Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-04-18 TOWN OF GROTON PLANNING BOARD Minutes of Regular Meeting Thursday, 18 April 2002 - 7:30 PM - Town Hall Members, Groton Planning Board (*Absent) Others Present Monica Carey, Chair Joan Fitch, Recording Secretary Barbara Clark George Senter, Sr. , Code Enforcement Officer Tom Guinan Glenn Morey, Town Supervisor *Mark Baxendell Lyle Raymond, Town ZBA Chair Brad Albro Steve Thane, Town ZBA Member Mary K. Gloster John Pachai, Town ZBA Member Janice Haines The meeting was called order at 7: 29 p . m. by Chairperson Monica Carey Training Sessions Chairperson Carey stated that everyone on the Board should have received information on training sessions in their meeting packets, and reminded them that the Town Board does require each Planning Board member to attend at least one each year. One of the training sessions was to be held on May 22nd from 6 :30 to 9 :30 p.m. and she encouraged everyone to attend. Member Barb Clark stated that she had already signed up, and Member Tom Guinan reported that he had too. Member Haines also will plan on attending. Tom Guinan reported that he had attended a conference on 30 March 2002 , and asked that it be noted on the Attendance Sheet. Approval of Meeting Minutes - 4 April 2002 It was noted by Chair Carey that the approval of last month's Minutes was omitted from the Agenda. However, everyone had a copy of these Minutes to review. Chair Carey stated that she had a conversation with Board Secretary Fitch regarding the location of the proposed duplex on the subdivided property owned by the Hewitt. The Board Secretary stated that at that meeting, Mr. Hewitt referred to the locations as "put it here" or "right here" and it was never clear which parcel would contain the proposed duplex and which contained the existing residence; nor was it noted on the sketch map accompanying the application. Therefore, the Minutes need to be corrected to reflect the correct location of each. Line 3 on page 1 of those Minutes should be changd to read "with the proposed duplex occupying a 320 ft. deep by 500 ft. wide ± . . .The remaining parcel would be the site of the existing residence. The duplex is to be used as a rental property." Therefore, a motion was made by Member Mary Gloster to approve the Minutes of the 4 April 2002 meeting, as corrected. The motion was seconded by Member Clark, with the vote recorded as follows: Ayes: Chair Carey Nayes: None Member Albro Member Clark Member Gloster Member Guinan Member Haines Absent: Member Baxendell Motion carried. This becomes Action # 19 of 2002 . Chair Carey commented that the Minutes were very easy to follow in their new format (narrative, not verbatim) and everything was covered that needed to be. The Board members all agreed. Page 1 of 5 (T) Groton Planning Board Regular Meeting Transcript 18 April 2002 Discussion of Low-Intensity Industrial District Chair Carey reported that a review was being conducted of this zoning district on Route 38 going to the Cayuga County line. There are three businesses located there. CEO Senter stated that in addition to the Lewis application to add a sunroom on the property (not allowed in this district) , there was also going to be an application from Mitch Metzgar to conduct minting in this same zone and that, too, is not allowed. Chair Carey thought that this zone should be changed more to an Ag District because there were a cluster of homes located there and they would not be able to do anything to change their residence/ add on. Also, there wasn't much open space left in the area. ZBA Member John Pachai responded that he was all for making some sort of change, but does it need to be an Ag District, or could it be "allowed in other zones with Site Plan Review?" CEO Senter said mining was allowed only in an Ag zone. ZBA Member Pachai wondered if the Industrial District concept could be eliminated completely, allowing it in a couple of other zones like Agriculture or Low-Intensity. This, Chair Carey said, would be where the Comprehensive Plan would come in, and what the Board was trying to do at this meeting was to help some people out who are unable to proceed with certain improvements to their property, or use of their property. Supervisor Glenn Morey reported that in 1995, the Planning Board changed the zoning on Locke Road from Agricultural to Low Industrial, believing that would be a district which would allow a mixture of residences and industrial development. When Jeff Lewis, a member of the Planning Board at that time, recently applied for a Building Permit to construct an addition to his home, CEO Senter advised him that this was no longer an allowed use in this district. Supervisor Morey believes this zoning district should be changed; it was his belief that it should be changed from Light Industrial to Agricultural which would permit mining for Lewbro, as well as residents to make additions to their homes, build garages, etc. Mr. Metzgar, he reported, wanted to mine 2 . 7 acres in the Industrial Zone . ZBA Member asked how close this would be to the residences abutting his property, and CEO Senter stated he would be back 400 to 500 feet. CEO Senter has forwarded all the Lewbro paperwork to Town Attorney Castillo for his review. Member Mary Gloster asked if the area being discussed fell into the Owasco Inlet area where they may be water restrictions relative to mining. CEO Senter replied he didn't know if that would affect the request, but there was, at the end of that zone, a flood plain. Chair Carey stated that the NYSDEC regulated all mining permits and monitored them very closely. To further clarify the problem, CEO Senter advised that the homes in the area are now non- conforming and a non- conforming building cannot be added onto or enlarged. ZBA Member Pachai thought that there was a chance that this also meant "alterations" like changing siding, etc. CEO Senter stated that he would most likely give a permit to put siding or new roof on a home. ZBA Member Pachai thought the definition of alterations needed to be re- defined. Supervisor Morey asked if there was any zoning district in the Town which would allow light industrial and residential. CEO Senter replied there was not. Even in an Ag District, Chair Carey stated, anyone requesting a mining permit would have to come before the Planning Board for Site Plan Approval so there was still some control. ZBA Chair Lyle Raymond advised that the whole idea of an industrial zone, commercial zone, or whatever, is quite clear, and that is to keep the residential and the commercial/industrial separated by enough distance to alleviate complaints from residents pertaining to noise, dust, traffic, etc. Further, where is there in the Town where a separate commercial district could be set up without inevitably including someone's house in that district, making it non- conforming? It has been proven in court cases that non-conforming is, in not allowing them to expand the use, to eventually have it disappear. This, ZBA Chair Raymond, needs to be addressed. In the Lewis case, he stated, his Board must look at a balance: the needs of the resident asking for a variance vs. the interest of the Town. The interest of the Town, he stated, was commercial/ industrial. Also , will the existing businesses in this area be pleased with unlimited residential expansion therein? What do we want in this Town, and how do we want to treat the businesses and commerce that we want to attract here? Chair Carey stated that when that District was set up because of Lewbro's no complaints had ever been received. ZBA Chair Raymond countered that inevitably the existing homes would be sold and Page 2 of 5 (T) Groton Planning Board Regular Meeting Transcript 18 April 2002 someone else might come in who has an entirely different view of the matter. ZBA Member Pachai suggested keeping it Industrial, but give the residents all the rights and privileges of someone in a residential area. Chair Carey responded that this would not help the Lewbro mining problem. CEO Senter suggested changing the Industrial into RA (Rural Agricultural) ; any applicants for projects in this area would still have to undergo Site Plan Review. Supervisor Morey reminded those present that "we need a quick fix right now." He stated that the Town Board would set a public hearing date at their May 14' meeting, so it would be June before this could be done . Sections of the Town, in the meantime, need to be identified where there could be industrial complexes, residences, etc. , and there needs to be a good thorough look at the definitions. ZBA Chair Raymond emphasized that the zone change should be to RA, Rural Agricultural, and not just Agricultural. Then, in an RA District, an industrial/ commercial applicant would have to undergo Site Plan Review. Anything allowed in an Industrial Zone would be allowed in an RA Zone, but with Site Plan Review. A motion was then made by Member Tom Guihan to recommend to the Town Board that the present Low-Intensity Industrial District be changed to a Rural Agricultural District. The motion was seconded by Member Brad Albro, with the vote recorded as follows: Ayes: Chair Carey Nayes: None Member Albro Member Clark Member Gloster Member Guihan Member Haines Absent: Member Baxendell Motion carried. This becomes Action # 20 of 2002 . In response to ZBA Member Pachai's question, CEO Senter answered that the side yard setback in the Town was six feet. Discussion of Elder Cottage Housing Units Planning Board Chair Carey reported that she had asked ZBA Chair Lyle Raymond to talk to the Planning Board about their recommendations that this Board may wish to consider to make ECHO unit siting more adaptable to current housing markets and conditions, as well as reducing the need for variance requests. Each Planning Board member had received a Memo dated 5 April, sent to the Town Board, regarding the ZBA Board's suggested changes, along with the proposed changes to Section 320 for ECHO housing units (3 pages) . Supervisor Morey copied these for the Board Secretary as she had not received them. These are appended to these Minutes. Chair Carey reported that there had been two applications in as many months for ECHO housing units which exceeded the allowable square footage, necessitating a request for a variance. The Town's Code was based on the Tompkins County requirements. ZBA Chair Raymond then reviewed his Board's proposed changes to Section 320, one by one. With regard to Item 1 , CEO George Senter stated that he disagreed that the ECHO unit should be included in the dwellings list for maximum lot coverage because it would penalize people who do not have the larger lots, such as in McLean and Peruville. Lyle responded that some residents would not be "too happy if they knew an ECHO housing unit was going in on a lot right next to their's where it's a very small lot in the first place." CEO Senter countered that any unit would still have to meet the required setbacks. Chair Carey thought that this item should be looked into further and worked on in conjunction with the Comprehensive Plan. However, a "temporary fix" needed to be made with regard to the maximum square footage allowed for the unit. She suggested that wording to the effect "anything less than a one- acre lot would have to go before the ZBA for a variance." CEO Senter stated he thought it should be looked at in the Comprehensive Plan. ZBA Chair Raymond said another approach may be to have different rules within the M 1 and M2 districts where there is a greater concentration of parcels. Page 3 of 5 IT) Groton Planning Board Regular Meeting Transcript 18 April 2002 With regard to Item 2, the ZBA concluded that the length of ECHO units should not exceed 1 . 75 times its width. Chair Carey stated that at the time the Town's Code was set up, it was assumed that there would be units available from Tompkins County, which is not the case as they are all in use and there's a waiting list for them. CEO Senter stated that people want single-wides that are not too expensive. ZBA Chair Raymond replied that he had a letter from Tompkins County Better Housing indicating that the reason the 750 SF was set was to specifically exclude mobile homes from ever being used as ECHO housing units. Chair Carey suggested changing the maximum square footage allowed to give "us something to work with temporarily until the Comprehensive Plan and everything else is changed around." ZBA Member Pachai responded that " 1 ,000 square feet definitely would do it." ZBA Chair Raymond answered that this is where Item 3 of his Board's suggestions comes in. He also stated that the Code requires the ECHO unit to be "subordinate to the primary dwelling, and if the primary dwelling is already a single-wide mobile home, and they want to put an ECHO housing unit in, then it's got to be subordinate to the primary." What if the 1000 SF allowed is larger than the primary dwelling? This needs to be clarified. CEO Senter answered that he thought "subordinate" was in relation to the septic, water, and electric systems. However, Lyle reminded everyone, "subordinate" is not defined in the Code. It was concluded that the 750 SF limitation was not realistic. Board Member Clark suggested going by dimension rather than square feet, which would eliminate the single-wide. No one thought this was a good idea. Member Guihan asked if "winding up with a bunch of trailers" should be of concern. Back to ZBA Item 1 , ZBA Member Pachai stated there would be some oversight as to lot coverage because anything less than an acre would require an area variance from the ZBA. Chair Carey, considering cost factors between single-wides, double-wides, and modulars, asked "are we going to make it impossible for people who live on a fixed income and would like to live on their own, but really can't, and they need the help of a relative . , are we going to start restricting that? If that's the way we're going to go, I don't like it." Member Gloster stated that 1000 SF should be the maximum allowable, thereby solving that concern, and this does not say that someone could not bring in a 750 SF unit. With regard to Item 4, ZBA Chair Raymond commented that there appears to be hazy lines in the definitions of accessory apartments and detached rooms, and these do not appear to mesh with Section 320 on ECHO units. He stated that for one thing, the apartments and detached rooms are permanent, whereas ECHO units are not. These definitions need to be reviewed. CEO Senter stated that it was his opinion that an accessory apartment (e.g. , mother-in-law apartment) is a definite part of the main dwelling, and a detached room is a functional part of the main dwelling; these are totally different from an ECHO unit which is temporary. With regard to Item 5 , the Planning Board agreed that the eligible age for ECHO units should be made compatible/ the same as the Better Housing of Tompkins County's eligible age . Groton's Code has a 62- year age eligibility requirement in Section 320 . 2b. CEO Senter commented that he had no comment on this. With regard to Item 6, this is really not applicable in this State, but might be something to consider in revising the Code. CEO Senter stated he will comment on this at a later time. With regard to Item 7 , which pertains to relationships between ECHO unit occupants and those in the primarily dwelling, the ZBA suggests revising this to make it compatible with the definitions used in contemporary planning and zoning references. For instance, our Code, Lyle said, is not set up to deal with permanent, long-term companions; they would not be eligible for these units. Chair Carey then concluded the meeting by asking that her Board come up with more ideas/ information for the next meeting. Page 4 of 5 I(T) Groton Planning Board Regular Meeting Transcript 18 April 2002 Adjournment A motion was made by Member Clark to adjourn the meeting. The motion was seconded by Member Albro, with the vote recorded as follows: Ayes: Chair Carey Nayes: None Member Albro Member Clark Member Gloster Member Guihan Member Haines Absent: Member Baxendell Motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 9 p. m. o E . Fitch, Board Secretary 5/ 1 / 02 4Y 0 ,6 Took�.F �p0Z Nc� R'U/V Page 5 of 5