Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-12-20 John Pachai, Jr. 140 Cedar Lane Groton, NY 13073 607/898- 3380 December 20 , 1996 Lyle , After reviewing drafts of the amendments provided by Fran Casullo I have concerns with # 1 , #4 & #5 . Re : Amendment 1 . .�-�� '� The definition of offered for Site Plan Review is actually the definition of a Site Plan . , Re : Amendments 4 & 5 . ( and various existing sections) The use of the terms " duly designated officer" and "the chair" sums to be an inconsistent use of terminology . Additionally we did not provide for integrating § 274- b . 5 . and 277 . 6 of Town Law enacted July 1 , 1993 into §420 . 1 ; §422 ; §423 ; §425 ; §427 . 4 ; §441 . of the Town of Groton ' s code . Lastly , to further evaluate the soundness of §430 of the Town of Groton Land Use and Development Code I did more research and offer the following information most of which I am sure you are aware of but is presented to provide the rationale for my recommending that the content of §430 be reconsidered . I had an extensive discussion of §430 of the Town of Groton Land Use and Development Code with Bill Sharp , Associate Attorney with the NYS Department of State . Below is a summary of his comments : Generally the provisions of § 430 would be acceptable only as guidelines for determining the need for attaching conditions to a variance for which the case has been proven by the applicant and the impairment of public access is a concern . ° §430 - a , b and c add nothing to what is covered in §428 and have nothing to do with public access . §430- c consideration of practical difficulties is not valid . §430 - d and e relate to use variances , these standards should not be applied when considering a variance which is area related . §430- f has the greatest relevance to public access concerns . In reviewing Town Law I find access defined in § 280- a . 5 of Town Law is for all intense • � purposes what we would consider frontage . Frontage relates to dimensional regulations . Variances concerning dimensional regulations are to be considered as Area Variances in accordance with §267 . 1 ( b) of Town Law . In light of the above I believe that variances relating to Public Access should be dealt with using §428 of the Town of Groton Land Use and Development Code . Additionally I find our code does not adequately address the attachment of conditions to variances . My recommendations are : 1 . Eliminate §430 as it relates to granting variances involving Public Access. 2 . Add guidelines for imposing conditions on variances incorporating Public Access concerns not specifically dealt with in §428 and numbering it §430 (see attached draft ) . 3 . Add another paragraph to § 422 of the town ' s code outlining the authority to impose conditions granted in §267- b . 4 . of Town Law ( see attached draft) . Sincerely , John Pachai , Jr cc : Fran Casulla George Totman Cecil Twigg Proposed draft of §430 : § 430 . Guidelines for Imposing Conditions when Granting Variances The Board of Zoning Appeals upon determining that the applicant has proven their case for a variance shall consider the following in an effort to determine whether the variance is to be conditional : a . Do the circumstances of the case require the proposed activity to be related to existing or proposed public road , street or highway layouts . b. Will existing or proposed public road , street or highway layouts be protected . c. Can any adverse impact the variance may have on the neighborhood or community be minimized . d. Are the conditions being considered consistent with the spirit and intent of the Town of Groton Land Use and Development Code . d. Are there any environmental or physical conditions relative to the case which may have a negative impact on the health and / or safety of the neighborhood . Proposed addition to §422 of the Town of Groton ' s code .- In granting variances reasonable conditions may be imposed Such conditions shall be consistent with the spirit and intent of this code Pursuant to §267-b .4. of Town Law. Actual wording of § 267- b . 4 . of Town Law : The board of appeals shall, in the granting of both use variances and area variances, have the authority to impose such reasonable conditions and restrictions as are directly related to and incidental to the proposed use of the property, and / or the period of time such variance shall be in effect. Such conditions shall be consistent with the spirit and intent of the zoning ordinance or local law, and shall be imposed for the purpose of minimizing any adverse impact such variance may have on the neighborhood or community . JAN - 31 - 97 FRI 02 : 13 PM PART — TIME SECRETARY 607 836 4162 Pool ADDITIONAL COMMENTS 1 . Amendment of Section 120 to include Site Plan. Review : Suggested definition is actually for a SITE PLAN, not a SITE PLAN REVIEW. Suggestion: Leave this definition as it is, but delete "Review, " making it a definition of a SITE PLAN. Suggested definition for SITE PLAN REEVIEW: "An examination of a Site Plan for the purpose of approving, approving with modifications, or disapproval by the Planrdng Board . 2. Amend Section 428 to add the following statement : "The BZA may impose any reasonable conditions that will protect the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community in granting such variance, within the scope and purposes of the Code. " \3. Amend Section 429 to add the following statement : "The BZA may impose any reasonable conditions that will protect the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community in granting such a variance, within the scope and purposes of the Code. " 4. Section 430: Delete entire Section, on the basis that this Section is unnecessary if the statements above are added to Sections 428 and 429. Furthermore, the definition of "Public Access" under Town Law is virtually identical to what is considered frontage under the Groton Code, which is dealt with under Section 428. S. Proposed amendment of Section 316.7 Includes the statement, " except as may be approved by the Planning Board following the procedure as specined in Section 441 11 . This nullifies the purpose of amending Section 316.7, which was to avoid sign regulations under site plan review that may differ from those in Section 316.7.