Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-13-1996MINUTES OF TOWN BOARD MEETING MONDAY, MAY 13, 1996 AT 7:30 P.M. Those present: Teresa M. Ellard L. Gordon C. Donald N. Daniel J. Francis C Robinson, Supervisor Sovocool, Councilman VanBenschoten, Councilman Palmer, Councilman Carey, Councilman asullo, Attorney Also present: Liz Brennan, Leland Cornelius, George Senter, Betty Sperger, Atty. Jim Henry, Phil and Dorothy Martinez, Jeff Cronk, Duane Hall Moved by Mr. Palmer, seconded by Mr. VanBenschoten, that the minutes of April 8th be approved as mailed. Ayes - Sovocool, VanBenschoten, Palmer, Carey and Robinson. Claim Nos. 53 to 68 of the Highway Fund in the amount of $12,128.95 and Claim Nos. 90 to 116 of the General Fund in the amount of $21,949.37 were presented for audit. Moved by Mr. Palmer, seconded by Mr. Sovocool, that the bills be approved for payment. Ayes - Sovocool, VanBenschoten, Palmer, Carey and Robinson. Claim Nos. 46 to 48 of the Special Grant Fund (HUD) in the amount of $5,473.57 were presented for audit. Moved by Mr. Sovocool, seconded by Mr. Carey, that the bills be approved for payment. Ayes - Sovocool, VanBenschoten, Palmer, Carey, Robinson. LIZ BRENNAN - BOOKKEEPER - Handed out monthly reports and detail of expenditures for month ending 4/30/96. Councilman Palmer would like to have monthly data summarized by category or a bottom line figure on Accounts A, B, etc. as the year progresses to see if we are staying within budget. Also, Mr. Palmer wanted to know how we actually ended up with the 1995 unexpended balance. Liz said that would have been within the annual report. Is that the 8029 accounts from the annual report? Maybe without taking up peoples time, we could sit down and go through it at your convenience. I know we had projected last fall of having an unexpended balance of $102,000 or something like that. I was just wondering how we ended up the year compared to that. Liz said that we were definitely in the black. GEORGE R. SENTER, SR. - CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER - Year -to -date building permits issued: 1995 23 5 houses 5 mobile homes 13 misc 1996 20 1 house 2 mobile homes 17 misc Life safety inspections are current through April Do you want to comment on Lyle Raymond's letter now or later? Supervisor Robinson said it is coming up under Item 15 on the Agenda so we will wait. LELAND CORNELIUS - HIGHWAY SUPERINTENDENT - I have nothing only to discuss road projects which is Item #12. COLLEEN D. PIERSON - TOWN CLERK /TAX COLLECTOR - Monthly reports for Town Clerk and Tax Collected were reviewed by Board. I would like to discuss the Solid Waste Fee resolution which is Item #7 on the Agenda and also the Dog Enumeration Proposal which is Item #6 on the Agenda. ARLAND L. HEFFRON AND ALTON I. ALEXANDER - TOWN JUSTICES - Monthly reports of the Town Justices were reviewed by the Board. PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR - No one wished to speak. We have the Groton Community Links Resolution which you all received in the mail. It is an effort on the part of the Town, Village, School, Businesses 1 and other organizations to give ourself a boost with Main Street -- the businesses, the sidewalks and any other deficiencies that we have around here and get together and have a concerted effort by everybody. Some of it will be in money, some of it will be in work. Those above are all taking it back to their Boards. It doesn't mean dollars and cents right now, it might just be physical work. Main Street is the doorway to our community and our doorway is pretty sloppy and pretty messy and it needs some cleaning up. It represents all of us and when people go through town that's what they see. RESOLUTION NO. 20 - SUPPORT COMMUNITY LINKS PROJECT Moved by Mr. Palmer, seconded by Mr. VanBenschoten Ayes - Sovocool, VanBenschoten, Palmer, Carey, Robinson RESOLVED, that Groton proposes to establish a COMMUNITY LINKS project for community revitalization of Main Street and more. This project will focus on economic development, improving visual appearance and building community pride. The first priority will be the downtown area. FURTHER RESOLVED, that we, the Town Board of the Town of Groton, have reviewed and discussed information provided by the Groton Community Links Committee and hereby resolve: 1.That the Town of Groton will support the efforts and work of the Community Revitalization /Main Street and more working committee. 2.That the Town of Groton will provide representation to participate as part of the working committee. AND FURTHER RESOLVED, that this Resolution of endorsement and support of COMMUNITY LINKS is executed by the Town of Groton as of this date, May 13, 1996. The Tompkins County SPCA is offering dog enumeration services to the Town for the fee of $2,400. They have done an enumeration for Ithaca and Newfield. Since they only realized a profit of $300 from these Towns, they felt that they could not negotiate their fee any lower for Groton. We haven't had an enumeration since 1990. The SPCA is doing an enumeration for the Town of Lansing and Danby during the months of May and June. As soon as they are completed with these Towns they will be able to start Groton. Our 1996 Dog Contract is $9,340. We expect to pick up an additional 400 unlicensed dogs. This would amount to $7.50 per dog or an additional $3000. We currently have approximately 1000 dogs licensed for a local fee of $7,500. Previously we were able to hire a dog enumerator for $1.00 per dog plus mileage or approximately $1,000 plus mileage. The State is thinking about mandating that an enumeration be done every year. We would have a lot less problems if we did an enumeration more frequently. These enumerators have to stop at each house at least once and sometimes more if no one is home. They also cross reference dogs located with existing dog licensing records. They issue follow - up letters to owners of unlicensed dogs. They deliver tickets to owners who do not license their dogs with 10 days of notification. RESOLUTION NO. 21 - ACCEPT SPCA DOG ENUMERATION PROPOSAL Moved by Mr. Sovocool, seconded by Mr. VanBenschoten Ayes - Sovocool, VanBenschoten, Carey, Robinson Nay - Palmer RESOLVED, that the Town Board does hereby accept the proposal submitted by the Tompkins County SPCA for dog enumeration services in the Town of Groton for the fee of $2,400.00. Solid Waste Fee Resolution - Information was sent to all Board Members -- 2 Copies of Resolutions from the Town of Lansing and Town of Enfield opposing a proposed amendment to the real property tax law authorizing the Board of Representatives of the County of Tompkins to direct the collecting officers of the Towns in such County to collect solid waste fees at the same time and the same manner as County and Town taxes are collected. This bill, if approved, would result in an additional unfunded administrative burden being placed upon the towns in Tompkins County. In 1995, the Groton Town Board passed a resolution opposing Tompkins Counties Solid Waste Fee being added to the 1996 Town and County Tax Bill due to the increased costs of collecting and insufficient time to negotiate a satisfactory contract with the County. This year the Tompkins County Board of Representatives requested Martin A. Luster, Assemblyman, 125th District, to introduce a bill that would authorize Tompkins County to collect solid waste fees along with property taxes. All Towns in the County were notified of this bill on March 27, 1996, by Assemblyman Luster. No one from the County Board of Representatives notified any of the Towns of their intent. In August of 1995, the Town of Groton offered to continue to work with Tompkins County for the express interest of considering collection of the Solid Waste Fee in the future. Obviously, the County Board has proceeded without taking into consideration the Towns concerns. On April 28, Thomas Todd, Chairman of Solid Waste Committee, wrote a letter to Lansing Town Clerk making comments on the Town of Lansings resolution opposing the proposed amendment. If there are misunderstandings in the proposed legislation, it is because the County Solid Waste Committee and the County Board of Reps did not keep the Towns informed of what is going on. There are many unanswered questions like if a tax payer refuses to pay the Solid Waste Fee, can the Clerk accept the amount remaining as payment in full or does she return the check? This is one of many unanswered questions. Consensus of the Town Board was to again oppose proposed bill in the Assembly since Tompkins County has not upheld their end of the agreement to negotiate with the Towns. RESOLUTION NO. 22 - OPPOSE TOMPKINS COUNTY SOLID WASTE FEE BEING ADDED TO THE 1997 TOWN AND COUNTY TAX BILL Moved by Mr. VanBenschoten, seconded by Mr. Carey Ayes - Sovocool, VanBenschoten, Palmer, Carey, Robinson RESOLVED, that Resolution No. 43 of August 14, 1995, be changed to encompass the 1997 Town and County Tax Roll. LELAND CORNELIUS, HIGHWAY SUPERINTENDENT - Bids for fuel oil tanks. We talked about this last fall. We had a quote. What I want to find out is are we going to go ahead with it or not? Supervisor Robinson said it was put in the budget to go ahead with it. It is going to take awhile to get some specs drawn up and get ready for the bid. Tanks have to be in by 1997 and we would like to do it this summer. Last year our quote was $26,500 plus concrete and the rest of the work that we are going to do ourselves. We estimated about $3000.00 for our own work or roughly about $30,000.00 for the project. What I need is the okay to get bid specs started. RESOLUTION NO. 23 - AUTHORIZATION TO PREPARE BID SPECIFICATIONS FOR FUEL OIL TANKS Moved by Mr. Palmer, seconded by Mr. Sovocool Ayes - Sovocool, VanBenschoten, Palmer, Carey, Robinson RESOLVED, that the Town Board does hereby authorize the Highway Superintendent to proceed with the bid specifications for removal and replacement of the fuel oil tanks. Supervisor Robinson has a copy of the 1996 Youth Service Contract that the Town and Village share jointly. The Village does the paper work and the Town contributes monetarily. This has worked out well for both Town and Village 3 with one doing the paper work. Basically, the contract is the same as it has been in the past. Attorney Casullo looked over contract and said that it appeared to be in order. RESOLUTION NO. 24 - 1996 TOMPKINS COUNTY YOUTH SERVICES CONTRACT JOINTLY WITH VILLAGE OF GROTON Moved by Mr. Sovocool, seconded by Mr. Palmer Ayes - Sovocool, VanBenschoten, Palmer, Carey, Robinson RESOLVED, that the Town Board does hereby authorize the Supervisor to sign the 1996 Tompkins County Youth Services Contract jointly with the Village of Groton. LELAND CORNELIUS - HIGHWAY SUPERINTENDENT - FEMA FLOOD DAMAGE REPORT - The FEMA representatives approved one project on Sovocool Hill Road estimated at $3100. Shoulders were washed out in several places but most of the areas didn't reach the minimum cost of $1,000.00. This was replacing the culvert at the watering trough. This has to be approved by two more examiners before it is finally approved. ROAD TOUR REPORT - We talked about two jobs for sure. Old Stage Road from Lick Street to Salt Road. We talked about the Bossard Road. We want to find out tonight what everyone wants to do -- finish the Bossard Road on the CHIPS Program from West Groton Road north to the dead end. There are two new houses and one old one and one proposed new house on this road. We expect to receive $50,000 from the CHIPS Program. I estimate that the Bossard Road job will cost about $15,000. This is cold mix paving on a 20' road. We have a little stretch on Elm Street that needs paving down by Darlings. If we have any money left we have to seal some roads -- Sincerbeaux Road and Lick Street. Consensus of the Board was to do Bossard Road with CHIPS money and Old Stage with the regular funds. There is enough CHIPS money now to do the Bossard Road. TRASH PICKUP DAY - Everyone wants a trash pickup day but we do not have any place to put it. The Village has been doing a lot of chipping of brush and they put it right where we usually put the trash. We aren't allowed to use our gravel bank. Supervisor Robinson asked how long do we have to go before we can use our own gravel pit. Do we go to the DEC? We can work in it mining gravel only. When can we once again own it? Would it be permissible to ask them at this time? Attorney Casullo felt that it would not hurt anything to ask but don't do anything until they tell us it's okay. Supervisor and Mayor will see what they can work out for trash days. GRIEVANCE DAY is going to be Monday, May 20, 1996, from 3:OOPM to 6:OOPM. Councilman VanBenschoten is doing the first stint and Councilman Sovocool is doing the second stint. GEORGE SENTER - Has a letter from Lyle Raymond, ZBA Chairman, and George Totman, Planning Board Chairman regarding Zoning Code Adjustments which reads as follows: Unnecessary confusion has arisen in regard to approval of lot line changes under the Groton Land Use & Development Code. This is the result of a proposed boundary change between two adjoining nonconforming lots. The lots will not meet current frontage requirements after the boundary between them is changes. The Planning Board would be approving lots that do not meet Code requirements. Application for a variance from the ZBA is one option. Denial of a permit from the Zoning Officer is needed for the ZBA to act. The property owners are not applying for a permit of any kind because they have no plans to build. This is all a futile waste of time for everyone concerned. The 4 nonconforming lot line realignments will in no way affect the Town differently from how the lots are used now. Existing homes will remain exactly as they were before. Codes need adjusting from time to time to keep them reasonable and workable. A lot of useless effort will be expended by the Planning Board, the Zoning Officer, and the Zoning Board of Appeals as a result of this situation. We request the Town Board to consider amending the Code to (1) clarify the authority of the Planning Board in approving lot line changes and (2) to remove the need to approve lot line changes between nonconforming lots. We propose three changes in the Land Use & Development Code to accomplish this: 1) State more clearly existing authority of the Planning Board to approve changes in lot boundaries and lot sizes. 2) To clarify that one lot subdivisions do not need the approval of the Planning Board. 3) To exclude boundary realignments between two adjoining nonconforming lots from the requirement for Planning Board approval. ADDITIONAL CORRECTION: Section 203 lists three types of subdivisions as defined in Section 120. There are, in fact, six types of subdivisions listed in Section 120. We propose that this error should be corrected as well. JIM HENRY, ATTY - There are several little quirks in the Code. The first one is the boundary line change. The subdivision regulations currently say that boundary line change must come before the Planning Board. It doesn't say much more than that. For example, it is not included in one of the types of subdivision. The second thing that was brought up is the subdivision section says there is three when actually there are six and there would be seven if you were to include boundary line change. What we had are two lots that existed before the Zoning Ordinance and they both didn't have enough frontage or area and they are current existing lots that are grandfathered in. A survey showed, however, that the driveway of one of the lots and part of the garage were actually over part of the line. The neighbors were very cooperative and said okay we'll deed this triangle from one lot to the other which will solve the problem. The problem is that this takes a prior grandfathered lot and makes it smaller and so you take it to the Planning Board and they say no problem with this but what about the questions of does it need a variance which is the Board of Zoning Appeals. The Board of Zoning Appeals says we can't handle it because there is no ruling against you by the Code Enforcement Officer. The CEO says this is fine with me, that's no problem. We are just going round and round with this. Maybe you should change the ordinance so that boundary line changes don't have to go any where. Possibly put this under Site Plan Review. Under the new code there is nothing set up for procedure and yet there is minor subdivisions, do you really call it a minor subdivision, it's kind of a different thing. There is these couple of things in the new code that need to be changed. Also, another quirk that we recently noticed, which wasn't true under the old code, which is under the new because of the additional language. You're talking about the definition of subdivision, you start with what is a lot, a development lot is basically a tax parcel lot. Only, the old code and the new code say that if a road or railroad run through it, it is two lots not one despite the fact that they are single tax parcels. Then when you go to the definition of subdivision, it says that dividing two non - contiguous lots that are divided by a road into two separate lots of ownership is under the definition of subdivision. So you've taken a separate lot which is one that is this situation of tax parcel and road. It's not a lot, it's two lots. But then you say to divide you need to have subdivision approval to divide that. Again, we're running around in circles. Example, suppose you have a 20 acre parcel with a road running through it with 10 acres on each side of the road. Under the current code if you were to divide one of those 10 acre parcels into two five acre pieces, you don't need any kind of approval because your just dividing them into two pieces rather than three. However, if what you want to do is take this ten and ten and sell off the ten on one side of the road you have to get subdivision approval to sell that then when you didn't need subdivision k, approval to divide the ten into five and five. This is language in there that needs to be cleaned up. Again, I don't know why that came in there between the two codes, but... Supervisor Robinson and George Senter said there were more quirks that need to be cleaned up. Supervisor Robinson made the suggestion that we get all the quirks together and clean up the language and make it so that we will all know what we are talking about and pass it all at one time instead of dibble and dabbling along since it takes a lot of work to get the law passed. Attorney Casullo thanked Jim Henry for his comments. Attorney Casullo suggested that the Planning Board, Appeals Board and the Zoning Officer get together a list of the changes that need to be made to the new code and get those changes to me and then we can schedule a hearing so that we can get this new code in workable order. Moved by Mr. VanBenschoten, seconded by Mr. Carey, that the Board go into executive session to discuss pending litigation. Ayes, VanBenschoten, Sovocool, Palmer, Carey, Robinson (8:55PM) Board Meeting reconvened at 9:20PM. One of our voting machines will be going over to the school this week because they are voting for board members and the budget. Discussed proposal from CS & K Roofing & Sheet Metal, Inc. to replace the eave troughs on our blue roof building. The snow tore them off this past winter. The estimate is for $2750.00 to fabricate and install new 24 gauge painted Kynar 500 fluorocarbon steel eave troughs. This includes repairing downspouts. These are the people that originally put on the roof and eave troughs. Chris Dempsey did not return a call to tell us how much our insurance deductible is. He thought it was $1,000. Councilman VanBenschoten said that he and Councilman Carey were out there and Dan had a suggestion that if Corney could raise the blacktop up out there and get the drainage, we could do away with those eave troughs. Town Clerk Pierson said that roofers said without eave troughs all the water runs down under the foundation of the building. They also said that we shouldn't be using those sno -jacs on the roof because they cause the snow to buildup and there is that much more snow to tear the eave troughs off. He suggested that we put eave troughs back up and use heat tape to keep the entrance ways free of falling rain, snow and ice. We do have to have something over the entrance ways. Board felt that heat tapes would be expensive and also would create more ice. Board suggested that we get another quotation possibly from Mickey Gallagher. Councilman Carey said that $1,750 after deductible is still a lot of money because you may have to do it again like Dutch said in just a few years. It has been up there since 1989. Councilman Palmer asked what we had to do to go out for bids. We normally don't go out for bids when it's under $10,000. We normally just get two quotes. Board decided to wait to see how much is covered by insurance before making a decision. Nothing is budgeted for this specifically but we do have money budgeted for repairs. We could also ask Mickey Gallagher to provide a quote. There being no further business, Mr. Sovocool moved to adjourn meeting, seconded by Mr. VanBenschoten, at 9:35PM. Colleen D. Pierson Town Clerk n