HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-19-2010 PUB HEARING TOWN OF GROTON -MINUTES OF SPECIAL TOWN BOARD MEETING
AND PUBLIC HEARING ON DRAFT LAND USE & DEVELOPMENT CODE
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 19, 2010 AT 7:30 PM
THE TOWN HALL, 101 CONGER BOULEVARD
Those present: Glenn E. Morey, Supervisor
Ellard L. Sovocool, Councilman
Donald F. Scheffler, Councilman
Richard B. Gamel, Councilman
Sheldon C. Clark, Councilman
Fran Casullo, Attorney for the Town
Also present: Pat Nyman, Tom Nyman, Sharen Falletta, Otis Jackson, Renee King,
Paul Tavelli, Harvey Baker, Floyd Kyes, Lila Pierce, Dawn Pierce,
Mark Robinson, Katherine Cornell, Joni Parker, Al Parker, Chris
Brown, Tom Brown, Richard Dale, Sandi Swearingen, Sue Bennett,
Joe Bennett, Donna Simons, Steve Simons, Sheldon Carrington,
Cindy McNeal, Elmer McNeal, Lori Gardener, Katherine Wolf, Jean
Morey, Cliff Fenner, Linda Fenner, Dan Carey, Mary Gloster, George
Haeshe, Jeanne Ramsey, Kent Wallace, Gary Coats, April Scheffler.
Supervisor Morey moved to open the Public Hearing on the Draft Town of Groton Land
Use and Development Code, seconded by Councilman Sovocool, at 7:32 PM.
Ayes - Sovocool, Scheffler, Gamel, Clark, Morey
Clerk Scheffler read the Public Notice, which was duly published in the Town's Official
Newspaper, the Groton Independent, on September 29, 2010 with additional notices
published in the Freeville Shopper on September 21, September 28, October 5 and
October 12.
Supervisor Morey apologized for an extremely hoarse voice and asked Councilman
Gamel to read the following opening statement for him:
"Over four years ago the Town of Groton embarked on a mission to bring the Land Use
and Development Code more in line with the dreams and directions that we want to
proceed in with the Town. Groton is a small, rural community where people live and
work and where senior citizens are able to remain in their homes and young families
can afford to raise their children.
For the most part, the existing Code worked very well for the Town of Groton. We did
not feel that it needed to be completely rewritten but thoroughly reviewed and
updated to reflect current trends, technologies and laws. Regulations that conflicted
from page to page or were unclear needed to be corrected and procedures needed
to be presented in a more concise and easy to understand manner.
Town Board Minutes Page 2 October19, 2010
Agriculture has long been recognized as an essential activity within the Town of Groton
as acknowledged by the "Right to Farm Law of 1997." This Draft incorporates the "Right
of Farm Law" as well as aspects of the New York State Agriculture and Markets Law,
and preserves the vast majority of the Town within a Rural Agricultural Zoning District.
The Code addresses the need of many farmers to supplement their incomes with farm-
based agriculture related businesses. Former Codes have always allowed these
businesses and the Draft continues to allow them as well as define them and list them
on the Land Use Table.
Our commitment to agriculture will always remain strong, but we are also aware that
active and inactive farmland accounts for only about one half of the land area in the
Town of Groton. Careful study clearly shows that the people desire to use the
remaining land to its fullest potential either for open space, homes, recreation, or
businesses. The Town Board believes this is essential to the continued growth of our
community, the creation of jobs, the establishment of a healthy real estate tax base,
the payment of necessary sales taxes, the preservation of important services to the
public, the need of a wide range of people to supplement their incomes, and the
general welfare of all residents.
There is no one who has contributed to the writing of the Code who has a mistaken
assumption about site plan review process. The purpose of site plan review is not
necessarily to deny a use that is allowed within a district, but to review the plan and
apply design standards, modification and/or restrictions so that it does not adversely
affect the surrounding neighborhood. One purpose of the Code is to provide
guidelines to the Planning Board so that they can accomplish this task. These guidelines
must be flexible enough to cover all site plans, all types of projects, all areas of the
Town. The Draft gives the Planning Board the ability to review all site plan reviews on a
case-by-case basis and use their planning expertise to decide what is best for Groton.
The Town Board holds its Planning Board and ZBA in high regard and is confident that
they can carry out their duties and institute good planning practices and does not wish
to have a Code that ultimately restricts their ability to do so. The Comprehensive Plan
repeatedly states the need for clear and concise zoning regulations. The Draft either
supersedes or incorporates a variety of former laws and ordinances, many of which
were extremely outdated, into one modern document. Other pertinent laws and
documents have been attached as appendixes. The Town of Groton Planning Board
and Zoning Board of Appeals have developed and honed their procedures through
many years of practice. Respect was given to the hard work that these boards have
done to perfect their procedures and careful thought has been given to present, in
clear and understandable language, the actual procedures used by each board. Too
often zoning regulations consist of "cut-and-paste" language from generic templates
that may apply to one community but not another and sometimes do not reflect
actual procedures used.
The Draft contains what we believe are the best parts of the old Code and the first
draft, as well as additional updates that we felt were important. It is the culmination of
years of work by the review committee, the Town Board and the public. It has had
input from the community and public officials alike. It is a melding of the old and the
new. From the very beginning of this project, it has been the plan of the Town Board to
gather as much information as possible, reach out to every available source, keep the
things that work, learn from experience and explore new ideas in order to create a
Town Board Minutes Page 3 October19, 2010
code that we feel is in the best interest of the Town. I believe this is an active
document that will be reviewed at every organizational meeting at the beginning of
the year. No one person has a claim to fame in this process. It belongs to all of us.
The Draft has been written with the Town of Groton in mind. It has been written for the
people who must abide by it, the Code Enforcement Officer who enforces it, and all of
the board members who act under its regulations. The Town Board's main concern is
with the trust that has been bestowed upon them by the people of Groton and the
responsibility to ensure that this Code represents the well being of all of the people and
ensures the future growth and prosperity of the Town.
Tonight we are here to listen to all of your concerns. I ask of everyone to have respect
for the person who is speaking and give that person the right to speak. We have to
remember we are neighbors and will continue to be neighbors after this. I would like to
suggest some rules when you speak tonight:
1. State your name and address;
2. Respect other's opinions;
3. Each person can speak only once;
4. No one can defer their time to speak to another person;
5. There is a limit to 3 minutes to speak;
6. The Board is here to listen and may or may not answer any questions.
If everyone understands these rules, who would like to go first?"
Paul Tavelli - I'm an attorney; been one for about 30 years. I live in Lansing. I don't think
there's any attorneys that live in Groton now but my wife lived here for 30 years. I was
contacted some months ago about a neighborhood group in Pleasant Valley area
because of the mass gathering issue and I met with upwards to 30 or 40 people. I think
there were about 50 or 60 that were concerned about this. I interviewed some of the
neighbors and with the festival that was held two years ago, their windows rattled from
the noise and there it was a profanity laced festival and they were concerned.
Fortunately this year, with the help of your attorney, we had a handshake agreement,
that with Mr. Casullo and myself, the owner of the property, there wasn't as many
problems. But we've got some concerns about this mass gathering ordinance. There's
probably three issues. I see the County isn't totally thrilled with it. I've read Mr. Marx's
and the other people from the County. They suggest that that mass gathering portion
be excised. I'd like to at least have that discussed during the winter because we're not
going to probably have a problem till next summer. Reading the SEQR regulations and
the DEC regulations, they're long and they're arduous but they say one of the most
important part of any SEQR regulation or study is noise and in this mass gathering they
90 decibels. Well, that's a sign as you go up Route 13 by Pyramid Mall it says 90
decibels, has to do with truck noise. From what I've been able to tell 90 is not a proper
amount of decibels for a rock and roll festival in the middle of the summer in the middle
of the summer when you've got neighbors surrounding the area. That's the second
problem we see, the neighborhood group. And the third problem really concerns
defining this ordinance with 350 people. Number of people doesn't really make a mass
gathering. It's probably the amplified music that's the biggest issue. You've got other
issues, trash, alcohol, crowd control, but noise is the key issue to these neighbors. And
they surround this area. Not everyone in Groton is going to have this problem because
who lives right next to a 90-acre parcel? I'm asking you tonight in your SEQR portion of
Town Board Minutes Page 4 October19, 2010
the program to think about noise levels; that should be addressed. I've submitted some
information to Mr. Casullo about redoing the ordinance so 350 isn't the key. 345 people
with music all night long, amplified, and six bands can be worse than 700 people there
with no music. So, the neighbors, at least 40 or 50 of them want you to look at the mass
gathering ordinance a little more carefully. Thank you.
Floyd (Dusty) Kyes - I'd like to take this opportunity to thank the Town Board and thank
the different factions in the Town for at least coming close enough together on
agreement to allow this to move ahead as far as it has and express my desire that
hopefully the Board will find its way clear to at least take care of the zoning business
and then worry about the mass gathering as it works out later. I know this zoning is
important to all of us, me included, and I sincerely hope that this forward movement,
that we've got going so far, continues. Thank you very much for your time.
Lori Gardener - I've already expressed my concerned that it shouldn't be a mass
ordinance in the zoning bill but it should be, we should deal with some noise limits in
terms of this. But my concern right now is that I seem to have been rezoned. I moved
into a nice little rural community which is where I wanted to live and it's been rezoned
into a moderate density area. Now, a moderate density is a lot of houses and how do
you intend to accommodate them? Are we going to end up having to pay huge bills
to bring water lines and sewer lines in because I have water and sewer. I don't have a
natural gas line. I have to get oil from a tank. I mean, this is not a place to have a
moderate density area. It's out in the middle of nowhere. We don't have police
service. I can't understand; it's unfathomable to me why you've redesigned it into a
moderate density. I mean, I've got to walk probably about a mile to get to a bus line. I
don't want to live in a village.
Councilman Gamel - Not that we're going to put water or sewer in there or anything
like that. The way it was before, it was low intensity. The way the restructuring went, it's
medium intensity now, but really, they're not too much different. It's just the way the
restructuring went; that's the new term that is used to take care of that area where
there are smaller lots and more condensed housing.
Lori Gardener - But that's really low intensity. Why call it medium intensity. Medium
intensity, even according to your thing, is like a village and it's not really a village, it's a
small community. I mean, the houses are close together on the road front but most
people own a half acre to an acre or more of property. It's not that small of lots. It's a
low intensity housing area. And I just have concerns that, you know, are you going to
try to really develop this area and, you know, eventually, it's not the area to expand to
where you have to move water and sewer from a long ways.
Clerk Scheffler - Actually, Medium One Intensity is the village and hamlet style. This is
Medium Two, which basically means that there are a lot of houses on small lots, close
together. What that is going to indicate to the Planning Board is that if someone wants
to come in there with a business or something in that area, they are going to look at
that as this is an intense residential area with small lots, a lot of houses, a lot of
neighbors. They are going to look at that business that wants to go in there and
probably put some more planning practices into effect to think about buffer zones and
lighting and noise and that sort of things that they can control.
Councilman Gamel - It's really to protect you.
Town Board Minutes Page 5 October19, 2010
Lori Gardener - What about apartment houses? Does it open it up to apartment houses
as opposed to single family dwellings?
Clerk Scheffler- Apartment houses are allowed there now.
Councilman Gamel - Yes, they're already allowed there.
Lori Gardener - It just seems silly to me to expand in an area where you don't have
water or sewer and be increasing it.
Supervisor Morey - It's to protect you.
Katherine Wolf - First I would like a clarification. My husband, Peter Clark, isn't here this
evening. I have a letter from him. Am I going to permitted to say
Attorney Casullo - Absolutely.
Katherine Wolf - Okay, so first my little bit. I think that the zoning issues should move
ahead, incorporating all the comments and whatever, but I, obviously you know this
already, I strongly think that what's been called the mass gathering piece of it should
be taken out and dealt with separately. There are a lot of issues still there, and I don't
think it should be holding up any other things. In terms of the mass gathering, I have
heard objections to talking to any kind of dealing with noise because, oh my gosh,
what about weddings, what about graduations. Very seldom do people have
graduation parties that last two days. I know this has been changed...?..or have them
year after year after year. I mean, I might have, I had twins, I guess I could have had
two graduation parties in one year. But generally, having a noisy, disturbing gathering
due to family affairs simply doesn't happen every year and in the same place. And I'm
going to let it go at that because you've listened to me umpteen times and I suppose
that's all in your minutes.
Katherine Wolf read the following letter from Peter Clark: " I support town planning and
zoning. This improves our community's ability to make plans for the use of our own
property. I have been pleased over the course of this year to see the Town doing more
to alert property owners of planned changes. Like many people who have chosen to
move to Groton I value its rural character and quietness. A once a year one day
festival is not a big issue for me. Ongoing noisy intrusion from my neighbors is a big issue.
This is true whether it is music of any sort, cheers from the sports arena that could be
next to my property, or the sound of dirt bikes tearing around hour after hour. I am
saddened that Groton has not passed a meaningful regulation regarding nuisance
sound. I understand that this has been a thorny problem in other communities, but I ask
that Groton learn from the experience of others how to establish meaningful regulations
regarding noise."
Sandi Swearingen - I have three letters that I'm going to submit that I received. One
from Hugh Keegan, Patricia Nyman and Phyllis Dague. She read the following letter
from Phyllis Dague: "I will try and make the meeting but just in case I can't make it,
please convey my concerns. I am really concerned that the board is allowing these
concerts to be held. It is my hope that the final version of the zoning code will address
the mass gathering/rock concerts held in our neighborhood. Living just down the road
from the site it is very disruptive. I am concerned about my safety with so many people
Town Board Minutes Page 6 October19, 2010
drinking etc. and driving/walking on our road. If it happens to be a nice day I can't
even sit out on my back deck because of the noise. The loud music and the profanity
that I can hear is very offensive. I am also concerned that the Board is sanctioning an
event that is a business and that they are not following any of the rules already in place
regarding that. If I ever want to sell my house I hope that Eckert is prepared to buy it
because no one else will want that in their back yard."
Sandi Swearingen read the following letter from Patricia Nyman: "I have been a
resident of the Town of Groton for almost 30 years. My husband and I have considered
moving to a smaller home, as ours is pretty large for two people, however, we decided
that we would have a hard time finding another location that was as pleasant and
special to us. We have always enjoyed having the woods out back, the birds singing
and the quiet neighborhood. Last year, on two weekends, June and August, our
pleasant neighborhood became very disturbing and nerve-racking. Eckert's music
Festivals were incredibly loud and irritating. The festival in August, which started on
Friday evening and went through Sunday, was especially bad. Since it was summer, we
needed the windows open for fresh air, but found we had to close them to try to cut
down the constant noise. But, it was still there. By Sunday afternoon I was beside myself
with edgy nerves. The noise went on and on. The traffic was much louder than normal
with roaring engines and motorcycles. We live almost a mile from the site and in June I
could hear the "singer" say "this is for all you mother effers". I would have hated to
have my grandchildren here to listen to that! I realize that this year's music festival was
very quiet and there were no problems that I heard of. I am leery of thinking that this
will be the case in the future if there are no rules set for protecting the residents of
Groton from another disrupting festival. Please, put some rules into effect to help keep
our neighborhood a good place to live."
Sandi Swearingen - I also would like to put my thoughts forth that it was definitely better
this time but there's nothing in there that really protects us from the 350, that it could
change and I have a big concern about that.
Supervisor Morey - Sandi, do you want to read Hugh's?
Councilman Gamel - Sandi, can you just clarify, there's nothing to protect you from this
350
Sandi Swearingen - The amount of the attendees. It could happen they could have it
every weekend, because if he made sure that it's under 350 then we could be
subjected with no rules at all and I think that does need to be looked at. I feel bad that
the whole thing is tying up all the rest of your process that you've worked hard on and it
would benefit all the rest of the township, the rest of it, and since there is some problems
with that area still it would be nice to break it apart from that so that you could move
forward with businesses like Dusty's, who needs to, I mean I've known him for a long
time and I feel bad. I would like to see him be able to move forward.
Sandi Swearingen read the following letter from Hugh Keegan: "I am sorry I can not
make the Groton Town Board meeting tonight. Mr. Eckert's event this summer was very
acceptable. It was pleasant for the neighbors and I hope everyone had a good time.
If that is what he does next I have no issues with it. I hope they have good weather. I
am still concerned that the code is not correctly addressing the situation on multiple
issues and this is not aimed at Mr. Eckert rather the Code itself: A. The proposed sound
Town Board Minutes Page 7 October19, 2010
limit is too loud and no way to measure it. If it is a Code regulation then it has to be
measured to be compliant. There is nothing in the Code to define who and how it is to
be measured. If the Town makes it part of the Town code then the Town should be
responsible for any conformity to code. How will the town do this? B. I don't think the
mass gathering designation is clearly defined. Something this size should limit number of
attendees, hours of operation, time of day limitation, police, ambulance responsibilities,
insurance and health requirements, etc. Are these covered in the Code?"
Councilman Gamel - Just to cover that point, every one of those things are covered
based on the mass gathering section.
Sandy Swearingen - Okay. I didn't write it. What do you mean by every one of those
things though?
Councilman Gamel - Sanitation, water, number of attendees, time it can be limited to,
one day a year
Sandy Swearingen - But that's if it remains, if he goes over the 350 you have to have
those in place, but if it's not, there's nothing in place as well. (She continued with Mr.
Keegan's letter) "3. Why isn't the Code the same as the County's? It would make
everything easier to enforce. 4. Does the Code require any such event apply for a
permit and get neighbor approval? If not why not. This is just intelligent common
practice. This at best is a difficult practice and I hope there are ways to easily amend
the code without re-inventing the wheel in the process."
Sue Bennett - As you know, I'm not in favor of your final version of your zoning code,
specifically regard to the mass gathering. We came to you as a group of neighbors 13
months ago with a petition of 70 signatures asking you, the Board, to protect our right to
a safe and peaceful environment in a rural agriculture neighborhood. This was in
response to your allowing rock concerts, also called festivals, to be allowed in our
neighborhood, where the music could be heard for miles and went on day and night.
You have added a section to the zoning code that tries to address our concerns and
we have reiterated numerous times we feel there are some problems with the mass
gathering code as it is written. The areas that come to mind is that it should be an
ordinance so local law enforcement can be called by neighbors of an event if there
are problems with that event such as it being too loud or lasting too long or being out of
control. As you know, I checked with the Sheriff's Office and the State Police and we
can not call the police for a sanctioned event that the Town is sanctioning. They said
they will not come. And that's also what the Tompkins County Planning Department
also sited as one of their issues. A minimum number of attendees was established as
350 in order to follow the mass gathering ordinance. It doesn't matter if it's 10 people or
350, the noise potential is the same. There's also no maximum number of attendees
that I'm aware of unless that's changed again. I've reread the code; I don't think there
is, and I really think that it should have a maximum number of attendees or you could
have a grass roots festival and that's exactly what Captain Derrick Osborne of the State
Police has been quoted as saying. We provided some excellent ideas and suggestions
that would have made this mass gathering code much better but as a board, you
have been very close minded. The Tompkins County Planning Department also
provided suggestions and feedback to you. They determined that this code, and I
quote, may have negative intercommunity or countywide impacts but you have also
chosen to ignore their professional recommendations. To this end I personally feel you
Town Board Minutes Page 8 October19, 2010
have shown blatant disregard to our remaining concerns. You have also been
uncooperative to the point of being rude at times. It is clear that you won't work
collaboratively with the townspeople and that you don't like being questioned. I still
feel that the mass gathering should be dealt with separately and I ask that you do.
Renee King - Ogden Road. The reason why I'm here is I'm very unclear about the new
code and what it means to us as far as tax assessment, utilities, whether we'll be getting
more of them, water/sewage usage, whether or not that would be part of it or if I would
be able to have horse next spring or am I going to have something else. Am I going to
have to give you a piece of paper saying I need a horse and this is what I need, can I
have an appeasement or whatever they call it and I'm really concerned about that. I
live in a quiet area. I'd like to keep it that way and I like the way the taxes are in my
area. I like everything about it and I really don't want that to change unless there's a
reason that we can get something out of it.
Supervisor Morey - Do you want a horse in your neighborhood?
Renee King - Yes, I do.
Supervisor Morey - I tried to get back to you and left a message on your phone but I
was pretty hoarse.
Councilman Gamel - She's in M2 where it was rural ag before. There's small lots, a lot of
houses close together. It was put there to protect you before someone comes in with a
business on Ogden Road, with tractor trailers going through, that's a medium intensity
two district now, it's not really that much different than it was before.
Renee King - But what about a horse? If I decide to have a horse do I have to come to
you to ask you?
Councilman Gamel - There's no restriction on that.
Renee King - Okay, so I can still use it the way I want to, what about my taxes? Is it
going to make our taxes any different?
Supervisor Morey - We've been told, no.
Renee King - So, what is the purpose of rezoning?
Councilman Gamel - It's to protect you from businesses coming in to an area that is
mostly small lots with houses.
Renee King - I guess I'm confused, sorry.
Councilman Gamel - You like the rural aspect of it?
Renee King - Yes, I do.
Councilman Gamel - Okay. You like having neighbors close by as opposed to living out
in the sticks with no one for miles in either direction?
Town Board Minutes Page 9 October19, 2010
Renee King - That would be good too.
Councilman Gamel - Basically, when you look at the map and you see the lot sizes,
would you like to come up here for a second and I'm sure you've seen this map before.
This is your area. These are all the lots with all the houses. We don't want someone
buying this lot and putting a business in with tractor trailers coming in without them at
least flagging the Planning Board, saying, look, this is a medium intensity two district, we
have a lot of houses around here and we really need to look at what's going to
happen with a business that comes in to make sure that we're protecting these
neighbors, and that's really the only reason why it's been changed to a medium
intensity two.
Renee King - Then what about across the street? They still can do that across the street.
Councilman Gamel - And that's true in areas where there's large blocks of land that
wasn't set up that way, but we're trying to protect. And at the end of any section of
houses, eventually, you're going to have a bigger lot, you know, it's going to end
somewhere. In this case, this isn't a 30 mile stretch of road with houses on each side, it's
a small area, but when we have lot sizes that small, it was to protect the owners. You
can still have your horse.
Clerk Scheffler - But if a business, say someone wanted to have a motor vehicle repair
shop next door to you, when that application would come before the Planning Board
to approve that, then the Planning Board would look at the map and say, oh, we need
to take into consideration that there's a lot of small lots, a lot of single family residences
close together here, we need to think about buffering, lighting, hours of operation.
Councilman Gamel - If someone is putting a business right there (he points at section of
map) you know, with nothing around it, they're not going to look at it nearly as closely
as someone who buys that lot (in the M2 District) and wants to put an automotive repair
shop or a sandblasting facility in. You know, they buy a house right here with a house
on it and they want to put in a sandblasting facility, they're going to say, look, this is
Medium Intensity Two, we've got to protect the neighbors here. Let's make sure we
have a berm or barriers between the business and the houses next door; we make sure
that we limit the hours of operation to keep the people so that they're not up at 4
o'clock in the morning hearing sandblasting for a monument company.
Renee King - Okay, so that will protect us.
Councilman Gamel - Yes.
Renee King - Okay and if we left as farm land, what would happen?
Councilman Gamel - It would not go under the same scrutiny if it was left as farm. But
you can still have a horse and a goat too.
Clerk Scheffler - And you can still farm there because we can't restrict farming
anywhere.
Councilman Gamel - Right, you can't restrict farming but other businesses you can.
Town Board Minutes Page 10 October19, 2010
Lila Pierce - Old Stage Road. My concern is the changes that you want to make in my
neighborhood. Mainly, the main concern is the change to commercial industrial that
goes right up behind me. That's a long ways off 222. How far do you intend on
bringing that out? And I have a lot of concerns about that. I'm also concerned about
the changes below us, to Medium Intensity, making me think that eventually you plan
on bringing the Village line out in our area, because it sure looks that way. You talk
about preserving the integrity of the farmland and it currently is farmland and I don't
see how that's preserving our rural ag and I'd like you to take another look at that. I
see it can self-serve one person and that's the current owner of the property.
Surrounded by farmland, it just doesn't make any sense because you're talking about
the zoning of our change because you're trying to preserve the agriculture. I don't buy
it. That's a long ways off 222 and according to the zoning they could actually have
buildings six feet from our property. I'm not comfortable with that. We live in the
country. We live on farmland and I want to keep it that way.
Harvey Baker - Peru Road. I currently have a building which was zoned light
commercial and you're rezoning that to agricultural. That building is currently up for
sale as an industrial building. If you change the zoning on it, it will affect the sale of that
building. That has been a business there since 1986 doing woodworking, antiques and
furniture stripping and refinishing.
Councilman Gamel - Do you currently have a business there?
Harvey Baker - Yes I do. Currently, I'm trying to retire, but I do have a business license
for it. It's a ten thousand foot building, 11 acres of land it sits on, there are no other
buildings on that side of the road going south for about a mile. The creek is there, so it
kind of prevents any other building from being there.
Councilman Gamel - That's part of the reason, because it was a farm building at one
point.
Harvey Baker - It was a chicken barn. At one time everybody thanked me for getting
rid of the chickens and creating a business there. It's currently listed for sale as a light
duty industrial building. It is listed right now.
Councilman Gamel - And that would be allowed.
Harvey Baker - Well it should be allowed but your zoning changes what you, you've got
it back down to a rural agricultural.
Councilman Gamel - Yeah, but that would still be allowed in rural agricultural.
Harvey Baker - It doesn't say that on your map.
Councilman Gamel - On the chart that you were mailed, on the chart on the back, it
tells you in the right hand column, see where it says land uses continued? If you go right
down to light industry, which is about the eighth one down...
Harvey Baker - With site plan permitted. So, even though you're changing the zoning,
a person buy that facility could submit a plan for a business and that could be up to the
site committee to approve.
Town Board Minutes Page 11 October19, 2010
Councilman Gamel - But what you are currently in, it's not allowed, in the old chart.
Harvey Baker - I would like to have a letter from you stating that it would be allowed for
another business to come in there because otherwise that building will loose it's
commercial value if you go with the current map that it is and it will scare potential
buyers away.
Supervisor Morey - This regulation isn't passed yet.
Harvey Baker - Well, the regulation is kind of long and kind of iffy and kind of you could
read it any way you want. I'd like a letter stating what you just stated.
Supervisor Morey asked the Code Enforcement Officer, Gary Coats, to provide Mr.
Baker with a letter.
Ottis Jackson - I live at the four corners in West Groton. I'm for planning; I'm for zoning.
My personal feeling at this point though is that it's changing the zoning from agricultural
to low intensity residential is a little premature, at least for me personally at this point. I
used to be a manager of a fire extinguisher business out in Dryden that was in business
for 35 years and zoning changes happened in the Village of Dryden and at one point
someone realized that the business I was managing was eight inches over into the
residential zone. We applied for a variance; long story short the business got closed
down. I'm at retirement age at my fulltime job now and one of my long term planning
options, I own an acre field out behind my house and I was going to put up a small
building. No customers would show up but I would do extinguisher maintenance, which
is done at the site of the inspection process. It wouldn't be a business where the
customer would come visit. Under the zoning change I'd have to apply for a variance
for light industrial to do this. I guess my question would be, would I be able to put in a
school bus with 15 pigs, that would be okay, but I wouldn't, without a variance be able
to put in a small one-door garage.
Clerk Scheffler- Are you going to be manufacturing?
Ottis Jackson - No it's basically where you maintain and test fire extinguisher.
Clerk Scheffler- Well that's a retail service and that would be allowed.
Ottis Jackson - Well, what I would also need is a DOT regulated hydrostatic test
machine. It's sunk in concrete to do firefighters' air bottles. You also have to
hydrostatically test any DOT cylinder or vessel and that I believe, in my experience,
would fall under light industrial. I would go out in the field, pick up the products and
come back, there was never any noise issues, anything to that effect. To go back to
the change from rural agricultural, number one we don't have any type of high speed
internet, no cable TV, no bus stops. Fire service is quite a ways away. We're actually
closer to the North Lansing fire station than we are the Groton fire station. I heard a lot
of talk about noise and the 90 decibel level. Well, there's been numerous times, and I
understand this, that I get woke up when the combine goes by my bedroom window,
which is 45 feet away, because my neighbor has a cornfield belonging to the Pollack
Farm. I understand that's why I live in the agricultural community that I do. I don't feel
there's enough density in West Groton at this time to really go forward with the zoning
change in that area and that's just my personal opinion and feeling on the matter. It
Town Board Minutes Page 12 October19, 2010
would limit supplemental income opportunities for me and that's pretty much all I've
got.
Joe Bennett - So, just in tonight's meeting I've heard certain Board Members state how
the zoning code is intended to protect the people. So, what I'm saying is there's some
irony there because clearly the Board has allowed Bob Eckert to have a business in a
rural agricultural area. To my knowledge the old code and the new code does not
change that designation for that land. So, what I'm saying is you really didn't protect
us. I heard sand blasters, welders, truck traffic, we're talking about noise pollution from
rock festivals, grunge rock, and for us that's a similar concern. And so zoning aside, I do
agree zoning should go forward but it has not resolved the problem, nor will the mass
gathering resolve the problem of the rock festivals.
Steve Simons - I think, standing here before, I think we've all been through this. I think
one thing that we want to put into the records tonight, just for people who haven't
been here for previous meetings who don't understand some of this thing about the
mass gathering noise problem, we asked 13 months ago that this be divided off from
the zoning ordinances, per se, so the zoning could go ahead. And we want Dusty and
everybody else to realize that, that we asked the Town Board to separate but they
wouldn't separate it. So, that's why it's dragged along. Secondly, there is right now no
noise ordinances for any kind of gatherings or any kind of noise for gatherings under
350. Your neighbor can sit there and play his music as loud as he wants all night long,
seven days a week and there's nothing you can do about it, nothing at all. And that's
what we're trying to establish, is something here that will limit that type of aggravated
harassment, basically. The Board has not wanted to address that and that's why we
had to employ a lawyer to get them to address. There first address to this was that they
were going to have 300 people maximum gathered together. There were no noise
limitations, nothing and that still has not been addressed because you people have not
provided any way of measuring noise. Gary has no equipment to measure. Nothing
has been done, yet if you try to call anybody, if you try to call Gary, no I really have to
commend Gary because he was up around the area the day of that concert, but if we
had tried to call him after he'd left, all we have is his cell phone number. If he's not
there to answer it, it doesn't go to anything, because his answering, he has no voice
mail on that cell phone. You have no way of contacting anybody so there's no relief
here. And again, you have not addressed that we have asked that it now be
completely separated from the zoning so that the zoning can go ahead so that this
stuff can be settled and that we can move on with a true noise ordinance for this town
so we can basically keep it a rural agricultural, we can also move ahead with progress,
and we can kind of help everybody live together under some, you know, equality here.
It seems that everything is kind of geared toward, and we aren't, everybody tries to say
that we're zeroing in on Bob Eckert. We would be behind this if it was anyplace in the
Town of Groton and we have to say that anybody here that had this going on in their
backyard, they'd be standing here right now. So, it's not a Bob Eckert thing. That's
what you people have tried to push it down to. It's all we've heard. We don't want to
zero in on Bob Eckert. Well, we're not. We're zeroing in on you and we're asking you
to give us relief.
Supervisor Morey - Steve, you do understand that there's no regulation that has to do
with mass gathering right now on the books? So, therefore, we don't have to have the
decibel meter until we have to put this into effect.
Town Board Minutes Page 13 October19, 2010
Steve Simons - Exactly, but, you know, if we go back to the original land uses, right now
that's not, it's still rural agricultural. In the present land use and in this land use. And
there's no place in here, in rural agricultural land, that that stuff, his type of festival is
allowed. The closest thing you come to is commercial, outdoor recreation that takes
site plan review. You guys haven't done that even.
Supervisor Morey - But is this a code regulation or use of land or land use?
Steve Simons - Oh, I mean, is it or is it or is it.
Supervisor Morey - I mean, I don't know.
Steve Simons - Well, that's what you people, well that's the whole idea with what the
problem is with what you've done here, you have not put specifics and that's what
we're trying to pinpoint you guys to is specifics. You want to be open and kind of have
an open kind of document that you can't be pinned down to. That's the problem.
Al Parker - Ogden Road. My big question, looking at this map, from 1995 and I'm
looking at medium intensity two and that goes on 222 from Salt Road into the Village of
Groton. I know there's an industrial park there. There's a whole bunch of industry stuff
there and now it looks like you want to make the area up on Ogden Road the same as
that. That's my concern right there. I know Renee was talking about if she can have a
horse there but this is my concern. Why wouldn't it just be put into a low intensity district
instead of the M2 because the M2 right now, how you're using an M2 is like an industrial
park.
Councilman Gamel - Right, in the old zoning there was rural ag, medium one and
medium two and low intensity. Now there are a number of different, 7 I think, different
areas. All the definitions have changed. So, the definition of medium intensity was
commercially back then and what it is now are two totally different things.
Al Parker - Okay, well I understand that but it does look rather funny when I see this and
I know what is there on 222 and going into town and it just bothers me that that's the
same thing that could go on up on Ogden.
Councilman Gamel - It's not. With the definitions being changed. We also put in the
Highway Commercial/Industrial on 222.
Al Parker - Well that's fine. I just want to get this clarified because it looks rather like,
well, gee, now Ogden Road is going to be like that part of 222 and that just bothers me.
Councilman Gamel - That makes sense, with them both being called M2, your thought
process there but with the definition change, I think you will see the difference between
the old and the new.
After asking if anyone else wished to speak, Supervisor Morey moved to close the Public
Hearing, seconded by Councilman Scheffler at 8:29pm.
Ayes - Sovocool, Scheffler, Gamel, Clark, Morey
Town Board Minutes Page 14 October19, 2010
Supervisor Morey - There isn't going to be any action on the Public Hearing tonight and
the discussion of the State Environmental Quality Review, we're going to do that next
month.
Attorney Casullo - What I think, to be honest with you, I took down some notes from
some of the speakers. I think it's good practice that instead of trying to have the Public
Hearing, do the SEQR, and possibly act on it, that the Town Board take some time to
consider the comments of tonight and then hold a Special Meeting, probably later in
November. When I talked to April, it's my understanding that the regular November
meeting was changed to November 3rd, but that's being quite packed, including the
dog control local law that has to get finalized and passed. I think it would be better to
put this off to a Special Meeting where you can consider the comments made tonight,
you can work on the SEQR, and then possibly take action. This way the Board can
digest this. I know I have some question on some of the comments that were made
and I'll be talking to Gary and April a little bit and get my bearings a little bit on their
issues. As well, I jotted down Mr. Tavelli's three bullet points and I think it's a good idea
to have another Special Meeting in November just to concentrate on this. I appreciate
the fact that this has been going on for 13 months. I've only been involved since about
May, but one of my biggest concerns is I rather we do this right and cross all our "t"s
and dotting all our "i"s than ten years from now if it comes up for a challenge that we
didn't do something right and it was just because we tried to rush this along without
having the extra meeting. That could ultimately cost the Town taxpayers a lot more
money. I just want to make sure we do this the right way, hear everybody out, digest
their concerns, digest their comments, get a SEQR prepared, make sure everybody's on
notice for the SEQR and then if we're going to the local law, that we've done
everything properly.
Supervisor Morey - So, there will be no action on the SEQR tonight. Our next Board
Meeting is Wednesday, November 3rd at 7:30 pm.
There being no further business, Councilman Sovocool moved to adjourn, seconded by
Councilman Scheffler, at 8:35 pm. Unanimous.
April L. Scheffler, RMC
Town Clerk