Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-11-19 TOWN OF GROTON PLANNING BOARD Meeting Minutes - Thursday, 19 November 1998 Members, Groton Planning Board (*Absent) Others Present *George Totman, Chairman Francis Casullo, Town Attorney Monica Carey Kim & Jeff Langer, Applicants *Cecil Twigg Scott Chatfield, Applic, Attorney George Van Slyke Joan Fitch, Recording Secretary Verl Rankin Sheldon Clark *Van Travis Others Present (As Attached Hereto) The meeting started at 8 p.m. G. Van Slyke: Okay, at this time, since two of our Board members, George Totman and Van Travis, have been conflicted out of this affair, I would like to make the motion that Monica Carey be the chairperson for this meeting. V. Rankin: I second the motion. G. Van Slyke: All in favor? (All members present indicated an aye; no nays recorded) . M. Carey, Thank you. I'd like to welcome everybody to this meeting tonight. This is a sketch plan conference, and we will not be hearing from the public . We'd like to start the meeting with the first thing on the Agenda, and that is to approve the September minutes. V. Rankin: I move we approve the September minutes. M. Carey, Second it? S. Clark: I'll second the motion. M. Carey, Any discussion? (No one so indicated.) All in favor? (All members present indicated an aye ; no nays recorded) . All opposed? . (No reply.) Passed. Okay, the second item on the Agenda is the preliminary Site Plan Review for Kim and Jeff Langer. Is there a representative? S. Chatfield: Yes ma'am. My name is Scott Chatfield. I'm an attorney in Tully, NY and I represent the Langers who are here this evening. I have a couple of procedural questions, . . if you'll bear with me. This Board is a seven-person board. Is that correct? M. Carey. Yes, sir. S. Chatfield: There are four or five members present? M. Carey. Four, S. Chatfield: And you mentioned that Mr. Totman and Mr. -- M. Carey: Van Travis -- S. Chatfield: Van Travis. So there's another member who is -- M. Carey. Out of town. G. Van Slyke: Do you want his name? Town of Groton Planning Board Minutes November 19, 1998 S. Chatfield: No, that's not important. I was just concerned -- what I'm looking to is to see what the ultimate voting strength of the Board will be because that may or may not play a role ultimately, depending on what happens in the process. You also indicated that Mr. Totman and Mr. Van Travis were not here. May I inquire as to why? Was this a voluntary recusal or the Board of Ethics rule? Is there some reason why they've been recused, because we have not made any suggestion that either of those gentlemen need to be recused from this proceeding. F. Casullo: If I could, Scott -- Mr. Travis is Clara -- is the husband of Clara Travis who operates the business which I believe is right next door or close by to the establishment. And if you will recall, she has also, at one time I believe, brought an application for various interpretations of the Code regarding the Sirens matter. And Mr. Travis felt that it was just best as far as looking from a partial standpoint that he not be hearing on this matter. S. Chatfield: I'm going to pursue that if I can, Fran. Is he saying that he believes it is impossible for him to render an impartial determination and therefore wishes to recuse himself, or he's recusing himself because of the appearance of impropriety. F. Casullo: I think he's recusing himself because he doesn't to give the appearance . And as far as Mr. Totman's concerned, at this point there was, Scott, some prior pleadings, his name mentioned as far as opinions or advice given to the Code Enforcement Officer; there's also some statements made to the press and we want to give the Langers every opportunity before this Board and we don't want to give any of the slightest appearance, of any impropriety or anything like that. So it was best that Mr. Totman recuse himself. S. Chatfield: So then Mr. Totman's recusal is based on the fact that he used to be a prior owner of the property. I believe that was the only reference made in any previous proceedings of Mr. Totman's Involvement, My concern here, before I go on with another question, is the Town Law makes a provision for appointments of adjunct members of a planning board to deal with precisely this situation where some members may be conflicted out or feel the necessity to recuse themselves from the deliberations. Has the Town Board ever appointed any members under that provision? F. Casullo: They have not as of yet. And if you remember, Scott, this is just a sketch plan conference where nothing is ultimately going to be decided tonight. And if need be, the Town Board still has the right to appoint some adjunct members to this, and that may be a possibility. But at this point, we want to have absolutely no argument that this Board has even given the appearance of any impropriety, and we felt it was best and the members felt it was best by their not being here, that they not be here to sit on this matter. S. Chatfield: I take your comments in the spirit in which they are offered. I just wanted to clarify these matters for the record. Um, there was submitted to you in September, around the 15th or submitted to the Town in any event, an application for Site Plan Approval which was based on a form provided to my clients from the Code Enforcement Department which lists some ten items necessary and appropriate for a checklist. We believe that the plans submitted meet all the requirements set forth on that Site Plan Checklist provided to us by the Town. I guess I would simply incorporate it in the record. I assume this document is readily made available from the Code Enforcement Office to all applicants for a Site Plan. Do you want me to go over the items that are specified as being required? Would that be of benefit to the Board? G. Van Slyke: If you like. S. Chatfield: It says name and address of applicant and name of person or persons who helped in the preparation of the application. Item 2 , boundaries of the property plotted to scale with north arrow and date. Item 3, adjacent land uses. Item 4, location of proposed use and height of all proposed new buildings. Five, grading and drainage plan, if applicable. Number six, location of outdoor storage if any. Number seven, location and design of outdoor lighting. Number eight, if applicable, general landscaping and planting plans. Number 9, complete Environmental Assessment Form (page 1 only) . Number 10, the names and addresses of all owners of real property adjacent and across the road. We believe that the submittal which we have presented addresses each and every one of those requirements, including a Short Form Environmental Assessment Form, page 1 , name and addresses of all adjacent premises, name and address of the applicant, name and address of the applicant's 2 Town of Groton Planning Board Minutes November 19, 1998 attorney, and a Site Plan drawn on 11 by 14 paper which is based on a map made by Rowell & Associates, Surveyors and Planners, dated May 4, 1970, which has on it the location of the structure, parking areas, ingress/egress, elm tree, the dumpster, existing trees, setback lines, dimensions of the premises, and other amenities, including the sign that's located on the site. Now, as this Board may or may not know depending on how much of the previous proceeding you've been privy to, my clients don't intend to and are not asking for permission to wiggle so much as one nail on that building, or disturb so much as one pebble on the property. We wish to make absolutely no modifications, changes, alterations, amendments, or any other changes to the property or the site . We are here, quite frankly, because the Supreme Court upheld a determination by the Zoning Board of Appeals that Site Plan Review is necessary whenever any property goes from unoccupied to occupied . That matter is on appeal to the Appellate Division, 3rd Department, and the application, as very clearly noted at the outset, we are making this application without prejudice to our rights under that Article 78 proceeding. Now pursuant to your statute, Section 441 . 2 , the very first process, if you will, that we're supposed to go through as part of the Site Plan procedure, is the Sketch Plan Conference. While the counsel was gracious enough in conversations with me to suggest that we may deal with it as a Preliminary Site Plan, I have some concerns not related to this Board, but related to protecting my clients' interests ultimately from the potential for any Article 78s that we make sure that we go right down by the numbers and follow the procedures as corrected. Unfortunately, the language in your statute makes the Sketch Plan Conference a mandatory process. Because of the use of the word shall as opposed to the word may. So, for that reason, we are here as a Sketch Plan Conference . The purpose of a Sketch Plan Conference, according to the statute, is for you to tell us what if anything about our submittal at this point do you believe to be insufficient, if anything, to proceed to a Preliminary Site Plan. And so I guess that's really all I have say. We believe that this is an adequate submittal. We have reviewed submittals made in the past for site plans and/or special permits in the Town. In fact, we have filed a request and obtained, as of the date of application, every application processed by this Board, and every minutes for every meeting conducted by this Board, and we believe that what we have submitted goes far beyond that which has routinely and normally been required as part of the Site Plan/ Special Permit process. However, we are here tonight for your judgment as to what you believe appropriate or necessary here. M. Carey. Well, we believe that as a Board that your application is deficient. If you look at Article 441 .2 or .3, excuse me, we feel that there's things in there that aren't included, like seating capacity. We'd like drawings of parking -- S. Chatfield: Can we go right down with this maybe? That would leave a nice, clear trail. Is Item A satisfied by the plan? G. Van Slyke: I guess my question on this one is the fact that we're looking at a map going back to 1970. I think it would be a little bit better for us, I think, to make any kind of decision if we had an updated map of the premises, and the locations. I'm sure that this is like a dumpster and some of these things -- in 1970 they are not probably located in the same place at this point. So, you know, maybe a newer version of the sketch plan would help us considerably. S. Chatfield: Well, with respect to you -- you don't have name tags on, so -- G. Van Slyke: This is George Van Slyke , S. Chatfield: With respect, Mr. Van Slyke, as I review your Site Plan Checklist, there's nothing in here to indicate that you require an updated drawing or a drawing that is certified by an architect, or a landscaper, or a surveyor. This is drawn as an original survey in 1970, but it has been amended and some of the things have been placed on it by the applicant and it is current as of September of 1998. In other words, the dumpster location, for instance, the evergreen trees and their diameters, the setbacks off of the street. Well, I think it's relatively easy to see that which was originally drawn by the surveyor back in 1970, and those items which are drawn on this by my client. This is not submitted to you as a survey map. It's submitted merely as a Site Plan. We used an existing survey map as the base point from which to amend it to create an updated Site Plan map. G. Van Slyke: Okay, this leads me to my next question then. How do we know what parts of this, since we're looking at the map here, how do we know which parts your applicants have added to this drawing, and what things of the original drawing has shown. We have no way of comparing who did 3 Town of Groton Planning Board Minutes November 19, 1998 what to the drawing. And I think it would help us a lot if we knew, you know, one of the things it says is the person responsible for preparation of the drawing. We're looking here at Rowell & Associates and F. Donald McKee, who was the surveyor, but yet now you're telling us that certain things have been added here by your applicants and we don't know what they are, what the differences are. So if you could clarify that for us -- S. Chatfield: I can clarify that real quickly and we will amend the map to eliminate the entire reference to the title block and the fact that it was drawn by Rowell & Associates in 1970, We, frankly, left that there for you because we thought it may be of some benefit to you. And I will substitute and place in that title block drawn by Kim Langer, or Jeff Langer, or whomever it was that drew it. And then I believe it will satisfy Number A precisely. Or I will have her add to it now if you wish to leave the old title block reference on it. Whatever you deem most appropriate. G. Van Slyke: So in other words you want us to accept the fact that your applicants have done the drawing here . S. Chatfield: Yes. Your statute does not require that the drawing be made by a surveyor, does not require that it be made by any sort of a professional . It simply says a drawing, including the names and addresses of the applicant and the person responsible for preparing the drawing. G. Van Slyke: Okay S. Chatfield: Furthermore, we were specifically advised by the Codes Office that it was not necessary to have a survey -- or a Site Plan prepared by a licensed landscape architect or surveyor. Had we been advised, we would have done so. But we were not. G. Van Slyke: Okay. I guess my question was, you know, it would have been nice if you'd a said that they had made, somewhere on the map, that they made the plan. S. Chatfield: Which way would you prefer to have us amend it? To eliminate the title block? G. Van Slyke: No, I think we could leave the title block and amend it to the fact that they made the changes in the drawing. S. Chatfield: I will simply put a notation above the title block, drawing -- G. Van Slyke: Changes in the drawing. S. Chatfield: Well, because then we don't know which ones are -- simply say drawing made by Jeffrey Langer, 9/ 1 /98. M. Carey. Now on this map you don't have how many cars this parking lot will hold or its capacity. S. Chatfield: Nor do I see that the requirement as set forth in your preliminary site plan checklist as to the specificity of the number of parking spaces required, nor do I see in your Ordinance any requirement specifically related to the number of parking spaces required for an eating or drinking establishment. The parking lot is precisely as the parking tot has been for the last thirty or forty years. It hasn't been increased. It hasn't been decreased. It hasn't been modified one iota. F. Casullo: I think, if I could just interject, I think, Scott, if you look at 441 . 3 (G) where it says location, design, construction materials, all parking and truck loading areas showing access and egress, I think you need to -- I think they're asking to make it a little bit more definitive . S. Chatfield: It is labeled gravel drive and parking which is the location. I suppose if you'd like us to tell you that it's bank-run gravel as opposed to some other form --- F. Casullo: Well, I think that's what they want in writing. 4 Town of Groton Planning Board Minutes November 19, 1898 S. Chatfield: I think that is there . It's on the plan -- gravel drive and parking. The gravel says that it's made out of gravel which is the construction material at the location shown on the plan. If there is no specified truck loading areas, that's because there are no specified truck loading areas being proposed. hL Carey. Then they don't have any deliveries? S. Chatfield: Oh, I didn't say they did. But the deliveries are not using a specified truck loading or unloading area. None are specified. . . none are separately required. If your Ordinance said that each eating and drinking establishment shall have one truck unloading space at least 10 foot by 24 foot in reasonable proximity to the front door, then we would be required to provide such a space. But your Ordinance does not so provide . F. Casullo: Scott, you can also, I think you can go to 441 .3 (T) where it says other elements integral to the proposed development considered necessary by the Planning Board. S. Chatfield: Well, if that's the section on which you wish to rely, I would simply ask you, what is it about the development of this site that gives rise to the necessity for that information to be identified. And if you can tell me that then we'll provide it. You understand our fundamental problem is we're not changing a nail or a stone on this premises. It is exactly as it has been for 30 years, and we intend to leave it exactly as it has been for the last 30 or 40 years. We are not doing any development. So if there's some element that's reasonably necessary for you to deal with the quote development, in other words having it become vacant and having it become occupied, that warrants additional detail under subparagraph T. then you tell me what it is and we'll provide it. G. Van Slyke: Okay, I think that in 441 .3. how about K? I don't see anything about that here on the site plan drawing. S. Chatfield: Well, the location does show the dumpster located at the northwest edge of the parking lot. Methods of waste disposal -- I suppose we could specify that it is picked up by a trash hauler and disposed of at a sanitary landfill. That is, however, part of the -- I believe -- that's in the Short Form EAF. I know it's in the long if it isn't in the short. No, it's not in the short. I'll include a notation on our submittal that it is our intention to dispose of our sanitary waste in accordance with the rules and regulations of sanitary waste disposal in the Town. That's not a problem. G. Van Slyke: I think we're missing the point on K, though, are we not? Waste disposal -- doesn't that infer septic or that sort of waste disposal? S. Chatfield: I didn't read it that way. G. Van Slyke: Well, you -- S. Chatfield: If you do, then so specify. G. Van Slyke: I would specify that -- S. Chatfield: Would you like the location of the existing leach field - - - G. Van Slyke: Yes, and construction materials of such facility, and it would be helpful to us to know -- to know what condition it's in. S. Chatfield: You do realize, of course, that that sanitary septic system has been there for some period of time, was appropriately permitted, and is not or has not been modified at all. G. Van Slyke: Right, But I guess the question is -- does it need to be modified? S. Chatfield: And how do you intend to be able to address that issue? Through evidence that the septic system has failed? G. Van Slyke: Not really. But -- 5 Town of Groton Planning Board Minutes November 19, 1998 S. Chatfield: Or is there strong evidence that it's going to fail? G. Van Slyke: Well, I've had experiences with mine that's failed, so -- S. Chatfield: Yes, but you understand that as an administrative body, you have the right to review those things that the statute gives you the right to review. And based on reasonable evidence in the record, you cannot conjecture -- you cannot speculate as to what may happen in the future unless you have some reason to suspicion that's a problem in this instance . That has been a restaurant for 40 years. We're proposing to continue it as a restaurant. And, in fact, if you'd like to take judicial notice of the fact that it's been open until recently and there has been no failure, you may do so. If you choose not to do so, that's up to you . However, certainly I can find the location of it. I do not see any justification for or requirement that we satisfy to you, as opposed to the Health Department who has the regulatory authority over those, that the septic tank system is in good running order. F. Casullo: But, Mr. Chatfield, I think, in all due respect to you, they can ask as required under 441 . 3 -- if they have a concern, they have a right to ask, and they have the right to ask that -- S. Chatfield: I agree. If they have a concern. F. Casullo: They have indicated they have a concern. S. Chatfield: No, they cannot just simply have a concern because if they pull it out of the ethers they must have some evidentiary basis for their concern. F. Casullo. I don't think they are pulling it out of the ether here. They are saying that they are going to open up a restaurant, or re-open up a restaurant, and they are concerned about the waste disposal which I think is a certainly legitimate reason regarding the opening of an eating -- S. Chatfield: Then we will get very specific. Precisely what is it that you wish us to do? G. Van Slyke: Well, I'd like to see the location of it. And has the Health Department checked it out to see if -- S. Chatfield: I can tell you they have not. G. Van Slyke: If it's up to par. S. Chatfield: Will a certification from the Health Department in the last year satisfy you? G. Van Slyke: Yes, that would be sufficient. S. Chatfield: So, let's go back and take one at a time. Is A resolved with the modifications that we made? M. Carey. On the map? G. Van Slyke: Yes. S. Clark: Yes, S. Chatfield: How about B? Is that adequate? G. Van Slyke: Yes. S. Chatfield: How about C? M. Carey, I believe so. S. Chatfield: Okay, how about D? 6 Town of Groton Planning Board Minutes November 19, 1998 G. Van Slyke: Yes, S. Chatfield: E? V. Rankin. Okay there. S. Chatfield: F? F. Casullo: We don't have the height of the building, do we? M. Carey: No. G. Van Slyke: No. F. Casullo: We'll need that. S. Chatfield: Will a notation on the map be sufficient? The tallest point of any structure on the site is whatever it happens to be -- written down. G. Van Slyke: Yes. M. Carey. Right. S. Chatfield: G . Do you want us to locate the leach field -- the septic tank? M. Carey: We're on G . G. Van Slyke: We're on G. S. Chatfield: Okay. Location, design, construction materials of all parking and loading areas showing access and egress. What specifically do you find deficient about what we have? G. Van Slyke: Well, are you -- okay, I guess we could -- are you going to egress and access the property from. the Cortland-McLean Road, or are you going to access it from the other road? They call it Cemetery Road here. M. Carey: I don't believe it's Cemetery Road anymore. G. Van Slyke: That isn't even correct is it -- Cemetery Road? M. Carey. No, it's G. Van Slyke: I think it's Church something -- M. Carey. Church Street, possibly? G. Van Slyke: Is it Church Street? You know. You live there -- I don't know. S. Chatfield: We'll put an N or F after Cemetery Road and we'll put in parentheses Church. G. Van Slyke: So it would be -- I think it would be easier for us to make some decisions whether you are going to use that major highway, Cortland-McLean Road, as a major access, or if you're going to use the access from the less-traveled road on the side, on Church Street or Church Road. So if we could get that in writing when you come back. S. Chatfield: I understand. You'd like us to show you with perhaps a little radius as to the property line where the driveway, main driveway exits. 7 Town of Groton Planning Board Minutes November 19, 1998 G. Van Slyke: Right. How you are going to access it, because one of our main concerns is that is a pretty heavily trafficked road, Cortland-McLean Road. And that would be something that we would be concerned about is if you access onto that major highway with the traffic patterns and like that, accidents could be caused and we certainly don't want to have that happen. So if you could show us how you're going to access the road -- S. Chatfield: There will be accessing the Cortland-McLean Road as has been done for the last 40 years, principally. But we will show you where that -- G. Van Slyke: Okay. That would be sufficient if we could have that. S. Chatfield: Is there anything else about G besides the location of the access onto the highway? G. Van Slyke: I don't think so. M. Carey, No, I don't believe so. S. Chatfield: H . We show -- How about H? M. Carey. Is there any pedestrian access? S. Chatfield: Yes, ma'am. People walk from the parking lot to the entrance, or will be, but there Isn't any delineated sidewalks or specific areas that confine the pedestrian movements once they leave the parking area. They can walk on the lawn. They can go anywhere they want. G. Van Slyke: All right. I guess my question, next question is you have listed here on -- we're going back -- we're going to call this Church Street now. Is the exit on Church Street is just an emergency exit only -- will not be for access to the premises, right? S. Chatfield: That is correct. G. Van Slyke: In other words, the premises will be entered from the front? S. Chatfield: . From the Cortland-McLean Road entrance, yes. G. Van Slyke: Okay, S. Chatfield: Do you want a notation on -- well, it does say main entrance there . You see, looking at the south side of the structure, you'll see there's an arrow pointing to emergency exit and an arrow pointing to the main entrance . G. Van Slyke: Okay, S. Chatfield: And that is in a dotted line under a roof. That represents a porch -- you walk up onto a porch and then there's a main entrance and then there's an emergency exit. It's that main entrance which would be the main customer entrance. In fact, the only customer entrance -- the others would be emergency exits. M. Carey, Okay, G. Van Slyke: Okay, that's sufficient. S. Chatfield: I? G. Van Slyke: I don't see any problem there. F. Casullo: You guys all settled with pedestrian -access? M. Carey. Yes. Is there going to be any outside storage? 8 Town of Groton Planning Board Minutes November 19, 1998 S. Chatfield: Only the dumpster, which is shown, and that's for the storage of trash , not outside storage materials and that sort of thing. Item J? . . . . . . G. Van Slyke: You already told us you're not going to make any improvements, right? S. Chatfield: None whatever. G. Van Slyke: I guess that isn't something we can ask for. S. Chatfield: K we talked about, and what you've indicated is you'd like me to show the locations of the septic system, leach field, septic tank, distribution box -- G. Van Slyke: Yes, and along with that the Health Department certification, please. S. Chatfield: Not a problem. Is that adequate for K? G. Van Slyke: Yes. M. Carey. Yes. S. Chatfield: L? M. Carey. There is no public water over there in that area. Is the well located on here? S. Chatfield: Yes, ma'am, it is. You'll see it in basically the southeast corner of the structure, just below the mercury vapor lamp . It says well. G. Van Slyke: Okay. M. Carey, Okay. S. Chatfield: Is that adequate for L? G. Van Slyke: Yes. S. Chatfield: Then M? M. Carey, There are just two exits, two emergency exits? S. Chatfield: Yes, ma'am, I believe that's correct. Those are accessorial to the only patron areas. There are no fire hydrants on the site -- we have no fire hydrants. G. Van Slyke: Could we be provided the Zoning Officer's approval whether it's up to Fire Code or not? Could we have some certification of that? S. Chatfield: Yes, I didn't bring that with us, but we did -- G. Van Slyke: Well, I mean -- for future reference. S. Chatfield: You're talking about the Code Enforcement Officer's certificate for compliance with the Life Safety Code? G. Van Slyke: Yes, S. Clark: Yes. S. Chatfield: Does that satisfy M? M. Carey: Yes. 9 Town of Groton Planning Board Minutes November 19, 1998 G. Van Slyke: Yes. S. Chatfield: And so to N? M. Carey: Is there natural gas there? S. Chatfield: No ma'am. I was checking -- its heated with fuel oil. M. Carey, Fuel oil? There's no propane? S. Chatfield: Did you want to see where the overhead wires attach to the house? Is that what you're getting at? G. Van Slyke: No, I think the utility pole location -- I assume that's where the wires are coming from. S. Chatfield: They run from that utility pole over to the front, I believe. M. Carey. And where is the fuel tank located? S. Chatfield: I'll get that in a minute. I'm advised that the electricity serving the premises comes across Cemetery Road, I'm sorry, M. Carey. Church Road S. Chatfield: Church Road. So if you would like, we will locate the pole that provides power. M. Carey. Yes. S. Chatfield: The oil storage tank, I'm advised, is located inside the premises in the basement. It is not an outside tank. M. Carey: Okay. Can we have that in writing, please? S. Chatfield: Is a notation on the map adequate? M. Carey. Yes, I guess. S. Clark: But there's no gas service at all to the property? S. Chatfield: It is my understanding there is none. There is no solar energy on the site . M. Carey: All right. S. Chatfield: Does that satisfy N? G. Van Slyke: Yes, S. Chatfield: O? There are no proposed signs. There is an existing sign which we have shown. M. Carey: Did you get a permit for that sign? S. Chatfield: That was the existing sign. We didn't alter it. G. Van Slyke: You really need to have the Code Enforcement Officer give you the permit for that. M. Carey, Was there a sign put up over the front of the building that says Sirens? 10 Town of Groton Planning Board Minutes November 19, 1998 S. Chatfield: I believe there was one established over the doorway. If my recollection is correct, it's about a year ago that I was there. It was an existing sign and we changed the lettering on it You indicated that we needed a permit from the Code Enforcement Officer, and I was skimming through Section 316 as amended in your Code, and I see a number of things. For instance, in the M- 1 District there is no restriction on the number of signs, and it says that the total area of all signs is not to exceed an area of 100 square feet. I fail to see in 316, and perhaps you can elucidate for me or send me in the right direction as to where there is a requirement that you obtain a permit for a sign --- F. Casullo: I think, Scott, I think all they're asking for, quite frankly, on O is that any proposed signs I think they need to know if you go to 316 is, is it to be illuminated, you know. Go right to 316. It says temporary signs, it could be a permanent sign -- things of those -- that information. And I think there was, just from my personal driving by there, wasn't there a one-time or one of those temporary signs placed out in front there? There's never been a temporary something that's lit up there, or anything like that? S. Chatfield: No. F. Casullo: I think what they want to know, Scott, is how many signs they are going to have there. S. Chatfield: Okay. I will do a separate attachment to this map, or a separate document that describes the location of the signs. I'll have this . . . will that satisfy O? BL Carey. Yes. G. Van Slyke: Yes, S. Chatfield: P? G. Van Slyke: Okay, on P. I see that you have the evergreen tree row along Church Road or Church Street, and some evergreen trees located behind the establishment. What kind of a buffer zone do you have to the east of the premises? Is there -- I don't seem to see any tree line , or -- hL Carey, Or even the north, this would be north. G. Van Slyke: Okay, I guess the question would be, on top of that, if you don't have a buffer area on the east side, are you planning to develop a buffer zone on the east side? S. Chatfield: No. I can tell you that we don't plan to develop anything beyond that which is there . We don't plan on planting a tree. We don't plan on erecting a fence. We don't plan on doing anything. The -- my client advises me that the north property line behind the out parcel identified on the map as 150/420, along the east property line from the northeast corner down, and essentially all along the east property line down to a point some distance from the street -- exactly what I can't specify -- is heavily treed, heavily wooded. Now whether that is precisely on our property or on adjacent property we really don't know. But the use is there. In other words, that's all heavily treed. G. Van Slyke: So you're saying the whole east side down by that parcel is all heavily -- S. Chatfield: Well, essentially down to a point on the map -- at least down to a point labeled IP N 16-09- 13W. . . to that point. G. Van Slyke: At least down to that far, right? S. Chatfield: My clients advise me that they come right down to the road. G. Van Slyke: Okay. All right. Well, it was just not on the map, so -- S. Chatfield: Would you like to have us sketch in the approximate location of the perimeter of the trees? 11 Town of Groton Planning Board Minutes November 19, 1998 G. Van Slyke: Yes, please. S. Chatfield: Not a problem. And with that, that will satisfy P? G. Van Slyke: Yes. S. Chatfield: Q? We show two mercury vapor lamps attached to the building on the east side that put illumination into the parking lot but not offsite, and an incandescent lamp on the south side, and the incandescent lamp on the pole on the south side of the structure is generally pointed to illuminate the area generally used by pedestrians to access the front door from the parking lot, angled across generally easterly to southeasterly direction, and that's all the outside lighting. How about R? G. Van Slyke: Okay, I think on R you are asking for eating and drinking establishment. Is that correct? I think it would be important for us to know where the kitchen would be located, if it's going to be a drinking establishment where the bar would be located on the premises, and where the dining area would be and so on. S. Chatfield: Actually I've gone around and around on this one a little bit ahead of time. And while that information certainly could be provided, I have a problem with its request. Because what R says is for each activity type -- and we're dealing here with a Land Use Ordinance -- an activity type refers to the Land Use Classification which means eating or drinking establishment, not all of the various things that may happen inside. So, for instance, if we were talking about a single-family residence, an individual would not be required to specify which room is going to have a pool table, which room is going to have a TV set, and which room would be a playroom for kids. Those are not activity types within the meaning of the Land Use regulations. The entire structure will be used for an eating and drinking establishment. F. Casullo: I think that as far any challenge . . to a legal question, you've made the request to be provided more or less with a floor plan. If you feel that's thwarted and you feel that that's the interpretation of sub-letter R, you're entitled to ask that, and if Mr. Chatfield wants to provide that to you, he can. If he doesn't, so be it, and you can take your action on that . . . on his failure to do so . But you've asked for more or less of a floor plan to see if they will provide it to you. S. Chatfield: Thank you for changing my mind, counselor. So you want us to provide a floor plan? G. Van Slyke: That would be very nice . S. Chatfield: Okay, you're doing that over our objection and I'd like that noted on the record. X Carey: Okay, S. Chatfield: S? General landscaping plan and planting schedule. We propose no landscaping other than that which is. T. other elements. Integral to the proposed development considered necessary by the Planning Board. There are no Federal, State, or County permits required for the project's execution. There are no Federal or State permits other than, perhaps, a liquor license should we choose to go that way, but that is also still speculative. County Permits -- the only County permit that I'm aware of is the Health Department Permit which has, in fact, been obtained. We're not seeking to alter the driveways so there wouldn't be any County Highway curb cut permit. . . so I'm not aware of any State, Federal, or County permits that are necessary here. If the Board is aware of any, I guess I'd like to know. G. Van Slyke: Okay, then you're saying that all of the parking will be done on premises and there will be no parking on Church Street? S. Chatfield: That is correct. Now we don't -- you understand, we don't have control over people if they choose to park there other than to tell them that if they are our patrons they ought not to be parking there. The same as if somebody comes to visit your house and decides to park on the front lawn as opposed to the driveway. You can't participatorily stop people you don't know who are coming and do that sort of thing, but it is not our intention to provide any unnecessary parking, nor has the past operation of this eating and drinking establishment indicated ever, to our knowledge, that the 12 Town of Groton Planning Board Minutes November 19, 1998 parking provided was inadequate to the activity level generated onsite. We've never quite had overflow parking. We don't know of anybody that has in the past. It seems to me that should that ever become a problem, that would be a matter where we would certainly work a cooperative venture to the extent of our abilities to advise patrons not to park on Church Street . . . but the parking lot. The Board, I assume would not want to see parking on the street. The problem here is that because your Ordinance does not have a certain required number of parking spaces per square foot, there's no ascertainable standard against which to measure the plan in terms of compliance with your regulations. All we can go on, then, is what has happened in the past. Has there been a problem in the past? If there hasn't been, then we are probably poking at windmills. If there has been a demonstrated problem in the past, then we'll have to make some accommodations that . . . would be appropriate. We're not aware of this problem. So aside from those things that we have gone through, and presumptively ten copies of each of these documents that I will revise, then that should then constitute an adequate preliminary site plan I presume? F. Casullo: That should constitute -- I'm going here, Scott -- you can look at the statute . I think where it says 441 .3 application for preliminary site plan approval an application for preliminary site plan approval shall be made in writing to the Planning Board and shall be accompanied by the following information. We have cleared up that following information. I think what needs to be done is you just, quite frankly now, put together that same type of application with this same information and submit ten copies, I think that's the preliminary plan. S. Chatfield: Well, I believe we already have an application here, and I don't want to get into semantics, but in terms of starting the time processes I don't wish to waive any of my clients' rights. We have submitted an application which met with the data that we were advised was required by the Codes Enforcement Officer when we made the application. Granted, we have a statute, but we also have knowledge of what has, in fact, been required in the past by this Board. And we therefore have reason to believe that our submittal not only met, but was adequate to constitute a Preliminary Site Plan Application, but far exceeded what has been required in the past. Now I understand, and I'm taking no issue in general with this Board's ability to go through this list as we have done this evening, and to determine whether or not with the submittal that you have in front of you, is adequate for a Preliminary Site Plan . However, considering the fact that your regulations make mandatory a Sketch Plan Conference and, presumptively, the purpose of that Sketch Plan Conference is to do precisely what we've been doing this evening which is to discuss the plan, and to discuss what additional information you want. And it's appropriate. And I understand that full well. However, I'm not willing to concede, which is what I perceive counsel for the Town is suggesting, is that we will then make, for the first time, a preliminary plan application as of whenever we get it done . I believe we have made that -- we made that in September and it's simply being modified as a result of the Sketch Plan Conference which is what your regulations contemplate. We will have this data back to you in the matter of a day or two . It's not difficult to get this to the Town and get it in front of the Board. I don't want to end up going back through the process where the next meeting then becomes another review preliminary to establishing and getting into the required, or the -- I'm sorry -- the preliminary site plan process. We need to make an environmental significance determination here at some point in time. We need to make a referral to the County Planning agency at some point in time, and what I don't want to see is we come in December, you look at the plan and say yes, okay, you got everything we want here, so we'll see you in January. And then we come in January and you say, well we'll now hold a public hearing and we continue that public hearing until May when we close it. We have 62 days until July for them to decide if they're going to schedule the final public hearing. That's the process that I don't want to see happen. With all the documents we have to present we will present to you as expeditiously as we -- F. Castillo: Scott, the way I read the legal counsel's . . . I read the statute, and it says an Application for Preliminary Site Plan Approval shall be made in writing to the Planning Board and shall be accompanied by the following information. Shall means shall, so it's not complete until you've provided the following information which you say you're going to provide in a day or two. Right? S. Chatfield: Then I submit that the document handed out by the Code Enforcement Department ought not say Site Plan Checklist -- it ought say Sketch Plan Checklist to be consistent with what counsel is saying. If what we have put together is merely something that's a sketch plan, this ought to be described as the Sketch Plan Checklist, not the Site Plan Checklist, because we have then lost two months as a result of the ineptitude of the Town officials not advising us what we needed to present. And I am somewhat irritated about that. 13 Town of Groton Planning Board Minutes November 19, 1998 F. Casullo, I think if we call this a Sketch Plan, which we have, and we go to there, and you say you're going to provide us with the information in a day or two, I think we're in agreement, Scott, that the next step is to move onto the action on the Preliminary Site Plan, correct? S. Chatfield: But the action on the preliminary site plan requires the discretionary determination by this Board as to whether or not a public hearing ought to be held. Are we making that determination this evening as to whether or not a public hearing will be held? F. Casullo: I think what my advice to them is, Scott, at this point, is that until you provide the information pursuant to 441 . 3 with the application, then that would be considered the entire preliminary site plan and we'll go from there . S. Chatfield: That doesn't quite answer my question. I guess I'd like to be very specific. Maybe I'll just put the question point blank. Will we, at the December meeting, be involved in a Public Hearing or merely an intake process to determine whether or not we have complied with the requirements that we have gone over today, with the idea that a Public Hearing, if one is then necessary, would be held in January? Or are we going to be back here for a Public Hearing on the preliminary plat at your next meeting in December? F. Casullo: If you want my feeling, Scott -- S. Chatfield: I want the Board's decision. F. Casullo: Well, it's up to them, but it says may have a public hearing. You don't have to have a public hearing. S. Chatfield: I agree. But I think, at this point, and given the notoriety that this case has generally engendered over the last year, it is a reasonable question to ask whether the Board has considered whether a Public Hearing would be reasonable or appropriate for a preliminary. I might add by the way that because a Public Hearing is mandatory under your regulations for final, a public hearing in preliminary is somewhat scrofulous. You're simply having two public hearings on precisely the same issue. Because we are not changing or wiggling a nail or moving a stone . Whatever would be said at the public hearing on preliminary would simply be repeated at final and/or whatever is said at final presumptively would have been said a month earlier or two at preliminary. F. Casullm I think my advice to the Board is there's not a need for a Public Hearing at the preliminary hearing, and my advice to the Board would be is that you not treat the application as complete until you receive the information from the Langers and their attorney, but you've also indicated that your willing to move forward with the preliminary action on the preliminary site plan at the December meeting. S. Chatfield: Then I have no problem, because that does not involve any unnecessary or unreasonable delay. If you consider the preliminary in the absence of the Public Hearing at the December meeting, make your determination, get the process going in terms of an environmental significant determination through a 39M (?) review process, I have no problem with it. What I didn't want to do was come December have you say yup by golly we've got everything, so we're not going to think about it now until January when we're going to hold a Public Hearing. That was the delay that I was seeking to avoid. F. Casullo: No, and I think this Board's trying to be fair and we wouldn't do that. That would be my advice to them. S. Chatfield: I think if you'll just give me a minute -- I think, quite frankly, I think we've probably accomplished about as much as we can accomplish. Oh, there's always one more thing. The last paragraph of Section 441 . 3 says the application for preliminary site plan review shall be accompanied by a fee established by resolution of the Town Board. Has, in fact, been a fee established? 1NL Carey. They must have paid a fee for the Site Plan Review Application. 14 Town of Groton Planning Board Minutes November 19, 1998 S. Chatfield: We did pay a fee with the submittal of this document. M. Carey: Right. I don't believe there will be . S. Chatfield: But do you understand my consideration based on what counsel has said? M. Carey. Right. S. Chatfield: The statute says the application for preliminary site plan, not the application for sketch plan. The application for a preliminary site plan shall be accompanied by a fee established by resolution. When we submitted these documents which we thought were a preliminary site plan submittal, we paid the requisite fee we were advised to pay. If, in fact, that was the proceeding for the preliminary site plan application, and there won't, be an additional fee, I guess I've got that kind of resolved and I understand it. If there's going to be some additional fee, I just wanted to know so that we could -- M. Carey: I don't believe there will be any additional fees. S. Chatfield: Then I think I have the Board's instruction right now, and if not, Mr. Drury can give me a copy of the transcript so I won't miss a thing. And we'll get that document back, including ten copies to you, ASAP. I assume the procedure is to give them to the Code Enforcement Officer who then distributes them to the Board, or should I go to counsel -- F. Casullo: Why don't you do this. Why don't you give it to me and I will give it to the Board. Do it that way. I think the Board needs to go on record saying what date would be a convenient date in December for action on the Preliminary Site Plan. What's your normal -- M. Carey, The third Thursday of every month is our normal meeting time. S. Chatfield: I have meetings almost every night of the month, so don't try and accommodate my schedule. My schedule will accommodate yours. M. Carey: I believe it's December 17th, F. Casullo: Is that okay? S. Chatfield: I will make it a point to be here. F. Casullo: When do you think you can get the information? I 'm not going to hold you to it. S. Chatfield: I would think it would be in your office by Monday at the close of business. F. Casullo: That's fine. You want it the 17th . What time do you usually meet? M. Carey: Eight o'clock. F. Casullo: There will be no public -- I think you want to make a resolution stating the date and there won't be a public hearing, and what time, and it will be action for the Langer Preliminary Site Plan. M. Carey: Will someone make the motion? V. Rankin: I'll make the motion. G. Van Slyke: Second. M. Carey. All in favor? 15 Town of Groton Planning Board Minutes November 19, 19W F. Casullo: Well, I think you want to go and say that you're going to have your meeting on December 17th at 8 p.m. without public hearing for the Langer Site Plan Review. Put that right in the resolution. V. Rankin: I'll make a motion we have a hearing on December 17th for the Langers with no public hearing at 8 o'clock. hL Carey. George, did you second it? G. Van Slyke: Yes. hL Carey: All in favor? (All members present indicated aye; no nays were recorded) . Passed. Any other business to come before the Board? (No response.) We need to adjourn. I need a motion to adjourn. S. Clark: I make the motion we adjourn. G. Van Slyke: Second. M. Carey: All in favor? (All members present indicated they were in favor.) The meeting was adjourned at 9:04 p.m. Respectfully submitted, J E. Fitch ecording Secretary 16 . .. PLEASE SIGN I _ j 17 Town of Groton Planning Board Meeting November 19, 1998 _ Preliminary Site Plan Review - Sirens LLC - .Kim & Jeff Langer NAME ADDRESS -- r 3� j Sov © Cc�e�/7i �� �9to �1 2 3 ` � 4 5 - 6 7 8 Poo, A eir.^ l �(il / � 1 ( L I i( C` 2G 10 x r SC S ._ Ado illlzo4lWin--- i0k > q (L-i� 15 �, S �0 Gr�r 16 17 � 7 18 19 %�. 20 - 6 PLEASE SIGN IN Town of Groton Planning Board Meeting November 19, 1998 Preliminary Site Plan Review - Sirens LLC - Kim & Jeff Langer NAME ADDRESS 5 7 �� S 8 9 zo . S� a, 10 12 CQv L V V► � C(��/l�. 13 j7 14 S 15 S 16 2 �? AJL( (3653 17 i 19 20 21 - PLEA S SIG--� Town of Groton Planning Board Meeting - November 19, 1998 : Preliminary Site Plan Review - Sirens LLC - Kim & Jeff Langer . NAME ADDRESS ri —IOU uf� 2 b bk � Y� 3 lir 6 8 .71 n .10 �< =12 13 14 15 16 17 18 : . 1921 -