HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-12-17 TOWN OF GROTON PLANNING BOARD
Meeting Minutes/Transcript - Thursday, 17 December 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 , Applicant's 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: Did everyone that's a guest here tonight sign the sheet as you entered? If not, we'd
appreciate it very much if you would. At this time, because our chairman and one of our members, Van
Travis, have been excluded from this particular thing, I would again like to appoint as our chairwoman
tonight Monica Carey to be the acting chairwoman for this Sirens determination .
S. Clark: I'll second the motion .
G. Van Slyke : All in favor? (All members present indicated an aye ; no nays recorded) . Carried.
Monica, it's yours .
M. Carey. I welcome everybody here. I'm Monica Carey. This is George Van Slyke, Verl Rankin ,
and Sheldon Clark. And the first thing on the Agenda is to approve the Minutes for the November
meeting.
V. Rankin: I move that they be approved .
M. Carey: Second it?
S. Clark: I'll second it.
M. Carey: All in favor? (All members present indicated an aye ; no nays recorded) . Opposed? (No
reply.) Carried. Okay, we'll start with Site Plan Review for the Sirens application. And we're going to
do the review of the Preliminary Site Plan , Section 441 . 4 in our books. Mr. Chatfield?
S. Chatfield: Yes ma'am.
M. Carey: Are you ready for us?
S. Chatfield: Yes ma'am, Madam Chairman . I guess I would defer to the Chair as to what
additional information you wish . There was submitted -- at the last meeting you indicated that we
would revise our submittals and send those documents to your counsel . That was accomplished . Not
on the Monday that we anticipated, but on Wednesday, a couple days later.
M. Carey: Right, Right. We received it all.
F. Casullo: I got the information.
S. Chatfield: In addition, the only other document I think that we didn't have at that time -- I'd
like to offer this up today -- is the Health Department Permit #54-AF80 from the State Department of
Health, issued 10/ 1 /98 , evidencing compliance with the Sanitary Code, including the septic system.
(Mr. Chatfield provided same to Chair Carey.) I believe that the documents submitted to the Board
address the concerns identified by the Board at our last meeting, coming out of Section 441 . 4 of your
Land Use & Development Code. The only other thing I guess I was going to offer, only partly tongue-in -
Page 1 of 14
Town of Groton Planning Board Minutes/Transcript December 17, 1998
cheek, is I guess I would observe that the intensity of the opposition appears to be directly and inversely
proportionate to the quality of the weather. With that, I guess I will answer any questions, or my
clients will be happy to answer any questions with respect to the submittal of the documents that we
have submitted, and we'll go from there .
G. Van Slyke : Okay, I guess I would start. Mr. Chatfield , I would thank you for the information on
the septic system since that was my baby, I guess, if you would . But, of course , I think that is
something I think we needed to address at that time because of Fall Creek being so near to this
particular establishment. One thing that we did receive from you as far as -- okay, if we could go back
to -- I guess, 441 . 3m. I guess this would come under this. We're supposed to receive a Life Safety
Inspection, and the one we received is from George Senter, dated 1997 . And I believe that needed to be
updated, and I don't know if -- I don't see him here -- if our Zoning Officer has done it or has not
accomplished this Life Safety compliance .
S. Chatfield: You said 441 . 3m?
G. Van Slyke: Yes, well I guess it says—I don' t know if that's where this actually came in, but it's
where the Code Enforcement Officer goes in and checks the location—checks the premises for fire safety
and so on.
M. Carey: He's referring to the paperwork that you gave us on Life Safety.
G. Van Slyke: This paper, Mr. Chatfield.
S. Chatfield: Yes, that was a Life Safety inspection that was done by Code Enforcement Officer
preparatory to our opening last year. And it's a pro forma process involving the Uniform State Fire
Prevention & Building Code. For instance , if he goes through when you're ready to open an
establishment and finds that your fire extinguishers are out of date, or the light bulbs are burned out
in your emergency exits, things like that, he advises you and you need to correct those matters.
M. Carey: Well , we would like to have this updated before --
S. Chatfield: I decline--other than the fact that a Life Safety Inspection needs to be conducted only
when one has the right to conduct an activity. And in the absence of a Site Plan Approval, we don' t
have the right to have an eating and drinking establishment there , presumptively. We have talked to
the Code Enforcement Officer about coming to do it, and my client advises me that he indicates that he
doesn't desire to do so at this point in time . We thought about having it done, but M. Carey: Okay, okay.
S. Chatfield: it's not occupied. Clearly, if we were to obtain Site Plan Approval G. Van Slyke: Then that would be accomplished .
S. Chatfield: Before we could open, we would have to satisfy the Life Safety Code . And that's an
on-going matter. If we were open, and he did a surprise inspection and found that two of our light
bulbs were burned out in the exit signs, he would require that we correct them.
G. Van Slyke : Okay,
S. Chatfield: I would point out that 441 . 3 doesn't talk about obtaining a Certificate of Compliance ,
it talks about the Site Plan , as to say the drawing, and that it ought to show the location of fire and
other emergency zones, exits, and location of hydrants, which we have done on our plan .
G. Van Slyke: Okay, thank you . Okay, let's go to the plan then and - -
M. Carey: I'd like to ask a question on the parking here. On the paper that you gave us that
you have everything drawn on the outside of the building -- now you have some dotted lines drawn
there . Is that where you intend for the cars to be parked?
Page 2 of 14
Town of Groton Planning Board Minutes/Transcript December 17, 1998
S. Chatfield: Yes ma'am. That is to be a representative indication of the parking spaces. It shows
22, 28 parking spaces.
M. Carey: Twenty-eight parking spaces is what you - -
S. Chatfield: I just counted them. I think I counted them correctly. And that's where we would
propose to have them established . This is a gravel parking lot as I recall, so they wouldn't be
specifically striped out. It's simply indicative of where the cars will be parked and the size of the spaces
drawn to scale .
M. Carey: Now will this be the only entrance and exit that they have is onto the McLean Road?
They won't be coming off onto Church Street?
S. Chatfield: Except as for a safety/fire lane which you'll see indicated on Church Street.
G. Van Slyke : Okay,
S. Chatfield: That's -- it's purpose would be emergency only.
M. Carey: Right. There'll be a sign there indicating that will be emergency exits.
S. Chatfield: If you would like us to put one there , we certainly can.
M. Carey: Oh , I believe so, yes . The location of this dumpster—is this right out in the middle of
the parking lot? Is it behind a building?
S. Chatfield: The dashed line roughly equal to the north -- the extension of the north line of the
Elm Tree Inn -- is the limit of the existing improved parking lot. The dumpster would be located
immediately off it -- off the gravel parking lot, and we believe - -
M. Carey: It will be out of the way of any parked cars? I mean, nobody will run into it type of
thing?
S. Chatfield: I won't say they couldn't, but it's past the point where the gravel parking lot is and
parking spaces are located .
M. Carey: Okay,
G. Van Slyke : Okay. One question on the same map or plan. There is a wavy line that goes from
the east side all the way around the back and it says limit of trees. Is that going to be the buffer zone
as far as the neighbors are concerned?
S. Chatfield: Yes. One of the questions that arose the last time, that I wasn't able to answer, was
there's apparently significant existing vegetation on the site . And we indicated we would show the
approximate limits of that existing vegetation. It is our intent to leave all that vegetation as it is and
not to alter it in any way. So to the extent that that acts as a buffer to those properties to the north
and to the east, it would be our intention to leave that there , yes .
G. Van Slyke: Okay.
S. Chatfield: I guess I should clarify -- in addition to the area, the limit of trees is meant to
designate that area that is heavily treed . There are isolated other trees onsite as indicated on the plan .
G. Van Slyke : But I guess I'm thinking noise, this kind of thing, as a buffer zone . Those trees would
offer that kind of --
S. Chatfield: To the extent that they do, right --
G. Van Slyke: Right,
Page 3 of 14
Town of Groton Planning Board Minutes/Transcript December 17, 1998
S. Chatfield: I don't know the scientific analysis of it, but yes, it's visual and dust and any other
things that this would tend to screen out.
G. Van Slyke : Right,
M. Carey: Okay,
G. Van Slyke: Well, if you've got something, go for it.
S. Clark: I just have a question on the floor plan of the inside of the building, the kitchen area.
There is cooking facilities there? Stoves? And they're hooked up to electric or gas or --
S. Chatfield: My clients advise me that they have been, but they are not at this exact moment
hooked up . They can be . It's simply a matter of making the connections. Yes, there are stoves/ cooking
facilities. . . there , yes.
M. Carey: Will you be using electric or gas?
S. Chatfield: I'm advised that the range is LP gas ; the refrigerator, obviously, runs on electricity.
S. Clark: So where's the gas source for these?
S. Chatfield: It's LP.
S. Clark: Outside tanks? Underground tanks?
M. Carey: Where would they be indicated on this map?
S. Chatfield: I'm advised that in the past and , once again, don't hold me to the exact location , but
you'll see that the north end of the parking lot, there's a notation that says elm tree, approximately six
inches in diameter --
M. Carey: Yes.
S. Chatfield: Just north of that was the location of the LP tank in the past. It's my understanding
that the provider of the LP gas basically is one of the significant inputs in the location of the facility to
contain the gas because it needs to be readily accessible to the truck for recharging and that sort of
thing, yet it needs to be proximate to the structure so that the lines can be connected and that sort of
thing.
M. Carey: What size tank is there now, do you know?
S. Chatfield: I guess there is no tank at present.
M. Carey: There's no tank there?
S. Chatfield: There has been in the past. The size of the tank, once again, I'm sure would be the
function of the anticipated usage . At this point in time I couldn't tell you . It would certainly -- it
would not be the sizes for a large commercial facility. I'm sure that would be the case . You've seen
those that are say six, eight, ten feet around and twenty feet long; I'm sure it wouldn't be that size . On
the other hand, it would be whatever the supplier would recommend . And it would also depend on the
periodicity with which they refill and all those sorts of thing.
M. Carey: Now is there a cement pad for that tank?
S. Chatfield: I'm advised that there is not and there wasn't in the past. And I think that the tank
that was there stood on its own legs/ supports. And that tank, I believe , is provided by the LP provider.
M. Carey: Right.
Page 4 of 14
Town of Groton Planning Board Minutes/Transcript December 17, 1998
S. Chatfield: So it's theirs and they can take it with them when they terminate the service .
G. Van Slyke : Okay, since Sheldon got into the floor plan area, I'd like to go back there just for a
minute . It's been a long time since I've been in the Elm Tree Inn, and the last time that I was there
anyway it appeared to me that this was the area to the left, if you were looking at the -- down at -- that
this was an open floor plan pretty much . It was, you know, just open space . And I'm referring to like
your dining room and where the tables are located here . And I see that you have in your drawing some
dotted lines, and I'm wondering why they're there?
S. Chatfield: Those are representative of the overhead structural beams. They are not walls . It is,
in fact, open.
M. Carey: It's all open space?
S. Chatfield: Yes, from the pool table room, if you will , the room indicated with --showing the pool
table --
G. Van Slyke : Okay,
S. Chatfield: down to the south end of the dining room from the west end of the dining room over
to the wall of the kitchen, and the wall to the stairway around the foyer and the rest room, of course ,
those represent walls. The walls were indicated by the solid lines. That's the way it --
G. Van Slyke : Okay, and you're saying then that the dotted lines represent the upper structure - -
S. Chatfield: Yes. They are not walls. They are merely the main beams. Those solid lines you'll see
intersecting the main beams, those are column supports.
M. Carey: Okay, okay.
G. Van Slyke : Okay. I don't seem to see anyplace here -- this is then just you're going to have
access just for dining in this area. I don't see any place for entertainment. Are you planning any kind
of entertainment?
S. Chatfield: We don't know. It's possible . We may very well do so. That would simply be a matter
of moving tables around if we chose to do so.
G. Van Slyke : In other words, you wouldn't have an established stage?
S. Chatfield: Anything that would involve a building permit or structural modifications, no .
G. Van Slyke: Okay, so you wouldn't have a stage or a place for the band to be or whatever?
S. Chatfield: Nothing that would involve a structural modification or the issuance of a building
permit.
G. Van Slyke: Well I guess the obvious question is if you did have entertainment, okay, what kind of
live entertainment would you provide?
S. Chatfield: I couldn't say at this time. Whatever we chose to do, and whatever the law would
allow.
G. Van Slyke: Okay. Could I ask a dumb question?
S. Chatfield: Sure,
G. Van Slyke : Would the entertainment involve anything such as nude dancing, lap dancing, or
any of those activities?
S. Chatfield: If the law allowed it, I suppose that would be a possibility.
Page 5 of 14
Town of Groton Planning Board Minutes/Transcript December 17, 1998
G. Van Slyke: So you're not saying yes or no one way or the other, right?
S. Chatfield: I'm saying my clients have not nor do they ever intend to break the law. If the law
doesn't allow it, they won't do it. If the law does allow it, they will do it. Or they have the right to do it.
In any event, I won't say that they will. They may or they may not.
G. Van Slyke: Okay.
M. Carey: One thing I was wondering and we didn't ask for last time--would it be possible that
we had a menu of what you're planning on serving in the restaurant?
S. Chatfield: If we indeed had a menu , or if we indeed decided that we were going to serve meals or
have an active kitchen, I guess we could provide that. But I wouldn't -- I guess I would point out
respectively (a) I'm not certain that the menu is a critical variable associated with Site Plan Review, (b)
what we're applying for is Site Plan Approval for an eating and/ or drinking establishment because your
Ordinance uses the disjunctive . It does not require that we have a full dining room or not have a full
dining room. For instance , if my clients decided that they wanted to apply for and obtain an ABC
license and open up a regular close quotes gin mill, I suppose they might have Slim dims and boiled
eggs, but they may or may not have a full menu. On the other hand , if they decide to hire a French-
trained chef and offer full sit-down dinners, they may have a menu . Frankly, we haven't gotten to that
point yet.
G. Van Slyke: In other words, you're still in limbo as to what kind of eating and drinking
establishment you're going to open?
S. Chatfield: I guess what I'm saying for the record is that your Ordinance indicates, or at least as
it was interpreted by the Supreme Court, that Site Plan Approval is necessary for an eating or drinking
establishment. Your Ordinance does not get into any differentiation between eating or drinking
establishments, nor does it say some are allowed and some are not allowed or some types are and some
types are not. Ergo, it is not our desire at this point in time to make any representation as to the
nature of the eating or drinking establishment that we will enter into or open except as it may bear on
the issue of Site Plan Approval other than to say that whatever we do will be compliant with the law.
M. Carey: On the floor plan, you have numbers here—one , two , three , and etcetera. What are
those numbers indicating?
S. Chatfield: My client advises we have absolutely no idea what those numbers are. They were on
the drawing that was provided and drawn by Karl Wendt, Architect. I really don't know.
F. Casullo: Let me just interject ---
S. Chatfield: If you'd like to take them off, we can take them off.
M. Carey: No, I was just curious as to what they were .
F. Casullo: Scott, the other question I had here -- it's got here drawn by Jeff Langer and it's got
Karl Wendt, Architect. I don't know Mr. Langer's background, but what you're telling me is the
additions in here , Scott, were drawn by Jeff, but this is actually Karl's work?
S. Chatfield: Yes, the--if I may- -it probably should say modified by would be a little more correct.
G. Van Slyke: Or amended by?
S. Chatfield: The only revisions the Board had asked that we indicate the location of tables and
chairs. And so Mr. Langer has indicated those . What I was getting—may I approach , this may clarify
that question—if you want to substitute this one for the one you have , you can actually see the
difference between the main drawing and the pencil .
M. Carey: Oh , okay.
Page 6 of 14
Town of Groton Planning Board Minutes/Transcript December 17, 1998
S. Chatfield: In the photocopy of course , that distinction doesn't show up as good .
M. Carey: All right. Can I ask--what' s that there? What's that supposed to be indicating? Is
that the bar and the barstools?
S. Chatfield: I think those are the barstools.
M. Carey: Okay, so number three, where that number three is, is that where the liquor will be
stored?
S. Chatfield: That's the back bar. Once again, I am not saying that there will be liquor there. But
if there were, that's where it would be stored just behind the bar.
G. Van Slyke: Okay. So really what you're saying to us Mr. Chatfield is that we're kind of in limbo
here about whether or not you're going to actually open, let's say, an eating and drinking
establishment. Maybe we will, maybe we won't.
S. Chatfield: No, we are indicating that we will be opening an eating or drinking establishment.
That's what we're applying for Site Plan Approval for. It's our intention to open an eating or drinking
establishment. The specifics of that, and precisely what nature what market we'll be seeking to reach
we have not specified and are not specifying at this time . Let me elaborate this briefly. This case, well
this case itself, has a relatively short history. The Langers' involvement with the Town of Groton, and
it comes as no surprise to anybody here, has had a long and somewhat checkered history. One of the
things that has been bandied about, at length , has been an allegation that in the past the Langers
have been doing something that was less than legal by opening a facility that featured nude dancers as
entertainment. We have maintained throughout the proceedings, and maintain at present, that
because Land Use Regulations are in derogation of common law right, and I'm talking now about
Constitutionally protected property right, that their only obligation is to comply with the law as the law
is written. At the time that they sought approval from the Code Enforcement Officer in 1997 , and
obtained on two occasions his opinion that Site Plan Approval is not necessary, the representations
that were made to him is that they would be opening up an eating or drinking establishment because ,
frankly, that is the only representation that he was allowed to ask for under the law. Yes, they did not
volunteer that it was their intention to open an establishment that featured dancing, nor was that
their obligation. And to suggest, as some have done , that that somehow is illegal or improper is to turn
our system of laws on its head . What is required of any dutiful citizen in the United States is to
comply with the law. It is not to satisfy the whims and vicissitudes of the masses, nor is it to refrain
from doing something that the law allows simply because it may or may not be unpopular. I've been
very careful this evening in my choice of words in response to your questions. You may perceive it as
devious if you wish ; I don't perceive it that way. I am simply protecting my clients' rights. I've indicated
that it is their intention to open an eating or drinking establishment because that's what your law
says they are allowed to do . Your Ordinance contains no definitions of eating or drinking
establishments, nor does your Site Plan or your Development Code contain any limitations on the
nature of eating or drinking establishments, nor do those regulations make it mandatory on us to
divulge to you, in order to obtain Site Plan Approval , any plans which we may or may not have in terms
of market, in terms of what our market strategy is. Frankly, I could make an argument that that
information is proprietary. Let us say, for instance, that we have fallen upon some market strategy
which we believe will be successful in this area. We would not want to divulge that strategy prior to
opening for fear of giving the competition a competitive advantage , nor would we be required to do so
under the law. I have made it as clear as I could at the last meeting that we hope to go right by the
numbers so that there will be no misunderstanding. You've asked me or tried to be as candid as you
can with your questions. You put to me directly the question of will we have any entertainment that
features nudity? Adult entertainment if you will . My response was only if the law allows it. As you are
well aware , right now there is on the books in the Town of Groton a law that would , in this district,
prohibit adult entertainment. I repeat what I said—we will do that which the law allows. We will not
do that which the law does not allow . But we will not be involved , and we refuse to participate in any
process that compels us to disclose information or to take positions that the law does not mandate
that we do so. And the same is with respect - - you know, I 'm not trying to be confrontational -- this is
by way of merely so that you know exactly where I 'm coming from -- I'm not going to say to you that we
will not.
Page 7 of 14
Town of Groton Planning Board Minutes/Transcript December 17, 1998
M. Carey: Okay, if we -- if you do decide to have entertainment, will there be excess noises that
can be heard outside the building? Will most of the entertainment and the noise be contained with
inside the building? If it's going to be excessive, could we possibly think about putting up a fence or
something for a barrier on that front end of the building along the main road?
S. Chatfield: I will defer to counsel for the Town to correct me if my understanding of the Town
Code is in error—your question used the phrase , starting with the assumption of quote excess, close
quotes, noise . At first you said that can be heard . If the standard which is sought to be applied is
mere audibility, I would have a serious problem with that. Audibility means basically one dB on the A
Scale . Clearly, I could stand outside a single-family residence that had the television on at a normal
level and could hear the television, depending on my proximity to the residence.
F. Casullo: Why don't we forget dealing in generalities about noise and everything. Your Code,
441 .4, Review of Preliminary Site Plan -- the Planning Board review of a Preliminary Site Plan shall
include, as appropriate, the following. And I guess, Miss Chairperson, what you were just talking
about is protection of adjacent or neighboring properties against noise , glare, unsightliness, or other
objectionable features.
M. Carey: Right.
F. Casullo: That's what they need.
S. Chatfield: But that's not -- and I understand, counsel, that those are the considerations that
the Planning Board must reasonably apply in determining whether or not to grant Site Plan Approval.
And I guess my response to that is, to the extent that you have the right to deal with noise , glare,
unsightliness, or other objectionable features, it will be incumbent upon the Board to justify the
imposition of any conditions which you deem reasonable or appropriate . It will then be our right under
the law, if we take issue with those conditions -- we'll have two choices : comply or we can appeal your
decision if we believe that your decision is unreasonable . Our position would simply be that the level of
noise that a commercial facility is allowed ought probably have some ascertainable standard applied to
it rather than quote excessive unless we know what excessive means. Most ordinances that tend to
deal with noise establish ambient noise levels as a measure, and they establish the level at the property
line . So were you to establish a condition that says that the operation of this eating or drinking
establishment will not generate noise at the property line in excess of the ambient noise level, that's an
adequately ascertainable standard which I would readily concur with. On the other hand , if you say
we prohibit any noise that is at all audible , that is a standard which I will take issue with because
that's not a reasonable standard. So in answer to your question, it is not our intention to have any
entertainment or allow any clientele to become so loud as to be unreasonably noisy at the property
line.
M. Carey: Okay. You answered my question. Very good.
S. Chatfield: But I'm not sure that -- because my unreasonable may not be your unreasonable .
F. Casullo: I guess I can just interject here on a comment that Scott made. It's always been my
understanding, Mr. Chatfield , that one of your most earliest presentations before a body of this Town
was that your clients were going to try to be as neighborly as possible . I think all that Miss Carey was
asking was that if the noise and glare or whatever becomes something that bothers the neighbors,
that's something that there would be able to go , on a neighborly basis, and discuss .
S. Chatfield: No. And I say that with some intrepidation because I understand that it might be
misinterpreted . And I don't know how to get into this without getting philosophic . While we have
been operating, we have had 20 or 30 noise complaints. They have all been investigated by appropriate
agencies, and they have all been found to be baseless. Now, can I say to you that we will operate
whatever eating or drinking establishment that we operate here in such a way that none of our
neighbors will ever complain? Of course not. That would be ludicrous for us to assume that. And
whether it's because you believe that the neighbors are being unreasonable in their expectations, or
whether you believe that we are , in fact, exceeding reasonable levels is not the issue here . The issue is
that our rights ought not, under any principle of law, be dictated by the whims and vicissitudes of the
Page 8 of 14
Town of Groton Planning Board Minutes/Transcript December 17, 1998
neighbors . This is not -- decisions regarding land use are not made based on their popularity. They are
based on the application of a set of legal principles to a specific set of facts. As a general proposition ,
we are smart enough business people so as not to go out and intentionally do something so as to
knowingly generate controversy. To the extent we can avoid it, we will avoid it. Will we allow our
rights to be controlled by a condition on this administrative process, which is measured by the
satisfaction of the neighbors, the answer is no . An ascertainable standard , yes . The desirability or the
lack of complaint of the neighbors, no . That's not a standard that we would be able to live with nor
concur with . We are not here, as another way to put it, to make the neighbors happy . We frankly
don't care if the neighbors are happy. We know the neighbors are not going to be happy. For instance ,
supposing we decided that we wanted to obtain a liquor license and open up a bar for gay bikers and
skinheads. That will not make the neighbors happy. That, however, is our right. And all I'm saying to
you is we merely want this Board and the Town to extend to us our rights under the law. No more, no
less.
G. Van Slyke : I'd just like to go back, Mr. Chatfield, just to one thing . Going back to -- we have in
our Code -- you're applying for eating and drinking establishment.
S. Chatfield: It's eating or.
G. Van Slyke: And I guess this is where I have a little bit of problem here because you're really telling
us that, well, maybe we will and maybe won't have an eating and drinking establishment. Somehow I
know probably that the way it's worded here in the Ordinance , it does say just eating and drinking
establishment. But I think for most people it is assumed that an eating and drinking establishment is
a place where someone prepares food or beverage and serves it to the seated public . I think that was
the original assumption of what was going to happen here at Sirens, and I still think that, you know,
by some means that we wouldn't be really -- if we asked you to describe the type of eating and drinking
establishment you are intending -- that that is an unreasonable request from this Board .
S. Chatfield: I understand your comments. Let me say a couple things if I may. First, I want to
correct any misimpression you may have . We are saying to you that we will be opening an eating or
drinking establishment. We simply are not, at this point in time , specifying the nature of it. Secondly,
our -- strike that -- supposing we were to say to you, we're going to apply for an ABC license and open
up a quote tavern, and it is our intention that we will seek to draw our patrons from the sporting
public and will feature satellite broadcasts of sporting events on several televisions around the facility -
- you know -- that sort of thing. I think they call it a sports bar. We could make that representation to
you . However, if you were to impose or seek to impose approval of Site Plan on that condition, that
condition, in my humble opinion, would be unenforceable because the law does not give you the right
to do that. Or, stated another way, we could make that representation to you, obtain the Site Plan
Approval, and then turn around and open up some entirely different eating or drinking establishment .
You would be righteously indignant that we're not doing that which you were led to believe , and I
would have to come back and say to you I don't care what you were led to believe , you only have the
right to impose conditions, that the law gives you that right. If the law says that you can say what
kind of eating or drinking establishment, then you can say it. And the reason why I am refusing to
specify, with any exactitude, the nature of the eating or drinking establishment is so that there will
never be any questions later on, as there have been .in the past, that we misled you , that we proposed
to do one thing and did something else. I don't want that issue to surface again . Not that I think its
important, terribly, legally, but an awful lot of people put an awful lot of stock in the fact that when we
talked to Mr. Senter about opening up an eating or drinking establishment we did not specify that we
intended to have adult entertainment. Frankly, it was none of his business. It was none of the law's
business, and it was none of the neighbors' business because they had, you had no ordinances or
regulations regarding it in effect at the time we opened . However, we know full well that that was the
principle cause of the uprising, if you will, of the righteous indignation from both the citizens, and the
residents, and members of the Town Board and others . I don't want to have a repeat of that. I want
everybody to know full well that the law says that you have the right to consider Site Plan Approval for
an eating or drinking establishment, and your powers and the ability to impose conditions is limited by
both statutes in those laws. And you cannot legally impose on us conditions that the law doesn't
allow you to do . And we're not going to let you do that. And I'm saying this respectfully -- there are
three or four times that I've made this point, but I will keep making it as necessary. We're going
through this process. We don't believe the process is even legal, and we're in the process of appealing.
We will comply with the law. We will expect that you comply with the law. If we end up obtaining Site
Page 9 of 14
Town of Groton Planning Board Minutes/Transcript December 17, 1998
Plan Approval with conditions that we don't like or we believe are in excess of your jurisdiction , we will
appeal that decision. We've made no bones about that. We've also indicated to you that if we end up
with Site Plan Approval with conditions that we can live with , even though we believe they may be in
excess of your jurisdiction, we won't appeal . But we reserve the right to make those determinations.
And one of the determinations that we will not make to you because we don't believe you have the
right to require it, is the nature of the eating or drinking establishment. For instance , do you have the
right to tell us whether or not we can have alcoholic beverages there? And I ask the question
somewhat rhetorically, because you know the answer. The answer is no . That's controlled by the ABC
Law. If your Ordinance made a distinction between eating or drinking establishments with alcohol and
eating or drinking establishments without alcohol, you might be able to make that distinction . But
your Ordinance does not so differentiate . And because your Ordinance does not differentiate it, we are
not going to allow the Board to impose any conditions with respect to that. I don't know how I can be
any clearer. And believe me, I'm not trying here to thrown down the gauntlet, I'm just simply trying to
clear the air with respect to our position. Our position simply is we will comply with the law . We
expect you and hope that you will do the same. No more and no less. And when I say, and I get a
chuckle out of those few people in attendance this evening when I say we don't care what the
neighbors think, that's not a casual offhand comment designed to solicit murmurs or chuckles from
the audience . That is a statement of belief, right from here . The reason why we don't care what the
neighbors think is because that's utterly immaterial to the process. The neighbors opinions are
supposed to represent themselves by law, duly adopted by the legislative body. That's how a republic
functions. We don't have plebiscites on the approval or disapproval of site plan approvals. You don't
simply take a poll and side with the neighbors if it's a good idea or a bad idea. You function within the
frame of the law. If the law a bad law, then I assume that the legislative body will change the law.
M. Carey: Okay. Well, I think we understand where you're coming from.
V. Rankin: I think you did very well , Mr. Chatfield. I think we've about covered this.
M. Carey: Does anybody feel they have any more questions? I have a question about the sign.
Have you any idea as to what exactly you're going to do? You're not going to have any glaring lights or
any offensive material on the sign?
S. Chatfield: I'm trying to get the answer to your question. It's our intention - - there is an existing
sign you may see on the Site Plan ,
M. Carey: Right.
S. Chatfield: That existing sign -- I'm sure the Board has already seen it -- is, I believe, illuminated .
There are light fixtures there for illuminating the sign from the ground up. The light, when energized ,
shines on the sign and does not radiate glare in general. We would have no problem with the
condition that says the lighting from our sign, should we decide to light it, or the lighting from our
exterior parking lot lights, will not create any excessive glare offsite , on the street, or on the neighbors'
premises. We clearly would have no problem with that. That's a reasonable restriction or constraint
on our illuminating the premises . It is my understanding that my clients intend to make no changes to
the signs other than that of the sign face as may be necessary or appropriate.
G. Van Slyke: Along that line, because the Elm Tree Inn is a historic building, would the sign be
such that it would reflect the historicalness of that building, or be of some other nature?
S. Chatfield: Just to correct the record, while there may be a plaque onsite from the State, this
premises is not on the National Historical Register and is not an historically designated site for the
meaning of that set of regulations . However, within reason, we don't have any particular concern with
respect to the sign. We'll be guided by your advice or input as to the nature of the text of the sign. We
can't at this point tell you for sure what the actual letters will be -- whether it's going to be called
Sirens, or whether it's going to be called something else . That's a market decision to be made down the
road . But, once again, we have no strong feelings one way or the other, you know, not unless you told
us you wanted platinum letters on gold leaf, or something. But if it was a reasonable request, we
would certainly comply with your request.
Page 10 of 14
Town of Groton Planning Board Minutes/Transcript December 17, 1998
M. Carey: Just a quick question . Back on the floor plan I was noticing -- see where that
number one is? Outside the building there? What is that?
S. Chatfield: I'm sorry.
M. Carey: On the floor plan - - see where that number one is? What are those drawings right
there? Anything? It's outside the building, outside the floor plan.
G. Van Slyke: That's the height.
M. Carey: Oh, is that the height?
S. Chatfield: Madam Chairwoman, I'm not quite certain . They look like they may have been meant
to represent wall sconces . But if that's the case, they haven't been there in some years. They are not
there now; they haven't been there . . . I suspect perhaps for clarity so as not to create any questions
later on, we ought to eliminate those from the plan .
M. Carey: All right.
S. Chatfield: X them out or something . . .
M. Carey: Now this building's a two-story building, right?
S. Chatfield: Yes, ma'am.
M. Carey: And is the upstairs an open floor plan?
S. Chatfield: It' s not our intention to use the second floor in connection with this use other than
as, perhaps, dry storage.
M. Carey: Okay, but is it an open room?
S. Chatfield: I'm advised that it is.
M. Carey: Okay. Anyone else have questions?
S. Chatfield: Let me clarify one thing on the sign . It's been a year since I've been to the site and I'm
trying to recollect what that free-standing sign looked like . My clients advise me that it's a wood sign
with paints painted as opposed to wood-carved , that sort of thing . To the extent that our
representation has been that we don't intend to change anything -- I think I last said not to drive a
nail nor move a pebble -- it would be our intention that the sign that would be utilized in conjunction
with this eating or drinking establishment would be, in fact, that sign. Not some other sign, not an
internally illuminated sign. It would be that sign with a re-painted face to represent the name .
M. Carey: Okay,
G. Van Slyke : That's what I was getting at, yes.
S. Chatfield: I promise, I'm not being . . . I just didn't know and I wanted to be able to answer your
question directly, so I had to consult with my client.
M. Carey: Any more questions from the Board? Okay. We're done with the questions, but we
need to refer this -- in Section 441 . 3, we need to refer this to the County Planning Board , the Site Plan .
F. Casullo: You make a motion to do that.
M. Carey: Okay,
G. Van Slyke: I 'll make the motion that we send this referral of the Site Plan to the County Planning
Board.
Page 11 of 14
Town of Groton Planning Board Minutes/Transcript December 17, 1998
S. Clark: I'll second it.
M. Carey: All in favor? (All members present indicated aye ; no nays were received. )
S. Chatfield: Can I add one other thing just for clarity? There was a second sign also that's a one
foot by eight foot I'm told, up over the door, near the door, that's also a wooden painted sign and it is
our intention that sign would likewise remain as is but for repainting to represent a new name.
M. Carey: And will it have any lights?
S. Chatfield: I'm told no , just whatever light is there from the lights on the porch .
M. Carey: Okay.
F. Casullo: Does the Board have any more questions they wish to ask Mr. Chatfield or his
clients?
M. Carey: No .
S. Chatfield: I don't think so . Your counsel and I were talking about the process. No, at this point
I have , I guess, without expressing any opinion as to the provability of this plan in terms at least of its
technical content that we have addressed the issues that you have asked us to address. I assume
these submittals are acceptable .
M. Carey: Yes, I think everything is pretty much in order.
F. Casullo: I think what we need to do now, what the Board needs to do now, is you need to
comply with the last sentence of Section 441 . 5 where it talks about action on the Preliminary Site
Plan. It says the Planning Board's action shall be in the form of a written statement to the applicant
stating whether or not the Preliminary Site Plan is approved, disapproved, or approved with
modifications . Obviously, with all the information you now have , you're going to have to sit down in a
work-type setting so that you can provide the applicants with that written statement. So I think what
you need to do is sometime--obviously with the holidays I'm sure the next couple weeks are going to be
a little hectic-- so whatever you want to do , but sometime in the relatively near future--I think you can
discuss amongst yourselves--set up a work meeting to put together your written statement. It can be
open to the public, open to Mr. Chatfield and his clients as well, just no one is going to be allowed to
speak. It can be open and then what will happen is that you will send your written statement to Mr.
Chatfield indicating whatever you want to do with the Site Plan , and then Mr. Chatfield will submit the
final Site Plan and we'll follow 441 . 6 and the accompanying sections of that. But I think the first thing
you need to do is to set up when you want to have your work discussion.
M. Carey: Has everybody -- on January 7th at 7: 30 -- would that be a good date for everybody?
It's the first Thursday of January.
F. Casullo: All you guys going to be back in town? (Everyone responded affirmatively.) Mr. Twigg
might even be back.
M. Carey: Everybody should be here.
G. Van Slyke: We should have our other member.
F. Casullo: 7:309
M. Carey: 7:30.
F. Casullo: Where are you going to hold it?
M. Carey: In this building. Right here .
Page 12 of 14
Town of Groton Planning Board Minutes/Transcript December 17, 1998
F. Casullo: And then at that time you will put together something and shortly thereafter,
hopefully forward Mr. Chatfield with a written statement --
M. Carey: Yes.
F. Casullo: And I assume, Mr. Chatfield , you will have and submit the final Site Plan . Once you
get the statement, or . . . statement, depends on how the statement goes, whether it's approved or
approved with conditions, put together a final Site Plan.
M. Carey: Is that agreeable to you , Mr. Chatfield?
S. Chatfield: Yes, I'm just running through some things in my head here . Your regularly scheduled
meeting in January is the third Thursday?
M. Carey: It will be the 21st.
S. Chatfield: And you normally hold it at 8 o'clock?
M. Carey Yes.
S. Chatfield: I recollect, if memory serves correctly, the minimum publication time for a Public
Hearing Notice is ten days. Do you use a weekly or a daily paper?
M. Carey: A weekly.
S. Chatfield: Weekly. So a determination on the 7th would make a Public Hearing on the 21st
difficult if not impossible to deal with simply because of the legal time necessary for advertising.
M. Carey: Right,
S. Chatfield: Assuming that, just for the sake of discussion, if it takes us a week or whatever to
address the issues identified in your 1 /7/ 99 meeting, when would you anticipate a Public Hearing?
F. Casullo: I'll help you with that. We've tried to move this process along. I would say if you can't
do it in January, I'm assuming it's going to be either February or, on the very outside , March as we have
to do it if you get it into us by the end of January, I'm assuming if it comes back approved or approved
with modifications, and you get it back to us the end of January , we've got to have it heard by March
anyway, by law. Do you see what I'm saying?
S. Chatfield: I understand .
F. Casullo: So that would mean at the outside . But I would think if we could do it in February
we'd certainly try to do it in February. I just don't want to have them pinned down . They're going to do
it as soon as practically possible. And as I told you earlier, I think March is the outside date , but if we
can do it in February, we'll try to do it in February .
S. Chatfield: You call for five days' notification and I was noticing under subparagraph 441 .4k the
applicant has to be notified ten days, but the newspaper's five days. Just mentioned that
parenthetically because I saw the answer. Your question , Madam Chairwoman , is that okay with me.
And , obviously, it's not up to me, it's up to the Board . We will certainly endeavor to comply and we
appreciate your scheduling a special meeting to consider this. I have some concerns I've expressed to
your counsel as to this Ordinance's -- at least the procedures for Site Plan Approval - - is somewhat
confusing in some areas, and I may have some minor differences in interpretation. But, as the general
process, we anticipate that we will be at least into January before we have a Public Hearing and . . . so
under that, given those issues, I have no objection to the time and certainly I can be here on the 7th .
M. Carey: Okay,
Page 13 of 14
Town of Groton Planning Board Minutes/Transcript December 17, 1998
S. Chatfield: The only time I intend to be out of town is from February 1 st to February 14th and if I
don't go with my wife down to the Caribbean, our 31 -year marriage may be in ,jeopardy. That's my only
extended time - - -
G. Van Slyke: We would be very glad to accompany you there to do this meeting if you would .
S. Chatfield: Maybe we'll work something out.
G. Van Slyke: Okay.
F. Casullo: I think you want to just make it clear and maybe set by motion or whatever you want
that January 7th at 7: 30 is going be a work meeting the public can attend , but they cannot speak,
right here .
G. Van Slyke : I'll make that motion.
V. Rankin: 111 second it.
M. Carey: All in favor? (All members present indicated aye ; no nays were received. ) Passed.
F. Casullo: Do you have anything else you want to discuss?
M. Carey: No . Any other business to come before the Board?
S. Clark: I make a motion we adjourn.
M. Carey: Do I hear a second?
V. Rankin: I'll second it.
M. Carey: All in favor? (All members present indicated aye .) Passed .
The meeting was adjourned at 9 :07 p .m.
Respectfully submitted ,
oan E. Fitch
Recording Secretary
Page 14 of 14