Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-09-20 1 TOWN OF GROTON PLANNING BOARD Minutes/ Transcript of Regular Meeting - Thurs. , 20 September 2001 - 7930 PM Members, Groton Planning Board (*Absent) Others Present Monica Carey, Chair Joan Fitch, Recording Secretary George Van Slyke Glenn Morey, Town Supervisor Barbara Clark Don Scheffler, Town Councilman Tom Guihan George Senter, Sr. , CEO *Mark Baxendell Brad Albro Applicants & Public Present Robert & Carol Goddard, Applicants; Clarence (Applicant) & Carol Genung; Sam & Cheryl Rose; Robert Walpole, Mary K. Gloster Call to Order M. Carey: It's 7 : 30, so I think we'll open the meeting. I'm Monica Carey. I'm Chairperson of the Planning Board. This is George Van Slyke, Barb Clark, Tom Guihan, and Brad Albro . Approval of Minutes - 19 July 2001 M. Carey: The first thing on the Agenda is to approve the Minutes for the August meeting. Does anybody have any revisions or anything they would like to add to the Minutes? G. Van Slyke: I make a motion that we accept the Minutes as written. B. Clark: I'll second the motion. M. Carey: All in favor? (All members present indicated in the affirmative.) Carried. This becomes Action #23 of 2001 . Robert & Carol Goddard, ROs - Cor. Salt Road & Old Stage Road - TM # 20- 1 -20 2 - Minor Subdivision M. Carey: Well, the first item on the Agenda is Robert and Carol Goddard, minor subdivision. Are they present? C. Goddard: Yes, we are. M. Carey: Okay, you're Robert and Carol Goddard? R. Goddard: Correct. M. Carey: Last month this was given to us, but there was nobody from your family representing, and we'd like to have you explain to us how you are subdividing this land. If you want to come up forward so you can talk to the Board and show us on the map that we have here . . . Page 1 of 19 (T) Groton Planning Board Regular Meeting Transcript 20 September 2001 R. Goddard: I read the minutes of the last meeting and decided that you didn't understand this property we sold to my daughter and her husband. M. Carey: Right. That's Lot # 1 . R. Goddard: We no longer own that. And this lot here is the one we want to subdivide out. And there was a question on the right-of-way in back. G. Van Slyke: Yes, we were kind of concerned or wondered - are you going to continue to hold this part of the property? R. Goddard: Yes, yes. M. Carey: So you're not selling this all off? C. Goddard: No . We have a woodlot which we want to keep access to to go over here. We sold part of this timber, but there's wood in there that we're going to use. We have a fireplace and we're going to be using it so we wanted to keep access so we'd have the back land there. And the reason we subdivided this so weird is the bank. Didn't want to give all of our property to the bank. We wanted to hold all but just a small percentage of it and just give that small percentage to the bank. Because if the bank had it then they could tell us what we did with our land and we really didn't want to give them - R. Goddard: We actually had to mortgage on the whole property without the subdivision. And the bank has agreed to sign it back to us after we get it subdivided. C. Goddard: Right. That's where we are coming from. M. Carey: Why is the bank asking for a subdivision? R. Goddard: It's the Town that' s requiring the subdivision. G. Van Slyke: We don't require subdivisions. M. Carey: No. R. Goddard: It's not the bank. G. Van Slyke: Okay, I guess our main question was when you sold Lot # 1 - R. Goddard: Correct. G. Van Slyke: why did you leave this little - R. Goddard: I knew I would want to have access if they ever sold to somebody else . G. Van Slyke: So what are you trying - R. Goddard: To get to the woodlot for firewood. G. Van Slyke: Okay. So you're coming -- where you coming from? From over here? R. Goddard: Yes, I'll be right there. G. Van Slyke: You're going to be on Lot #2? R. Goddard: Correct. G. Van Slyke: Okay. And this is still your property? Page 2 of 19 (T) Groton Planning Board Regular Meeting Transcript 20 September 2001 R. Goddard: Yes, I'm still farming it. It will be hay probably. G. Van Slyke: So you want to be able to get back in through there - R. Goddard: Right, in case they ever sold to somebody else I want access to that woodlot. G. Van Slyke: Well, let me try to figure this out. M. Carey: Okay, so this Lot #2 - does that consist of the whole rest of this property? R. Goddard: At the present time, it's all one piece, yes, except for selling that lot there. G. Van Slyke: Okay, so let me ask you - R. Goddard: We don't want to tie up the whole farm. If we get behind on our payments, we could lose the whole farm. So we want to cut a lot out here where the house is going to be, and the bank has agreed to go along with it. G. Van Slyke : So the bank is going to finance that separately than they do - R. Goddard: The rest is paid for. G. Van Slyke: The rest is yours. C. Goddard: Free and clear. That's ours. R. Goddard: We don't want to tie the whole farm up in case something happens to us. C. Goddard: You don't know what the future's going to bring. B. Clark: There isn't access to the woodlot from Lot #3? G. Van Slyke : That was going to be my next question. Are you eventually planning on selling this off and losing your access from this? R. Goddard: If we get hard up, we could possibly sell that. At the present time, we don't want to but we could. We're not planning on selling it. G. Van Slyke: In other words, well - R. Goddard: I don't want to drag a tree down the road here. If I want to bring some firewood out of that woods, I don't want to drag it down that road. I want to drag it right across my property. M. Carey: Do you know how many feet there are between the end of that piece of property and the edge of the property line? R. Goddard: It doesn't show on the - G. Van Slyke : It doesn't show here . M. Carey: And we need to definitely know because if it ever came where you did sell off some of this property, and somebody needed a right-of-way to get back there, they'd have to have at least 25 feet. R. Goddard: Well, there's 25 feet there, I believe. C. Goddard: Yes, I think there is too. It doesn't look like it. Page 3 of 19 (T) Groton Planning Board Regular Meeting Transcript 20 September 2001 M. Carey: Well, you'd have to have it surveyed anyway and so at the time you have it surveyed you'd have to make sure there's at least 25 foot. R. Goddard: There's gotta be some footage listed there. M. Carey: Nothing on this. G. Van Slyke : It's only that distance from there to there. R. Goddard: What's this? Four-something? I drew a line right through it. That' s 400 feet there and that's 212 more, so add these two together and then subtract what they've got and that would give you what you need to know there. M. Carey: Now when you bought this, this was all one lot, even where the old house use to be? R. Goddard: Right. They wouldn't split it. We had to buy the whole piece of property. They would not split it - the people we bought it from. C. Goddard: And the house was so bad that we just had the Groton Fire Department come out and burn it. Somebody was sneaking in. We think it was probably kids and we were afraid somebody was going to get hurt, so we just let them burn it and buried the old foundation. We put a new foundation in there and she got her mod in there. G. Van Slyke : So Lot # 1 is not even - R. Goddard: Sold G. Van Slyke: Yes. That's not anyone in your family. R. Goddard: That's our daughter. G. Van Slyke: Oh, okay. All right. R. Goddard: The name is Houck, but she married a guy named Houck. G. Van Slyke : Okay. So they wanted to - they wanted that rectangular piece out of there? They wanted to go back that far? R. Goddard: I gave them three acres, approximately three acres. G. Van Slyke: Yes, R. Goddard: It makes a good-sized lot for them. C. Goddard: She's got a horse and she takes the horse up there. There's grass and she wants to pasture her horse up there sometime. We let her use the old barn and, you know, pasture here horse down there. It works out nice. G. Van Slyke: Okay. M. Carey: Anybody else on the Board have questions? B. Clark: I think we need to make sure that narrowest point - we see it before. R. Goddard: Well, actually, all you're considering is really this lot right here. You don't even need to consider what's back there. That's already - Page 4 of 19 (T) Groton Planning Board Regular Meeting Transcript 20 September 2001 M. Carey: No, we have to consider it. That's part of planning. R. Goddard: That's already been dealt with. M. Carey: Oh, no . You've made a lot here and you're making another lot here. R. Goddard: But the only one we're subdividing out is that one right there. Is there any objection to subdivision - that lot right there? M. Carey: No, but we have to look at the whole property. R. Goddard: Well, we're not selling the rest of the property; were not subdividing the rest of the property. We're only subdividing that lot right there. M. Carey: You may not be today, but down the road in the future you may be. R. Goddard: Deal with that down in the future. M. Carey: No, we have to deal with it today. G. Van Slyke : You see, the thing is we - R. Goddard: So add up what's there and deduct and see how many feet are there. You've got to have 25 feet you're saying, right? M. Carey: Right. G. Van Slyke : See, what our main concern is we don't want to landlock something back in here. Like if you decided down the road you wanted to sell this parcel here - R. Goddard: I could still reserve a right-of-way out of that parcel. G. Van Slyke: For yourself, you mean? R. Goddard: Right, G. Van Slyke: Yes, you could. The thing is, what we are concerned about is suppose you sold this off at the same level you did that one. Okay? And you didn't have enough space to get back in here. You could end up landlocking this thing back here. R. Goddard: Okay, well that's something in the future that we don't have to do now. G. Van Slyke : You don't want to landlock any land. M. Carey: We want to prevent something like that happening. R. Goddard: I understand. But that would be your next decision if that parcel is going to be up for sale. Whether or not we're going to landlock that back there right you shouldn't even have to deal with that right now. C. Goddard: Buy some back from my daughter or trade her off some more here or something. We could work something out with her because it is our daughter. And we let her have the land - M. Carey: But as a Planning Board, we have to look at the whole picture when we make a decision. R. Goddard: So how much feet is there as a Planning Board, Page 5 of 19 (T) Groton Planning Board Regular Meeting Transcript 20 September 2001 M. Carey: Without a survey - R. Goddard: Without doing your homework, you don't know, right? M. Carey: No, without a survey map we - R. Goddard: Without doing your homework, you don't know. C. Goddard: We should have brought the survey so that they - M. Carey: You have a survey map? With this out of it? C. Goddard: We do. Yes. R. Goddard: That' s a survey map right there. G. Van Slyke: This isn't. M. Carey: It's pretty hard to look at compared to the big map that - R. Goddard: That's a survey map and the footage is right there. It's right there. G. Van Slyke: You're taking 599 out of 656 . . Okay, wait a minute here. That' s the other problem. If we did this distance up to here to this point, okay, that would give you enough footage; you've got 67 feet to play with up to this point. But look how this line with Hall jogs back down. So your line with Hall is different from this point. In other words, we can't go to this point and say okay, from here to here you got 67 feet. Because you haven't got 67 feet. R. Goddard: Yes, okay. Well, this discussion shouldn't even be taking place because we're not trying to sell that part of the property. We own that property. This is not a problem right now. Why are we making it a problem? M. Carey: Because as a Planning Board - R. Goddard: It's not a problem right now. You shouldn't even be looking at it. M. Carey: It doesn't matter. As a Planning Board we have to look at the whole picture . R. Goddard: It's all my land. M. Carey: But as a Planning Board it is our job to look at the whole picture of this whole parcel. R. Goddard: So if there isn't a problem, we create one, right? M. Carey: No, we're not asking you to create something. We are just asking for a 25-foot passage through there in case you do decide to sell this off so that we don't landlock land. The Planning Board cannot landlock land. C. Goddard: Well, we can work something out - if it comes to that, we can always work something out with my daughter. G. Van Slyke: Right. In other words, let's look at it this way then. Suppose now your daughter gives up a piece of this so you've got your 25 feet that you want to drag your trees back through, and then you give her something extra on the side. R. Goddard: There's not 25 feet there as far as I know. Page 6 of 19 (T) Groton Planning Board Regular Meeting Transcript 20 September 2001 B. Clark: Think about this. If your daughter happened to sell, she had to move out of state or something, sold her piece of property, and someone went in there and there wasn't 25 feet, somebody might say you can't come through here. We don't want to eliminate any possibility of future development. R. Goddard: Has anybody researched there to see if there is 25 feet there or not? Don't you think that would be your job? M. Carey: No, because you haven't brought us a real survey map. We really can't tell how much - R. Goddard: That's a survey map right there. G. Van Slyke: See, we're not trying to cause you any difficulties. What we're really trying to do is to help you out here. But, you see, with the setup that you have here, it's hard for us - it's not our job to go out and survey your land. R. Goddard: Well, you don't have to . You've got one right there. G. Van Slyke: Yes, but, see we can't prove that there's 25 feet. R. Goddard: Anybody who knows how to read a survey could prove it. R. Walpole : In reference to that tax map, it is my understanding that the tax map will not change on that at all. There will be no change in ownership and I think the bank is only going to secure that small portion with the house . So, actually, the tax map or ownership doesn't change at all. C. Goddard: This is all going to be ours. R. Walpole : When it comes to where the tax map is going to be separated, then I think it would have to be done a little further. But from the bank's standpoint, the bank is only going to take that small portion. He's still the owner and the tax map number will not change. I'm assuming that he's not going to have separate tax parcels because, obviously, it would cost more for the real estate taxes. It might be one way to answer the overall problem; and I understand where you are coming from too . The ownership is for the whole thing, but the bank is only going to secure a small portion. The tax map number will not change . G. Van Slyke: So, in reality, you're not asking us for a subdivision here. R. Goddard: I don't need a subdivision? R. Walpole: Basically, the bank's going to release the other portion of it and take only the portion where the house is sitting. I have that file in the office because we're doing the appraisal for the bank. Ownership is not being transferred at all here. M. Carey: So there's really no subdivision involved. R. Walpole: Basically not because there's not going to be any transfer. G. Van Slyke: So the legality of their coming to the Planning Board to get this subdivision - they really didn't have to do that. Did the bank require you to have a subdivision? R. Goddard: Who notified us that we needed a subdivision? R. Walpole: See, there's not going to be a transfer of ownership on it so the bank's going to take a mortgage on this portion here. None of the rest of the property, or the ownership of the property, or this lot here will still remain the same tax parcel. Page 7 of 19 (T) Groton Planning Board Regular Meeting Transcript 20 September 2001 G. Van Slyke: So why do they want a subdivision? R. Walpole: Well I don't know that. R. Goddard: Because we were told we had to have one. R. Walpole: I think the only reason he might have told them he had to have - if ownership was going to change because he's got one, two, three, then that triggers a subdivision. M. Carey: Right. This is what we thought. G. Van Slyke: We thought he was selling three parcels, that this parcel is going to be different from the rest of these parcels. M. Carey: Right. R. Walpole: This parcel here was the only one deeded to your daughter? R. Goddard: Correct. R. Walpole: And that will be under a different tax map number. It may already be under a different tax map number. M. Carey: And you can sell one piece off - R. Walpole : This here will remain as one tax map. G. Van Slyke : I don't even know what it came here for. R. Walpole: The only thing the bank's going to be taking a first mortgage on is this corner lot here to release the rest of that to them. G. Van Slyke: But would the bank require them to have a subdivision to do that? R. Walpole: I would assume that someone - Fran, the Town Attorney here is also the bank attorney. He might have just assumed that by taking a quick look at it. R. Goddard: No, we were told by the office out here that we had to have a subdivision. R. Walpole : I don't know. That really doesn't trigger the subdivision regulations. M. Carey: George, what do you think? G. Senter: I have no knowledge of it. M. Carey: You have no knowledge of this? G. Senter: No. R. Goddard: In fact, this cost us money. This cost us money. G. Senter: Sometimes the bank only wants no more than 5 acres. M. Carey: But when they do that, we never subdivide those properties. G. Senter: You can survey something, but not deed it off. Page 8 of 19 (T) Groton Planning Board Regular Meeting Transcript 20 September 2001 M. Carey: Right, R. Walpole : See the bank is going to take the legal description on that portion and their lien will be on that portion and they will give them a partial release. I don't have no idea how they are set up down there. If he sells it - M. Carey: Right, then it would trigger a subdivision if you sold your house or some of this other remaining property. C. Goddard: We don't want to do that. We don't want to do that unless we get in really desperate straights. M. Carey: This would create a different tax map number if we made a subdivision. R. Walpole : That' s correct. R. Goddard: We have to pay a lawyer to have this transferred back to us now. The whole property was mortgaged with the bank because it hadn't been subdivided. And the bank was under the assumption it had to be subdivided. R. Walpole: All they are going to do is, I'm assuming, and I'll check for you in the morning, Bob, is just release this to you and stay on that. R. Goddard: Yes. R. Walpole : I will talk to the bank for you in the morning. But it doesn't trigger anything else here. Unless there's other arrangements you have made at the bank. But it doesn't appear to because you're going to retain ownership of all the property. R. Goddard: So unless you sell it to somebody else, you don't have to subdivide . R. Walpole: If the tax map number changes, I think you've got a different situation. M. Carey: Right. You've sold the one property to your daughter, which is legal. G. Van Slyke: Without having to be subdivided. But once you go and you have this piece and then you're going to sell off some more pieces, that triggers a subdivision. R. Goddard: Everybody led us to believe that we had to get a subdivision and it's caused us a lot of grief, really. M. Carey: Well, it's caused us grief because — R. Goddard: So we're all set then? M. Carey: I think so because I don't think that you need to have a subdivision. What does the rest of the Board feel? T. Guihan: I don't think you need a subdivision. J. Fitch: So there's no action required? M. Carey: There's no action required. R. Goddard: Okay. Have a nice day. M. Carey: Okay. That was kind of confusing. Page 9 of 19 (T) Groton Planning Board Regular Meeting Transcript 20 September 2001 Discussion w / Robert Walgole re Herbert Tichnor Property - Spring Street Extension - No Tax Map Number Provided M. Carey: Well, Bob, I think you're next on the Agenda. R. Walpole: I'm only going to take a couple minutes of your time. The Deputy Clerk - G. Van Slyke : Are these the ones you're talking about? R. Walpole: Yes. Back about the 18' day of September 1997 - George Senter was there, Monica was here, George was here, we got into the discussion on the Tichnor property. And one time, we were in the process of - where the property is outlined in orange, we were going to sell three individual lots of 1 . 5 acres, 150 feet of frontage. We have a purchase offer on 4. 5 acres, approximately 450 feet subject to the final survey. In the meantime, this has referred now to the estate of Herbert Tichnor. And we aren't sure at this point, back before we had a hundred, one tax map says 130 feet, the other says 138 feet. Where the original house, which is in yellow, where Tichnor's residence is - I 've discussed this with the building inspector, Mr. Senter, and we're going - if this thing all goes through - we're going to sell approximately 4. 5 acres, 450 feet now. The tax maps we have, the previous tax maps says there's 500 feet, but I just looked at some new ones here the Town's got, and they're saying there's 635 feet there. Until we get a proper survey, I don't know how much road frontage we got. We're going to, if we got more road frontage than what we're saying is there, I was going to, Mrs. Tichnor wanted to know if she sold the house separately, and we had talked back, basically back in 1997 that we'd leave additional road frontage where the house was. We were going to isolate it. There again, it could all be sold with the balance of acres and not have to do anything with it. The only reason that I would suggest, and George and I have talked about it, down the road if the house and two acres is sold separately, which we don't know what' s going to happen here, that we would want to make at least, even though it's not contiguous, 150 feet. Because I can see it down the road ten or fifteen years, some bank attorney looking at this - we don't comply with the Town of Groton Zoning Regulations. This, as of today, would not comply. But it would make it back where there was Minutes to follow that we tried to correct it and tried to make it a deal. Now, very well it could be transferred with the balance of acreage and you absolutely don't have to worry about it. We don't know what's going to happen here at this point. We have some interest in the land out back and obviously we want to keep between the 20 and the 50-foot pole to go back in there to make that legal. If there's more road frontage, obviously we will add some more to the house and make a pole so the pole doesn't exceed 50 feet. I don't think the pole can be bigger than 50 feet, right? G. Senter: No, 35, 1 think it's 35. R. Walpole: 35 or 25? M. Carey: I think it's 25. G. Senter: I'd have to look it up. R. Walpole : Whatever it is, we'll be sure there's legal access to that back acreage back here. M. Carey: Right. R. Walpole : But there again, when the house does become available - it may be sold with the additional land but we don't know that. If the 4. 5 acres falls through, then we'll probably go back and try to sell one lot or two lots. We'll have to come back here . We do have some interest if this one does fall through. It looks like it's going to proceed, but as I always tell our clients, it's never gone until the money is in your hand. I wanted to brief the Board. If you do have any questions, I'm trying to answer them, or if we have further information we will provide, if it goes down, we will provide survey work to keep with the file because over the years it's been a tough file for the previous Board members that have sat on the Board along with the Building Inspector even though now that he's back in this position, to keep the Board abreast. And as long as we are handling the property - if someone else handles it, then the Building Department will understand. But if you have any suggestions or anyting Page 10 of 19 (T) Groton Planning Board Regular Meeting Transcript 20 September 2001 - otherwise, we will keep you posted and basically, for information purposes, we are not filing the application at this point. Even if we survey, and we're back to the same situation that you just had currently, even if we survey this out there will be no changes in the tax map. It will be done for a legal matter only if she was to transfer. And we may do that. And obviously we will put a copy in the file here. There will be no changes in the tax map except for the new parcel which is in orange that will be made. So, that was her concern when we met with her. She says it's already one tax map now, and I said we would keep it under one even though there was a survey, from the legality standpoint, depending on what happens to the estate. But there would not be any difference except the taxes are going to go up. M. Carey: Did I hear you say you're going to make this side, on the further side, a legal lot? How many feet were you going to add on? R. Walpole: I think at one time, Monica, this was 138, so we're going to add 20 and make it 158, and the tax map that the Town provided me today says 130, so I don't know until we actually survey it. But it will be at least 150 to 160 feet - M. Carey: Between these two? R. Walpole : That' s correct. And the only reason, just to make it legal now, even though the zoning regulations call for continuous, when the building permit was issued on this house, that terminology was not in there. The only thing I'm saying, and George and I have already discussed this, is let's make it proper if this is what's going to go down. The other thing is, ten years down the road, when it's resold and refinanced and another attorney is looking at it, obviously, if there's only 138 feet there, we do not comply and I feel that we'd be making a non-conforming lot. And even though, under today's regulations, we are still trying to comply with the 150 foot. M. Carey: Right. But you will be sure that if you do sell off that orange block that you do have the correct - R. Walpole: Oh, yes. What we're going to do is we're going to survey this and we're also going to survey this house. And we will place a copy of that in the file. There won't be any changes and it's not going to trigger the subdivision. M. Carey: Right, R. Walpole: But the building department will have a record of it and we won't be back in here. This is for informational purposes only. M. Carey: There is quite a bit of acreage back there. R. Walpole : By the time you subtract that out - of course, this is all woods and ravine that goes down in - it very well could be sold with the house. But then the bank will only want a portion of it. They aren't going to want all of it. Most banks, except for the local banks. They'll take it. M. Carey: Okay. Anybody else have any questions? R. Walpole: George was satisfied with it and the other reason we're here is just to brief you. M. Carey: That's fine . G. Senter: Bob's trying to make something good out of something that's not good. M. Carey: Right, G. Senter: And there are lots out there with 100 feet for road frontage. It's a non-conforming pre- existing lot. This is not a pre- existing lot, but you could even accept it, if you wanted to, as a 138- foot lot with complete acreage and don't put a wrap-around, screwed-up looking lot around Mr. Sim's Page 11 of 19 (T) Groton Planning Board Regular Meeting Transcript 20 September 2001 property. You could do it that way. Or you could do it either way. It's up to you and you can make that decision. But when you accepted that lot and a house was built on there when the building permit was issued by the guy who preceded me, that made that a legal lot . . . like Bob said, it wasn't contiguous at that time. Now you have an opportunity to say oh 'poop, " we screwed up. Leave it at 138 feet and get the proper acreage, or wrap it around Sim's house or whatever. It's your decision. R. Walpole: I think a lot of times the paperwork is very clear when you go back in some of these records, and sometimes it isn't. The only thing George and I discussed, you know, I think there's enough road frontage there to do it; if there isn't, we'll come back before we sell the 4. 5 acres. I won't know that until we get the actual survey. That's all I have. If anybody's got any questions on it, I'll try to answer them . M. Carey: Anybody have any more questions for Bob? Thanks, Bob. Samuel C. & Cheryl M. Rose , ROs/ Clarence Genung, Sr. , ApRlicant - Old Stage Road - TM # 16 - 1 -33 & 32 . 1 - Boundary Chancre M. Carey: Next on the Agenda is Sam Rose and Clarence Genung. S. Rose: My father-in-law and mother-in-law there - you can see her health is deteriorating a little bit and we want to get them a little closer to us, so I guess you have the paperwork here also - we wanted to get them an acre of land and they said we needed your permission for a boundary change to do that so that's why we're here. This land here that you see, the back parcel of it, I bought that from Stegers in '97 . It was a 54-acre parcel, and my road frontage, of course, came with my original house on 44 Old Stage Road. And the way it worked out to get the legal size lot of 150 feet, that's how deep we had to go. And I think you've probably got notes from Jim Henry, but I think what he's proposing is to leave this, and this is all the same, leave all this the same and wrap it right around all the way up and pick up this little triangle with it, like this, because there's a little triangle down at the end. So this is my triangle here that runs along Old Stage Road. This little piece here I want to add to this parcel, or part of that little piece I should say. G. Senter: Monica, if I can have input on this - what this lot does is cuts across two properties. That's why I thought he should come in and get a boundary line change. G. Van Slyke : This is where you're going to do the - S. Rose: That's where we would like to take the acre, or a little over an acre of land out of and then, instead of leaving that triangle cut off, we just wanted to add it to the big parcel which would be just about an even swap. M. Carey: You own this big lot back out here? S. Rose: Yes. M. Carey: And you just want to remove this boundary here? S. Rose: Yes, we want to take that line out and add this dotted line like that to be - and he's got a survey - M. Carey: Where does your house sit on the property? S. Rose: Way up here, about where the AC is. M. Carey: About at that dot there probably. S. Rose: Pretty close to there. For reference sakes, there's three building lots of 150 feet from this fine down here - there's 450 feet to that dotted line. There's three potential building lots for the Page 12 of 19 (T) Groton Planning Board Regular Meeting Transcript 20 September 2001 future, not that I plan on doing that, and there's still, technically, one or two between me and you. At least one lot. I don't want neighbors that close. We had 898 feet the triangle was and then - C. Genung: There's actually three lots. S. Rose: All I want to do for now we want to give them a legal deed, a legal description to the land so they can be the sole owners of the land and I guess that can't happen without a boundary change permission. M. Carey: So basically we're getting rid of the boundary between what Stegers used to own and what you own. This whole line here . S. Rose: You can get rid of all of it if you want to or just a little triangle; I don't care. I do have my own tax map number for the triangle lot. What eventually will happen is I think this will get added to that. I think the initial plan was to just add the triangle to there and leave the house and not get rid of that line there. Just get rid of this one down here so that triangle isn't cut off by itself. M. Carey: Well then you couldn't sell the house separately. And that gives you enough road frontage down below. S. Rose: Over 400 feet. . . G. Van Slyke: And you own this back here, right? This whole parcel back here. You just going to nail this one to that? Okay. And this property here has the same tax map - S. Rose: No, it has its own. G. Van Slyke: It has its own? S. Rose: The same as this. This is all the same. It used to be the Steger farm, both sides of the road and Butch's house is right there. I bought that 54-acre parcel in '97 . G. Van Slyke : And that goes with this back here? S. Rose: Yes, and I just bought this a couple years ago and now they have put it altogether under one tax map number, except that has its own. J. Fitch: It would help for the Minutes if you would refer to, instead of back here and there, if you would call out the tax map number or acreage or whatever. S. Rose: The tax map number on that little corner piece would be the same as the one on your house. That little triangle would go from 16- 1 -33 to 16- 1 -32 . 1 that would be added to that second number. M. Carey: So basically we're taking out this here, adding this little - S. Rose: Making that its own parcel. G. Van Slyke: Making that a parcel. And take this line and get rid of it and it goes to that tax map. M. Carey: Does everybody - Brad, do you understand what's happening here? B. Albro: Yes. S. Rose: That' s the only way to do it and get a legal description and do it right. One question you might bring up is legal lot size has to be an acre right? M. Carey: Right. Page 13 of 19 (T) Groton Planning Board Regular Meeting Transcript 20 September 2001 S. Rose: And it can't count - oh, okay, nevermind they fixed it. M. Carey: And you have to have 150 feet of road frontage. Okay, we have to do an Environmental Assessment Form as required by the State. George, if you would like to read that. Board Member George Van Slyke then reads aloud Part II of the Short Environmental Assessment Form. Negative responses were obtained to all questions in Part II. Therefore, it was determined by the Planning Board, upon the motion made by Tom Guihan, seconded by George Van Slyke , with all members present voting in favor, that the action, based on the information submitted, will not cause any significant adverse environment impact, resulting in a Negative Declaration. This becomes Action #24 of 2001 . M. Carey: Anybody else have any more questions for the applicants? Would somebody like to make a motion to approve this boundary change? B. Clark: I make a motion that we approve the boundary change. T. Guihan: I'll second it. M. Carey: All in favor? (All members present indicated in the affirmative) . Carried. Thanks. S. Rose: Will we get a notification in writing or anything, or is that all we need? M. Carey: It's on our record. This becomes Action #25 of 2001 . Discussion of Candidates for Planning Board (Dawn Calkins & Mary Gloster) M. Carey: Do we need to go into Executive Session? G. Morey: No, you're only . . . Dawn Calkins has a resume in there and she had a Future Teacher/ Parent meeting tonight that she didn't know of. M. Carey: Okay, then, Dawn will probably be at our next meeting? G. Morey: I don't know. M. Carey: Was she thinking she'd come tonight? G. Morey: She was going to try to be here tonight. If you don't want to make your decision tonight - it doesn't really matter but . . . (inaudible) . M. Carey: Mary, why don't you come up here and join our Board. M. Gloster: Thank you very much. M. Carey: Well, this is the Board and you've followed some of the ways we have to go through all the steps and procedures for following through on all of the codes that we have before us. We basically meet every month, the third Thursday, at 7:30, and eventually we will probably be meeting probably twice a month because we are going to be redoing the Comprehensive Plan and working on the zoning laws and bringing everything up to date . But that's probably another year, year and a half down the road. Right now it's just once a month; once in awhile we will have a second meeting during Page 14 of 19 (T) Groton Planning Board Regular Meeting Transcript 20 September 2001 the month, but its rare . We're looking for people who have a lot of time and energy they're willing to spend and are interested in what the Town' s goals are and in working with the Town and Board members. We work with the Town Board members. Glenn Morey - have you ever met Glenn? He's our Town Supervisor, and Donald Sche$ler, he's one of our Councilmen, and George Senter is our Code Enforcement Officer for awhile - temporary, or whatever. I guess my one question is what kind of brought you to this point where you decided you'd like to join our group? M. Gloster: Well, the advertisement that you were looking for new members. Since we moved here in 1970, I've always - I've been working a full-time job and sometimes part-time jobs too, and between that and the activities and home, and my daughter, didn't have a lot of time to give . I retired a year ago last January and then was hired back by my school at Cornell in a 50% work at home position. So I have that now and I'm working on building a small sheep farm. I love this area. It sounded like an interesting position. The things that I have the most in are probably seeing the Town keeping its agricultural quality and atmosphere and the good, clean environment that it has. I think those are really important things to work on protecting. If those are the kinds of things that you are interested in, then I assumed that was part of what you'd be looking at. I don't know what other things do or interests or skills you need, or whether I have them. M. Carey: Willingness to attend meetings. M. Gloster: It sounds like I have to memorize the Town's Zoning Regulations. M. Carey: Well, we don't expect that at the first meeting. We're looking for people who are interested in establishing goals for the Town. You saw how we had to talk with the first applicant and, when we look at a piece of property, we have to look at the whole piece; we can't look at just what they may want to take out because it affects that whole property and you never now what they're going to do down the road in the future. One of the goals of the Planning Board is to make sure we don't landlock land and we want to try to keep land available so that it can be developed in whatever way, but we have to set certain priorities and certain goals on the Board also . And we also have to go by our code books, too. G. Van 31yke : Monica mentioned that eventually we're going to go back and redo the Zoning Ordinances and the Comprehensive Plan for the Town to correct some things that are probably wrong with it and to look toward the future, like the cell towers and rewriting the ordinances at that point, so there is a requirement that you have to take some training. They have different training sessions with Planning Boards at the County Planning Board that you can go and get the training, or there are State meetings that you can attend to learn more and more about this kind of thing. In another couple of years, it will probably take a little bit more of your time. M. Carey: Right. Basically, right now it's one meeting a month. M. Gloster: You must work other than just right here. You certainly have done a lot of homework with these people that came in tonight. M. Carey: We're old-timers on the Board. These are our three newest members. I guess you guys have been on a year now and Barb, you've been on a year and a half or two years? Be Clark: A couple years. T. Guihan: They give you ample information and they'll give you your manual. It takes a little research work, but after that - M. Gloster: I think I would love it. I would like very much to get more involved. Be Clark: It's interesting, too , Mary the way the whole Town of Groton is growing and expanding that we do get the Minutes with the Agenda, and anything that's going to come before the Board. We can then go out and check the property and get an idea of what they want to do and how it Page 15 of 19 (T) Groton Planning Board Regular Meeting Transcript 20 September 2001 will fit in. And the meetings that we have to go to - usually the Town will pay for registration and will pay travel. M. Carey: And our newest Board members, do you have anything to add? T. Guiihan: It's fun, really. You'll be given ample information. M. Carey: And it takes time to learn. And just sitting on the Board you will learn things and you will pick things up pretty darn quick. Does anyone else have any questions for Mary? Okay, I want to thank you, Mary for coming. We'll let you know what our decision is. Candidates for Code Enforcement Officer, Etc. M. Carey: I had a letter from Glenn from the Tompkins County Planning Department, and they'd like to come out - well, this is about the same thing you sent out I guess. They want to come out and discuss rural community and natural resources of Tompkins County. G. Morey: They cancelled last month because one of the people had relatives in the Towers and they had to go, but we are going to do another meeting in October and invite them out again and hope they will be able to come. We'll get in touch with everybody to make sure that you know. Basically, a bunch of politicians got together and decided what they wanted the County to look like in the future, and there's some unbelievable evaluations that a lot of people came up with. And they are very good, surprisingly. I apologize. Dawn Calkins called me a couple weeks ago and wanted to start being involved with the Town. We had a long discussion about different things involved and what she could do for the Town. There's her resume - it's attached there and I thought for sure she was going to be here tonight. She was planning on being here and then at the last minute she found out that she had a teacher/ parent conference at the school. So it's really your decision. If you want to interview her, that's fine. But next month we're going to be interviewing the Code Enforcement Officer and I was sort of looking forward to having a full Board for that. But that's really up to you because I have full faith and confidence in this Board as it sits right now to make a decision on the Code Enforcement Officer. There's six people. There's another person that's applied. Her name's Kristine Rice. She's a Code Enforcement Officer for the City of Ithaca, and she lives on Chipman's Corners Road, I believe. M. Carey: Champlin Road. G. Morey: Champlin. I'm sorry. M. Carey: But she works for the Town of Ithaca now as the Code Officer, G. Morey : Right, M. Carey: So she has all her training. Now George doesn't want to? G. Morey: I talked to George and he says he's enjoying it right now, but he hasn't put the application in. And I guess his mother, who's 94, is visiting him right now and he doesn't know how long she's going to stay. He thinks November. But he does enjoy this and he said he'd let me know. So if the Board would like me to do it, I'd be more than happy to contact these people. M. Carey: Her application looks pretty good I thought. Kristina. G. Morey: Do you want to set them up for 15 minutes starting at 7 : 30 , or do you want to come in at 7 and get them through? What do you want to do with interviews? There will be six of theml so there will be at least two hours. Fifteen minutes each, is that long enough? M. Carey: That's fine. G. Morey: Start at 7 or 7: 30? Page 16 of 19 (T) Groton Planning Board Regular Meeting Transcript 20 September 2001 M. Carey: Probably we ought to go for seven. B. Clark: I would think so. It would be good for me. J. Fitch: It would be okay for me too. M. Carey: Oh - Joan, can you make 7 o'clock? J. Fitch: Sure I can. M. Carey: I think ten minutes would probably be plenty. G. Morey: It's up to the Board, it really doesn't matter to me, but if you want Mary that's okay, or you can wait to interview Dawn. G. Van Slyke : Is she the only one that we've had - there's only two? M. Carey: Dawn or Mary. I'd like to see what Dawn has to offer. I don't know. She is interested. G. Morey: Do you want to contact her then? M. Carey: Okay. Do we want to set her up for next month, or - G. Morey: Certainly. We'll set up the Code Enforcement Officers - M. Carey: and have her come in. Well, maybe I'd have her come in first. We could have her come in at 7 o'clock. B. Clark: Then she wouldn't have to wait so long. M. Carey: And you could start scheduling the code people at 7: 15. We need to probably have the courtroom. Might be better, though, to have the other room. One at a time. We'll just keep our other room. J. Fitch: They can wait in here like they did last time . G. Morey: Or the jury room. George Van Slyke - Resignation G. Van Slyke : Maybe I better make the statement now. Maybe we ought to consider both of these people for the Board. We're going to Myrtle Beach for six months, starting in November. And the rules are you have to attend consecutive meetings; you can't miss three consecutive meetings. I think it's probably the time I handed in my resignation and, like I told you before Glenn, I always believed that if you're going to do something like this, you should be there to do it. Not be someplace else. I just don't think I would be doing the Town a favor. And I don't think I would be doing this Planning Board a favor by being away for six months. That's just the way it is. The reason I've felt that way is I've seen so many times that Town officials, people on the Town Board, you know, leave you with the short stack because they go away for four or five months, or for the winter. And I think that puts a burden on the rest of them. I know it happened with us with the Sirens deal. When we ended up with only four people trying to do that, that situation, it was a tough row to hoe. And I think that if you have people who are interested in doing it, then I would get them in. I've enjoyed it. I 've had a great time but I think that to be fair to you and to the Town that I should do that. J. Fitch: Then we can't have any more SEQRA reviews. M. Carey: We have the tape. Page 17 of 19 (T) Groton Planning Board Regular Meeting Transcript 20 September 2001 G. Morey: Sorry, George, but you never read the fine print when you signed the application, did you? You can't go . Well, I appreciate your being honest about it. M. Carey: You're the only other old person on the Board with me . G. Van Slyke : Well, I want to be an older person, but I feel that in all fairness, that a person should be here to do the job. And I know what it's like to be in a short-handed situation. So if you've got people that you can bring in. M. Carey: Maybe instead of having your resignation we put one of the people on as an Alternate. G. Van Slyke: Well, you're making an exception for one person and that shouldn't be the way it is. You've got your rules - M. Carey: It's in the rules that we can have an Alternate for this Board. G. Van Slyke: You shouldn't make exceptions for people. I appreciate your thought, but it doesn't work out logistically. G. Morey: Well, George, I think we can get somebody to do the job, but we can't replace you . I'm sorry to see you go, but we wish you the best of luck. G. Van Slyke: In Myrtle Beach the golf courses are there; we've got ten of them to play and there's 125 other ones. What the heck. M. Carey: Now when are you leaving? G. Van Slyke : We're leaving right after Election Day, M. Carey: Okay, so you'll be able to come to the next meeting. G. Van Slyke : Yes, I wouldn't mind coming and sitting in on that one and then just give you whatever expertise I got. M. Carey: You've been part of the Board for quite a few years. B. Clark: How many years have you been on the Board? G. Van Slyke: I don't even know. M. Carey: Since I was 10 or 12 years old. That's what it feels like for me. I wonder where Mark is? He hasn't been to this meeting or last month's right. I hope he isn't going to back out on us. B. Clark: Well, they have open house at the elementary school tonight. M. Carey: Oh, that's true. He's probably up there. G. Van Slyke: Now do I have to put that in writing, or is verbal enough? J. Fitch: It will be in writing in the Minutes. G. Van Slyke : Good . Page 18 of 19 (T) Groton Planning Board Regular Meeting Transcript 20 September 2001 Adjournment M. Carey: Glenn, do you have anything more to bring before the Board? G. Morey : No , I don't want to bring anything else. T. Guihan: I'll move that we adjourn. I want to listen to the President. We might be at war. B. Clark: Second. M. Carey: All in favor? (All members present indicated in the affirmative. ) Meeting adjourned. The meeting was adjourned at 8:42 p.m. Jo Fitch, Recording Secretary 10/4/01 RF (' F11/FO OCT 0 9 2001 Page 19 of 19 TOWN lM �nuiuN TOWN CLERK