Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-02-17 TOWN OF GROTON PLANNING BOARD Minutes/Transcript of Regular Meeting - Thursday, 17 February 2000 - 7 : 30 PM Members, Groton Planning Board (*Absent) Others Present *George Totman, Chairman Joan Fitch , Recording Secretary Monica Carey Mark Gunn, Town CEO George Van Slyke Tyke Randall, Town Councilman Van Travis Ellard Sovocool, Town Councilman Barbara Clark April Scheffler Brenda Talbot The meeting was called to order at 7*30 p.m. by Vice Chairman Van Travis. V. Travis: Okay, I'm Van Travis and I'm the Vice Chair of the Planning Board . George Totman had to tend to his day job tonight and so will not be here. But we have everybody else on the Board here, and so I will call the meeting to order. You have your Agenda with you . Let me just review that . Approval of the Minutes of the January meeting is item number one . Item number two , general meeting and discussions; there are several things that I would like to do under that general heading. One , I would like to review just a few items here in the packet of materials very briefly. The second thing that I would like to do tonight, which we were supposed to do last month but didn't, and that is go around the table, we that are on the Board, and introduce ourselves to each other. I don't know most of you . I don't think most of you know me . And when we get to that part, I'll lead off just to give you an idea of how brief I want it to be and generally what it is. But nothing's worse than sitting on a Board and two year's later I still don't know who George Van Slyke is. And so that gives you an idea of where it is that I'm coming from. I know a little bit more about Monica because my wife knows the Carey family, of them, and so I do know a little more about her. The second item that I want to do is talk a little bit about what a Planning Board is and what it is not . And the third item that I want to mention is the matter of County Law No . 1 of the year 2000 which relates to the height of detached accessory buildings and structures, a hearing for which is coming up on March 14th and you have materials in the packet that relate to that. The third item of business is any other business that may come before the Board . And at this point I would ask not only the Board members, but you , Mark, Tyke , or Louie if you have any items that you would like added to the Agenda. Yes, Mark, you would? M. Gunn: Yes, I have a couple . V. Travis: Okay, Louie? E. Sovocool: No. V. Travis: Any other? Selection of Chair/Vice-Chair for 2000 J. Fitch: Did the Board ever approve the Vice Chair`? I do not have that in the Minutes for January. V. Travis: Not this year. I was appointed last year, and I guess you serve until you are -- also, we didn't appoint George as Chairman . But you're correct. The only item we handled last month was time of meeting. M. Carey. I'll make a motion then that Van be our Vice Chair and that George be our Chairman of the Planning Board , Page 1 of 19 l T (T) Groton Planning Board Minutes/Transcript of Regular Meeting 17 February 2000 V. Travis: Is there a second? B. Clark: I'll second the motion . V. Travis: Is there any discussion, or are there any other nominations? All those in favor of Monica's motion? (All Board members present indicated in the affirmative.) Carried . V. Travis : Okay, Mark, you're item—what is the general subject of it? M. Gunn: A boundary change that we had done, that you had done here, on the 21st of October for Randall Todd , and a question to the Planning Board on a possible boundary change for Gordon VanBenschoten. Approval of Minutes = January Meeting V. Travis: Okay. We'll start with Item # 1 on the Agenda, approval of the Minutes of the January meeting. I have looked through them and they appear to be in order. Have the rest of you looked at them also? Are there any changes? M. Carey: I'll make the motion that we approve the January Minutes as submitted . V. Travis: We have a motion . Is there a second? B. Talbot: I second. V. Travis: Without exception, the Minutes of the January meeting are approved . J. Fitch: Do you do the ones for the February 1st Public Hearing also? V. Travis: I am not going to do those . I have not had time to read them and I don't want to take the time. They are in our packet, and so I'm going to hold them over until the next meeting. GENERAL MEETING & DISCUSSIONS V. Travis: You received a packet of materials. A. Scheffler: Some of that's Town Board Minutes and stuff. V. Travis: Your materials may not be in the same order as mine because I may have shuffled them and there's no particular reason for the order that these are in. You have a letter in your packet from Elizabeth Munson from McLean that we have put in here just for your information, essentially expressing her appreciation for our good work in the Sirens campaign and the pleasure of a new business coming into McLean in the Elm Tree Inn . You have the Minutes from the Public Hearing and the subsequent Special Meeting that occurred on February 1st regarding the application of Charles and Nancy Peacock for the Elm Tree Inn. As I just stated, we'll hold that over and vote approval on it at the March meeting when you have had an opportunity to read it and determine if it is accurate or needs amending. There's an item in your packet announcing the STBOA, an abbreviation which is spelled out at the top of the page, in Oneonta on March the 8th starting at noon in which the topic is Planning Board Basics, presented by the Office of Local Government, and so forth . As Planning Board members, each of us is required to participate in at least one professional development educational event each year. This Page 2 of 19 (T) Groton Planning Board Minutes/Transcript of Regular Meeting 17 February 2000 would qualify for that. For those of you who are new, I would think that this would be an excellent thing to participate in, and the details are there . This kind of topic is also presented at the New York City meetings which are next week. I have attended those in the past, but am not this year. But especially for new Board members, that would be an excellent opportunity for you to get some basic knowledge about Planning Boards. There is a letter in the packet to James Henry, Attorney at Law, who represented Clover Babel and Stacey Binkerd, and essentially lays out to them that they need to appear at the Town Clerks Office no later than February the 21st in order to have the decision that was made on June 17th regarding their flag lot application be valid . M. Carey: Have we heard anything back? A. Scheffler: No. Unless George has and he didn't indicate -- V. Travis: Not to me, he did not. Also included in the packet is the proposal for Local Law # 1 of the year 2000 which relates to the height of accessory -- detached accessory buildings and structures, which you heard me mention in my listing of items that I wanted to mention . As it says on Colleen's memo, the Hearing with regard to that law will occur on March the 14th which is the regular meeting night, I believe, of the Town Board. So that is that. Discussion - Availability of Town Board Minutes V. Travis: You will recall that last month it was agreed that we would receive , monthly, copies of the Town Board Minutes, and these are for the January meeting, keeping in mind that there is a meeting that has occurred since then, but I'm assuming time has not elapsed to have that transcribed and in form to give to us. But that is for your to take home and review at your leisure with regard to what is going on in the Town Board. Are there any questions or items of discussion with respect to materials in the packet? J. Fitch: April, are you or Colleen going to want me at that Public Hearing or not? A. Scheffler: I don't know, you'd have to check with her. J. Fitch: I'm not available that night; I've got a Public Hearing someplace else. I just wanted you to know that I was not available that date . A. Scheffler: Thank you; I'll make a note. As far as the February Minutes for the Town Board, they'll probably done sometime next week if anybody wants to stop in and pick them up or anything. V. Travis: Okay, they are available for that. Our agreement was that they would be sent along either as this, or with the next meeting announcement. A. Scheffler: Well, Colleen felt that since Glenn is requiring the Town Board to come in and pick them up , she didn't feel that we should be sending them -- V. Travis: Fine, A. Scheffler: As long as you have a monthly meeting, too, and we can drop them off here -- V. Travis: And if we have a Special Meeting, as you said, they are available and we can stop by. When did you say they'd be available? A. Scheffler: Sometime next week. V. Travis: Yes, okay. Page 3 of 19 (T) Groton Planning Board Minutes/Transcript of Regular Meeting 17 February 2000 A. Scheffler: Unless we get into something in the office. M. Carey: What kind of hours can we pick them up at? Pretty tough when you work from 7:30 to 4 : 30. A. Scheffler. Yes. M. Carey: Are you open Saturdays? A. Scheffler: No. M. Carey: Can I request that mine get mailed, because I do work every day? A. Scheffler. You can ask Colleen . M. Carey: Because, otherwise , you're not open hours that I'm available -- either before 7: 30 or 7 o'clock or after 5 o'clock. V. Travis: Anything else with respect to materials in the packet? Workshop/Seminar Reimbursement B. Clark: On this STBOA Quarterly Meeting—the $ 15 registration. Is that reimbursable? M. Carey: Yes. V. Travis: I believe it is. When we go to New York City, we get $500 to go there, so I would think that $ 15 would be . A. Scheffler. I think it is . E. Sovocool: Just get a voucher and send it in to Colleen. V. Travis: The answer is yes. Yes, if some of you are going, it would be good to carpool . I will not be going to it. Introduction of Planning Board Members V. Travis: As I mentioned earlier, I would just like to go around the table and kind of introduce ourselves to each other, because there are a number of you that I don't know. And I suspect there's a number of you who don't know me, along with others here . And my experience is, and I've actually been a professional board member that has earned my living by sitting on boards, and it's amazing how boards can meet for years and years and years and serve six-year terms and still the people don't have the foggiest notion of, other than by name, who the other people are. So I'll start off and we can go around the table and do that. Van Travis. Live in McLean. Am retired from Cornell University and presently, with my wife, operate Patchwork & Pies in McLean. And even though retired, I work part- time at Cornell still. And so that's essentially where I'm from and what I do . George, do you want to go next? G. Van Slyke: I guess. I 'm George Van Slyke. We live in Groton City, on the border, and I'm retired also -- from Cortland High School . I don't know how long we've been on this Board, but I've been here awhile . M. Carey: How many years? Page 4 of 19 (T) Groton Planning Board Minutes/Transcript of Regular Meeting 17 February 2000 G. Van Slyke : I didn't know it was a life sentence. I do do some part-time teaching; I tutor machine trades at BOCES during the school year -- the math part of it -- so I keep my finger in the pie there . My wife and I have been active in St. Anthony's Church and so we've been around here for awhile and know a little bit about the area. V. Travis: I've been on the Board two years. Just two years. G. Van Slyke: I don't even know how long I've been on . V. Travis: Well, it's not really a life sentence . I've got a certificate here that says I'm history in -- well, first of all, I filled an unexpired term and that term ends the end of 2001 . Monica? M. Carey: I'm Monica Carey. I've lived in Groton all my life . I work at Dairy One down in Ithaca, and I work on the farm nights and every weekend, and every other weekend I milk on the farm. I've been on several boards, a lot of agricultural-related boards. And, like George said , this is our lifetime Board . Other than that, not too much . V. Travis: Barbara? B. Clark: I'm Barbara Clark. I live on Old Stage Road and this is my first year on the Board . I retired four years ago from Cornell University and have been active in St. Anthony's Church, presently as a youth minister, and I also drive school bus full-time in Groton . V. Travis: Brenda? B. Talbot: I'm Brenda Talbot and I've lived in Groton all my life. Dairy farmer. First year on the Board and it's going to be interesting, I'm sure. V. Travis: April? A. Scheffler: April Schefller. I used to be a farmer; we sold our farm last year. We live on Clark Street Extension now, and as far as my day job, I don't know if you all know what I do, but I'm Deputy Town Clerk. Probably two-thirds of my work is for Colleen, and about a third for Mark in the zoning, and I do all these little folders that come to you guys -- the mailings, and the maps, and all that kind of stuff, so I kind of work for everybody in my job. V. Travis: We have a heavy leaning towards dairy farming I want you to know. Although I didn't say it, I was a County agricultural agent for 15 years of my tenure with Cornell, and dairy farm business management was my specialty. So I've milked a few cows in my day and done all the other attended duties, as they say. Well , that's very helpful and thank you very much. Discussion - Planning Board Purpose , Etc. V. Travis: I wanted to just briefly touch upon what a Planning Board is because I think at our Hearing on February the 1st, it became clear that there were inquiries into areas that really were not within our jurisdiction or domain. I'm going to be very, very brief about this because you will have opportunity at the events like the one we just discussed coming up in Oneonta, where it will be done by professionals in a very comprehensive sort of a way with appropriate handouts and materials and that sort of thing. But a Planning Board is really about the business of land use. And that is really the limits of our jurisdiction . It gets at the question of how shall this land be used? And then, with regard to the zoning ordinance or, as it's called, Land Use & Development Code, we then make decisions primarily to Site Plan Review of people who come and ask permission of us to do a particular activity on that particular piece of land. Now that is not all of the jurisdiction that the Town Board has. There are other issues associated with what goes on on that land that falls outside of our jurisdiction . And those are things such as life safety issues. Operating a business as I do -- Mark, I don't even know what the interval is. Is it every two years that you visit a business? I know that you visited me last year, but is that -- Page 5 of 19 (T) Groton Planning Board Minutes/Transcript of Regular Meeting 17 February 2000 M. Gunn: It depends on the business. V. Travis: But, periodically, it is Mark's job to come around and see whether or not I have adequate exits, exits marked . We're talking about fire safety; those sorts of things that are covered in other codes outside of this Code that governs us. And so, just to use the Elm Tree Inn as an example , if the issue was whether or not the Elm Tree Inn building has a properly operating and functional boiler, and has adequate restrooms to handle to employees and the customers, and whether or not there are sufficient fire exits and all that sort of thing, this Planning Board has nothing to do with that. And so it would be possible that someone would stand up at the Hearing and say, you know, the place is a darn fire trap . And , on top of that, the roof is going to cave in, and it's going to collapse, and we don't think it should be occupied . That just is not in our jurisdiction . Mark tends to that business separately and distinct from us. And then to essentially finish what I have to say, the best synopsis of what it is that we as a Planning Board are about is on page 74 and 75 of the Code . And it is the list of questions that we went through at the Hearing and , as you will recall, answered yes or no as to whether or not we were knowledgeable about those facts. The only thing that I would note is that we did go through that in a rather rapid fashion that night; but you have to understand that between George Totman and Monica and me, we had been over that - - yes, George has been through it but was not at the Hearing -- but the reason we responded so rapidly, we had been over that whole property with a fine-tooth comb to the point that we were sick of it, but we really did intimately know that property; and, therefore, with this applicant, we didn't have to engage in a lot of discussion and / or a lot of investigation in order to answer those questions. That's why it was as rapid as it was. But we're about land use . And if you read the Code, and I would really recommend that you do it, if you're like me and don't have a photographic memory, you won't remember it all. But nevertheless, it will give you a good orientation to what it is that we are about. Are there any questions? Or. George or Monica, do you have anything that you'd add to what I've said so far. M. Carey: No, but I bring my book along at every meeting because there's always something we have to look up. It's an intense document that you get questions on and you need to look them up and see what the Code says for the situation at hand . V. Travis: One of the things that I try to do is when I get the notice of the meeting, and there is an application for Site Plan Review, I try, if at all possible, to drive to the site . I can tell you that I do not get out of my car, and I do not start walking over the property. I'm not that anxious to be shot. M. Carey: You wouldn't walk onto the property? V. Travis: I surely wouldn't do it without having -- if I saw the owner there, felt compelled to do it, I just like to see where it is and so that when they start talking about well, the road tips this way and it runs this way and there's a stream here and all that, when we sit here and talk with the applicants, then we -- I have some knowledge of what it is that it's all about. We had one piece of property, just by example, that was going to be subdivided . Well , the fact of the matter is that probably 90% of it was underwater. And I don't mean a lake , but really low-lying land , and you could just tell by the vegetation, and so it gave you an understanding of what was actually possible there and the kind of questions that you ought to be asking, and when we do that environmental review of the property, you then have some idea of it. So I usually try to just go out and eyeball it from the road and let it go at that. The other thing is that in your Code book, that map that is on the wall right there is in there and that's a very helpful map. It's color-coded as to the various zoning districts, which means that once you know where the property is located, you then can look it up and see which zoning district it's in and then you can read what kind of Land Use Regulations apply to that property and , therefore , you're better prepared when you get in here and discuss with the applicant what it is that they are going to do, and what it is that is permissible . So that when we have an Elm Tree Inn coming in, and it's in an M- 1 District, we know that an eating and drinking establishment is permissible in there, and that's the end of that discussion in terms of whether or not that's a permissible use there. And so -- and that's really the first thing. If it's not a permissible use there, then Site Plan Review becomes a moot point at that juncture. They either have to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals and seek a variance, or give up their project, or whatever. The other thing that occurs here, and some of that sort of thing is indicated in this letter on the Babel case that we mentioned was in our packet. The fact Page 6 of 19 (T) Groton Planning Board Minutes/Transcript of Regular Meeting 17 February 2000 that we give Site Plan Review does not mean that the thing is going to happen . We have no guarantee that the Peacocks, for example, will in fact carry through . At the point that they were here, they had not even purchased the property . And as this indicates, and I can't quote it from memory, but there is a time limitation . Is it 180 days, is that right, in which our decision is still valid?; if they then have not fulfilled the requirements of that Site Plan Review, they then need to reapply. And we have a number of them out. We probably have what, April , three or four items of Site Plan Review that we have done over the past year that have not been followed through with . A. Scheffler: Yes, V. Travis: And often they are a decision to go into business and the individuals are coming to us very early on, which is wise on their part, but as they get further into it and begin to investigate the other aspects which we really have no jurisdiction over -- capital investment, Health Department requirements -- that's another jurisdiction that they have to comply with . A. Scheffler: Is there a time limit on that Site Plan Review thing, too , if somebody doesn't actually start that business within a certain amount of time , or no? V. Travis: Well, it's in the book. I thought that that's what we were referring to - - I think there is. A. Scheffler: I know for the subdivision , but I don't know about the Site Plan , M. Carey: I was going to say it's either six months or a year. V. Travis: The answer is yes, but I don't know exactly what it is without looking it up. Other items with regard to Planning Boards? Were you going to say something, Monica? M. Carey: No, I just wanted to discuss something. V. Travis: Okay. That you want added to the Agenda? M. Carey: No. I would just like to have - - we've got two Town Board members here -- and we've got this amendment to the Local Land Law for the accessory building height, and I'd just like to ask them how they came to their conclusion? V. Travis: That's the next item on the Agenda. M. Carey: Okay, I'm sorry. I didn't hear you say it. V. Travis: Is there anything else with respect to Planning Board duties and activities that anyone would like to say? Discussion of Groton Law # 1 -2000 - Regulation of Height of Detached Accessory Buildings and Structures V. Travis: The next item on the Agenda is Groton Law # 1 of 2000, regulation of height of detached accessory buildings and structures. Let me just introduce the topic and then turn to you, Monica, but at its February meeting, the Town Board voted in the law which you see there, subject to a Public Hearing which will occur on March the 14th, which is a Tuesday night, which is the regular meeting night of the Town Board. And then , following that, they will proceed from there . Their recommendation as it is before you, is that the maximum building height be 20 feet. One of the things that I did yesterday, knowing that I was going to chair this meeting, is read through everything that I had and, therefore, we had -- we being those who have been on the Board prior to January 1st regarding this. And I guess that I would just -- for those of you who are new -- let me just give you a chronological, very brief summary of what has transpired with this so that you have an idea of how this thing has proceeded . Page 7 of 19 (T) Groton Planning Board Minutes/Transcript of Regular Meeting 17 February 2000 On October the 1st, Lyle Raymond , who is the Chair of the Zoning Board of Appeals -- does everyone know what a Zoning Board of Appeals is? That is where you go as opposed to coming here if you want to do something that is contrary to what is in this Code that we were just talking about. I want to build a garage, but my lot is such that I cannot build a garage and meet the set aside from the boundaries or from the street, or whatever. Therefore , I go and I plead my case before the Zoning Board of Appeals, and they either grant me a variance, or they don't. If they don't, I don't build my garage. That's a very simple kind of an example . On October 1st, Lyle Raymond, the Chair of the Zoning Board of Appeals wrote to Teresa Robinson and George Totman regarding the fact that they had received several requests for variances regarding the height of accessory buildings within the Town, and that they were under the opinion that the 12 -foot height that is the present limitation was not practical given existing conditions, and they use , for example, modern sports utility vehicles, vans, and the like. And that they essentially requested a review of that, implying that some modification of that might be in order. At the October 21st meeting of this Board, the Planning Board discussed that and drafted a resolution that was then presented to the Town Board . And keep in mind that it is the Town Board that does make the decision with regard to that. We are advisory to the Town Board . We do not make the laws . They do . And that resolution essentially said -- resolved that the distinction between primary and accessory buildings be removed from the Groton Land Use & Development Code, and that the maximum height for all buildings and structures be established at a maximum of 35 feet/ 10. 5 meters, which is the height that is permissible for a primary structure on a property. On November the 9th , Mark Gunn made a presentation to the Town Board with regard to the issue and, essentially, his point was that he did not agree with that. He did not feel it was appropriate to do as we suggested, which was to remove any distinction between primary and accessory buildings -- and that for accessory buildings to be 35 feet in height was too high . The Board , at the suggestion of Councilman Palmer, suggested that Mr. Gunn and the Planning Board get together and discuss the matter, which was done on November the 18th , in which Mark was here and a full and extensive discussion of the issue occurred at that time. And I think it's fair to say that we did not agree at that time; however, the Planning Board did reaffirm its resolution as sent forth in October, and advised the Town Board to that effect. On January the 26th of this year, the Zoning Board of Appeals proposed to the Town Board a number of additions and deletions to the Land Use & Development Code, most of which have nothing to do with this height issue . They did, with regard to the definition of height, suggest that it was reasonable that this Code ought to have different provisions for height in different zoning districts, but they made no recommendation with respect to what it is that they would recommend in that regard . And they made a recommendation with regard to adding a definition in the Code for residential detached garage which is not a definition that presently exists. They made another recommendation to changing -- and I mentioned this -- change accessory structure heights in various zones, implying that in a Residential District it might be appropriate to have a different height limitation than, let's say, in the Rural Agricultural District. And then, on - - whenever the Town Board met in February -- A. Scheffler: The 8th , V. Travis: On the 8th -- you then have what you have in your packet which is Local Law # 1 which is different which essentially recommends a maximum building height of 20 feet in each of the affected districts. That's why you see, basically, the same thing repeated three or four times in here as it applies to each zoning district. And so that is a history of it. I think it is fair to say that the Planning Board recommended something that was different. The Town Board, after a presentation from Mark, again at this meeting, chose to propose this as the local law. And people will have a chance on March the 14th to insert their opinions with regard to it, and I would encourage anyone who feels that way to do so. If you are going to be away, as I am, it is possible to submit, in writing, your opinions, and they will count fully as much as if you were there in person and had done it by spoken word. Monica, you would like to ask a question? Page 8 of 19 (T) Groton Planning Board Minutes/Transcript of Regular Meeting 17 February 2000 M. Carey: I simply would like to hear from the Town Board how they came up with a 20-foot height structure. E. Sovocool: Well, we discussed it for quite awhile . We felt the 35 feet was too much for . . . and we looked at, well , some people looked at other zoning laws around the area and they were 20 feet, and several of them had 20 feet which seemed like a compromise to the whole thing, so they went with that. Tyke? He's more vocal than I am. T. Randall: The 20 feet was a compromise in a way because I was pushing more for sidewall height because I've been a contractor in the area for twenty some years and that's how it was interpreted the whole time that zoning was in existence -- is a 12-foot sidewall which basically contractors, homeowners, everybody understood it. Well , then we found that it was written wrong and I felt really strongly about if it's an accessory structure, that it needs to be smaller than the primary structure, and that if the height is the same it becomes -- it can become bigger than a primary structure . And you change all the definitions if you're going to do that. April and I and Mark got together and we did some research over the Internet to find out what surrounding towns in New York State did. The general consensus was 15 to 20 feet for an accessory building, so that's where most of that came from. It wasn't something that popped out of the blue . V. Travis: Tyke , was that to the peak of the roof as defined in our Code , or -- T. Randall: Yes. V. Travis: was that side wall? T. Randall: No, that was finished grade to the peak of the roof, which allows, with a 4: 12 pitch -- you can get a 14-foot sidewall which is going to take care of most mobile homes . I thought it was a little vague from a contractor's standpoint -- it was easier for me to see it as a sidewall height, but M. Carey: I think that's how everybody interpreted it over the years -- the sidewall height. V. Travis: Well, but that's not the definition that's in our Code . M. Carey: No. V. Travis: And our Code, with respect to how you measure a pitched roof, is not even necessarily consistent with what other codes have . I think George Totman brought this piece in when we had one of our discussions in which many talk about, on a pitched roof as opposed to a flat or a mansard, that it's to the average mid-point of the pitch -- all of which is -- and obviously, if you're clear on the definition then it doesn't really make much difference if you apply it, but all of which is to say there are a number of different definitions of how you measure height. A. Scheffler: The other codes we looked at had that type of definition . V. Travis: To the mid-point of a pitched or gambrel roof? A. Scheffler: Yes. M. Carey: Well in this should we say detached accessory building or structure, 20 feet? Should we say the peak? Should we be more defined on how we're saying this so we don't run into this problem again? V. Travis: Well, the definition on this is pretty clear on that, Monica. If you look on page 8 of your Code , height is defined as to the peak here in Groton. Am I correct, George - - is it page 8 or am I -- G. Van Slyke: Yes, Page 9 of 19 (T) Groton Planning Board Minutes/Transcript of Regular Meeting 17 February 2000 V. Travis: It is. It's the highest point of a pitched roof -- and then somewhere -- and don't ask me to point to it right away -- but it exempts cupolas, weather vanes, TV antennas, and chimneys. M. Carey: Belfries. V. Travis: Belfries, church spires, and the like . That is right. And I guess one of the things that I recall us discussing when we discussed it here in the Planning Board was, that this provision applies to detached buildings. And, therefore , all I really have to do is construct a breezeway from my house to my accessory building and, bingo, I've got 35 feet for a garage. Or, if it's truly attached , that is, built right on -- you know -- you walk from the garage into the mudroom into the family room into the kitchen, wherever it is, I've got 35 feet and I can park my yacht with flying bridges and everything in there; whereas the guy next door whose garage is detached, for whatever reason, is prohibited from doing that. And I'm aware of some of the discussion about bringing in a trucking business ; in order to do that in an accessory building, that person has to come for Site Plan Review. And if it's not an approved us in that district, the answer is no , you don't. The other thing that I -- the question that I have is, there were a lot of questions raised as we, and you, Mark, talked back and forth which were Life Safety issues. And you've been very clear about that and I think we fully understand that, but I could then argue just as strongly that we ought to ban having basements under houses because there are all kinds of illegal activities that occur in the basements of houses, and a real Life Safety issue , and you know that this exists in 50% of all the houses in America that have basements. Everyone goes down there and builds their teenage kid a bedroom, and it's next to the furnace . The windows in the basement are not large enough to ever crawl out of. There's not a dual exit from that basement, and there's all of the same kinds of Life Safety issues associated with that, so why not let's go around and ban basements in all houses in the Town of Groton? I think the logic just follows naturally with regard to the Life Safety issues that were presented to you as an argument for this kind of a law. The other question that I have , and I have not talked to Lyle Raymond , and I don't know what he thinks of this proposal, but I would think that he ought to think something and he ought to come to the Hearing and express it. All of this was in response to their concern for the types of requests for variances that they were receiving. At the time of the October 1st letter, there were two in number, admittedly. They say they expected that more were coming; I don't know whether that's been the case, and I don't know whether that will be the case , and some of you may know more about that than I do . But the rationale that has been put forth that, well, if people need a larger building in order to accommodate a larger vehicle , then they can come and request a variance . That is not necessarily true . A variance has to be granted on the basis of a real hardship. And I think George Totman made a very valid point at, perhaps, the November meeting when he said that Zoning Boards of Appeals do not have the authority to change the Code just because someone asks them to. And so I think that -- in fact, I know of a case that I was personally involved in, where a Zoning Board of Appeals made a ruling, in this particular case in the placement of a restaurant in a residential area which was not an approved use, but they said , oh well, this guy ought to be able to have his restaurant there , sued, took it to the State Supreme Court and had it overturned on the basis that the Zoning Board of Appeals had exceeded their authority in that regard to enact that. And so my point is, is that the ZBA one , does not have unlimited authority to grant variances, at least not until they get caught and someone challenges them on it and, if they are prudent they will probably act in a way that they don't get caught which means deny the request. So that is not a valid argument for having a more restrictive measure. And the other thing is that I have not seen their input into the whole discussion as to what they feel it is that would alleviate this stream of requests for variances that they are receiving, and I would hope that at the Hearing, which is their business obviously and I can't testify for them, nor can anyone else, that they would give their opinion regarding the law itself and whether or not it seems to be adequate . The other thing that I guess I would say is, it's no big deal to change the definition of what height is. And we , as a Board, never really got into that discussion that I remember as to whether or not -- I mean, it's in there Mark that you talked about how you had been interpreting it as wall height, but that's obviously a wrong interpretation, given the very simple wording of the definition of height. If people are thinking of 20-foot wall height as opposed to 20-foot top of the pitch , then we ought to be clear about that. And it's no more difficult to amend this particular law to change to a definition that people are more comfortable with than it is to do the change that is presently being proposed . G. Van Slyke : I got one question to ask the Board members and guests at this point . Did you ever take into consideration when you look at the height, the difference in the zoning areas? For instance , Page 10 of 19 (T) Groton Planning Board Minutes/Transcript of Regular Meeting 17 February 2000 Agricultural. If you're in an Agricultural zone, I don't think it would make as much difference to restrict how high they can build their accessory building. And it seems like this is going to be true of all areas. And I would assume, as I look at this thing, that I would probably think that this would be like a zone , an intense zone where you had an intensity of residential houses, for example - - the village of McLean , maybe the West Groton area and certain areas where you have intensity of land use where they are really close together. That's where you would want this kind of restriction . I don't really think you want this kind of restriction if you're in a Rural Agricultural District, or even, let's say - - M. Gunn: Why not? G. Van Slyke : in an Industrial. E. Sovocool: The farm has no bearing on this. M. Carey: Say I want to buy a tractor to plow my driveway out every winter. Where am I going to store the tractor? I can't store it in the garage I got right now. M. Gunn: Let me tell you that, with this in mind , as a contractor that I use to be myself for ten years, with this 20-foot to the peak, if you put a 30-foot wide garage in, put a 4: 12 pitch scissor truss, you can put a 16-foot overhead door up. A tractor trailer will fit in a 16-foot overhead door. V. Travis: Yes it will. M. Carey: My tractor with a cab will fit in there fine then? M. Gunn: You don't own a tractor in your farm that's over 16 foot. It was a fair compromise and it's all in how you build it. And the interpretation is right. The definition is correct the way it's in there . The people were getting confused because that's the way that I and former Code Enforcement Officers were telling the people that it was to a sidewall height. Now when people come in for a garage permit from me, then I say submit your plans. Along with the plans comes a truss spec and I have to look at this truss spec which tells me exactly the height, the pitch, from bottom chord to top of peak, and I can say this is how high your sidewall has to be with this wide a garage with this type of truss. V. Travis: I don't know anything about -- well, I don't say I don' t know anything - - what is the recommended pitch, though , for a roof in this area given snow loading? Obviously, the flatter they are, the more -- M. Gunn: Right -- the standard - - usually what I get is a standard 4: 12 pitch truss with a weight-rated bottom chord on it. M. Carey: Is that what you use to build, Tyke? T. Randall: Yes. There's different zones, so you could take a 4: 12 pitch and you could go up to 40, which is a real heavy snow load. M. Gunn: And even with this 20-foot peak, even with the bottom chord -- now I had said a scissor truss. I don't know if anybody's familiar with a scissor truss. A scissor truss is what you would put if you wanted a cathedral ceiling, with nothing hanging down for a low-hanging ceiling at the top of your wall. A scissor truss is exactly what it sounds like. It looks just like a pair of scissors. It's shaped just like this. There's no bottom chord. It's a web all the way up to the bottom so you have a complete open ceiling all the way up . If you didn't have that, and you had a standard truss, even with a 20-foot peak, 30-foot wide garage, you still can put a 15-foot tall wall up . And that is way more than we have in this Town right now; that's more than what we've had in the last 20 years. We don't have any 15-foot sidewalls in this Town. V. Travis: We did that calculation at one of our meetings -- a 4: 12 truss, 30 feet, rises from the bottom chord up five feet to the peak. Page 11 of 19 (T) Groton Planning Board Minutes/Transcript of Regular Meeting 17 February 2000 M. Gunn: Right. Which allows you 15 feet for a sidewall height. And that will still accommodate any tractor you want to put in it. That's where it comes from and that's how it was brought about. We used the model of this garage out here that the Town has that they put their trucks and stuff in, and that's 26 foot to the peak. The folks on the Planning Board have looked at this garage out here, and it's massive. It is a massive structure , and they can put snowplows in it, many snowplows . M. Carey: I want to go back to something Van said . So you go with this 20 foot. Van said if I put on a breezeway, then I can put a 35-foot garage on . M. Gunn: Not true . Just because -- if you have a house -- M. Carey: But where does it say anyplace in the Code that we couldn't do something like that? M. Gunn: Just because it's got a breezeway still makes it a secondary structure . You're not living in the garage . M. Carey: But with a breezeway it becomes an attached structure. M. Gunn: But it's secondary. It's secondary to the use. M. Carey: But where does it say in the Code that I couldn't go with a 35-foot? M. Gunn: It's being written there right now. Just because somebody has a 20-foot garage now, and there house is, say, six feet away, if they decide they want to put a breezeway or whatever, or attach it, or just bring the house up to it, they will not be able to build that garage 35 feet. M. Carey: I've got a garage now. Say I put in a breezeway between the garage and the house , and then I put in another garage on the other side of the structure I got right now, why couldn't I go with a 35-foot structure then? M. Gunn: We are about to pass a law here that says secondary structures cannot be 35 feet. A. Scheffler: I think she's looking at it from the viewpoint if you put the breezeway on and then put the structure on - - M. Carey: Right. A. Scheffler: She's looking at it the opposite way you're looking at it. You're looking at it from attaching the garage to the house . She's looking at it from building the whole thing as an attachment. M. Gunn: Well, if it becomes attached -- like -- say my garage right now that I have . That's 17 feet. Just because I attach it to my house doesn't mean I can build it to 35 feet because it's attached . I'm still not living in my garage. The garage is a garage. It's a listed use . M. Carey: I guess I read someplace that if it's an attached structure , the 35 feet comes in. M. Gunn: Now what that means is if you have, say, -- M. Carey: But is this in writing? I mean we need to have this clarified. M. Gunn: It's in writing to the point that the only time you can get that high is if you have a two-story home here and you attach a garage, you can go 35 feet if your house is 35 feet -- with the garage, but you're going to be living over the top of that. Do you see what I'm saying? M. Carey: Some people don't care . Page 12 of 19 (T) Groton Planning Board Minutes/Transcript of Regular Meeting 17 February 2000 M. Gunn: Well, they're going to care when they come in and get a Building Permit and I make them go through the Fire Codes. Thousands of dollars to do that. M. Carey: Where is it here? M. Gunn: It's in my green book here that's about 1200 pages thick that shows New York State Code that says that once it's attached to the house , the Fire Codes, if they want to raise that height and make everything the same height of the house, up here's not going to be garage . They are going to be living up here. This is going to be living space . Down here will be a garage . And then the garage is— A. Scheffler: Why would you building something 35-foot tall to park your car in? M. Carey: It might not be to park a car in. I might come in to big money someday and decide to buy this great big huge camper that I want to put into my garage. A. Scheffler: It still wouldn't have to be 35-foot high . M. Gunn: Right. A. Scheffler: I mean it would be a lot - - V. Travis: My garage is over 20 feet high . It's attached . I mean fully attached . You get out in the garage and you walk in to the family room. A. Scheffler: Is there a ceiling in it? Is there attic space above it? V. Travis: Absolutely. Pull-down stairs, attic space. Not trusses, I did ,rafters. A. Scheffler: It's not actually part of your house , though . V. Travis: It is. M. Gunn: Now, if your house was 35 feet -- V. Travis: Let's say that it is . M. Gunn: Let's say your house is 35 feet and your roof to your garage is 20. And you want extra room. So you're going to take the top of that roof off, put floor joists on your garage, and you're going to put bedrooms over the top of that garage -- you can do that. But just to open up the entire garage and take it all the way to 35 feet, you will not be able to. Do you see what I'm saying? V. Travis: Well , not really. But I'm not going to do it. M. Gunn: And I think that's what you're getting at. M. Carey: Right. I just wanted extra storage space . I don't know what's going to happen in the future. V. Travis: That's all my garage is. M. Carey: And in the upstairs of my garage I simply want storage space . I'm not going to live there . Nobody's going to live there . I just want to keep junk up there. V. Travis: Well, that's what I do over my garage. Well, here's what I see as one problem with regard to a technical item here. This talks about -- the Code talks about detached accessory structures. I do not find a definition for detached accessory structure in the Code. Accessory building, accessory structure . A detached room, but not a detached -- and I think, if the point is valid , Mark, I think it ought to be noted that there may need to be some editing of this thing. It can be introduced Page 13 of 19 (T) Groton Planning Board Minutes/Transcript of Regular Meeting 17 February 2000 through the Town Board's Hearing process. The other thing is, is that the existing Code , I think, has a— A. Scheffler: It defines accessory structure as either attached or located on the same lot. M. Carey: Where are you reading? What page? A. Scheffler: Page 4 under definitions. V. Travis: Where is it, April? A. Scheffler: Right here. V. Travis: An accessory structure - - yes, but that' s a windmill -- it's not considered a building . A TV dish -- but a building under accessory building, which is what we're really talking about M. Carey: Well, we do cover accessory apartments in the definitions. A. Scheffler: A structure is a building. V. Travis: Well, a structure is a structure other than a building. A. Scheffler: A building is one type of structure . M. Gunn: Right. So an accessory structure and accessory building can be the same thing. V. Travis: They could be, or they can be different. M. Gunn: Right. V. Travis: You can have a structure. If I put up a windmill for power generation, 20 feet is as high as I can go under this proposed ordinance . The other thing is that the existing Code had in it, height—primary structure and detached accessory building or structure . Keep in mind that it says in here "detached . " And this says detached. So - - E. Sovocool: Detached is what you're talking about? V. Travis: Well, that's what this ordinance is referring to. So when I attach it -- M. Carey, Then it comes under something different. V. Travis: I can go to 35 feet. The other thing is that the existing Ordinance said 12 feet, which we're not arguing over; less with Site Plan Review. Now that didn't make sense . I think that was an error. If I want to put up a 15-foot garage , you're going to say Van , you're well within the 20 feet; you're fine . This indicates that people could go higher -- I talked with George and he thought it was a mistake and what it meant was more with Site Plan Review. I'm not aware that Planning Boards really have the authority to grant higher structure heights. M. Gunn: They can for special use. V. Travis: In Site Plan Review? A. Scheffler: Some of the research I did in these books over here , it talks about using a special use permit for this type of thing where you're saying that it is something that's allowed , but it's something you want to look at a little closer. And you want to look at whether it's going to fit into the community, whether it's going to be a bother to the neighbors, and things like that. The same things that you would look at for a business Site Plan Review. But the way I understood it from there, it Page 14 of 19 (T) Groton Planning Board Minutes/Transcript of Regular Meeting 17 February 2000 would be for this type of thing that you're saying -- yes, we can let people have higher buildings, but we want to look at it a little closer. That was something I brought up to -- because -- V. Travis: But that is not included here -- more with Site Plan Review. And I'm not certain it should be less with Site Plan Review; that would be absolutely superfluous. It has absolutely no meaning whatsoever. A. Scheffler: You know, what I think they did, because everything else is -- like your yard requirements are less; less with Site Plan Review; less with Site Plan Review. I think it just got carried over -- less with Site Plan Review, V. Travis: It should be more with Site Plan Review. You're absolutely right. A. Scheffler. But the wording Site Plan Review concerned me because we're sending people for variances. Why does it say Site Plan Review? And that's something I was discussing with Lyle and -- V. Travis: Let's just take a hypothetical case. Let's just take the Elm Tree Inn because we all know kind of what the place looks like. They come to us and they want to build an accessory building that, let's say, is a party house . Banquets, wedding receptions, and that sort of thing. And for whatever reason, in order to do what they want to do, it needs to exceed 35 feet; I don' t know what that it does, but let's assume that it does. Two stories high with 10-foot, 12-foot ceilings, and a pitched roof, and so somehow or other it comes out to 36-38 feet. Can that be done, do you think, through Site Plan Review? M. Gunn: I think by reading through the way -- if they can prove that through hardship , just as if they went to the ZBA, through hardship or that they have to have it because they're going to have lost wages or some kind of a hurt put on the business without this, it seems the fact that they already came in for a Site Plan Review for a Special Permit, and this accessory structure is going to be part of this same business that they've already come for, then they can come over and say, with Site Plan Review, and say we need a Special Use Permit because we have to have this building this big because our clientele is so huge we've got to have a second building. And if they can prove to the Planning Board, I believe, through what we've read, that they have the ability to give Special Use Permits. V. Travis: Okay. Let me go with another situation . Same site. Elm Tree Inn. I described a detached building. Instead , they decide to go off there to the east, which is where their parking lot is, attach it. That is, legitimately an addition to the existing structure. Is that part of the primary structure and, therefore , has the ability to go to 35 feet? M. Gunn: Well, no, because now you're getting into State Codes which says that in a wood - frame structure you cannot have a two-story public assembly. That is why the Peacocks are going for a variance . So if they were going to try to put a two-story structure up against that, I'd have to deny and say you can't. And they'd have to , there again, go to the State and try to get a variance for a two-story -- now if they built it with steel -- the whole structure out of steel, with all non-combustible, put concrete inbetween the two things, have a firewall - - then they'd be able to do that sort of thing. But there again, it would have to go -- you're talking a whole different ballgame with NYS Codes and having to meet all those requirements before it gets attached to a building such as that. M. Carey: Well, I think you're misinterpreting what Van's saying. What he is saying is they just want to put an addition on -- let's not say State Code or anything -- can it be 35 feet height if it's attached, either by a breezeway which, chances are, would be a short little jog from the main building to this secondary building. I mean we're just using the Elm Tree as an example. M. Gunn: It's still the same building. V. Travis: Let's assume there is a single-story 35-foot and they want a M. Gunn: Elegant Hayseeds, single story. Page 15 of 19 (T) Groton Planning Board Minutes/Transcript of Regular Meeting 17 February 2000 V. Travis: She was here for Site Plan Review -- up at the former truckstop . M. Carey: And they put on a little breezeway and then they put a 35-foot attachment. M. Gunn: There again, they'd have to come -- I believe they'd have to come before -- they'd have to get a Special Use Permit, M. Carey: They'd have to do Site Plan Review. M. Gunn: I believe they'd be able to do that, but they'd have to get a Special Use Permit, M. Carey: And that's stated in this new Local Law? M. Gunn: Yes -- well, I don't -- did they put with Site Plan Review? V. Travis: No . No, they didn't. M. Gunn: Well, I think it's obvious if it's not given - - if it's an allowed use in that area, and they want to attach to another building, what they're going to do is come to me and put a Building Permit in . Anybody would have to do that. It may have a building, a business, or anything, and they want to put something on . If it's for business, I'm going to say well, before I can approve this Building Permit, you've got to go to the Planning Board if you've got a business, and you have to get your business upgraded to this. And if they allow that, then I look at the prints and say -- M. Carey: But what I'm saying is I think we need more definition on this stuff because this is where all the problems have arose ; you read it one way and we've read it another way. The contractor's read it some way; the Town Board read it a different way. Maybe we need a little better definition on this. V. Travis: Monica, you raise a good point, and I think we're getting to a point where we maybe want to cut the discussion . For having no business for this evening, we have gone an hour and twenty minutes. But this has been a good , full, open discussion. And I'm glad for that. Fran Castillo is on record in one of these pieces of paper that I have here -- well, it's one of the Town Board meetings where he talks about the inconsistencies in this Code. And I know that I'm going to offend a few of you by saying this, but this Code needs to be rewritten from the ground up. There were too many inconsistencies and loose language at the time of the Sirens debacle . And we are demonstrating, and we're having a friendly open discussion. We are not arguing out of anger or anything. But the fact of the matter is -- it is very difficult to determine what is actually allowable under this Code. And this Town Law # 1 does little to remedy that situation . There's a question of whether we need to redefine height; there's a question of whether, and the ZBA raised this and George just raised it - - whether there should be different heights in different zones, and the ZBA has suggested that to the Town Board. And there is a question of whether or not we know the difference between an attached and a detached and , if there is a difference, and if so, when it applies and would you know it if you saw it? All of those things that this particular proposed change in the Code do not address. And it just seems to me there's a lot more work to be done if we would really like to make some progress in this regard. And I'm not talking about whether it's 35 feet or 20 feet; I'm talking about whether or not we have a Code that when the Code Enforcement Officer and the Planning Board and the ZBA and the applicant all sit around the same table , they're all talking about the same thing. And we don't presently have that kind of a piece of legislation or a code before us. And Glenn Morey said that one of the things that he wanted the Planning Board to do was to go over this Code and recommend revisions to it. He wasn't real clear about what he meant, and obviously we would have to talk with him, but there's a lot of work I think needs to be done with this Code so that it eases our jobs as the people who have to pass judgment on it and enforce it. And I think what I personally will do, and I will be speaking personally; I won't be speaking for the Planning Board, but I think I will put that notion in writing as my testimony at the Hearing . A. Scheffler: I agree with what he said, and I think Local Law # 1 is basically a band -aid to let people build garages, normal garages, right now without having to go for a variance . Page 16 of 19 (T) Groton Planning Board Minutes/Transcript of Regular Meeting 17 February 2000 V. Travis: You know, and if the Town Board decides that's an expedient that takes care of the problem in the interim - - the interim being from now until we can do a more detailed job -- so be it. The only problem with that is that often the subsequent job doesn't get done , as you well know . Unless the Town Board takes the action and says, Planning Board, we want something more than what we have there ; therefore, get to work and do it, as opposed to passing it and then it just kind of falls through the slats and five years later we're back here knocking heads over the same issue. E. Sovocool: A few years ago, this thing was simplified, rewritten , and a lot of stuff taken out of it. M. Carey: Right. And it took us, what, two and one-half, three years to go through G. Van Slyke: How many years ago was that? M. Carey: The early 90s. You weren't on the Board that long when we started doing it. If we rewrite this, this isn't something that's going to be done overnight. It's going to take a year to two years to sit down, have special meetings, and everybody's got to be dedicated to it also . Because we can't do it at our regular Board meetings; we're going to have to hold special meetings. G. Van Slyke: We tried to write it in layman's language so everybody could understand it. V. Travis: It's pretty good in that regard. There's not a lot of mumbo jumbo in here. E. Sovocool: Well, that's what they tried to do, make it so a lay person could use it. J. Fitch: "User friendly" was the term . V. Travis: But the interesting thing is that when it says that the height is to the peak of the roof, there's a whole bunch of people running around who are saying 12 feet is to the top of the wall . This Code is not written in legal-eze for the most part and should be very easy to understand what it means. And the sort of thing that I am talking about is not to get it into more complex language. Mine simply is, you know, when we start talking about a detached building, there's no definition of what a detached building is. And if a detached building does not include a breezeway, then we need to say that. And I was using that as an example only to illustrate the extremes to which someone might go in order to circumvent the law. And then the question is -- is what they have done legal, or not? T. Randall: Can I say something here? V. Travis: Absolutely. T. Randall: I wanted to say that Glenn and the Board and myself are really aware of the problems with the zoning law as it stands, and we're dedicated to changing it. This is only one step. We realize that there's a lot more that's got to be done there to clarify it. I know it on a personal level from when I was a contractor. We ran into interpretation issues all the time . I know, on my part, we dealt with the ZBA and you guys. As a new Board member, the arguments that you brought forth tonight -- we weren't privy to that at all. When George had a chance to do that and bring up some of these questions at our Board meeting when we were discussing it, his only defense to the whole thing was that's how we do it in Lansing. So we went on with what we had . If you could have brought that forward , then obviously it would have made a difference someplace along the line. And we have talked to Lyle and we know how he feels about it too . V. Travis: Okay, I think we -- G. Van Slyke: I was going to make a comment here. I don't know as you're ever going to get a perfect Code -- V. Travis: You 're not. Page 17 of 19 , (T) Groton Planning Board Minutes/Transcript of Regular Meeting 17 February 2000 G. Van Slyke : As long as you've got different people interpreting different things, I don' t care how long you sit here in extra sessions, and how long you band-aid things and -- by the way, I agree with that whole thing. Everything we're doing here -- a lot of the stuff, the whole Sirens deal and all that , that was all band-aid stuff. We got nailed with the thing and everybody's running around and doing a CMA. And a few of us had to sit through that whole mess, you know. And that really wasn't much fun. And because some people made interpretations they had no right making. I guess my point is that we can , you can lay it on us and say okay, as a Planning Board you sit down and rewrite this thing. But we're never going to make it so everybody's going to be happy with it and so there's never going to be any problems with it. Otherwise you wouldn't need a ZBA and probably you wouldn't need to sit on a Board like this if everything was written perfectly. That would be great. But you're not going to get it to happen. M. Carey: Before we rewrote this, it was a real joy to figure out what it was . G. Van Slyke: The Code hadn't been revised since 1972 when it was first written . It was in existence for how many years then -- 23-24 years before it was revised? V. Travis: But there are some resources available . You'll never write the perfect Code . But there are good ones we can use to compare against this. (Note: At this point the tape ran out, so the balance of the Minutes are transcribed in regular format by the secretary from her notes.) CEO Gunn mentioned compiling some generally accepted standards, because in the near future he could have copies available that the Board could go over. CEO Mark Gunn re Randall Todd, Applicant/Arnold Porteus, RO - Pleasant Valley Road - TM # 35- 1 -7 . 1 CEO Gunn reported that he had received word from Arnold Porteus (who was in Florida) asking how it was possible for Randall Todd to receive subdivision approval on his ( Mr. Porteus') property when Mr. Todd didn't own the property. After everyone on the Board who was present at that time discussed the matter, it was concluded that, and the Minutes verified, Mr. Todd was proposing to purchase the 3. 87± acre lot from Mr. Porteus so that he could put a trailer for his mother on one portion of the subdivided lot, while he resided on the other (reference Planning Board Minutes of 10/ 21 /99) , Van Travis stated that CEO Gunn could inform Mr. Porteus that the Planning Board approved Mr. Todd's proposal which was based on his becoming the owner of the property which he told the Board he was purchasing from Mr. Porteus . If, however, the property was not purchased by Mr. Todd, then the Board's action would be considered null and void . CEO Mark Gunn re Gordon VanBenschoten, RO - Locke Road - TM # 121 - 1 - 5 CEO Gunn reported that he had been asked by Mr. VanBenschoten what was needed to turn this property over to his son, Eric , who currently has a mobile home located there. He now wants to put a second mobile home on the property which has an approved septic system. It was determined that there was enough road frontage for a boundary change to make a second lot. However, Mr. Gunn stated that the road frontage was not accessible so the owner would have to continue using the same driveway. He asked the Board if he should have both VanBenschotens come in and go through the process of a boundary change. Member Van Slyke asked what would happen if in the future the owner sold one of the new parcels, and Acting Chair Travis responded that there would have to be a right-of- way granted to the new owner. Member Clark said that this should be a permanent, "lifetime use" situation. Member Van Slyke asked if it was possible to construct a second driveway to the proposed second parcel, and CEO Gunn responded that there was a terribly steep bank there and it would not be possible. Member Carey needed to have more information regarding lot sizes, road frontage , possible landlocking, accessibility to both lots, etc. , and stated that the Board needed to talk with the Page 18 of 19 (T) Groton Planning Board Minutes/Transcript of Regular Meeting 17 February 2000 VanBenschotens to see what they were proposing in detail. A lengthy discussion of some of these issues ensued, and the Board members reviewed the tax map. CEO Gunn stated that he did not want to ask the VanBenschotens to come before the Board if what they wanted to do would not be possible . Member Carey asked how wide was the existing driveway, and CEO Gunn answered 20 feet. Councilman Sovocool stated that it would be very expensive to construct a new driveway with the existing terrain. Another problem, according to CEO Gunn , was the location of the existing septic system which precluded a driveway in that area. Acting Chair Travis stated that the thing to do was to speak with Mr. VanBenschoten and tell him what the issues are, and that the Board would like his proposal as to how accessibility to the lots would be gained. It was concluded that this matter should be carried over to the next Planning Board meeting, and that the Board members should visit the site sometime before then . CEO Gunn told the Board members that there was no way they were going to see the site from the road . Adjournment V. Travis: Is there any other business to come before the Board? If not, I'll entertain a motion to adjourn . M. Carey: I move we adjourn. A. Scheffler: I'll second the motion. V. Travis: All in favor? (All members present indicated "aye . I The meeting was adjourned at 9925 p.m. J E. Fitch Recording Secretary 2/29 /00 Page 19 of 19 I