Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-09-18 TOWN OF GROTON PLANNING BOARD Minutes of Regular Meeting - Thursday, 18 September 2003 - 7* 30 PM - Town Hall Members , Groton Planning Board (*Absent) Others Present Monica Carey, Chair Joan Fitch , Recording Secretary Barbara Clark George Senter, Town CEO Tom Guihan *Mark Baxendell Brad Albro Mary K. Gloster Janice Haines Applicants & Public in Attendance Robert Walpole, Applicant; David Alexander, Attorney, Applicant; Peggy Wilsterman , Applicant; Monika Roth from Cornell Cooperative Extension of Tompkins County. The meeting was called order at 7* 30 p . m. by Chairperson Monica Carey. Information re Agricultural District # 1 8-Yr. Review Chairperson Monica Carey recognized Monika Roth who presented the Planning Board with information regarding Cooperative Extension 's Ag District Review of the Town , which is required under State Law every eight years . She explained that they are asking for input from planning boards and town boards with regard to planning, comprehensive plans , land uses . Questions she raised are: what should stay in the Ag District? Are there parcels that need to come out of an Ag District because it might, in the future , conflict with the Town's plan for development? She further stated that the only time there is a conflict related to development in Ag Districts is when public dollars are proposed for development of infrastructure . Then a Notice of Intent procedure must be followed . Ms . Roth displayed a map of Agricultural District # 1 . The designation of an ag district is beneficial to farmers , and she explained the benefits . Materials were distributed to the Board members: timeline of the process , "New York State 's Agricultural District Program , " and a copy of the Public Notice . The map shown to the Board indicated the properties that were within the ag district. Some parcels which appear in an ag district, but are not covered, are because the property owners have requested not to be in the district. Fifty-one percent of the area that's in an ag district must be actively farmed . This is another motivation for taking out those parcels that are not going to be farmed ever again . Property can be added to an ag district on an annual basis . Recent subdivisions in the Town that have not been developed as yet can still remain in the ag district. Ms . Roth also stated that when a subdivision is proposed within an ag district, the applicants should be filing an Agricultural Data Statement with their application ; this is being done in the Town of Groton . She then displayed a Land Use / Land Cover Map to the Board compiled from satellite imagery which showed the active agricultural land . She asked the Board if there were areas that should be looked at in the Town that needed to be out of the ag district, perhaps around the Village . The Board, she stated , was welcome to review the maps she was going to leave and circle those areas that might make sense to remove from the district. Member Mary Gloster thought it would make sense to take this up at the upcoming Comprehensive Planning meeting. Chair Carey agreed . And , with the Town and Village working jointly on the Comprehensive Plan , this would be a good thing to have at the meeting. _ At the conclusion of the informational session , Chair Carey and the Board thanked Ms. Roth for coming to the meeting and apprising them of what is being undertaken . Page 1 of 4 (T) Groton Planning Board Minutes of Regular Meeting 18 September 2003 Peggy Wilsterman , Applicant / RO - 90 Cemetery Lane - TM #39- 1 - 2 . 2 & 2 . 3 - Boundary Chan e (Note : This application was tabled from the August meeting as there was no applicant present . ) Chairperson Carey recognized the applicant who explained the she wanted permission for a Boundary Change to consolidate her two tax map parcels into one parcel totaling 7 . 9± acres . After reviewing the tax map provided, a motion was made by Member Janice Haines to approve the boundary change , as requested. The motion was seconded by Member Mary Gloster, with the vote recorded as follows : Ayes : Chair Carey Nays : None Member Albro Member Clark Member Gloster Member Guihan Member Haines Absent: Member Baxendell Motion carried . This becomes Action #43 of 2003 . David C. Alexander, Attorney, Applicant / Mildred Ferenbaugh , RO - 1984 Peruville - McLean Road - TM # 37- 1 - 14. 2 Chair Carey recognized Attorney Alexander who explained that his client was seeking approval for a Minor Subdivision , splitting the 8 . 38± acre parcel into two parcels : Parcel 1 of 3 . 79± acres to be conveyed to Drew, and Parcel 2 of 4 . 59± acres (containing the home) to be conveyed to McDonald . These parcels were sketched in on the maps accompanying the application . Chair Carey noted that the Landowner , Mildred Ferenbaugh, had not signed the application, as required . Attorney Alexander stated he was acting for the purchaser, Drew, so was not authorized to sign the application for the owner. However, he would obtain the required signature from the seller or the seller's authorized representative, her daughter, Kay Jinks . The Board found the maps accompanying the application to be very confusing. Attorney Alexander stated that at one time there were two conflicting deeds between Converse and Ferenbaugh . This has now been taken care of and a treaty was executed between the parties , as he explained to the Board . Attorney Alexander stated that the land surveyor, Mr. Reagan , will prepare the final subdivision map , as requested by the Planning Board. He did not have it done before, pending final approval of this Board. Chair Carey stated that "Under 6 NYCRR Part 617 . 5 (c) ( 10) , ( 12) or ( 13) of the State Environmental Quality Review Law, the proposed action is a Type II action and is determined not to have a significant impact on the environment, or is otherwise precluded from environmental review under the Environmental Conservation Law, Article 8 . " In addition , the Board did not feel a public hearing was necessary. A motion was made by Member Barbara Clark to approve the subdivision of land, as requested, with the Public Hearing waived, contingent upon receipt of the final map and the application form with the landowner's / authorized representative 's signature affixed as required . The motion was seconded by Member Brad Albro , with the vote recorded as follows : Ayes : Chair Carey Nays : None Member Albro Member Clark Member Gloster Member Guihan Member Haines Absent: Member Baxendell Motion carried . This becomes Action #44 of 2003 . Page 2 of 4 1 , (T) Groton Planning Board Minutes of Regular Meeting 18 September 2003 Approval of Minutes - 21 August 2003 A motion was made by Member Gloster to approve the Minutes of the 21 August 2003 meeting, as submitted. The motion was seconded by Member Clark, with the vote recorded as follows : Ayes : Chair Carey Nays : None Member Albro Member Clark Member Gloster Member Guihan Member Haines Absent: Member Baxendell Motion carried . This becomes Action #45 of 2003 . Other Discussion William P. Leaver. Applicant / RO - 752 Spring Street - TM # 321 - 3 - 1 1 - Sketch Plan Conference - Previous Application for Proposed MVR & Sales CEO George Senter advised the Board that Mr. Leaver, who had appeared before the Planning Board at the August meeting, had submitted a letter dated 5 September 2003 asking to withdraw his request to conduct an MVR and used vehicle sales at this location . The subject property is located in an L District which states that "new/ used car sales , automobile repair, and service garages are not allowed . " At that meeting, Chair Carey advised the applicant that he needed to pursue a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals . Chair Carey then read Mr. Leaver's letter to the Town : "To Whom It May Concern : I wish to withdraw my application for site plan review for used car sales and repair at 752 Spring Street Extension , Groton, NY. Sincerely, William P. Leaver. " The Board felt that Mr. Leaver should have his application fee refunded . CEO Senter stated that he had suggested to Mr. Leaver that he get involved in revising the Comprehensive Plan as he had concerns with the 2000 ft. area around the Village in which his property falls . At the conclusion of the discussion , a motion was made by Member Albro to accept the withdrawal of Mr. Leaver's application for Site Plan Review/ Special Permit for MVR & Sales , with a recommendation made to the Town Board that the fee paid to the Town by the applicant be refunded. The motion was seconded by Member Tom Guihan , with the vote recorded as follows : Ayes : Chair Carey Nays : None Member Albro Member Clark Member Gloster Member Guihan Member Haines Absent: Member Baxendell Motion carried . This becomes Action #46 of 2003 . Walpole Real Estate . Applicant / Harold & Ruth Bernhardt ROs - West Groton Road TM # 22 - 1 - 15 - Minor. Subdivision Although not on the Agenda for this meeting, the Planning Board agreed to hear Mr. Walpole 's request for Preliminary Approval of a three-lot subdivision, as shown on the aerial photograph accompanying the application . Chair Carey remarked that the map / photograph was of very poor quality and perhaps he should be using GIF maps . Page 3 of 4 (T) Groton Planning Board Minutes of Regular Meeting 18 September 2003 Mr. Walpole stated that the Bernhardt property consisted of 168± acres and it was proposed to subdivide it into three lots , one 4-acre lot, one 12 -acre lot, with the remainder totaling 142 . 12 acres . The 4-acre lot was proposed to be conveyed . He further stated there were deed restrictions , e . g. , no double-wide homes . His surveyor, he stated , is preparing a survey of the proposed subdivision , but they were not ready for this meeting, but most likely would be available in November. The Ag Data Statement was filed with the Clerk, but the Board was not provided with this . Chair Carey stated that the required maps should be provided , and gave the Board the alternatives that they could use . She also advised him that they would need to see the Ag Data Statement . The Board further ascertained that each lot had adequate road frontage on the West Groton Road . One lot would be irregular as no brush or woods would be transferred, according to Mr. Walpole . At the completion of their discussion , a motion was made by Member Albro to ( 1 ) waive the required 10-day notice for placing this matter on the Board's Agenda, (2 ) approve the Preliminary Sketch for the proposed three-lot subdivision , as submitted , and (3 ) the Public Hearing and Final Subdivision Review set for 7:30 PM on 20 November 2003 . The motion was seconded by Member Gloster, with the vote recorded as follows : Ayes : Chair Carey Nays : None Member Albro Member Clark Member Gloster Member Guihan Member Haines Absent: Member Baxendell Motion carried . This becomes Action #47 of 2003 . Adjournment At 9 : 15 p . m . , a motion was made by Member Haines to adjourn the meeting. The motion was seconded by Member Albro, with every member present voting in favor. r JoctA . Fitch, Board Secretary Emailed to Town Clerk, Chair Carey, & Board Members Gloster & Albro on 10 / 6 / 03 . Originals mailed . RECEIVED a FILED OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK 101 CONGER BLVD. , GROTON, NY DATE /6 A ar v ? T E A ' PM ` OWN CLERK Page 4 of 4 Public Notice Agricultural District # 1 8 -Year Review Encompassing all or part of the towns of Caroline , Danby, Dryden , Groton , Ithaca , Lansing 30-day period of public review and comment commencing August 1, 2003 . Maps showing district boundaries can be reviewed at Cornell Cooperative Extension of Tompkins County, the Tompkins County Clerk ' s Office or the Tompkins County Planning Department. . Requests to have land included or excluded from the district may be made in writing to Cornell Cooperative Extension of Tompkins County, 615 Willow Avenue in Ithaca . . For more information contact Cooperative Extension at 272-2292 . New York State' s Agricultural District Program Legislative Intent and Policy "The socio-economic vitality of agriculture in the state is essential to economic stability and growth of many local communities and the state as a whole. " -NYS Agriculture & Markets Law, Article 25AA-Agricultural Districts Whereas many agricultural lands are in jeopardy of being lost for any agricultural purposes, it is therefore State Policy to: *conserve, protect and encourage the development and improvement of .farmland for agricultural production •conserve and protect agricultural land as valued natural and ecological resource which contributes to environmental and landscape preservation *provide for locally-initiated Agricultural Districts to protect and enhance agriculture as a viable segment of local and state economies •promote local initiatives for agricultural and farmland protection in addition to the Agricultural District Program Effects of the Agricultural District Program --on Rural Landowners * maintains the rural character of the county •contributes to scenic views for residents and tourists to enjoy •by maintaining open space, creates habitats that increase biological diversity •conserves natural and ecological resources *helps maintain land in active agricultural use and retains land for local food production *provides farm employment opportunities *farmers support local communities and schools through significant taxes they pay on landholdings •agriculture demands fewer public services than do residences and other development thus resulting in lower costs for services *affords the non-farming public the rare opportunity to interact with a farmer and learn about agriculture *prior to purchase of land in an agricultural district, buyers are notified to expect farming activities which may produce dust, noise and odors --on Farmers and Farmland *provides for agricultural assessment of farmland by valuing farmland based on it' s productive capacity not market value *farmers and others who convert land to non-agricultural uses may be liable for penalties on land in an agricultural district which has received an agricultural exemption in the last 5 years *limits local regulations that would unreasonably restrict or regulate farm structures or fanning practices •requires full evaluation of how proposed actions by government or public entities in an agricultural district impact fanning and farmland and seeks to encourage solutions that have the least detrimental effect on the viability of farming *restricts assessments on road frontage, acreage or value for local improvements, such as water or sewer, to one-half acre surrounding around faun residences •requires state agencies to be consistent in ensuring agriculture' s vitality by modifying regulations and procedures to encourage the retention of farming and farmland *provides support to fanners faced with nuisance complaints/suits in determining whether a particular agricultural practices is sound •through disclosure statements in real estate transactions , non-fanners moving into agricultural districts are made aware of fanning activities which may at times involve noise, odors and dust --on Rural Communities •local governments benefit from maintaining a diverse economic base •rural resources are preserved and protected •agriculture demands fewer public services than do residences , thereby keeping demand and costs for community services lower *comprehensive planning is enhanced by encouraging development patterns which allow farm operations to remain viable *economic development objectives can be enhanced by creating conditions that allow agricultural businesses to operate competitively alongside other forms of compatible businesses "water and sewer hook-ups in an agricultural district are limited to existing structures, thereby limiting housing development Agricultural District #1 &Year Review 300-Day Timeline 07/01 /03 Process Begins 08/01 /03 30-Day Public Comment Period 09/01 /03 - 10/31 /03 Gather Input from Town Planning Boards 11 /01 /03 Agricultural District Review Worksheets sent to agricultural landowners 12/01 /03 Worksheet results compiled 12/ 16/03 Public Hearing 01 /01 /04-02/ 15/04 Outreach to Town Boards for Input and to share Recommendations by 02/ 15/04 County Legislature determines to any changes to the District by 03 / 15/04 Review documentation sent to NYS Agriculture and Markets by 04/ 15/04 NYS Agriculture and Markets reviews documentation