Loading...
1994-03-16 ,,-.. O~G'NAl QUEERSBURY ZORIRG BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETIRG MARCH 16TH. 1994 IIIDEX Area Variance No. 10-1994 John L. & Dorothy B. Hodgkins 1. Area Variance No. 9-1994 Michael Barody 8. THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING MARCH 16TH. 1994 7:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT THEODORE TURNER. CHAIRMAN LINDA HAUSER. SECRETARY FRED CARVIN ANTHONY MARESCO DAVID MENTER CHRIS THOMAS ROBERT KARPELES PLANNER-SUSAN CIPPERLY STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI OLD BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 10-1994 TYPE I WR-1A CEA JOHN L. & DOROTHY B. HODGKINS MASON ROAD. CLEVERDALE APPLICART PROPOSES TO ADD EIGHT HUNDRED (800) SQUARE FEET OF LIVING SPACE TO AN EXISTING SIX HUNDRED AND EIGHT (608) SQUARE FOOT RESIDENCE. SECTION 179-79 STATES THAT NO ENLARGEMENT SHALL EXCEED AN AGGREGATE OF FIFTY (50) PERCENT OF THE GROSS FLOOR AREA. APPLICANT IS EXPANDING THE HOUSE BY SEVENTY-SIX (76) PERCENT. SO IS SEEKING RELIEF OF TWENTY-SIX (26) PERCENT. SECTION 179-79 ALSO STATES THAT IN NO CASE SHALL ANY INCREASE OF EXPANSION VIOLATE THE MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE SHORELINE RESTRICTIONS. PROPOSED ADDITION WILL MAINTAIN THE EXISTING SHORELINE SETBACK OF TWENTY-FIVE (25) FEET. BUT REQUIRES RELIEF OF FIFTY (50) FEET FROM THE SEVENTY-FIVE FOOT SHORELINE SETBACK REQUIRED BY SECTION 179-60. (ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY) (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) MAR. 9. 1994 TAX MAP NO. 13-1-10 LOT SIZE: 0.44 ACRES SECTION 179-60B(15)C. 179-79A-2 SEQRA TO PLANNING BOARD: FEBRUARY 9. 1994 JOHN HODGKINS. JR. & SR.. PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff. Area Variance No. 10-1994. John L. & Dorothy B. Hodgkins. Meeting Date: March 16. 1994 "APPLICANT: John L. & Dorothy B. Hodgkins PROJECT LOCATION: Mason Road. Cleverdale PROPOSED ACTION: Applicant proposes to add eight hundred square feet of living space to an existing six hundred square foot residence. Existing house is located twenty-five feet from the shoreline in a Waterfront Residential zone. CONFORMANCE WITH USE/AREA REGULATIONS: Section 179-79 states that no enlargement shall exceed an aggregate of fifty percent of the gross floor area. Applicant seeks to expand the house by one hundred thirty-two percent. Section 179-79 also states that in no case shall any increase or expansion violate the minimum setback requirements of the shoreline restrictions. The proposed addition will maintain the same setback from the shoreline as the existing house. but will require relief of fifty feet from the required 75-foot shoreline setback required by Section 179-60. REASON FOR VARIANCE REQUEST. AND BENEFIT TO APPLICANT: Applicant desires more living space. and. since the original house is small. an expansion of more than fifty percent is required in order to achieve the desired living space. totalling 1400 square feet. FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES: Al ternati ves are limited by the topography of the site. which slopes up to the road. IS THIS RELIEF SUBSTANTIAL?: As the applicant states. compared to other dwellings in the area. the existing house is quite small. so the relief sought for expansion does not appear to be substantial in that sense. The relief sought from the shoreline setback seems substantial. but it would be nearly impossible to add on to the house unless some relief from shoreline setbacks is granted. since the entire house is within the - 1 - 75-foot setback area. EFFECTS ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR COMMUNITY: It does not appear there would be adverse impacts on the area due to the expansion of this residence. Concerns have been expressed by neighbors regarding the two-story garage constructed on the property last year, since there appears to be intent on the part of the applicant to utilize the upper floor as a guest room. Research into the building permit files, and a conversation with the applicant showed their intent to utilize the upper level as a storage space. The space could be utilized for sleeping in, but has not been proposed to have toilet or cooking facilities. Another concern expressed was whether. after expanding the house, the rest of the lot could be divided off for an additional building lot. There does not appear to be any way a legal lot could be divided from the existing one. IS THIS DIFFICULTY SELF-CREATED?: The desire to have additional living space is self-generated, but the applicant does not appear to be seeking an unusual amount of space. PARCEL HISTORY: According to the Warren County Tax Map Office. the parcel was sold in 1952, 1976, and 1992, always as one lot, under one deed, even though a dashed line shows that it was two parcels at some time in the past." MR. TURNER-Okay. Mr. Hodgkins, anything to add further? Any comments you want to make in reference to your application? MR. HODGKINS, SR.-I think I better ask you what questions you want. Have you seen the plot plan? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. HODGKINS. SR.-I just did it in red and green. That's to try and show a little. With it along the lake front here, we have approximately 16, what would you say diameter trees, John? MR. HODGKINS, JR.-They're in excess of a foot diameter. MR. TURNER-Yes. I know they are. We looked at them. MR. HODGKINS, SR.-And they're not going to be touched. This will not be touched at all, as far as that waterfront. We found that there is one sapling which is about yeah big, which would have to go. and very possibly in the construction there is maybe, as I mentioned, a six inch one there, because, so they can get in, doing the work. That's basically. that sits, I'm going to say, right about here, right next, right where this would be, just a little bit out here. but to do the job right, they're going to have to have room to work. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. HODGKINS, SR.-I've got another drawing over here, where the cess pool would be collected over in this area over here. MR. CARVIN-Okay. What's up in the front here, right here? This area here, what is this? MR. HODGKINS, SR.-This is the retaining wall that was mentioned. It's right along there, right along the back of there. There's a three foot space between the retaining wall. This is built to collect stormwaters and everything else. MR. MENTER-East of the back of the building, you're going to have to excavate to get to that same elevation, back here. where this retaining wall comes across here. MR. HODGKINS, SR.-This retaining wall would be extended. probably, and put behind here. MR. MENTER-Right. So, you'll need to excavate back along the new structure. - 2 - -..-' MR. HODGKINS, SR.-It will probably, either that, or the back wall would be (lost word). MR. MENTER-So as you look at the house in the back, it tails off this way also. MR. HODGKINS, SR.-This way. this way. It goes off this way. It comes off MR. MENTER-Right. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Is this going to be porch area afterwards? MR. HODGKINS, SR.-This is porch area right now. MR. CARVIN-Currently. MR. HODGKINS, SR.-This is porch area out here. This is an eight foot wide porch that extends all the way out to here already. It doesn't just go the width of the building. MR. CARVIN-I assume that was preexisting, was it? MR. HODGKINS, SR.-This is preexisting. Yes. This has been there. MR. CARVIN-Okay, and this is just an additional porch area? MR. HODGKINS, SR.-This is the area of a porch area. We're setting back here to continue our 25 foot setback for the house part, up here, because actually the lake slopes a slight bit. This is a little extension that used to be, there's a set of steps right here on the side to walk off. MR. CARVIN-Are there plans for doors in here? Is this a solid wall, or are there going to be doors out onto the deck area? MR. HODGKINS, SR.-There would be doors out onto this deck right here. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Is there a door out onto the deck here? MR. HODGKINS, SR.-Yes, there is. porch right now. There is a door out onto this MR. TURNER-Are you going to put a slider there and a slider there? MR. HODGKINS, SR.-Either a slider, or a watchamcallit door, you know. MS. CIPPERLY-Atrium. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. HODGKINS, SR.-But basically this part is, was setback intentionally in here, so that we would not get any closer to the lake at all. As I say, this is made up of very large trees. That ice storm did a job the other day. I've never seen so many limbs down. MR. CARVIN-I guess this is a one story, is it? MR. HODGKINS, SR.-This would be a one story. MR. CARVIN-And this would be one story, also, or would this be two? MR. HODGKINS, SR.-No. We're talking one story, cathedral ceilings. MR. KARPELES-Is that going to be higher than the existing house? MR. HODGKINS, SR.-It would be probably, I figured, when I figured - 3 - it the other day. I figured it two or three feet higher. that it might be two or three feet higher than the existing one. because the roof. MR. CARVIN-I was going to say. the picture looks like it's a square roof. MR. HODGKINS. SR.-It's a. what kind of roof do you call it? MR. TURNER-A hip roof. MR. HODGKINS. JR.-The current roof is a hip roof. MR. HODGKINS. SR.-Yes. It's a hip roof. because you couldn't use the hip roof on this to have it work. MR. TURNER-So you're coming up with a cathedral ceiling 14 feet maybe. inside? MR. HODGKINS. JR.-To the peak. Right now. you've got. actually. right now you're 14 feet from the floor to the peak of the house. MR. HODGKINS. SR.-This would be. actually. one here. and one here. and then a minor one back in here. because that's the only way we can figure to cover it. without. because we're not trying to. we don't want to take up a lot of room. I mean, we're not trying to get a lot of space. MR. MENTER-Are you going to have an entrance right on the back side here? MR. HODGKINS. SR.-At the present time. that was not our thinking. MR. MENTER-Well. actually, that's going to be cut into the side. MR. HODGKINS. SR.-It's going to be cut into the hill side. So I don't think it's a practical spot to be, and if we went straight back or anything like that, we'd be going into this very great hill side, like this. and that's why we're trying to keep it as much. MR. TURNER-So this will become a full time residence? MR. HODGKINS. SR.-This is still. as it states in there. We are talking about seasonal. If we come to a point. we could end up with. MRS. HODGKINS MRS. HODGKINS-We could end up wanting to move, at some point in the future. but we'd still be there only in the summer. MR. HODGKINS, SR.-It's not going to be a 12 month a year. MR. TURNER-No, no, but I mean, the logical approach to this expansion is a full time residence at this site, at some point in time. MR. HODGKINS. SR.-It could be for five, six, seven months a year, yes. MR. TURNER-Yes. MRS. HODGKINS-We can't live there in Mayor September. sometimes even in June or August, because it's so cold. MR. HODGKINS. SR.-Yes. at the present time. That's part of it. and the bedrooms are so tiny. MR. TURNER-Yes. - 4 - MR. MENTER-Was '92 when you purchased the house? MR. HODGKINS, SR.-No, 1952. Okay. It has just changed hands within the family. In 1952, this was purchased by my father and mother, and that other date of 1975 there, it was changed from my mother, after my father passed away, over to my wife and I, and my brother and his wife. MISS HAUSER-Were you going to winterize the house for year round use? MR. HODGKINS, JR.-It has to be, I believe, for energy law. Actually, it would be sometimes nice if you could get away without doing those things, for cost, but, no, you have to legally do that, I believe. MR. TURNER-Yes. I think Code makes you do it. MR. HODGKINS, JR.-Yes. There's an energy code makes you. MR. HODGKINS, SR.-Actually, we're not going to be increasing the number of bedrooms at all. We're just going to be, still it would be two bedrooms. Actually, we're making bedrooms that you can get into. One of the bedrooms, you have to go through the bathroom or the other bedroom to get to it, at the present time. MR. TURNER-I guess I would have one comment, on the remarks made by staff about your garage. Is there an intent that that is going to be made into sleeping quarters upstairs? MR. HODGKINS, SR.-At the present time, it could be used, at the present time, it was put in for storage and a garage. You've got two cars, and it's also a great place to store a boat, but that is not the intent at the moment. At some point, if our kids come up, they might sleep up there, but at the present time, there is no bath facilities in there. I believe the general thing of it is up here, as long as there is no kitchen, and if there is no intent of ever having a kitchen, thi s would not be made into a second residence. MISS HAUSER-Can your septic system handle a second bath? MR. HODGKINS, SR.-I believe the thing states that, yes, the septic system can. We've been told it can handle it, but it is determined by the number of bedrooms, instead of the number of baths. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. HODGKINS, JR.-The leach field is at the top of the hill, and it's divided into a number of bays up there. MR. TURNER-Is it fairly new? MR. HODGKINS, JR.-No. The actual leach field was built back in the 50's. The leach field has a concrete retaining area right across the front of it. It's set up, it's got a septic tank which is down near the house. but behind a retaining wall. which. as the septic tank fills up, it overflows into a holding tank, which is in a concrete bunker. When that fills, there's a sewage pump. as most of the houses do there. It brings it up to the top of the hill and the leach field. The leach field is over 120 feet from the water. The leach field then is divided into five separate bays. and if each bay area. during wet times or so, fills, it goes into the next bay. It's concrete on the lakeside. It's topped with concrete, and it goes back. It's a fairly substantial system. It was designed by my grandfather, I believe, who was a Sanitary Engineer at that time. MR. HODGKINS, SR.-P.E. Sanitary Engineer. MR. MENTER-How far does the new structure fall from the garage, do - 5 - you know? MR. HODGKINS, JR.-For the new structure, it's going to be approximately 30 feet, I think, 18 or 30. MR. HODGKINS, SR. -The garage is setback 30 feet from the road, which is the requirement, and then the garage is 26 feet in depth. So you're talking 56 feet there. So the garage is right up, it's pretty close to the 100 foot mark. MR. MENTER-The garage is setback 30 feet from the road? MR. HODGKINS, SR.-It has to be. We were surprised, too. MR. MENTER-It certainly doesn't appear it. MR. TURNER-It's about 21 feet, Dave, from that corner to that, to the proposed addition, 20, 21 feet. MRS. HODGKINS-Excuse me. We have an answer on the distance between the two feet. It's 80 feet. MR. HODGKINS, SR.-Between the house and the garage, where the house will be? MR. MENTER-The corner of the new addition? MR. CARVIN-I just took the line here, if this is 20 feet. MR. HODGKINS, SR.-It comes up about 20. MR. HODGKINS, JR.-Fifteen to twenty, yes. MR. HODGKINS, SR.-Yes. MR. TURNER-That's about what we figured, about 20. MR. HODGKINS, JR.-That's about correct. It depends, if you want to go on the diagonal, it's probably 22 feet. MR. TURNER-That's what we did. We went the diagonal. MR. HODGKINS, SR.-Yes. We're between 160 and 165 feet. It always says plus or minus on the assessment rolls. MR. CARVIN-So there'll be 20, 25 feet there. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. HODGKINS, SR.-This is the area where the septic area is, right back in through here. There's this one large one (lost word). MR. TURNER-All right. Any other questions. MR. MENTER-The answer to that was 15 to 20 between the two buildings. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. MENTER-And there's a substantial elevation difference between the two also, isn't there? MR. HODGKINS, SR.-Yes. The road level is the garage level. MR. MENTER-Which would be how many feet above floor level in the building, roughly? MR. HODGKINS, JR.-I would say the ground level at the floor of the garage is probably 12 feet from the floor of your house. That's only a guess. - 6 - MR. MENTER-Maybe not that much. MR. HODGKINS. JR.-Well. if you look at the house. you're looking through the attic part of the house. MR. CARVIN-What's this. a dormer over the porch? MR. HODGKINS. SR.-Yes. Because it's coming in this way. and if you're going to have white in on a thing like this. you know. if you're coming pitch down like this. you're main thing is you want the light. MR. CARVIN-Will this be opened? MR. HODGKINS. SR.-This would be basically opened. If it at some point. might think of even screening it or something like that. but not making it enclosed. MR. CARVIN-But it will be covered roof lines? MR. HODGKINS. SR.-Yes. See the roof line here. coming this way. so to cover that part. this roof line would cover this part. MR. TURNER-Okay. Let me open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TURNER-Any further discussion? Okay. Motion's in order. 1<",,_ MR. MENTER-Ted. I have a question for you. if this is approved as it is on the plans. okay. and given 20 or so feet between the garage and what would be the new building. would he. in the future. be able. without variance. on a new project to further expand and tie the two buildings together? MR. CARVIN-I don't believe without variance. MR. MENTER-He would have the setback to do that. MR. TURNER-He has to be 10 feet. minimum 10 feet. from the main structure to the garage. He's got 20. now. He can be 10 feet closer. if he wanted to be. for whatever reason. If he wanted to be 10 feet closer to the house. he could move the garage back 10 feet more than what he's got. He only has to be 10 feet from his main structure to the garage. MS. CIPPERLY-Ted. I think the question is. if he wanted to make that an attached garage some day. could he do it. right? MR. MENTER-Right. MS. CIPPERLY-He'd have to go through a variance procedure again. because it's 75 foot shoreline setback. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. MENTER-Okay. Great. MR. KARPELES-I've got a question. That additional three feet in elevation you're going to have on the roof. is that going to have any adverse effect on your neighbor's view to the south? I couldn't get down in there to see. There was too much snow. but it would look to me like he's looking right over the roof of your house. to look to the north now. MR. HODGKINS. SR.-He's not looking over the house now. - 7 - MR. KARPELES-He isn't? MR. HODGKINS. SR.-No. he is not. He is basically looking into the roof at the present time. So it's not going to change anything on that kind of a basis. MR. MENTER-But the new roof line will actually be higher than the hip that's there? MR. HODGKINS. SR.-Yes. MR. MENTER-So actually you're going to have a small gable end? MR. HODGKINS, SR.-It's not going to be that much higher. MR. MENTER-I was just curious as to how you'll tie that in. MR. HODGKINS, SR.-This house it's not going to effect at all, because he's down here already. MS. CIPPERLY-Another point is, this also has to go to site plan review next week, if it gets through here. So some of those concerns, if they are there, will also be addressed by the Planning Board. MOTIOR TO APPROYB ARBA VARIAMCE RO. 10-1994 JOBM L. & DOROTHY B. HODGKIRS. Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Thomas: The applicant proposes to add 800 square feet of living space to an existing 608 square foot residence. By Code and Regulations right now, a single family residence has to be 800 square feet. Although this is in excess of the 50 pefcent grQ.ss floor area it is a reasonable request, and does prov de the aQequa~e ~iv1ng 'pace ~na~ is needed to update the existing structure. Section 179-79 also states that in no case shall any increase or expansion violate the minimum setback requirements of the shoreline restrictions. The existing dwelling is 25 feet from the lake, which mandates a relief of 50 feet from the 75 foot shoreline setback required by Section 179-60. I think the unique part that relates to that part of the relief is the fact that this is a preexisting camp, if you will, that's part of the old Ripley Subdivision. Being part of that subdivision, these lots were already cut out, as to size and depth and has caused a lot of problems for the residents that live in that area, as far as updating their residence, as related to the Codes of today. Yes, the difficulty is self-created. but I think the applicant has a right to expand the residence. so that it becomes a usable residence and allows him to update the residence as related to the other residences that are in the area which he has documentation showing the square footage of the existing homes that are there. There's no effect on public facilities or services. As to the setback relief granted, I would add that the topography of the land imposes a hardship on the applicant, as far as the shoreline setbacks. Duly adopted this 16th day of March, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Carvin, Miss Hauser, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Maresco AREA VARIAMCE RO. 9-1994 WR-1A TYPE I MICHAEL BARODY OWRERI SAME AS ABOVE FITZGERALD ROAD. ROUTE 9 TO PARADISE LAKE ROAD. LEFT OR HARRIS ROAD TO FITZGERALD ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO EXPAMD A PREEXISTIIIG. ROIICORFORMIIIG EIGHT HUIIDRED AIID SIXTY - FOUR (864 ) SQUARE FOOT HOUSE BY ADDIRG A FIVE HUIIDRED TWBIITY-EIGHT (528) SQUARE FOOT ATTACHED GARAGE. ARD THREE HURDRED EIGHT (308) SQUARE - 8 - FEET OF LIVING SPACE. FOR A TOTAL EXPANSION OF EIGHT HUNDRED THIRTY-SIX (836) SQUARE FEET. OR NINETY-FIVE (95) PERCENT. APPLICANT SEEKS RELIEF OF FORTY-FIVE (45) PERCENT FROM SECTION 179- 79. WHICH STATES THAT NO ENLARGEMENT SHALL EXCEED AN AGGREGATE OF FIFTY PERCENT (50%) OF THE GROSS FLOOR AREA OF SUCH SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING. APPLICANT ALSO PROPOSES TO ADD AN EIGHT (80) SQUARE FOOT DECK. SECTION 179-16C REQUIRES A TOTAL OF FIFTY (50) FEET. WITH A MINIMUM OF TWENTY (20) FEET ON ONE SIDE. APPLICANT IS PROPOSING SIDE SETBACKS OF FIFTEEN (15) FEET ON ONE SIDE. AND TWENTY-EIGHT (28) FEET ON THE OTHER. TOTALLING FORTY-THREE (43) FEET. SO RELIEF OF FIVE (5) FEET IS NEEDED ON ONE SIDE. AND RELIEF OF SEVEN (7) FEET IS NEEDED FROM THE TOTAL REQUIRED. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) 3/9/94 TAX MAP NO. 41-1-8 LOT SIZE: 1/3 ACRE SECTION 179-16. 179-79 SEQRA TO PLANNING BOARD: FEBRUARY 9. 1994 J.H. ROTHERMEL. REPRESENTING APPLICANT. PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff. Area Variance No. 9-1994. Michael Barody. Meeting Date: March 16. 1994 "APPLICANT: Michael Barody PROJECT LOCATION: Fitzgerald Road. Glen Lake PROPOSED ACTION: Applicant seeks to expand a pre-existing. nonconforming 864 square-foot house by adding a 528 square-foot attached garage. and 308 square feet of living space. for a total expansion of 836 square feet of living space. Applicant also proposes to add an 80 square-foot deck. CONFORMANCE WITH USE/AREA REGULATIONS: Section 179-79 states that no enlargement shall exceed an aggregate of 50% of the gross floor area of such single family dwelling. Applicant is proposing a 97% expansion. Section 179-16C requires a total of fifty feet side setbacks. with a minimum of twenty on one side. Applicant is proposing a setbacks of 15 feet one side and 28 feet on the other. totalling 43 feet. Therefore. relief of 5 feet is needed on one side. and relief of 7 feet is needed from the total. REASON FOR VARIANCE REQUEST. AND BENEFIT TO APPLICANT: The applicant desires more living space. plus a garage. FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES: Considering the plot plan shown. there do not appear to be any feasible al ternati ves to this proposal. In fact. if the septic system existed as proposed. even this proposal would have to be modified to meet separation distances. However. in reviewing the building permit records for this site. it was found that the septic system is actually located on the side of the house toward the LaVoy property. This was confirmed upon inspection by the applicant's agent. The incorrect information had been supplied by the Real tor. Considering this corrected information. it may be possible to modify this proposal so that no variance is required. IS THIS RELIEF SUBSTANTIAL?: The existing building is 24 feet from the property line. the proposed addition would be 15 feet from the line. a difference of 9 feet compared to existing. and 5 feet compared to the 20 required. EFFECTS ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR COMMUNITY: There is no obvious detriment to the neighborhood. There has been much interest in this project on the part of the neighborhood so comment may be forthcoming at the public hearing. There have been no written submittals. IS THIS DIFFICULTY SELF- CREATED?: The desire for more living space is self-generated. but this seems to be a reasonable amount of proposed living space. As noted above. modification of the plan may be possible given the corrected septic location. PARCEL HISTORY: Parcel was owned by the adjacent landowner until December 19. 1992. when it was sold to the Applicant. "As built" plot plan from 3/21/86 showing the septic system is attached. STAFF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: This application was disapproved by the Warren County Board. I spoke wi th a staff member there. who stated their concerns as the steepness of the slope. and the proportion of buildable space left. after considering the right-of-ways on the property." MISS HAUSER-At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board held on the 9th day of March. 1994. they voted to disapprove this variance. and the comments were. "This lot seems to be extremely small, it is well terraced now and it would seem that any - 9 - additions/buildings could not be tolerated on this site - it is over built now." MR. TURNER-Mr. Rothermel. any further comment. application goes. as the agent for your applicant? the Warren County Planning Board meeting? as far as your Did you attend MR. ROTHERMEL-Yes. I did. It was a long meeting. I think it was 90 seconds from the time that Lynn Webster made her. looked at the declaration. I still think she was looking at the lot next door. because that is completely built and terraced. completely terraced with decks. This is. well. there's no lot in that area that is as clean and as much room as this Michael Barody. but I'm selfish. because I've got men that need to work. and I've gotten myself into this proposal. but as she said. she made a motion that there was. it appeared to be too congested as it was. and it was seconded and automatically accepted. So, it was fairly quick. As far as the reason for placing the addition where he wants it is, he doesn't want to block. it has two bedrooms on the rear side of the house. that you can see on the partial floor plan of the existing. There's a 12 by 9. and a 12 by 12. He doesn't want to block the window. the 12 by 12. which is on the southeast corner. and the electrical service. which is underground. is on that same section. and staying away from the septic tank also. and he wants to develop another hallway/entrance. which will take three feet away from that nine by twelve bedroom. to develop the second entrance. Right now there's only one entrance in or out of the house. and that was another reason. and a selfish reason. I think of the view of the lake from the master bedroom. and I think when it's all said and done. there'll be about the same amount of setback on both sides. MR. TURNER-Does anyone have any questions for Mr. Rothermel? MR. MENTER-What do you mean the same amount of setback on both sides? MR. ROTHERMEL-Well. I can say the east side is 16. and the new proposed west side would be 15. MR. MENTER-The east side of the existing building. MR. ROTHERMEL-Right. MR. MENTER-Okay. I see. MR. CARVIN-Where's the deck on this thing? Is this garage. deck. and bedroom. or is this garage. bedroom. and deck? This must be the. must be a deck here. MR. TURNER-No. this has got to be the garage. MR. CARVIN-The garage is out here. I would assume. right? MR. TURNER-Yes. The garage is right there. MR. CARVIN-That's the garage. but what's this? bedroom? This must be bedroom. Is this deck or MR. TURNER-No. bedroom. MR. MENTER-The 22. the 16 by 22 there is bedroom. MR. ROTHERMEL-The 14 by 22 is an addition to the existing bedroom. MR. TURNER-Here it is. right here. The 22 by 14. is right. MR. MENTER-The little six is a deck accessory there. MR. TURNER-Yes. The jacuzzi. the 10 by 8 is the deck. 22 by 14. - 10 - MR. CARVIN-The jacuzzi's inside. MR. TURNER-Yes. that's inside. MS. CIPPERLY-The existing rear of the house. if you look on the floor plan where it says existing bedroom. the wall of that one is toward the bottom of page. it's actually the existing rear wall of the house. This addition is sort of combining an area there. MR. CARVIN-The space over the garage. you say storage. Is that going to be. if they so want it. could that be turned into liveable space? MR. ROTHERMEL-No. that is storage. In fact. there's a staircase that goes up to that storage area from the garage only. MR. CARVIN-Okay. but it's a common roof. right? MR. ROTHERMEL-That's right. a common roof running parallel with the existing gable. It's just that it's off set. MR. CARVIN-Okay. but the master bedroom will be cathedral type of ceiling. will it? MR. ROTHERMEL-No. The master bedroom will be the same as the house is now. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. MENTER-So the technical problem, at least with the setback requirement. since the septic isn't there, is the underground power service comes up there. MR. ROTHERMEL-Well. yes. that's one. and that rear window. that corner bedroom in the southeast corner. If it were brought back the 10 feet and lined up. he'd lose that bedroom window. plus he'd have to move the service. plus. I think it would be too close to the septic. also. I think a ten foot margin has to be kept from the house to the septic. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. MENTER-Well that should be there. shouldn't it? That should already be there. The septic is probably. yes. that should already be there. off the house. and it's at least 12 foot. I assume. down off that corner. the bedroom corner. where the septic comes out. probably where the kitchen starts. MR. ROTHERMEL-I think Susan found some evidence of the installation of the sanitation. MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. I gave you. in your notes. there's a copy. MR. TURNER-Dave. you've got a copy of it. MR. MENTER-Yes. MR. ROTHERMEL-How far is that from that east boundary? The septic tank has to be 10 foot from the boundary also. MR. TURNER-Probably not. MS. CIPPERLY-Well. when this was installed. it wasn't. and I don't know the reason for that. but it may be that the regulations. MR. TURNER-It's right on the line. MR. MENTER-Yes. but that's nothing that we can. we're not going to do anything about that now. - 11 - MS. CIPPERLY-The point is, though, that the septic tank does appear to be at least. MR. ROTHERMEL-Well, I didn't know exactly where it was. I didn't dig up or anything. MR. MENTER-The fact is that it's not relative to this addition, because it's off on the side, and the septic is far enough away. MR. ROTHERMEL-The purpose of off setting isn't just to avoid the tank. The septic tank wasn't any consideration, although I just came upon it as I went through the project. MR. MENTER-Yes. So, essentially, from your perspective, it's the window and the power service that you don't want to deal with. MR. ROTHERMEL-Right, and actually moving the power is a small thing, too. It isn't a big thing. MR. CARVIN-What window were we talking about, in the rear here? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Well, that's no big deal. anyway. They're going to lose one MR. MENTER-Next to the garage, on the right hand, right here, this one. MR. CARVIN-Yes, but he's going to lose the other one anyway. MR. MENTER-Well, he's losing the other one, right. MR. ROTHERMEL-Yes. We're adding to the other bedroom, anyway. MR. TURNER-Okay. Any further questions for Mr. Rothermel, at this point? Okay. Let me open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED DONALD MILNE MR. MILNE-My name is Donald Milne, and I reside at, well, the address is 31. My mailbox used to be up at the other right-of-way. So, my property abuts Mr. Barody's. MR. TURNER-To the east? MR. MILNE-On the west side. I could speak in favor of this with modifications, and I come to you mixed feelings. Mr. Barody has been a very good neighbor. He's put some trees along the property and so on to provide space, but I do have some concerns. Number One concern is about the side yard distance. Staff comment indicates, "Is this relief substantial" and she indicates a difference of nine feet compared to the existing. The existing building is 24 feet from the property line. If that's so, then the proposal that shows this shows a 10 foot addition, not a 9 foot addition, okay, which would put it 14 feet from the property line, not is, as the application shows, and I'm concerned about. MR. THOMAS-Hey, Ted, it's 24.9 feet, which would be closer to 25, then 24. MR. TURNER-Yes, okay. MR. MILNE-I hate to argue with the survey, but they've had, since 1970, there's been three survey's done, and there's been considerable discrepancies among the three different surveys. No one, I don't know if anybody's been out to look at the property at all, from the, I measured to the other side of the trees that Mr. - 12 - '- -- Barody's put in. Obviously right now you can't find any of the property stakes with all the snow. I measured twenty-three feet to the other side of the trees. from the building. the way the building sits. So. the other thing is. the deck. my house is down from his. and adjacent to his. and from that proposed deck. there would be a site line directly into the second floor bedroom window of my house. Now. the gentleman here stated that nobody has more clean land than Mike Barody. I disagree with that. because our property is one hundred feet wide by two hundred feet. Dr. Kim's property below that is 200 feet by 200 feet. Unfortunately for Mike. he bought a piece of property that was only. there's discrepancies there. One map that your staff has given with the septic. the last map here. shows the property at 75 feet wide. and I think that's what a lot of realtors represented the property as. 75 by 200. The survey here that's presented shows it 66 feet along the shoreline. 65 feet along the back. and if you look at the corner of the property where the right-of-way is given. that's not a right angle. So that angle is greater than 900. which means that. at the point where the building is located. that property is not a full 65 feet wide. Mostly like it is somewhere around maybe 64. So it is a small. very narrow. It was nonconforming property when the house was built. and in fact if you look at. some of the history is right on this plot plan. It shows. for example. that Esther M. Graham to Gary R. LaVoy. 8/25/83. and to Annagret LaVoy. Gary conveyed it to Annagret on 12/26/84. Well. there was a reason for that. The reason was he purchased the other property. which is shown below. from Dale and Florence Jarvis. conveyed to Gary and Annagret LaVoy on 12/26/84. So the same day that he closed on the Jarvis property. he had the Graham property conveyed to his wife. because the Town Code would require that if they were the same owner. a nonconforming lot would have to be joined together. So that he could then build the two houses. and what he did was he then went ahead and built two new houses on two pieces of nonconforming property. and now. unfortunately for Mike. Mike wants to further expand by moving over to the side of mY property. and in the process. wants to put in a deck that's going to look down and windows that would sort of look down into ~ bedroom area. Even though we're considerably. our side line. and I didn't get the measurements today and I wasn't able to get my file on it. our property is in. or our building is in. and I can't give you the exact figure. the problem is our house is a five sided house. so the wall is directly in line with where this deck is going to be. and that. it seems to be a problem. I've covered the idea of a measurement. yes. the lot width in question. I think. is a little bit less. Also. they list the area as 15.858 square feet. I think it's closer if you take a simple measurement of 200 by 66. you come up with 13.200. I think it's closer to a 14.000 square foot. So. if he goes to a total of about 1700 square feet of building. he is building out quite a bit of that property. because the front you really can't build on. He's going to put more stairs and so on. and terracing down there. but that is a concern. All of the unused space on that property. then. would be at the front and at the rear. and if the septic is as the staff says it. I think they could build it. come back without coming over to the side. the way he's proposing. I wouldn't be adverse to him coming over. maybe. five feet on the side. and leaving out the deck. but I am opposed to it if he builds it as is. MR. TURNER-Anything further? That's it? MR. MILNE-Nothing further. other then to compliment you. MR. MENTER-You're talking about the eight by ten deck? MR. MILNE-Yes. the eight by ten deck. It's a small consideration. but if you view the site. where that is proposed. our house is down below here. the second story is about even. so that there's a bedroom window there. that that deck would be sort of looking right out on. very close together. and the amount of trees that you can get in there. to block views. we've saved as many as we can. but - 13 - it/s a problem. MR. TURNER-How far did you say you were from where that deck is proposed to where that. your second. just a guess? MR. MILNE-I can't give you a figure. because in the snow today. I couldn't get out there. We are. I would venture a guess. we've got to be in 25 feet and maybe a Ii ttle bit more. to that bedroom window from our property line. but it/s the elevation. it's right in there. MR. KARPELES-You said you wouldn't mind them coming over five feet. and five feet. I'm confused. Five feet as opposed to what. ten feet? MR. MILNE-Yes. and without that deck. I wouldn't want anybody on that deck looking down. MR. TURNER-I agree with you. that is a narrow lot. very narrow. MR. MENTER-The existing house. Mr. Rothermel. has a deck on the lakeside. does it not? MR. ROTHERMEL-Yes. sir. MR. MENTER-It does. and does that run end to end? MR. ROTHERMEL-That goes from. I think. the whole front of the house. MR. MENTER-Okay. It shows it. Right. Okay. MR. MILNE-Yes. The other thing. the application also indicates that it's a 28. for the 50 feet. you talk about 28 feet on one side of the bui lding. and 15 feet on the othe r. In reality. if the existing building is 15 feet or 16 feet from the LaVoy property. so if you put the two pieces. if you add the addition and alteration. then the west side of the addition is 15 feet. or 14 feet from my property. and the existing portion of the residence is only 15 or 16 feet. So you're talking only 30 to 31 feet of. not the 43 feet. or whatever that they're talking about. So I think there's some errors and discrepancies there. MR. TURNER-They're talking about the two setbacks. 15 feet from the property line to the proposed addition. and 28 feet. MS. CIPPERLY-Right. What he/s saying is the existing residence is about 15 feet from the LaVoy property. the side that the septic tank is on. MR. TURNER-Yes. right. MS. CIPPERLY-He's saying he believes maybe the setback should have been figured from where the existing residence is. As we just saw in the previous variance. the addition really should stand on its own. as far as its setback. MR. TURNER-Okay. Any other questions? MR. THOMAS-I'm just kicking around. the expansion of the garage. is that counted towards the total expansion. the 50 percent? MR. TURNER-Yes. It's attached. MR. THOMAS-Because it's attached. it is. okay. thinking of the one up in Lake George there. Because I was MR. TURNER-Yes. Right. MR. THOMAS-That wasn't attached. - 14 - MR. TURNER-Right. MS. CIPPERLY-It occurred to me. also. that maybe one reason that that deck was put on to the master bedroom. aside from being able to see the lake. was to have an additional entrance into the house. If that deck were to not be utilized. it would be also possible to have an additional exit where one of these windows is. maybe. off of the master bedroom. Maybe you could have a window out to the. looking at the lake. but come out less feet. MR. TURNER-Okay. Thank you much. Anyone else wish to be heard? PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TURNER-Discussion? Any thoughts? MR. MENTER-I don't know. I guess the relevant question is. are we solely looking at. as we've done recently. approval or disapproval. or are we discussing. is Mr. Rothermel prepared or authorized to discuss. alternatives? MR. TURNER-Are you? MR. ROTHERMEL-I think it's up to the Board to suggest. maybe. back off a little bit more on the offset. back it off to six or five or whatever you think is fair. eliminate the deck. if you think that is going to be a bad spot. He doesn't need a deck there. He's got a deck in the front. but the fact that he had a patio door there. let him go out on the deck. I suppose. to move back and forth freely. but he's open for whatever is available. whatever you feel free and fair. That's all that's necessary to everybody concerned. even the neighbor. MR. TURNER-All right. MR. CARVIN-There's no door. there doesn't appear to be. in the rear. any doors in the rear. So. it looks like it's a side entrance. and there's probably one off the front. onto the deck. So there's two entrances on the. I'm assuming. the east and the north side. I think. because of the narrowness of the lot. I don't even know if he could just butt the addition right. in other words. just lengthen the house. the existing house. and I don't think it would infringe upon any of the side setbacks any more than what it is. I mean. the deck. I think. is a nice touch. but I think. because of the public opposition. that certainly it's probably not going to be part of the plan. MR. ROTHERMEL-So be it. MR. TURNER-Well. you know. I think. if the lot was bigger and you had more to work with. I think. that's the other thing. It's just too narrow. You're maxing it right out to the max. MR. ROTHERMEL-I agree with you lØØ percent. We'll take the Board's decision. MR. CARVIN-Well. I mean. my feeling. and I think we're. the five feet or the ten feet. I mean. I don't know. If you just extended the house. I mean. that would be probably the simplest. MR. KARPELES-Yes. but he hits the septic system. then. MR. CARVIN-No. The septic system is off on the side. MR. TURNER-It's on the side. Bob. MR. KARPELES-This isn't right? MR. TURNER-No. - 15 - MR. CARVIN-This is not right. The septic system is off here. So there's really no reason why you couldn't just extend the house straight back. MR. MENTER-I think that's a logical solution. too. dealing with a setback on that side of the house. You're still MR. CARVIN-If you move it. you're still going to bump into a setback problem. MR. TURNER-No matter what you do. you're going to bump into it. MR. CARVIN-That way. I don't know if the garage is abnormally wide. MR. TURNER-It's 22 feet. It's a pretty good sized garage. MR. CARVIN-Okay. but what's the house? The house is 24? MR. ROTHERMEL-The house is 24. right. MR. CARVIN-Yes. so you could pick up. and if you wanted. you could probably incorporate a door into the garage plan. as far as that's concerned. either on the side or on the. the south side. MR. ROTHERMEL-Or leave it two foot short and don't move the electricity. MR. MENTER-I think the addition of the garage is legitimate. but I don't think there's really a cause to infringe on that setback. MR. ROTHERMEL-Yes. MISS HAUSER-I think he's asking for much more than minimal relief from the setback. five feet and seven feet. MR. CARVIN-Well. no. I think it's really going to be real close. MISS HAUSER-I mean. a total of seven feet. MR. TURNER-Yes. Well. I think. again. the only problem that ~ have with it is right there. That lot is awful narrow. If he just adds onto this. he can do everything he wants to do right there. MR. CARVIN-Is there any elevation problem if you just extended the house back? MR. ROTHERMEL-No. It's almost dead level. MR. CARVIN-It's almost level. MR. TURNER-The septic's over here. This is gone. MR. CARVIN-How would the neighbors feel about it if they just extended it back? I mean. is there a problem with that? MR. MILNE-We'd be in favor of it. MR. CARVIN-In other words. and not have any offset? MR. MILNE-We would certainly be in favor of it. MR. MENTER-Yes. That would fit in very well with the properties on both sides. because the both buildings now are just long buildings on either side of this. MR. TURNER-It would tie in better. ~ think. MR. CARVIN-So. I don't know if that changes the thing. because. it changes the setbacks. - 16 - '- MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Well. if this is 26. so. I mean. the setback should be pretty close to okay. The house is not conforming. now. is it? MR. TURNER-Yes. it is. I think it is. MR. CARVIN-Well. if the house is conforming now. if he just extends it back. then it's still. MR. TURNER-Did you say nonconforming or conforming? MR. CARVIN-Conforming. MR. TURNER-No. because he's only got. he's got 24 there. So he meets the 20 on the one side. and that's 24 and 24 is 48. and 65. MR. CARVIN-The lot's only 65 feet. so it's almost impossible for him to make it. MR. TURNER-48. and 65. that's 17 feet. So he's got 24 and 17. He's got 41 feet. He needs nine feet of relief from the fifty. Okay. He just needs relief from the fifty foot. MR. CARVIN-Any comments. thoughts? MR. TURNER-That'll serve his purpose? MR. ROTHERMEL-That'll serve their purpose. yes. MR. TURNER-Okay. and they like the idea. MR. ROTHERMEL-I think it should fit the neighbor's request, also. MR. TURNER-Yes. Right. Any other questions? MR. THOMAS-As long as the owner goes along with it, what the builder's going to tell. what we tell the builder he's going to be able to do. MR. TURNER-Yes, we'll just grant them the relief based on the one side. He has to line up the new addition with the existing addition. MR. THOMAS-It sounds good to me. MR. TURNER-He has to line up the new addition with the existing house. They can't overlap. That'll take the mud right out of the water. Okay. A motion's in order. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 9-1994 MICHAEL BARODY, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by David Menter: That we grant relief of 17 feet from the total of the required total of 50 feet side setbacks as outlined in Section 179-16C. which states that the applicant should have a total of 50 feet side yard setbacks with a minimum of 20 feet on one side. The applicant does have the 20 feet on the one side and does need the 17 feet of relief from the total. The applicant is desiring more living space plus a garage and by granting this variance, this would be the minimum relief necessary considering the size and shape of the lot. to allow the applicant to construct a new garage and expand the bedroom area of the house. By way of explanation. any new construction should conform with the existing building with no overlap infringing on the side yard setback. By granting this relief. it appears that there would be no detrimental effect on the neighborhood or community. and that by granting of this relief. it does relief a lot of the concerns of the neighbors and any public opposition. There would also not appear to be any effect on public - 17 - services or facilities by granting this motion. Duly adopted this 16th day of March. 1994. by the following vote: MS. CIPPERLY-Could I just ask what your figures. what do you, there's 25 feet on one side of the house. and what did you say was on the other? MR. CARVIN-On the other side is 25. 34, 17. because I'm going by a 65 foot road frontage. MS. CIPPERLY-Okay. MR. KARPELES-But I think he pointed out, it isn't really 65 feet wide. MR. CARVIN-Well, no. I think it was sold on the basis of 75 feet. Is that correct? MR. ROTHERMEL-No one knows. MR. CARVIN-It's 66 along the shore and 65 along the back. MR. TURNER-You can't go on hearsay. You've got to go with the survey that's presented in front of you. and that's what you've got to go by. MR. CARVIN-So. I'm assuming that I'm going to be. with the 17 feet we're going to be close. and that's why. by way of explanation. the house, it should line up with the house. MR. TURNER-Yes. MS. CIPPERLY-Okay. MR. THOMAS-Measuring straight across. inside line to inside line, across the back of the house, measures 66 feet. MR. CARVIN-Well. it says 66 in the front. and 65. so unless it tapers. MR. ROTHERMEL-Yes. It would be about 66.5 or 66.6 on the middle. MS. CIPPERLY-The front corner of the house is further from the line than the back corner. MR. TURNER-Yes. It's on a bit of an angle. MR. THOMAS-I would say 65 is a valid. MR. TURNER-A valid measurement. MR. CARVIN-Okay. and that makes it 17. MR. TURNER-Okay. AYES: Mr. Carvin. Miss Hauser. Mr. Thomas, Mr. Maresco. Mr. Menter. Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE MR. ROTHERMEL-With the site plan review for next week. it would be a good idea to revamp the sketch? MR. TURNER-You might better. Yes. MR. ROTHERMEL-Okay. Very good. Thank you. MR. MILNE-I just wanted to compliment the Board on the way they made a compromise and worked this out so that everybody ended up - 18 - satisfied, but I also want to compliment the young lady staff. I was in Florida at the time, and somebody told there was an application came about. and she faxed materials. and she was very helpful. on your me that me the MR. TURNER-Thank you for your comment. Okay. There's one other item. Sue, Di Palma, any action taken on that? Did he get a building permit? MS. CIPPERLY-I don't believe the Planning Board has. MR. TURNER-They're not done with them? aren't they? They're done with them, MR. MENTER-I know he was before the Planning Board. MS. CIPPERLY-I'll tell you tomorrow. I'll write that down and check on it. because I know the Planning Board was waiting for the decision. also. from Paul. MR. CARVIN-Because we really don't know if he got a variance. MR. TURNER-I don't think he did. I think you're right. MR. CARVIN-I'm pretty sure that I read in the minutes some place that a building permit has been issued. I think the Planning Board went ahead. MS. CIPPERLY-They approved it as a Bed & Breakfast. MR. TURNER-Bed & Breakfast, yes. MR. CARVIN-But I almost think that there was a building permit issued, too. MR. CIPPERLY-I'll check. I'll tell you tomorrow. MR. TURNER-Okay. All right. As better read this into the record. into the record. long as we're doing that, we Do you want to read that just MISS HAUSER-On March 16th, 1994, a letter was sent by J. Robert LaPann, it says, "Dear Sir: The Applicant respectfully requests that the pending Application be put over to the April 1994 Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. This office has retained Kenneally & Tarantino, Esqs., Dennis J. Tarantino, Esq. of Counsel. to assist in the Final Meeting in reference to the Use Variance. At the time of our next appearance, the Applicant will be prepared to proceed with Expert Testimony to establish the criteria required for the Use Variance. Thank you for your consideration in this regard." MR. TURNER-That's where that is. MR. CARVIN-Okay, because we only granted them a 60 day. MR. TURNER-Sixty days, but this got extended by a series of letters. MS. CIPPERLY-We also offered them, in the hearing, a year or two. MR. CARVIN-Yes. MR. TURNER-I think it's ludicrous to expect the guy to sell the place in 60 days. MS. CIPPERLY-Well, I think the reason for this change was that Mr. LaPann just thought that Mr. Tarantino might be better able to help Mr. Bergeron. MR. MENTER-Someone I know saw an ad for that property as a - 19 - residential, property for sale. MR. TURNER-Well, we asked them to advertise it as residential, and they certainly are going to have to bring proof that they have done so. MR. MENTER-Well, I know it's been done. MR. TURNER-I think somebody also told me the same thing. Yes. MR. CARVIN-Just one other question, I guess. is anything happening with K-Mart? MS. CIPPERLY-They haven't filed any paper, as far as lawsuits. MR. TURNER-I think what I'd ask you, too. is, I made the motion to deny their Sign Variance. and remember they made a request to take K-Mart's name out of the? MS. CIPPERLY-Right. MR. TURNER-We haven't approved those minutes. and I think I'll make a change. because in the initial application before us that was tendered as K-Mart. and I think we're going to change the name back to K-Mart. if that's legal. MS. CIPPERLY-Okay. That was referenced in the hearing. also. as K- Mart in that issue with the sign height. MR. TURNER-Right. Remember he asked me to change the name in the motion? Well. we're going to change it back to K-Mart. MR. MENTER-Yes. I like that better myself. It makes more sense. MR. TURNER-Yes. MS. CIPPERLY-Were you planning to approve those tonight? MR. TURNER-I don't know if everybody's read them. haven't read them. Some people MR. CARVIN-I haven't read those. I've read some of the others. MR. TURNER-But until they're approved. they're not official anyway. So I think we have a right to change. correct that. MS. CIPPERLY-If there is some impending legal action. it would probably be good to get those done as soon as you can. MR. TURNER-Everybody have them in front of you. that was here? MR. THOMAS-No. MS. CIPPERLY-Maybe next week. MR. THOMAS-Yes. if we did it next Wednesday. anything's going to happen between now and then. I don't think MS. CIPPERLY-They're not official minutes until they're official minutes. MR. TURNER-Right. Okay. So then we'll change that part of the text. when we approve the minutes. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. Theodore Turner. Chairman - 20 -