HomeMy WebLinkAbout1972-05-24 t
T. ,1TNTTTES = ' a:mtAy 24
PT,AI�NING BOART) OF Tr E TOW7\1 OF GROTON
::G . Totman - - Chsirman OCF . Scheffler
=:R . Cotanch - - Vice Chairman R . Gleason
Kane ; - Secretary E . McLaughlin
Payne
-; denotes those present
The -eaeeting was called to order at 8 : 20 P . M . by the chairman ,
George Totman .
Copies of three letters were distributed to the Planning Board
members . All three involved the FEHO Lana Corporation ' s request for
subdivision approval . One was from Dory Auerbach , the real estate
agent in Florida , the second Mr . Totman ' s letter of May 9 to Harry
Hamilton , and the third. Attorney Hamilton ' s response to Mr . Totman .
G . T . The purpose of this meeting; tonight is that May 24 was given
Mr . Hamilton as the date of our next meeting - - tlnP deadline for any
return of information requested from him on May 9 . And if we had
that information we would review it tonight and approve or dis -
aDprove it . None of the information has arrived . The only thing
we have received is a letter from the corporation ' s attorney stating
that they feel they are not in a position to proceed according to
our requests . What do you want to do from this point on ?
R . C . No information has been received ?
G . T . None .
R . � . '4 en are the forty - five days up ?
G . T . About June 10 ,
D . r' . Since they are unable or unwillinFr to give us any of the in -
formation , I see no choice but to reject the request .
R . C . Roads alone would be enough for a rejection .
B . P . If they sent it between now and the forty - five day deadline ,
we ' d have no time to evaluate it ,
R . C . We have to give an answer in forty - five days or it is assumed
aoproved .
F . S . Isn ' t it possible to approve it subject to these requests ?
Would an outright rejection leave us in a bad light ?
R . C ® The people at the public hearing who came from that area seemed
to feel very much as we did. - - concerned about water , drainage , etc .
( Discussion followed by F . S . , T' . C , and others on the general attitude
of the public toward subdivisions - - that they do not necessarily oppose
them as such . )
G . T . On May 16 Mr . Schaenen met with Mr . Dow and Mr . Bucko . They
went over the subdivision request . Schaenen�seemed. quite upset
that they were not willing to proceed according to the subdivision
regulations . He called Dory Auerbach in Florida . Apparently
Mr . Schaenen was very unhappy with Mr . Auerbach - - said the deal
was off as far as he was concerned . He felt they were being unfair
to the town .
It was after Mr Auerbach talked to Mr Schaenen that; Atty .
Hamilton answered my letter . Incidentally , Frank , in your suggestbon
on an aoproval subject to their answer to our requests ,- - that would.
require care in wording . Resoonse to some of these requests does
not imply approval . Their statement on roads and a performance
bond might not Meet our requirements .
R . C . Did I hear they were willing to nut up a partial performance
bond ?
G . Tm Yes - - partial , with the town to pay the rest . He wanted to
guarantee to pay a certain amount . The town would pay the rest .
D . P . They have not given us the information requirerl in our ordinance .
We can ' t accept anything ofi the information given to us .
R . C , If we refuse , we have to give our reasons .
G . T . Whatever we do we must make a release to the press . If rejected ,
why , with details of information asked for that we didn ' t get re -
lated. to data in the subdivision ordinance .
R ® C , Itemized from the subdivision regulations ®
G . T , They need our rejection in their hands before forty - five days .
We have nothing to go on of the required information . Let ' s have
a motion ®
Dope In view of the fact that Atty . Hamilton ' s letter of May 19
indicates no intention on the part of the FEHO Land Corporation
to supply us with a topographical map and information on their
various intents as to utilities , roads , drainage , and performance
bond as required in our subdivision ordinance in time for our con .
sideration within the forty - five da7 period following the public
hearing , I move we reject the subdivision request made by this
corporation ,
R ® C . I second. the motion .
G . T . You '_-_ rive heard the motion to reject PEHO ' s request nade and
seconded . Is there any further discussion ?
R . C . It is our intent , isn ' t it , to have Ben write a formal re -*
jection ?
I
J
Q
G , To Pen said anything we want - -he will write it up for us . All in
favor of the motion say aye ( ail ) - - opposed ( none ) , The motion
is carried . Ben will write Mr . Hamilton a formal letter , Is there
any further business ?
( Frank Scheffler presented a request which had been even to him
regarding a change in the Toning ordinance , This will be passed.
on _ to the Town Board . )
G .T. nicks has asked that our board be thinking of names to suggest
to the -"? for someone to replace Er' McLaughlin , Think it over until
the next meeting . Is there a motion to adjourn ?
R . C . I move the meetllng be adjourned ,
F . S . I second the motion ,
( The meeting was adjourned. at 9 * 35 . )
Respectfully submitted ,
Z .ana Kane
J