the October 1996 Town Board meeting, George Totman, Cecil Twigg, Lyle Raymond and John Pachai made various presentations regarding proposed amendments to the Land Use Code . A copy of those proposed changes are enclosed for your review. Our office then attempted to draft the proposed amendments as it would read into the Code. A copy of the drafts are enclosed for your review as well . I would greatly appreciate it if you could review both documents at your earliest convenience and meet and discuss the documents with your fellow members of the Board on which you sit. Once you have had an opportunity to review and discuss the documents, it would be most appreciative if you could provide the Town Board with your board ' s view as to how the various proposed changes should read. At that point . the Town Board will review your board' s recommendations and begin to act on the proposed changes in the manner required by the Code . Thank you for your courtesies and cooperation relative to this matter. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, POMEROY, ARMSTRONG, BARANELLO & CASULLO,LLP By : Francis J. Casullo FJC : sjk Enclosure 1 . Amend Section 120 of the Code to include the following terms and definitions : Site Plan Review: A rendering, drawing, or sketch prepared to specifications and containing necessary elements, as set forth in the applicable zoning ordinance or local law, which shows the arrangement, layout and design of the proposed use of a single parcel of land as shown on said plan. Special Permit: A device which enables a use of land which is in concept appropriate in light of the municipal planning objectives, but which might otherwise not be in harmony with the rest of a neighborhood or district, to achieve such harmony by complying with certain conditions . 2 . Amend Section 202 . 1 (b) of the Code to read: b. Any boundary change, with the exception of boundary changes between two (2) adjoining nonconforming lots . 3 . Amend Section 203 of the Code to read : This Code recognizes numerous types of subdivisions . These subdivisions are subject to the review and approval procedures described in this Article . 4 , Amend Section 223 of the Code to read: In granting conditional approval or conditional approval with modifications, the Planning Board authorizes the Chair of the Planning Board to sign the final plat upon compliance with such conditions and requirements as may be stated in its resolution of conditional approval. 5 . Amend Section 234 .4 of the Code to read: Upon completion of the requirements in the resolution of conditional approval, the plot shall be signed by the duly designated officer of the Planning Board. 6, Delete Section 253 .4 of the Code. 7: Amend Section 276 .3 of the Code to read : Flagpoles . Flagpoles shall have a minimum width of 20 feet/6 .2 meters. Flagpoles shall be free of buildings, structures, and accessory buildings and structures . 8 . Amend Section 316 . 6 of the Code to read: Area of Sign Face. The permitted total area of the face of signs is as follows : If a sign is irregular in shape or consists of independent, detached letters or symbols, the area of the sign face is determined by measuring the area within a polygon completely enclosing the sign or symbol as they are intended to be installed. In determining the permissible area of any sign, only one side of the two-sided sign need be measured. 9 . Amend Section 316 . 7 of the Code to read : Size and Number of Signs. The maximum size and the maximum number of signs on any property shall be regulated according to the following guidelines, except as may be approved by the Planning Board following the procedure as specified in Section 441 , Site Plan Review and Approval . Zone Number Sizes RA 2 50 square feet/ 5 square meters L 1 6 square feet/ 0 . 5 square meters Ml No restriction Not to exceed 100 square feet M2 No restriction Not to exceed 100 square feet I No restriction Not to exceed 100 square feet 10 . Amend Section 342 .2(a) of the Code to read : a. Lot without public sewer and public water 1 . Lot Area: 1 acre (43 , 560 square feet)/0 .4 hectacres minimum 2 . Frontage : 150 feet/46 meters minimum 11 . Amend Section 343 .2(a) of the Code to read : a. Lot without public sewer and public water 1 . Lot Area: 1 acre (43 ,560 square feet)/0 .4 hectacres minimum 2 . Frontage : 150 feet/46 meters minimum 12 . Amend Section 344 .2(a) of the Code to read: a. Lot without public sewer and public water 1 . Lot Area: 1 acre (43 , 560 square feet)/0 .4 hectacres minimum 2 . Frontage : 150 feet/46 meters minimum 13 . Amend Section 345 . 2 (a) of the Code to read : , a. Lot without public sewer and public water 1 . Lot Area: 5 acres (217, 800 square feet)/2 hectacres minimum 2 . Frontage : 300 feet/92 meters minimum 14 . Amend Section 346 .2(a) of the Code to read : a. Lot without public sewer and public water 1 . Lot Area: per Health Department requirements 2 . Frontage : 150 feet/46 meters minimum P- 15 . Delete Section 441 . 3 (o) of the Code in its entirety. 16 . Amend Section 441 .4(d) of the Code to read : d. Location, arrangement, size, design, and general site compatibility of buildings and lighting . Proposed Changes in the Town of Groton Land Use & Development Code Notes from three meetings: June 13th, 1996 : Totman, Twigg, Raymond July 31 st, 1996 : Totman, Twigg, Raymond , Pachai Aug. 5th, 1996 : Totman , Raymond, Pachai Proposed Change # 1 Section 120 , Definitions : Add definitions for " Special Permit " and for " Site Plan `V`dYiew . " Rationale : The definitions of these important items in the Code procedures were somehow left out of the last revision . Proposed Change #2 Section 202 . 1 ( b ) , Applicability of Regulations : Eliminate applicability to boundary changes between two adjoining nonconforming lots . Rationale : Such boundary changes do not change the nonconforming status of one or both lots anyway. Proposed Change # 3 Section 203 , Types of Subdivisions : Eliminate reference to " three types of subdivisions " ; instead refer only to the fact the Code contains several types of subdivisions . Rationale : This avoids useless questions over subdivision categories , such as between a Flag Lot Subdivision and a regular subdivision . Proposed Change #4 Section 223 : Rural Subdivision - - Planning Board Action ; Section 234 . 4 : Minor Subdivision - - Planning Bd . Action on Plat ; Section 253 . 4 : Major Subdivision - - Planning Bd . Action on Final Plat ; Expiration of Approval Remove time limits for expiration of Planning Board approvals . Rationale : The need to review expired subdivisions that have not been activated by the sale of lots serves no useful purpose and is a nuisance burden for the Planning Board as well as the holders of inactivated subivision approvals . Proposed Change # 5 Section 276 . 3 , Flagpoles : Eliminate 50 foot maximum width requirement ; retain only minimum width of 20 feet . Rationale : It doesn ' t matter how wide the flagpole is- -what ' s important is whether it provides access to a lot that meets minimum size requirements . 1 Proposed Change #6 Section 316 . 6 , Signs , Area of Sign Face : Delete all of1 st paragraph after " face of signs " in 1st sentence ; add " is as follows , " and continue with the 2nd paragraph . Rationale : The 1st paragraph in 316. 6 on different types of signs makes no sense, as there is no other section in the Code defining "different types of signs , " and counting doublefaced signs as one face is redundant with the 2nd paragraph . Proposed Change #7 Section 316 . 7 , Size & Number of Signs : Change the M1 , M2 and I District sign requirements as follows : Delete number of signs allowed ; total area of all signs not to exceed 100 sq . ft . Rationale : The restrictive size and number of signs allowed in these districts do not meet the customary needs of commercial enterprises that are encouraged to locate in these districts . Proposed Change #8 Section 342 . 2 ( a ) Rural Agricultural District ( RA ) Section 343 . 2 ( a ) Low Intensity District ( L ) Section 344 . 2 ( a ) Medium Intensity One District ( M1 ) Section 345 . 2 ( a ) Medium Intensity Two District ( M2 ) Section 346 . 2 ( a ) Low Intensity Industrial District ( 1 ) Delete " either" and rephrase as follows : " Lot without public sewer and public water . " Rationale : " Either" is subject to unnecessarily confusing interpretation ; the intent is that lots with both public sewer and water absent are restricted to one acre size , whereas " either" simply restates what is said in ( b) . Proposed Change # 9 Section 441 . 3 ( o ) , Application for Preliminary Site Plan Approval , Checklist : delete whole sentence relating to location , size , design , . and construction materials for proposed signs . Rationale : a separate section with sign requirements already exists in the Code ; 441 . 3(o) allows the Planning Board to establish different sign requirements , so that applicants under site plan review may have different requirements for signs than applicants not involved in site plan review . Proposed Change # 10 Section 441 . 4 ( d ) , Reviews of Preliminary Site Plans : delete " signs . " Rationale : Same as for Proposed Change #7 . 2 ADDITIONAL SUGGESTIONS • Add " motorized vehicle race tracks " and " outdoor shooting ranges " to the activities listed in Section 341 . Rationale : Neither of these fit under "� utdoor recreation " when they are conducted by clubs that do not conduct these activities for commercial purposes , but the impact is the same on the neighborhood or district, in terms of noise and numbers of people attracted to these events , for example . Both should be subject to site plan review in districts where they are to be allowed , including expansion of existing nonconforming activities of this type . • Legal review of the purposes of Section 430 , Guidelines for Granting Variances that Involve Public Access . Questions : Does this refer to BOTH of the previous Sections 428 (Area Variances) and 429 ( Use Variances ) ? Cross- references in Section 430 could lead the user to interpret this as possibly only referring to Section 428 . Should Section 430 be moved back to become part of Section 428 ? 3