Loading...
2002-03-27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/27/02) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING MARCH 27, 2002 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT PAUL HAYES, ACTING CHAIRMAN CHARLES MC NULTY, SECRETARY NORMAN HIMES ALLAN BRYANT JAMES UNDERWOOD, ALTERNATE ROY URRICO, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT LEWIS STONE CHARLES ABBATE CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER-BRUCE FRANK STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 13-2002 TYPE II DONALD R. AND JOYCE A. BODAK ZONE: SFR- 10 LOCATION: FIVE BULLARD AVENUE APPLICANT HAS CONSTRUCTED A CHAIN LINK FENCE AD REQUESTS RELIEF FROM FENCE ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS. PREVIOUS AV 88-2001 WAS DENIED BY THE ZBA ON NOVEMBER 28, 2001. ON FEBRUARY 20, 2002 THE ZBA DETERMINED THAT THIS APPLICATION WAS A SIGNIFICANT ENOUGH CHANGE FROM AV 88-2001 PREVIOUSLY DENIED. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 88-2001 OLD TAX MAP NO. 101-2-10 NEW TAX MAP NO. 302.14-2-52 LOT SIZE: 0.21 ACRES SECTION: 179-74 DONALD & JOYCE BODAK, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 13-2002, Donald R. and Joyce A. Bodak, Meeting Date: March 27, 2002 “Project Location: Five Bullard Avenue Description of Proposed Project: Applicant has constructed a chain link fence which is located within the right of way for Bullard Ave. The applicant proposes to remove one section of chain-link fence and requests relief for the remainder of the fence in the right-of-way. the right-of-way. Relief Required: Applicant requests 6.75 feet of relief for that section of chain-link fence proposed to remain in the Bullard Avenue right-of-way. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to keep the section of fence in the right-of-way. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include removing the fence back to the front property line. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 6.75 feet of relief from the requirement may be interpreted as minimal. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minimal effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self-created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): AV 13-2002: 02/20/02; Determination made that the current application is significantly different from the denied AV 88-2001 application. AV 88-2001: 11/28/01; denied request for 16.75 feet of relief of fence in Town of Queensbury Right-of-way. Staff comment: Minimal impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action being the fence extends along the side property line with the end of the fence proposed to be 16.5 feet from the road. Town of Queensbury Highway Superintendent Richard Missita has stated the proposed location of the fence will not hinder the maintenance of the roadway nor will it pose any safety concerns (see note dated January 2, 2002). Additionally, the Bodaks have proposed to remove a section of split-rail fence and a wooden post, both 3 feet from the road, even though these sections of fence are pre-existing nonconforming. Consideration to remove the split-rail fence and post was made because of the negative public comments made during the public hearing on November 28, 2001. Another consideration might be given to the larger than normal right-of-way for Bullard Avenue (66 feet). Typically, roads with a 20-foot width would have a right-of-way of 50 feet. If Bullard Avenue had a 50-foot right of way, the Bodak’s proposal to remove one section of chain-link fence (ten feet) would not require a variance. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. HAYES-Thank you. Mr. and Mrs. Bodak, welcome back. MR. BODAK-Good evening. How are you? I guess the main thing would be to highlight the changes in your application. That post there is going to be taken out. That was from an existing fence. I left it there, 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/27/02) just as a marker. It’s not too clear, but there’s a 10 foot wooden section of fence right there. That’ll come out, and then there’s a, right there where that dot is is the start of the chain-link. That’s about six or seven feet off the road there, and it goes back probably, take that section off, it’ll be 10 foot, and that’ll be what I propose to do, and I’ve got a letter here from Mr. Missita that’s dated January 2, 2002. It’s addressed to Mr. Bruce Frank, subject Bodak fence, “As I previously indicated to you, the placement of the Bodak fence 16 feet from the edge of the blacktop does not hinder the maintenance of the roadway nor does it pose any safety concerns.” This was given to me by Mr. Missita, and I talked to Mr. Missita on the phone, and he said he didn’t know what the hell the problem was, he said, what the fuss is, we’ve never had a problem over there and he said we never had a problem with you. So I said, okay. So I said I still have to go before the Board anyway, and in light of the letter, I can’t understand what the big fuss is with my fence is. If he doesn’t have a problem with it, I don’t know why the Board does, although my neighbors do, but I’ll take the one section of fence out just to bring peace and get this thing settled, and then I can get on with my projects that I have planned for this. That’s about it right now, take out that 10 feet of chain-link and that wooden fence and that’s it. MR. HAYES-Okay. Thank you. I think we’re pretty clear, based on your previous visit, what the changes in the application are. Does anyone have any questions for the applicant at this time? MR. BRYANT-That ten foot section, is that to the second post, is that what you’re saying? MRS. BODAK-Yes, they’re in ten foot sections. MR. BRYANT-They’re in ten foot sections. So each post is ten feet apart? MR. BODAK-Yes, it is. It’s right there. MRS. BODAK-The first post sets way back from the rail fence. MR. BODAK-There’s the beginning of the chain-link right there, and that’ll go back to about there. MR. BRYANT-Okay. MR. HAYES-Any other questions for the applicant? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Is there anyone here wishing to speak in favor of this application? Anyone opposed? Please come forward, sir, and state your name. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED DENNIS MARTINEZ MR. MARTINEZ-My name is Dennis Martinez and I’m a neighbor of Mr. Bodak’s. If I could, I’d like to go up and give some distances on the fence, distances from the road, if I could. MR. HAYES-Certainly. MR. MARTINEZ-Okay. This fence post here is approximately 25 feet from the edge of the road. What I, and the original Board, stated that they wanted is to take 16 feet of fence away, which would bring the fence that’s on this side of the property almost in parallel line with this post here. So that would balance the fence on both sides of the property. What Mr. Bodak is asking for is to bring the fence back to here, which is only going to be 16 feet from the road. So you’ve got a nine foot variance, almost a section of fence difference between what he’s asking for and what’s on his property. MR. FRANK-For the record he’s asking for 6.75 feet of relief. MR. HAYES-You’ve got it. MR. MARTINEZ-In looking at the links of the fence, and removing a shorter section than what from post to post is would probably be more difficult to complete than just take the chain-link fence back two sections, link the fence to the post that’s there, cut the fence away and remove two posts. The fences would almost be in parallel with one another, rather than having one section of fence being closer to the road than another section. It will be a balanced look on the property, is what it would be. MR. HAYES-Bruce, how are we arriving at the 6.75? What is the, what’s the required setback on that thing? MR. FRANK-Well, you’re allowed to have a fence right on your property line. So by removing 10 feet off a chain-link fence, he’ll be encroaching on the right-of-way by 6.75 feet. MR. HAYES-Okay. 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/27/02) MR. MARTINEZ-As previously stated, in the last meeting, the Board said, in some of its comments, that if 16 and a half feet were removed, it would be aesthetically pleasing in the neighborhood. On the bottom of Queensbury’s letterhead, it has “Home of Natural Beauty…A Good Place to Live” and things of that nature. I, my personal opinion, is that a chain-link fence is not one of natural beauty. A split-rail fence, a picket fence, fences of that nature, do relate to natural beauty and I probably believe that the origin of chain-link fences was for industrial use rather than residential use. As I mentioned, the section of fences, if they took down equal lengths of fence, would balance out. If you take down half a section of fence, now the cantor between posts from one to the other is not equal. You’ve got, you know, a four foot or a six foot section. Then you’ve got a post and then you’ve got a 10 foot section. So the design of the fence would not match on both sides of the property. The wooden fence and the corner post I do believe are issues of safety, but they’re not part of the original zoning infraction which was brought to the Board in November. The Board voted that 16 and a half feet should be removed. I believe these Ordinances were put in place to protect the natural beauty of the Town of Queensbury. That Ordinance has been violated, and now someone is asking for relief from that Ordinance and that the Board not enforce it. One Board member at the last meeting stated that when they turned down Bullard Avenue, right as they made the corner, they looked down the street and they knew exactly what property was in question because the fence was so close to the road. It wasn’t necessary for them to have to figure out which one it was. It was well defined when they made the corner. The length of the fence on the south side of Mr. Bodak’s property does conform to the Ordinance. The north side doesn’t. Mr. Bodak made a comment at the last meeting that, and the question was asked of him, why were the fences put at different lengths, and Mr. Bodak stated that he only had a certain amount of money to purchase fencing, and that’s the way it worked out. I just question why wouldn’t an individual put them of equal length rather than staggering them and presenting that appearance? I ask that the Board uphold its original decision and enforce the law of the Town, and ask that 16 feet of fence be removed, and I see no benefit in having fencing in the right-of-way of the Town. The Town Highway Department has made a statement that if there was no obstruction within 16 feet of the roadway, they have no concern, but that’s relative to the maintenance of the roadway. That’s not relative to the Ordinance that says that the fence can or cannot be there. With their statement stating that if there are no items in the right-of-way within 16 feet that they can maintain the property, then the wooden fence posts and the one post that is in the Town’s right-of-way, then I would interpret that to be an interference of the maintenance of the Town of Highway Department. I’d just ask that the Board uphold their original standing and not permit the fence to be in the Town right-of-way, and to have a balanced appearance to the fencing, which would be aesthetically pleasing within the neighborhood, in my opinion. I want to thank the Board and ask them if they have any questions at this time. MR. BRYANT-Are you the neighbor adjacent to that fence? MR. MARTINEZ-Yes. MR. HAYES-Thank you. MR. MARTINEZ-Thank you. MR. HAYES-Is there anyone else that would like to speak in opposition to the application? PETER MC DEVITT MR. MC DEVITT-Good evening. My name is Peter McDevitt, and my deceased mother-in-law has lived at Nine Bullard Avenue, had lived at Nine Bullard, for in excess of 40 years. My wife currently owns the home. The history of Mr. Bodak and that fence I think it’s pretty obvious to the neighbors involved. Why would anyone basically build two sections of fence, one side of the fence conforms to an ordinance and the other side does not? He was having a property dispute with the neighbor and decided to knowingly, willingly, consciously, you know, put in place a chain-link fence that did not conform to the Ordinance and the community. It seems to me that I’d find it real difficult to reward somebody who basically, again, knowingly takes this action, you know, in the Town of Queensbury. By granting Mr. Bodak a variance, it’s basically saying that you can come to this Board, after the fact, after violating an Ordinance, and then ask for a variance, and I just think that’s, potentially, very poor policy. What Mr. Bodak is asking for is a lessening of a nonconforming effect. When you drive onto Bullard Avenue from Dixon today, you clearly can immediately see Mr. Bodak’s house. Because it looks so awful. So he’s going to lessen the impact, but it’s still going to look awful. It’s nonconforming. It doesn’t meet the criteria of the Ordinance, and I would sincerely hope that you would reinforce your action that you took on the previous occasion. Thank you. MR. HAYES-Thank you. MR. HIMES-Could I ask you a question? MR. MC DEVITT-Yes, sir. MR. HIMES-And this might apply to the previous speaker also, one of the things that is entering my mind, perhaps all of us here on the Board, is that the applicant has made some compromises, he has moved it back 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/27/02) some, but then those posts, the pre-existing items that I thought, maybe others, that were a bit of a fly in the ointment, but nothing could be done about it because they were pre-existing, and he’s offered to remove those, and that has some bearing. Wouldn’t you think? I mean, don’t you think that? MR. MC DEVITT-I guess I would say, let Mr. Bodak leave those there, leave them there, but take the chain- link fence back to a conforming position on this property. MR. HIMES-Okay. So you feel that the removal of the pre-existing fence post is not a matter? MR. MC DEVITT-I personally, I view it as just an irrelevancy. It’s the tail wagging the dog. I mean, we have someone that’s taken an obnoxious behavior, obnoxious behavior. I would no more do what he did than I could slit my wrist, okay. It’s asking for a variance after the fact, after taking, basically illegal action, and then coming back and asking for a variance. It’s preposterous. Preposterous. MR. BRYANT-Can I ask you a question? MR. MC DEVITT-Yes, sir. MR. BRYANT-Are you the house on the other side of Mr. Martinez? MR. MC DEVITT-Yes, sir. MR. BRYANT-Okay. Were you here at the last Board meeting? MR. MC DEVITT-Yes, sir, I was. Yes, sir. MR. BRYANT-I just want to, I’m not necessarily siding with the applicant, but he did point out at that time that he wasn’t aware that it would be nonconforming and the fencing company didn’t notify him that it was nonconforming. The other point I want to make is, regardless, if he takes two sections out, you’re still going to see the fence when you turn down Bullard Avenue. MR. MC DEVITT-You’re absolutely correct, but you will not see a staggered look, and irregular staggered look. It’s not uniform. It’s not consistent. It’s just, aesthetically, it’s preposterous, okay. So that’s my point. Clearly you’ll see it, but as obnoxious as it is, at least make it uniform, and conforming with Code. So he’s asking, you know, to move a portion of it back, but looking at the fence, in terms of uniformity, it’s, if you were a landscape architect, and I’m not, you’d be flunking the course right now. Big time. MR. BRYANT-Thank you. MR. MC DEVITT-Okay. Thank you. MR. FRANK-Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to make a point, for public record, that Mr. Bodak had a pre- existing, nonconforming fence, which he removed and put this chain-link fence in the same location. He did not know he broke any Town Code. He thought he was just putting a new fence up in the same location that the old fence was. It wasn’t until the complaint was registered by Mr. Martinez that I was forced to act on it. So it wasn’t like that he just put up a fence. He replaced a pre-existing, nonconforming fence, and the Code is when you tear something down, you’re starting all over again, and you have to conform to the current Ordinance. So that’s how this all began. MR. HAYES-Thank you. MR. HIMES-Thanks, Bruce. MR. HAYES-Is there anyone else that would like to speak in opposition to the application? MR. MARTINEZ-He did replace the fence on my side of the property with the chain-link fence. There was no fence on the other side of the property, but that fence, when it was installed, was installed to Code. He only brought the fence up to his property line. So my belief is that he knew that he could not extend that fence any longer than where he had the authority to do so. It stopped at the property line. It did not enter into the right-of-way. The other fence, he replaced it to the exact location as to where the wooden fence was. So that’s the concern that I have on the unbalance, is that my opinion is that he knew he could not lengthen that fence any longer on the other side because it would have been in violation of the Code, and that he was hoping that the new chain-link fence would be grandfathered in. Thank you. MR. BRYANT-Was the old fence the same length? MR. FRANK-And again, that’s correct, on the north side of his property. I didn’t mention the south side because it’s not at issue. It wasn’t in violation. Before there was no fence there, and it’s not in violation now. So that’s why when I stated that he replaced a pre-existing, nonconforming fence, in the exact location of the 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/27/02) chain-link fence, that statement was correct. The south side of his property, the fence is not at issue because it’s not in violation. MR. URRICO-Bruce, do we know why the right-of-way is 66 feet on that street, rather than 50? MR. FRANK-I was told there was a chance that that may have been a divided road at one time. They may have thought about it, like the street that’s two streets over to the east, Parkview. Why the Town never went through with it, I don’t know. So that’s why, when I actually brought this to Mr. Missita’s attention, he said I don’t think that’s a 66 foot right of way, and I said, well, according to a survey done for Mr. Bodak, it showed it to be a 66 foot right of way. So, for a 20 foot wide road, that’s a very large right of way. Normally it would have a 50 foot right of way. MR. HAYES-Okay. Thank you, Bruce. Is there anyone else that would like to speak in opposition? Any new correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-We have two pieces of correspondence. This one’s received 3/27. It’s from Kathleen Gaiser, at Three Bullard Avenue. She says, “The Board has unanimously voted against a variance for the fence on this property. I’m not seeing a reason why a variance should be granted. There are no special or extenuating circumstances that I am aware of. The wooden posts near the road are not in compliance and have the potential to create problems for emergency traffic and should be removed anyway. They are not at issue here. I think that the fence should be of the same distance from the road on each side of the house to maintain a symmetrical appearance. This is in keeping with the rest of the neighborhood where each of the property owners have been vigilant in keeping their properties neat in appearance and for aesthetic reasons no variance should be granted.” And the other letter is from Shirley M. Burgess 4 Bullard Avenue, also received today. She says, “This letter is concerning Area Variance No. 13-2002 as filed by the Bodaks. It is my understanding that the Bodaks wish to have a part of their fence removed so that it will be ten feet from the road rather than the 16 feet as required by law. Does six feet really make that much difference to the Bodaks? It is my feeling that the laws in the Town of Queensbury should be upheld. If this is passed then the citizens of Queensbury could do anything they pleased on their property, even if it did not comply with the law, knowing they could easily get a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals. At the bottom of your letter it says, “Home of Natural Beauty….a good place to live”. I hope that Queensbury will continue to be so.” MR. HAYES-Thank you. If there’s no additional correspondence, I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HAYES-Mr. Bodak, would you come forward again. MR. BODAK-Did I understand you correctly to say that these microphones pick up and record? MR. HAYES-They do. MR. BODAK-Everything’s recorded? MR. MC NULTY-Yes. MR. BODAK-Everything I say right now is going to be recorded? Okay. MR. HAYES-Mr. Bodak, I’d like you to focus your comments only on the pre-existing fence, the replacement of this one. I’ve said that before that we have no intention of getting in the middle of a neighborhood dispute. There’s a test, and we’re going to stick by it. MR. BODAK-I agree. However, there has been, on the back of your packet that I gave you gentlemen, I’m sure you have a copy of this survey done by Coulter & McCormack. Do you agree they’re a reputable firm here in Town. They do a lot of work. They surveyed my property twice. Because Mr. Martinez’s fence in the back is encroaching on my property by about three feet. When I had the property surveyed, he pulled the stakes out because he didn’t like the idea that his fence is on my property. I questioned Coulter & McCormack on this, and I asked them how well they did this, and they told me, we do everything by the numbers, everything is, your property is exactly correct. When I put up that dowel fence, I had 75, 80 feet of it, I believe, something like that, eight sections, ten foot apiece. So it was about 80 feet there, and that thing looked horrible. It really did, and Coulter & McCormack tells me that this is the exact piece, your property is exactly surveyed the way it should be, according to law. They charged me quite a bit for the survey. So I just wanted to make sure that that’s, I have this as evidence that the property was surveyed. Some aspersions have been cast on my character tonight, that I knowingly and deliberately set out to break the Queensbury Town law. That’s libelous, and I’ll address that tomorrow. I have not broken any laws in the Town of Queensbury, knowingly or unknowingly. I have no intention of breaking any laws in the Town of Queensbury. I’m not in any shape to break any laws in the Town of Queensbury, but I will not sit here tonight and have my good character assassinated by a couple of gentlemen who have an ax to grind. Their 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/27/02) statements tonight were libelous, telling you that I knowingly and willingly broke the law. I don’t break laws. It’s a lie and it’s libelous. They’ve lied all the way through this, and I’m not going to sit here for another second and take it, and have my character and my wife’s character assassinated in public. MR. HAYES-Mr. Bodak, I’m going to ask you now. MR. BODAK-Yes, sir, I agree, but I have to bring that out, because right now they’ve lied, and I’m not going to stand by and have them lie. MR. HAYES-There’s a civil remedy for that. We’re not here to discuss that tonight. MR. BODAK-I know that. MRS. BODAK-Pertaining to the fence, Bruce is actually right. I mean, we just changed the fence because it was so dilapidated it was horrible, and we weren’t going to put any money into an old, rotten fence. So we put up this chain-link fence. I think it looks great, and in fact it is even farther back than the original one. MR. HAYES-The only question that remains here tonight, because good taste, and I’m not sanctioning that in either direction, that’s not part of our Code, and we’re here to apply the Code. MRS. BODAK-But we’re annoyed that they’re lying about us. MR. HAYES-They’re annoyed, too, and this could go on forever. We’re going to resolve this tonight, as far as the Code is concerned. MR. BODAK-Could I get one more point in here? MR. HAYES-If it has to do with where the old fence was versus the new fence. That’s it. MR. BODAK-Yes. There was a dowel fence that went down probably, see where that post is right there, it was probably about six inches beyond that, but the old dowel fence went down, because when they sawed the dowel off, and they put it back in the hole, the metal fence is back beyond that. It goes back further west. MR. HAYES-So you’re saying it’s less encroaching than? MRS. BODAK-Yes. MR. BODAK-It’s less encroaching than it was when the dowel fence was there. MRS. BODAK-Here’s Bullard. The dowel fence was here. They took that out and they cut it off and they put it down in the hole so it would be flush with the ground, so nobody would get hurt, and after the hole here, then the chain-link fence starts here. So it’s farther away from the road than the original. MR. HAYES-Thank you for answering that question. MRS. BODAK-And the rail fence, I can’t understand how they’d have no qualms about that fence. MR. HAYES-Okay. Are there any further questions for the applicant? At this time? If not, then we’ll talk about it. MRS. BODAK-Thank you. MR. HAYES-We’ll start with Mr. Bryant. MR. BRYANT-From a personal standpoint, relative to the fence, the positioning of the fence really serves no purpose. I mean, it doesn’t really keep any animals out. That was part of the discussion last time. In my view, the fence should go back, but I’ve got to say that I do feel for the Bodaks, and I touched on this point at the last hearing, that contractors, regardless of their specialty, should be aware of what the Codes are in the Town of Queensbury, and that contractor should have brought that to your attention, that it was in violation, regardless of what you wanted. I think another point is the fact that all of your adjacent neighbors have negative comments relating to the fence, not taking into consideration any personal comments, just relating to the fence, but I hate to be coy on this issue, but I’m kind of on the fence on this issue. I realize that the applicant has made an effort, but I also understand what the neighbors are saying, that taking two sections out would not only make the fence comply, but also would be a little bit more aesthetic and pleasing visually to that street. So I’m on the fence. MR. HAYES-Roy? 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/27/02) MR. URRICO-Well, as far as I’m concerned, there’s one issue before us, and that’s whether we’re going to grant 6.75 feet of relief to the Bodaks. We have a test, and there are five criteria to that test, whether it’s a benefit to the applicant, whether there are feasible alternatives, whether the relief is substantial relative to the Ordinance, the effects on the neighborhood or community, and is this self-created. In my estimation, the balance of the test falls in favor of the Bodaks. I don’t think 6.75 feet of relief is substantial. I think it’s minimal, considering the road. I think it’s a very unique situation. That road probably should not have a 66 foot right of way to begin with. It’s no wider than some of the other streets that run parallel to it, and with that being the case, that is 66 feet. If he were to comply with the Ordinance, I think the fence would probably sit on his front deck somewhere. I don’t think that’s a situation that we can expect him to conform with. As far as the appearance of it, you know, I think we’d have to go through every neighborhood and start looking to see if fences are aesthetically pleasing. I don’t know if that’s our province or not, but I’m going to focus it on that one issue which is the 6.75 feet of relief, and I am going to vote in favor of that. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Mr. Underwood? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I’m still drawn to the fact that, you know, my first time down here I think I was the one that made the comment about the first thing I saw looking down the whole street was that fence sticking way out by the road, but I think that there’s been some give and take on the part of the Bodaks, the fact that they’ve moved the fence back somewhat, and I would have to agree that it probably would look more aesthetically pleasing to have the fence moved back to match the one on the other side, but I think that your compromise is reasonable. MR. HAYES-That’s a yes, then, Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. MR. HAYES-Okay. Norm? MR. HIMES-Yes, thank you. I think I agree with the rest of the Board members for much of the same reasons. In addition, I feel that something has been gained by giving up those posts that are quite close to the road. I don’t know what the Highway Department would say about that. I wish we could ask them. He has volunteered to take them out and remove them, and so I think, I am sympathetic to all the neighbors have said, in connection with trying to stick to it as far as the Code is concerned, but we do have to recognize that the Code is the Code, but we’re here to measure the impacts from all sides, and when you look at the fact that there was some old fence that existed prior to the new one being put in, that went all the way out to the road, is now being replaced, or was replaced, and now has been shortened, that is a little closer to conformance with the Code. I think, on balance, that we have something here that we all should be able to live with. So, as much as I’d like to stick with the Code here, I think that I’d have to vote in favor of the applicant in this particular situation. Thank you. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Mr. McNulty? MR. MC NULTY-Well, I’m kind of like Mr. Bryant. I’m on the fence. However, considering everything, I guess one thing I want to say is I can understand how the Bodaks might have thought that they were basically just repairing or replacing that fence, that the distinction between repair and replace becomes great when we’re before this Board. If you’re repairing you can do it. If you’re replacing you’re can’t without getting permission, if you’re in violation, but for the general public, I don’t think that distinction is that obvious. So I think that probably was an honest error on their part. Looking at the balancing test, the benefit to the applicant, obviously they’d be allowed to keep the fence like they’ve suggested. I don’t remember all the conversation last time, but I do believe that there was some points that were made that there was reasons for this fence being put, the original fence, being put where it was. It wasn’t for no reason at all. So I think there’s some benefit to the fence being as long as possible to the Bodaks. The only alternative is removing the fence back to the proper distance. It doesn’t strike me that the relief is substantial, compared with the Ordinance, 6.75 feet of relief isn’t a great deal, and it would be non-existent if this weren’t an unusual right of way. Effects on the neighborhood, I think I’ll agree with Staff that they’re going to be minimal. Difficulty self-created? Yes, for the most part, but on the other hand, again, I think maybe historically in the neighborhood there’s maybe some neighbors, neighbor’s dogs, neighbor’s kids that contributed to the need for the fence to begin with. So when I consider all that, even though I’m kind of on the fence, I’m inclined to vote for the Bodaks. So I’m a yes. MR. HAYES-Thank you. I think I’m in agreement with the rest of the Board members on this matter. Mr. Bodak came before us a month, or several months ago, with an application that asked for substantially more relief than the current application does. We denied that application based on a number of reason, but I think in this particular case, if we apply the test, which is all we’re here to do, the benefit to the applicant versus the impacts on the neighborhood, I think that 6.75 feet of relief is minimal, ultimately. I think that the very fact that that relief is called for at all has substantially to do with the 66 foot right of way that’s created, which I don’t have any belief that in the future this will be a boulevard road. I don’t think that Town Staff does either. So I think in this particular case, I think a compromise has been made, and I think the test, in an overall sense, falls in favor of the applicant. Having said that, is there a motion? 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/27/02) MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 13-2002 DONALD R. AND JOYCE A. BODAK, Introduced by Norman Himes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: Five Bullard Avenue. The applicant has constructed a chain link fence located within the right of way for Bullard Avenue. The applicant proposes to remove one section of chain link fence and requests relief for the remainder of the fence in the right of way. Relief required. The applicant requests 6.75 feet of relief for that section of chain link fence proposed to remain in the Bullard Avenue right of way. The benefit to the applicant. The applicant would be permitted to keep the section of fence in the right of way as it now is. Feasible alternatives may include removing the fence back to the property line. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? The 6.75 feet of relief from the requirement may be interpreted as minimal. Effects on the neighborhood or community, well, that depends on where you stand. We’ve heard from neighbors who vociferously are against the relief, and I feel, I think we feel on the Board, that there may be reasons, more reasons than just the aspect of 6.75 feet of relief that are involved in this. In connection with the relief, 6.75 is minimal, and is this difficulty self-created? Well, it could be interpreted as such. However, we must look at prior history of there having been a fence in the place of the new chain link fence which is actually closer to the actual roadway than the replacement fence, and the fact that this Bullard Avenue has a much larger right of way than other roads similar to it, for really no significant reason that can be determined by any of us on the Board here. This is important because in the absence of this difference on Bullard Avenue, there would be no variance required for the fence as it is. I move that we approve the application as submitted. Duly adopted this 27 day of March, 2002, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Himes, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Hayes NOES: Mr. Bryant ABSENT: Mr. Stone, Mr. Abbate MR. HAYES-The motion is carried. Thank you for coming. SIGN VARIANCE NO. 2-2002 TYPE: UNLISTED U-HAUL AGENT: U-HAUL OF GLENS FALLS PROPERTY OWNER: U-HAUL OF EASTERN NY LOCATION: 112 MAIN STREET ZONE: CR-15 APPLICANT PROPOSES AN ADDITIONAL FREESTANDING SIGN AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE SIGN ORDINANCE. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 1/9/2002 OLD TAX MAP NO. 135-1-4.2 NEW TAX MAP NO. 309.14-1-81 LOT SIZE: 0.46 ACRES SECTION 140 MARK ZOLLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. MC NULTY-I probably should read the tabling motion. At the Wednesday, January 16, 2002 meeting we had a motion to table Sign Variance No. 2-2002, “MOTION TO TABLE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 2- 2002 U-HAUL, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: 112 Main Street. For up to 62 days, in order to allow the applicant to revise his application to make it more palatable to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Duly adopted this 16 day of January, 2002, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Himes, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hayes” STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 2-2002, U-Haul, Meeting Date: March 27, 2002 “Project Location: 112 Main Street Description of Proposed Project: Applicant has constructed an additional 11.5 sq. ft. freestanding sign on the east side of the propane storage tank currently on the site. Relief Required: Applicant requests relief for a second freestanding sign in order to keep the existing signage on the east side of their propane storage tank and seeks relief from § 140-6B(3c) of the Sign Ordinance. Criteria for considering a Sign Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to maintain the additional existing signage on the east side of their propane storage tank. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include removing the decal-type signage from the propane storage tank. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: The relief may be interpreted as minimal as the sign is less than 12 sq. ft. and less than five feet above the ground. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minimal effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/27/02) of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self-created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): SV 2-2002: tabled 01/16/02. BP 2001-831: 11/14/01; temporary sign permit for same signage of this application. SV 117-1992: 11/19/92; erect new sign and relief from side setback. SP 75-90: 11/20/90; construction of metal building to contain self-storage units. UV 032-1990: 4/25/90; same as SP 75-90. Staff comments: Minimal impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The sign will not have a great deal of visibility from off the property being the sign is less than 12 sq. ft. and five feet above the ground. Additionally, U-Haul trucks parked at the front of the property usually limit the visibility of the sign from the road. The variance request was initiated because of enforcement action resulting from a complaint by Joe Ramsey who owns a neighboring business, which also sells propane. The signage has been in placed since the tank was installed two years ago. The applicant claims the signage is not that observable from the road, considering its size and height, and is meant as advertising for U-Haul customers already on the U-Haul site. SEQR Status: Type: Unlisted” MR. HAYES-Thank you. Please state your name for the record. MR. ZOLLER-My name is Mark Zoller. ROBERT REED MR. REED-Robert Reed. MR. HAYES-Is there anything you’d like to add to your application? MR. ZOLLER-No. I came before the Board before. We have signage on both sides of the tanks, and we had talked and, you know, one of the options was to see what other signage I could remove from the tank to decrease it, and I spoke with Suburban Propane, and the signage that’s there is required. So I felt it would be in the best interest, if the Board would accept it, what we would do is remove the decals from the west side of the tank itself. MR. HAYES-If he removed the decals, he’d still be in non-compliance from a second sign perspective. MR. FRANK-That’s why he’s requesting relief to keep the east side of the tank signage. MR. HIMES-You did remove the ones on the west already, right, on the other side? You did? MR. FRANK-He’s proposing to remove the signage on the west side. MR. HAYES-Okay. Is that it? Okay. Are there any questions of the applicant at this time? MR. URRICO-Which signage is coming off, just the green part? MR. ZOLLER-The green part, right. It says tanks filled here, seven days a week. MR. HAYES-And you’re saying that Suburban Propane said the rest of it is required? MR. ZOLLER-Yes. The rest of the signage they are required to have on there. MR. HAYES-Statutorily? MR. ZOLLER-I just called and said, look, can I take some of this signage down, what can I take off of there, and they said the decals that we install with the tank need to stay on there. I don’t know if it’s statutorily. MR. HIMES-That was one of the reasons why we wanted to table, if you’ll recall, was to find out what was required. No one knew at the time, because that would have to stay, of course, but I think that, again, I don’t know who put what decals on, but anyway. MR. HAYES-So we don’t have any additional information about what exactly is required for those tanks? MR. ZOLLER-I don’t have anything, no. MR. FRANK-According to the Fire Marshal, the information besides the signage that states propane sold here seven days a week, everything besides that has to remain on that tank. It’s the Haz Mat data, fire safety information, that has to remain on that tank, per Code. MR. HAYES-But that still constitutes a sign, then, and that’s why he needs a variance? MR. FRANK-The additional signage he’s proposing, it’s advertising, propane sold here seven days a week, that’s the only thing that U-Haul is requesting additional signage. 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/27/02) MR. HAYES-Okay. MR. BRYANT-I really have a question about this whole sign thing, and I mentioned it to you before we started. I don’t understand how this qualifies as a freestanding sign, Number One, and why it’s any different than painting a sign on the window, or the 15 U-Haul trucks that they’ve already got in the parking lot that all say U-Haul over them. I don’t understand what the difference is. In my view, it’s no different than painting a little something on the window that says we’re open 24 hours. MR. FRANK-In the Code, in the Sign Ordinance it specifically states you’re allowed to utilize up to 25% of your window space. So that’s specifically stated in the Sign Ordinance. MR. BRYANT-Right. MR. FRANK-This was open to interpretation by the Zoning Administrator. He determined it to be a freestanding sign. Since it was brought to our attention by a complaint, he had to make an interpretation, well, it’s got to be some kind of a sign. It’s not a wall sign. MR. BRYANT-My understanding, though, that a freestanding sign is just that. It’s a pole that has a freestanding sign on it. This is a storage tank. It’s not a structure to hold the sign specifically. That’s my understanding. MR. FRANK-And again, the determination was made by the Zoning Administrator U-Haul did not wish to appeal his decision. They chose to go this route instead, asking for a variance for the additional signage. MR. HAYES-Which will be an option to them if the variance is denied. MR. FRANK-I believe so. MR. MC NULTY-Yes. I think the issue is there’s two kinds of signs in the Town of Queensbury, wall signs and freestanding signs. MR. FRANK-Correct. MR. MC NULTY-So going the other way, this is not a wall sign, and therefore it must be a freestanding sign. MR. FRANK-That’s how it was interpreted, correct. MR. BRYANT-But I think you understand my view. MR. MC NULTY-I understand your point. MR. BRYANT-That tank is not there to hold the sign, and therefore in my interpretation, it’s not a freestanding sign. It’s a sign painted on a tank. MR. HAYES-All right. Are there any further questions for the applicant at this time? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Is anyone here to speak in favor of this application? In opposition? Any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HAYES-Let’s poll the Board members. Let me start with Roy first. MR. URRICO-Yes. Based on the, again, the five criteria, but I see, it’s very similar to a gas tank that has decals on it. You went to a gas station, it’s already identifying the pumps, and I don’t know that we generally count them up when we start passing out Sign Ordinances. I’m satisfied with the applicant having made some concessions. It’s only going to be seen from the east. Bruce had a picture up there before which showed the truck on the side of the road. I think if somebody was driving along, they wouldn’t even be able to see the sign going in that direction anyway, with the trucks sitting in front. So I really don’t think this is going to be noticeable to anybody but the customers. That picture right there, I don’t see how somebody that’s driving on the road itself, you’re parked along the side, and you can barely see it as it is now. So I really don’t think this is an infringement. I don’t think it’s going to hurt anybody. I think it’s only going to be seen by the people that, your customers, or people that know that you sell it there, and I’m satisfied that he’s made enough concessions, and I would be in favor of it as it’s presented. 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/27/02) MR. HAYES-Thank you. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I think if you took away all the U-Haul trucks that are always parked out front there, and you just saw that sign, coming from the east, heading west, I don’t really think that it would be offensive to anybody. I don’t think it’s any big deal. So I’d be in favor of it. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Norm? MR. HIMES-Yes, thank you. I agree with certainly Al’s feelings in connection with the matter, somewhat. However, I also feel that, I can’t visualize the office in my mind right now, but a window sign, the rest might accomplish the thing, and I feel that most anyone that sees the apparatus or the structure there, the tank, particularly with the required information that’s on there, is going to know what it is, and then some, perhaps a window sign and the rest, which they would see when they enter the business property or your office, they’ll get the information that you want them to have, and certainly I guess the last point in my mind being that, I could see some reason for having it there, and certainly I don’t think the issue would be here except for someone has complained about it. So there are evidently at least one person or more here that feel differently about it. Of course it is a competing business, which has some bearing on that, but I don’t see a great substantive reason for having to advertise as there. By what everybody has said, it hardly can be seen, but if somebody is in your lot and there was a window sign there, I think it might accomplish the same result, and enable the Code to stand as is, without our trying to evaluate the circumstance of whether something is substantive or not. So I would come down as a no, I’m sorry to say. Thank you. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-Well, I started out this evening basically saying as the first couple of gentlemen indicated that it’s probably no big deal, remove the sign from the west side. It’s basically an on-premises sign from the east side, but then I got to thinking, if I looked at this the way sometimes we do, of things that already exist and say, if somebody came in and asked to put this sign there, where it wasn’t there before, knowing that it was going to be non-conforming and requiring a variance, would I approve it, and on that basis, I have to say, no, I wouldn’t. I would take the attitude that something to reference filling of propane tanks could either be added to an existing freestanding sign, if there was enough square footage left, or otherwise it could go in the front window, but I probably would not approve it as a new sign on the side of that tank. So on that basis, I’m going to have to be a no. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Well, I think I essentially agree with the last two Board members. MR. BRYANT-Don’t I get a chance? MR. HAYES-I’m sorry. I thought you had said that you were in favor? MR. BRYANT-Well, I am, but I didn’t get a chance to speak. I just want to say that Roy made my point exactly. Every gas station in the Town of Queensbury has got multiple freestanding signs, if you want to make this interpretation. Every single gas pump in the Town of Queensbury is a freestanding sign, whether it’s Hess or Mobil or Citgo or whatever. So from that viewpoint, I agree with what Chuck says, somewhat. If we came here thinking that that was, in fact, a freestanding sign to start off with, and he was going to put a sign, well then maybe I’d say no, but in my view, I think it’s an improper interpretation, that that is not really a freestanding sign. With that being said, I would be in favor of the application. MR. HAYES-Thank you. I’m sorry about that. MR. BRYANT-That’s okay. MR. HAYES-As I started to say, I’m in agreement with the nay Sayers in this particular circumstance. I think the danger here is the precedent that we are potentially setting, as far as signage on the road. I don’t think we necessarily want to encourage people to add signage to tanks unnecessarily. I agree with Norm in that the propane tank, it has the statutory signage on it, and I think that’s enough, as far as any kind of notice to anyone on the site that that’s what it’s there for, and if they want to fill their propane tanks, they can. As I viewed this site, and this site has been brought up in other applications, U-Haul, in this particular case, probably as the most non signage signage of any site in Queensbury. I mean, all the trucks that are out by the road, in this particular case, there’s actually a lot of signage there involved. There’s no way to prevent that, and I don’t necessarily have a problem with that, but I think in this particular case, there is a danger of a certain amount of sign pollution or over signage, and I think it should be stopped wherever we can in this particular circumstance, to the extent that applicants that came in a couple of months ago ask for additional signage because they didn’t feel like they could get around your signage, that being the new Cumberland Farms, that was one of their pitches that all the signage and all the trucks that you had made it impossible for their signs to work. So I think on balance, I think that you have enough signage. I think that asking for another sign in this particular case is a lot of relief, versus the Ordinance, and I think, as far as effects on the neighborhood or community, I think this could set a dangerous precedent in that whole area to attempt to add signage to tanks, not calling them signs. So, on balance, I’m against the application as it stands now. 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/27/02) Okay. Before we make a move for a motion, which I don’t think we have a motion in either direction, I’d like to make a motion. MOTION THAT BASED ON THE REVIEW OF THE SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM THAT THE ACTION CONTEMPLATED BY THIS VARIANCE WILL HAVE NO SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD, Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Norman Himes: Duly adopted this 27 day of March, 2002, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Himes, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Bryant, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Hayes NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stone, Mr. Abbate MR. HAYES-As it stands now I think we have three votes in favor of the application and three votes against the application, which is, we need four votes in either direction. So it does not amount to a denial or an approval. I can do two things. I can ask for a motion in either direction, which I don’t think will carry, or you can table your application until there’s seven members here. I apologize to you for the fact that the deadlock is probably based on the fact that we’re missing a Board member. MR. UNDERWOOD-Do we consider the fact that it was pre-existing for two years at all? This sign was on there? MR. HAYES-Jim, I think, in this particular case, I think that we have to go by the Zoning Administrator’s determination, and that’s a different course of action, and I think Mr. Bryant’s point could very well be well taken, but that’s really not, do you know what I mean? I think if they came for an appeal that that would certainly be heard, but in this particular case, we’ve got an application. We’ve got a determination. What would you like me to do? MR. ZOLLER-Well, basically you can’t do anything. Right? You could motion it, but if you can’t deny it or accept it, so. MR. HAYES-I don’t think it’s going to carry in either direction. MR. ZOLLER-Right. At that point what would happen? That we would be done, or I would need still to come back? MR. MC NULTY-It would leave you, if it goes the way we think it’s going, it’s going to leave you without a variance. So that means that you’re without permission to maintain the sign. MR. ZOLLER-Okay. MR. HAYES-Historically, if we table the motion and you have an application that’s current, the Town generally does not take action until it’s determined essentially. Right? MR. FRANK-That’s correct. MR. HAYES-So it’s not a denial to the extent that it affects your sign as it is now. It just would be, you’d have to come back for another night, which I’m sure is a. MR. ZOLLER-Yes. The only thing I would like to point out again, and I’ve pointed out at the last meeting, you know, this sign is to identify to the people on our lot that we sell propane. Very similar, I wish I had thought of the gas pump issue before. Without that, that tank looks like it’s there to heat the building, and there’s a lot of businesses that heat their building with propane and they have those exact type of tanks there. So I don’t, you know, 11 square foot of sign is, it’s just to identify to our customers that we have a product for sale. It’s not, and I’m willing to take the other sign off. The sign that everyone felt was really more of a sign that was trying to attract customers coming down the street. I don’t know if that helps any of you change your decision, but at this point, I guess my best interest at this point would be to let it table. MR. HAYES-Okay. What I will do is I will recommend that you’re placed first on the agenda of the meeting that we table it to so you can quickly get to the matter in one direction or another. That does not mean you’re guaranteed an approval or a denial. I guess, if there’s no objections, I would like to make a motion that we table. MOTION TO TABLE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 2-2002 U-HAUL, Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Norman Himes: 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/27/02) 112 Main Street. To the first meeting in April, and I would like to make a recommendation to the Staff that they would place that first on the agenda, to aid the applicant. Duly adopted this 27 day of March, 2002, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Himes, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Bryant, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Hayes NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stone, Mr. Abbate MR. HAYES-Sorry about that. AREA VARIANCE NO. 9-2002 TYPE II DAVID & LINDA JOHNSON PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE AGENT: WD WILLIAM CONSTRUCTION, INC. ZONE: WR-1A, APA, CEA LOCATION: 347 CLEVERDALE ROAD APPLICANT HAS CONSTRUCTED A 1,000 SQ. FT. RESIDENTIAL ADDITION. RELIEF IS REQUESTED FROM THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE WR-1A ZONE AND FOR THE EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 43-99, BP 99-709 9 (BEDROOM,KITCHEN, BATH) ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: 2/13/02 OLD TAX MAP NO.: 14-1-9.1 NEW TAX MAP NO.: 226.12-1-48 LOT SIZE: 0.47 ACRES SECTION: 179-16F, 179-79 MR. FRANK-The applicant’s requested to table that because they were waiting for a full Board. They knew they wouldn’t have one, and so they’ve requested to table until April. MR. HAYES-Okay. Considering that one was also a three, three thing, I think that’s a reasonable request at this point. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 9-2002 DAVID & LINDA JOHNSON, Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: 347 Cleverdale Road. Tabled in lieu of a full Board compliment to possibly get a direction on that application. Duly adopted this 27 day of March, 2002, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Bryant, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Himes, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Hayes NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stone, Mr. Abbate MR. HAYES-The motion is tabled. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 15-2002 TYPE II LEE BARTON PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE AGENT: KIRK AND DONNA BARTO ZONE: WR-1A LOCATION: 16 DREAM LAKE ROAD SOUTH APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 1144 SQ. FT. SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING WITH A 24 FT. BY 24 FT. ATTACHED GARAGE. RELIEF IS REQUESTED FROM THE MINIMUM ROAD FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS. OLD TAX MAP NO.: 50-1-24.1 NEW TAX MAP NO.: 279.17-1-20 LOT SIZE: 2.32 ACRES SECTION: 179- 70 KIRK BARTON & BETTY BARTON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 15-2002, Lee Barton, Meeting Date: March 27, 2002 “Project Location: 16 Dream Lake Road South Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 1,144 sq. ft. single-family dwelling with a 24-foot by 24-foot attached garage. Relief Required: Applicant requests 40 feet of relief from the 40-foot minimum required road frontage per § 179-70(A). Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct the desired home on a parcel that does not front on a Town of Queensbury road. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives seem to be limited. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 40 feet of relief from the 40-foot minimum required road frontage may be interpreted as substantial. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minimal effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/27/02) The difficulty may be interpreted as self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): None applicable. Staff comments: Minimal impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. Even though the parcel does not front on a town road, Dream Lake Road South appears to be wide enough to accommodate emergency vehicles, and has more than ten residences on the private road. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. HAYES-Thank you. Mr. Barton? MR. BARTON-My name is Kirk Barton. I’m the son of Lee and Betty Barton. MR. HAYES-Do you have anything you’d like to add to the application or clarify for the Board? MR. BARTON-No. Just that they’re anxious to get started. MR. HAYES-That’s it. MR. HIMES-I have a question. MR. HAYES-Certainly. MR. HIMES-Thanks. Hi. I just want to be certain, I didn’t see, when I visited the place, they give you a tag, you know, when there’s, when you apply for something, that is to be put out in view, and I didn’t see it anywhere. I just want to be sure I went to the right place. You go in that road, and just before you go down the hill, it’s off to the right, where the sign, there’s only one residence, yours, Barton. MR. BARTON-That’s correct. MR. HIMES-And the lot is right there on the left? MR. BARTON-That’s correct. MR. HIMES-I thought so. I just wanted to be absolutely certain that I was at the right place. Thank you. MR. HAYES-Any other questions for the applicant? MR. BRYANT-I had a problem, too, finding it. Is it the one that has the foundation already poured? MR. BARTON-No. MRS. BARTON-Dream Lake South, it’s just before you go down the hill, towards the lake. MR. HAYES-On the left. MRS. BARTON-It’s on the left. MR. BARTON-There’s actually two Dream Lake roads, one is off of Bay Road, and one is off of Sunnyside North. Did you go on the one off of Sunnyside North? MR. BRYANT-I went up Bay Road. MR. BARTON-You went up Bay Road. That’s on the other side of the lake. MR. BRYANT-Okay. I didn’t see it. MR. BARTON-If you come off of. MR. HAYES-Maybe you could just point, just to clarify for everybody, based on those pictures. MR. BARTON-It was actually just in back, I don’t know if you noticed the sign that was there, the little sign that lists the people who live there, well, just in back of that sign. MR. HAYES-So is the arrow pretty much where he was starting to put that arrow? MR. BARTON-Exactly. MRS. BARTON-Right. 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/27/02) MR. HAYES-Okay. Does everyone have a pretty good grasp of where we’re going on that? I think we’ve got a good idea. We’ll let Bruce keep working with that. All right. Are there any further questions for the applicant about the application? MR. BRYANT-How wide is the right of way onto your property, from the road? It comes of Dream Lake, right? MR. BARTON-It’s a private road. Footage wise, I’m not sure. It’s wide enough for two cars. MR. BRYANT-I mean, an emergency vehicle could get down there. MR. BARTON-Absolutely. Yes, they’ve actually been down in there before. It’s widen enough where two cars can pass each other. MR. HAYES-I realize you’re not a lawyer, but is that a deeded, do you have deeded rights to use that road, as far as you understand? MR. BARTON-Do we have a deeded right to use that road, a right of way? MR. HAYES-Legal right. LEE BARTON MR. L. BARTON-I owned the property on both sides of that right of way at one point. So it was my road previously. Now, of course, we have 10 other homes down in, beyond us, that use that right of way, and I would be coming in off that right of way to my private driveway. MR. URRICO-So originally it was your right of way, and they’re deeded from you? MRS. BARTON-Was it deeded? MR. URRICO-Originally it was your right of way and that, they’ve gotten permission from you to use it, the other houses, or? MR. L. BARTON-No, that was originally part of the Lewis property. I don’t know what his first name was, but he had a home down on Dream Lake, and he sold some of his property to the other residents. So it’s on the, on your map, shows the right of way, and then my private roadway would come off of that. MR. HAYES-Right. Are you Mr. Barton, just so we have you on the record, are you Mr. Barton? MR. BARTON-Yes. MRS. BARTON-Yes. MR. HAYES-Okay. Thank you. I guess we’re just trying to establish whether, at some point, based on the fact that you don’t have any frontage on a public road. If you have a legal right to use that road, then they can’t take that away from you, but if it’s only as of use, or something, potentially that could be removed by the owner. MR. L. BARTON-No, they can’t take it away from us. MR. HAYES-You’re certain of that? MR. L. BARTON-We’ve used it since 1950. MR. HAYES-Okay. Are there any, is that potentially a use road? MR. FRANK-That road is a registered, private road. It has a sign on it, but it is registered as a private road. So, as far as I know, everyone’s allowed to use that road. It’s deeded to all the residents on that road. MR. HAYES-Okay. all right. I guess that we’ll have to just presume, which is a dangerous thing to do, I realize, but that they have some kind of a legal right to use that. Because it certainly seems to me that it’s widen enough to, if you could keep using that road, that it’s widen enough to handle emergency vehicles, but we’ll have to let the Board decide that. If there’s no further questions for the applicant at this time, I’ll open the public hearing. Is there anyone here that would like to speak in favor of the application? Opposed? Any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence. 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/27/02) PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HAYES-And let’s poll the Board members. Jim, it’s your turn to speak first. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I think you have to look at the benefit to the applicant, that, you know, they would be able to downsize from their present large home and keep the other home within the family, so to speak. I don’t see that there’s any problem with the, you know, it’s more of a semantic call here with the 40 foot right of way, you know, not having one into your property, but I think that the longstanding road that extends past here has been a use for, since the 50’s, as you’ve said. So I don’t see that it’s a problem to grant this variance. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Mr. Himes? MR. HIMES-Yes, thank you. I agree with what Jim has said. I think this is kind of a win/win thing. It’s a good sized lot, and everything about it seems just fine to me, and I know, having been over it a number of times, there’s a lot of traffic that goes in and out of there, and the road can certainly tolerate any emergency vehicles, and your access and so forth is no problem. You’re not that far from Sunnyside North, actually. So, I’m in favor of the application. MR. HAYES-Mr. McNulty? MR. MC NULTY-I can basically agree. The only real issue is the 40 foot width on a Town road, and in this case, as the Staff has pointed out, there’s already a lot of houses on this road. It’s an adequate road as far as width, and pass ability, and I can see no problem with it. I think the benefit to the applicant is clear. I can see no detriment to the neighborhood at all. So I’d be in favor. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Mr. Bryant? MR. BRYANT-I basically agree with what the other Board members have said. I don’t see any problems, as long as you can get emergency vehicles down the right of way. I’d be in favor of it. MR. HAYES-Mr. Urrico? MR. URRICO-I agree with everybody else. I would be in favor of it. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Well, I essentially agree with the rest of the Board members. I think that the balancing test that we apply in this particular circumstance clearly falls in favor of the applicant for the reasons that everyone else has already stated. Having said that, is there a motion? MR. URRICO-Yes, I’ll take it. MR. HAYES-Thank you. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 15-2002 LEE BARTON, Introduced by Roy Urrico who moved for its adoption, seconded by Allan Bryant: 16 Dream Lake Road South. The applicant proposes construction of a 1,144 square foot single family dwelling with a 24 foot by 24 foot detached garage. The applicant requests 40 feet of relief from the 40 foot minimum required road frontage per 179-70A. The benefit to the applicant is they would be permitted to construct the desired home on a parcel that does not front on a Town of Queensbury road. Feasible alternatives seem to be limited. The relief is substantial to the Ordinance because it’s 40 feet of relief from the 40 foot minimum required road frontage, but this private road has been used for quite a long time, and it’s wide enough to handle any emergency vehicles. As has been pointed out, there are other houses already using this private drive. So I don’t consider this to be a major issue. The effects on the neighborhood or community are minimal, and while this is self-created, it’s self-created because of where the lot is situated. Duly adopted this 27 day of March, 2002, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Bryant, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Himes, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Hayes NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stone, Mr. Abbate MR. HAYES-The motion is carried. Thanks for coming. 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/27/02) MR. BARTON-Thank you very much. MRS. BARTON-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 17-2002 TYPE II THOMAS & SUSANNE IRISH PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE AGENT: VAN DUSEN & STEVES ZONE: WR-1A, CEA LOCATION: 162 LAKE PARKWAY, ASSEMBLY POINT APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REMOVE EXISTING DWELLING AND GARAGE AND CONSTRUCT A NEW 2207 SQ. FT. SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE WR-1A ZONE AS WELL AS THE SHORELINE AND WETLAND REQUIREMENTS. ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: 3/13/02 OLD TAX MAP NO. 9-1-4 NEW TAX MAP NO.: 226.15-14 LOT SIZE: 0.26 ACRES SECTION: 179-16, 179-60 MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; THOMAS IRISH, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 17-2002, Thomas & Susanne Irish, Meeting Date: March 27, 2002 “Project Location: 162 Lake Parkway, Assembly Point Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes removal of existing dwelling and garage and construction of a 2,207 sq. ft. single-family dwelling. Relief Required: Applicant requests 0.68 feet and 6.62 feet of relief from the 20-foot minimum side setback requirement, 8 feet of relief from the 50 foot minimum shoreline setback requirement and 12.87 feet of relief from the 30 foot minimum front setback requirement of the WR-1A zone, § 179-16. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct the desired home in the preferred configuration. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include a narrower, compliant plan. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: While the north side setback relief may be interpreted as minimal, the cumulative requests for relief on all four sides of the proposed home may be interpreted as moderate to substantial. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Moderate effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? A portion of the difficulty may be attributed to the unique configuration of the shoreline, however, the other requests may be interpreted as self-created, as there appears to be sufficient area available for compliant construction. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): SP 34-97 res. 9/16/97 Boathouse BP 97-491 issued 10/1/97 Boathouse Staff comments: While the shoreline setback may be interpreted as a unique situation, the requests for relief on the remaining three sides of the house may be avoidable as there appears to be ample area available for compliant construction. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form March 13, 2002 Project Name: Irish, Thomas & Susanne Owner: Thomas & Susanne Irish ID Number: QBY-AV-17-2002 County Project#: Mar02-37 Current Zoning: WR-1A Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicants propose the removal of an existing dwelling and garage and the construction of a new single- family residence. Site Location: 162 Lake Parkway, Assembly Point. Assembly Point Road, around Bay Parkway to Lake Parkway. Tax Map Number(s): 9-1-4 Staff Notes: The applicant proposes to remove an existing dwelling (913 square feet footprint) and garage and to build a dwelling with an attached garage (1,664 sq. ft.). Only a portion of the proposed home and garage do not meet the required setback. Staff does not identify any County impacts. Staff recommends NCI. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed by Thomas E. Haley, Warren County Planning Board 3/14/02. MR. HAYES-All that for that. MR. MC NULTY-All that for that. MR. STEVES-Good evening. I’m Matt Steves with VanDusen & Steves, and I represent Thomas & Susanne Irish on this application who are with me here tonight. Everything that the Staff has written up is correct. There is just one thing I would like to add to that is the front setback, when they’re talking about an eight foot relief, that is for the steps on the front of the porch. The porch itself is at 47 feet at the closest corner and 48 feet at the farthest corner. The existing house that is there now, the porch that is on it is 29 feet from the shore. It is kind of unique with that horseshoe shaped shorefront. As far as the remaining setbacks, the existing house is at the 13.71 and 13.95 on the south, and it’s proposed to construct a new house right along the line of the existing house. All the neighbors have no problem with that, and it’s just a suitable place to put it to allow us to have ample room for a new septic system in the back where the current garage is. The current garage, which is placed two feet from the one line and 2.2 feet from the road line, we see as a substantial improvement to add that garage to the house as an attached garage and move it back 17 feet from the road line. As you’ve been up through there on Lake Parkway, you can see a lot of the garages are right up on the road, and we just think attaching it to the house is a much better plan. Leaving it there just isn’t suitable, and in this configuration, no matter what you do, if you pull the house back, the house itself is at 50 feet, every inch of the house itself. The only variance from the shorefront we’re asking for is the porch that goes around the house, and that we thought that that would be better suited to pull the house back the 50 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/27/02) feet and ask for a slight variance on the garage, seeing that most garages in that area, as you can see the ones on both sides of the subject parcel, the garage is within three to five feet of the road, and that’s the reasoning for that. Other than that, I have nothing else. It’s a nice new home to be constructed. They want to live here year round, maintain this. The properties on the north and south both have their water from the lake. We’ve noted that, and we’ve located the houses north and south to show you that the proposed structure is to be set back considerably from the front of the two existing homes on either side. So we’re complying with in that department, and I’d be open for any questions the Board might have. MR. HAYES-I had one question that came up immediately is outside of the U-Shaped jog, I mean, how many feet would that be from the natural shoreline? MR. STEVES-If you went out to where the natural shoreline is instead of where it was dug out to make the small beach area, you’d be adding about 15 feet. MR. HAYES-So it would be easily in compliance then. MR. STEVES-If that, yes. MR. HAYES-Okay. MR. STEVES-If we used the stone seawall that is constructed, and went all the way across, and the water level in there now is about on that tie line, that 75, 77 line that comes across from the shore. That’s where the water is now, but we have to establish it from mean high water, which is 320.20, and we establish the 320.20 when we do our work, and establish that line around for our setback purposes. That’s mean high average on the lake. I don’t think it ever reaches that. It’s about 319.70 or so during the summer, and it is, as everybody knows, pretty low now, but, Jaime, yes, you’re correct in saying that if it went straight across, you’re gaining about 15 feet. MR. HAYES-And the house now is 29 feet from the lake? MR. STEVES-That’s correct. MR. HAYES-Okay. MR. HIMES-One other question, not awfully relevant. Is that existing house winterized? MR. IRISH-No. It’s referred to as a long season. No, it doesn’t have insulation. It’s on piers. It has some electric. MR. URRICO-How old is the original home? MR. IRISH-The original home, the front part of it was built in I believe it was 1888 or something, 1885. Our plan, we spent about two years working on these plans, and again, our plan is to move there year round, so become a year round resident of the area. In fact, our primary residence, which is in Queensbury, is currently sold. We’re ready to move along here, and we do feel it’s a substantial improvement, new septic system, removal of the old garage, and removal of the old structure. The new house is actually, we tried to keep it as much as we could with the flow of the existing structure, with the look and the whole thing. MR. HIMES-Another question for Mr. Steves on the drawing here, the solid black line that has written on the side of it proposed porch and then above that 20 foot setback. Is that solid black line the outside of the porch? MR. STEVES-Yes, that’s correct. MR. HIMES-Okay. MR. STEVES-The 20 foot setback line just cuts into the porch. As you can see we show the 19.65 and 19.37. So on the north side it’s a few inches of relief. MR. HIMES-So the real problem is just really where the septic tank is going in. That’s that .68 feet or whatever it is of relief that you’re looking for. MR. STEVES-Right. MR. HIMES-Okay. MR. STEVES-Yes. Leaving the house in line with the southerly line of the house now, it provides us room for an improvement to the septic system, and, I mean, that’s always a concern, and it’s been a major concern of my client and the applicant, and to make sure that we have ample room for an up to date septic system and 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/27/02) comply with the separation distance from the water, and the only place he could really put it is on either side of that garage, and we thought it was better suited to be up there. MR. HAYES-Do we have any idea where the existing system is, or maybe we don’t even want to know. MR. IRISH-No, it’s directly behind the house, and it’s a 500 gallon tank with a pump up. MR. HAYES-So this is still an improvement, though, I guess. MR. IRISH-Substantially, yes. MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. URRICO-Your current setback to the road is how much? MR. STEVES-To the garage is 2.2 feet. MR. URRICO-I mean, to the main house, the camp. MR. STEVES-The main house, the current setback is approximately 48 feet. MR. HAYES-Are there any other questions for the applicant at this time? MR. IRISH-We would prefer to be up a little closer to the lake, only in that we always consider that straight line through, but recognizing the fact that we have that jut, you know, we went with the setback off the jut, but our preference has always been to go up the front wall and going back the 50 feet, which would move this structure, the new structure, a little forward and it would clear up some of the back. MR. HAYES-Any other questions for the applicant at this time? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Is there anyone here to speak in favor of the application? Anyone opposed? Any correspondence? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. MC NULTY-Yes, there are two pieces of correspondence. One is from Walter and Nancy Englert at 20 Worden Road, “This letter is in response to the letter we received from the Town of Queensbury regarding Area Variance No. 17-2002 Type II, applicant Thomas and Susanne Irish. We understand that our neighbors, The Irish’s, wish to remove their existing dwelling and garage and construct a new single-family residence and seek relief from setback requirements as well as shoreline and wetland requirements. For your records, we would like the Zoning Board of Appeals to know that we have no objections to the relief sought by Thomas and Susanne Irish and would like to see their construction proceed. Sincerely, Walter and Nancy Englert 20 Worden Road Scotia, NY 12302” The other letter is from Richard Selkow. “Please be advised that as the immediate next door neighbor to Thomas and Susanne Irish, we have reviewed the plans for their new house. We have no objections to the setback requirement variances they have requested. If you have any questions or require anything further please do not hesitate to contact me at the above number. Sincerely, Richard & Debra Selkow 158 Lake Parkway Assembly Point” MR. HAYES-If there’s no other correspondence, I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HAYES-And are there any further questions for the applicant before we take a poll of the Board members? If not, I guess it’s Mr. Himes. MR. HIMES-Thank you. In short, I think this is a good application, and even though it seems like there’s an abundance of variances that are needed, you know, normally we see these things and it’s on all sides and the only one you missed was the height it seems like. We begin to feel happy that it’s the last one of the evening and there’s no one here to hear us talking about it when you’ve got that many variances, but I think in this case that, given what exists now, and what you’re doing is making a situation that wasn’t too bad a little better, and I feel badly about seeing a grand old place like that go. It seems like there were wainscoting ceilings, I believe, I looked in one of the windows and, you know, it kind of seems like something’s passing, but in short, I think that I can’t really find any great fault to this application at all. I’d be in favor of it. Thank you. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Mr. McNulty? MR. MC NULTY-I essentially feel the same way. My initial reaction, when I looked at this, was, boy, a variance on all four sides. The answer is find a lot that’s the right size for the house or design a house that’s meant for this size lot, but considering the benefit to the applicant, the improvement to the site, the fact that 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/27/02) the neighbors have no objections and I think in this case I can’t really see future neighbors having many objections, I think the balance falls to the applicant and I’d be in favor. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Mr. Bryant. MR. BRYANT-Well, I feel it’s a lot of relief, all four sides, but I think one of the criteria is the effects on the neighborhood, and I think it’s a major improvement. With the garage right on the road now, you’re pushing it back. I think it would be a tremendous improvement to the neighborhood. So I think that that’s the criteria that sways my opinion, and I’d be in favor of it. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Mr. Urrico? MR. URRICO-Yes. I like the application. I think it would be an improvement to the neighborhood. It’s well presented. I’d be in favor of it. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Mr. Underwood? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I think it’s well thought out. I think you have to consider, as Matt said, the unique nature of the lot with that big indent in the front of it on the lake side. The only thing I would say is are you going to try and preserve a bunch of your trees there? Because you have all those pretty cedars out front, and it would be a shame to lose those. MR. IRISH-We’re trying to preserve the wood inside, also, as much as we can. MR. UNDERWOOD-I’d be in favor of it. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Well, I essentially agree with the rest of the Board members. I think, as we review this application in its entirety, things are certainly getting better. We’re moving away from the lake when we have a chance to. The garage, which is right on the road, is going to be attached to the house and set back, which is also a little bit of a North Country necessity I would also add in this particular case, I think it’s an attractive plan, and based on what everyone else has already said, I think this test definitely falls in favor of the applicant, and it’s a good application. Having said that, would someone like to make a motion? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I’ll make the motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 17-2002 THOMAS & SUSANNE IRISH, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: 162 Lake Parkway, Assembly Point. The applicant proposes removal of an existing dwelling and garage and construction of a 2,207 square foot single-family dwelling. Specifically they’re requesting .68 feet and 6.62 feet of relief from the 20-foot minimum side setback requirements on both sides. In addition, they’re asking for eight feet of relief from the fifty foot minimum shoreline setback requirement, and 12.87 feet of relief from the 30 foot minimum front setback requirement of the WR-1A zone Section 179-16. As previously discussed, the unique nature of this lot, it’s a .26 acre lot. It’s quite small, and this is a WR-1A zone, but part of the relief that’s requested on the lakeshore side is due to the fact that the indent of the property, that stone wall that’s been created there from the old times. As far as, is the difficulty self-created, to a degree it is, but it’s the constraining nature of the lot, the narrowness of the lot itself is what’s causing most of the relief that we’re granting here this evening. At the same time, it will be a definite improvement over the old home that’s there with a substantially inadequate septic system. Also, it’s going to relieve the garage on the back side, too. So I move that we approve it. Duly adopted this 27 day of March, 2002, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Bryant, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Himes, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Hayes NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stone, Mr. Abbate MR. HAYES-The motion is carried. MR. IRISH-Thank you. MR. STEVES-Thank you. MR. HAYES-Thank you for coming. Okay. We have some minutes to approve. CORRECTION OF MINUTES 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/27/02) February 20, 2002: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM THE FIRST REGULAR MEETING OF THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR FEBRUARY 20, 2002, Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Norman Himes: Duly adopted this 27 day of March, 2002, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Himes, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Hayes NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Bryant ABSENT: Mr. Stone, Mr. Abbate February 27, 2002: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 27, 2002, Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Underwood: Duly adopted this 27 day of March, 2002, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Himes, Mr. Hayes NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Bryant ABSENT: Mr. Stone, Mr. Abbate MR. HAYES-The meeting is adjourned. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Paul Hayes, Acting Chairman 21