The URL can be used to link to this page

2011.02.23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/23/2011) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 23, 2011 INDEX Area Variance No. 9-2010 Steven L. and Christine M. Johnson 1. Tax Map No. 289.11-1-23 Area Variance No. 9-2011 James & Lillian Conway 2. Tax Map No. 289.6-1-32 Area Variance No. 10-2011 Schermerhorn Commercial Holdings 6. Tax Map No. 296.12-1-27.2 Sign Variance No. 11-2011 Judy Frolish, Saratoga Sign Pro’s Inc. 11. For TCT Federal Credit Union Tax Map No. 289.15-1-3 Notice of Appeal No. 1-2011 John Salvador 16. Tax Map No. 302.00-14-79.2 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. 0 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/23/2011) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 23, 2011 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT RICHARD GARRAND, ACTING CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY RONALD KUHL JOYCE HUNT JAMES UNDERWOOD BRIAN CLEMENTS JOHN KOSKINAS, ALTERNATE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR-CRAIG BROWN LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY MR. GARRAND-I’m going to call the February 23, 2011 meeting of the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals to order, and starting out I want to quickly go through our procedures, once again, for anybody perhaps is new here. As we handle each application I’ll call the application by name and number. The secretary will read the pertinent parts of the application, Staff Notes and the Warren County Planning Board decision if applicable into the record and then we’ll ask the applicant to present any information they wish to present to the Board. The Board will ask questions of the applicant, and then we’ll open the public hearing. The public hearing is intended to help us gather information and understand it about issue at hand, and it functions to help the Board members make a wise decision. It does not make the decision for the Board members. There will be a five minute limit on all speakers subject to if it’s some major campaign I may extend the courtesy to the public if there’s something they want to talk a little longer about, but generally we’ll limit comments to five minutes. Board members, I’d suggest that because we have the five minute limit that we not interrupt the speaker with questions while they’re speaking. Rather we should wait until the speaker has finished his five minute period and then ask questions. Following all the speakers, we’ll read in any correspondence into the record, then the applicant will have an opportunity to react and respond to the public comment. Board members will then discuss the variance request with the applicant. Following that, the Board members will have a chance to explain their positions on the application, then the public hearing will be closed or left open depending on the situation, and finally, if appropriate the Board will make a motion to approve or disapprove. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM AREA VARIANCE NO. 9-2010 SEQRA TYPE: II STEVEN L. AND CHRISTINE M. JOHNSON AGENT(S) JONATHAN C. LAPPER, ESQ. BPSR OWNER(S): STEVEN L. AND CHRISTINE M. JOHNSON ZONING: WR-3A LOCATION: 96 HALL ROAD – GLEN LAKE APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMOLITION OF EXISTING +/- 1,198 SQ. FT. SUMMER HOME AND REBUILD TO A +/- 2,110 SQ. FT. YEAR ROUND RESIDENCE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SHORELINE AND SIDELINE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. FURTHER, THE APPLICANT REQUESTS RELIEF FROM ROAD FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF.: BP 2007- 275 SEPTIC ALT.; SP 14-2010 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: N/A LOT SIZE: 0.29 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.11-1-23 SECTION: 179-4-030; 179-4-050 MR. OBORNE-Yes. They obviously requested a tabling to the month of May. I think the Department of Community Development is looking for a resolution stating that we will table you th to the month of May with a deadline date of April 15 for any revised plans, and if revised plans th are not submitted by April 15, a deny without prejudice will be enacted. MR. GARRAND-Board members, any comments? Not hearing any comments, the first meeting in May? MR. OBORNE-That’ll work, sure. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 9-2010 STEVEN L. AND CHRISTINE M. JOHNSON, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/23/2011) th 96 Hall Road – Glen Lake. Tabled to the first meeting in May, May 18. All materials will be th submitted by April 15 or deny without prejudice. rd Duly adopted this 23 day of February, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Clements, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Koskinas, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand NOES: NONE MR. OBORNE-If I could have a revision to that at all, to denote the deny without prejudice if April thth 15 is not, they don’t submit plans by April 15. th MR. UNDERWOOD-All materials would be submitted by April 15, or deny without prejudice. MR. OBORNE-That’s fine. MR. GARRAND-So the resolution is amended. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 9-2011 SEQRA TYPE II JAMES & LILLIAN CONWAY AGENT(S): HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(S): JAMES & LILLIAN CONWAY ZONING: WR LOCATION: 32 NACY ROAD, GLEN LAKE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DEMOLISH THE EXISTING 1,330 SQ. FT. RESIDENCE AND REPLACE IT WITH A NEW 2,341 SQ. FT. RESIDENCE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM HEIGHT, SHORELINE, AND SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF.: SP 8-2011; BOH 33,2010 12/6/2010; BP 99-734 SEPTIC ALT. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: N/A LOT SIZE: 0.28 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.6-1- 32 SECTION: 179-3-040 TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; JIM CONWAY, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 9-2011, James & Lillian Conway, Meeting Date: February 23, 2011 “Project Location: 32 Nacy Road, Glen Lake Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to demolish an existing 2,660 sq. ft. residence and replace it with a new 1946 sq. ft. residence. Relief Required: Parcel will require area variances as follows: 1.Height-Request for 3 feet of height relief from the 28 foot requirement per §179-3-040. 2.Shoreline setback-Request for 7 feet of average shoreline setback relief as per §179-3- 040 and §179-4-010D(2)(a). 3.Side setback-Request for 8 feet of west side setback relief as per §179-3-040. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated as the single family dwelling to be replaced currently is larger and more non-conforming than the proposed new structure. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives appear limited due to lot constraints; specifically slopes present on the parcel. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for an additional 3 feet or 11% relief from the 28 foot maximum allowable height for a structure in the WR zone as per §179-3-040 may be considered minor relative to the ordinance. Further, the request for 7 feet or 10% relief from the required 73 foot average shoreline setback as per §179-4-010 may be considered minor relative to the ordinance. Finally, the request for 8 feet or 40% relief from the 20 foot side setback requirement as per §179-3-040 may be considered moderate relative to the ordinance. 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/23/2011) Note: The determination of whether the requested area variance is substantial is based on an empirical calculation and not subjective reasoning. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The proposed variance may have minor impacts on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood as the existing single family dwelling is more non-compliant than what is proposed. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): SP 8-2011 Pending BOH 33, 2010: 82’ from neighboring well in lieu of required 100’ setback; 3’ from property line in lieu of required 10’ setback-both contingent upon applicants’ installation of split rail fence around absorption field. Approved 12/6/2010 Staff comments: 1.The existing garage adjacent to Nacy Road to remain. 2.The applicant has received a BOH septic variance for a new wastewater system; see attached. SEQR Status: Type II – no further review require” MR. URRICO-And we do have a Town of Queensbury Planning Board recommendation that based on its limited review has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal, and that was approved unanimously. MR. GARRAND-Thank you. Gentlemen. MR. HUTCHINS-Good evening, Board. My name is Tom Hutchins. I do business as Hutchins Engineering, Queensbury. With me is Jim Conway and Mrs. Conway is also with us. The Conways propose to replace a residence on this parcel. It is their year round house. The fundamental problem that probably initiated the entire process is the location of the house relative to the road. There are 33 steps from the driveway to the main floor of the dwelling, which the main floor is the highest floor. It’s over 20 feet vertically. There’s 33 steps. It’s a difficult situation, particularly this time of year. What their vision is is to construct a new residence that will be moved further away from the lake and farther up into the slope, cut into the slope. We have designed the residence, and I trust you can see that with the setbacks outlined, to fit wholly within the side setbacks of the property, and the side setbacks are somewhat constraining in that the lot, the average lot width is just over 60 feet, which means side setbacks are 20 feet and it’s, it takes away a fair amount of space. So what we’ve done is designed the shape of the house, the footprint of the house to fit entirely within those setbacks, and we have asked for the side setback relief to have some good access ways. The other variance we’re requesting has to do with building height and again it isn’t that the finished, the height from finished grade to ridge will meet the 28 foot criteria. The issue with that is the grade that currently exists, we’re taking the house and we’re trying to shift it up and get it higher up and we have to measure height from the existing grade at the lowest point to the ridge at the highest point, and there is a profile in the middle of your Sheet S-1 that shows where we’re getting the 37, 30.7 feet, and it’s entirely based upon existing grade. It’s a basement with one story. It’s not a two story house, a basement with a main floor and it’s 28 feet floor to ridge, and we’ve kept it as tight as we can and still have a house that we feel is architecturally pleasing and meets their needs. You’ll note the floor area has been reduced, the area of the house, the size of the house is reduced significantly from the size of the current residence, and it’s much more conforming in nature. The third item is the shoreline setback, and again, the proposed house is further from the shoreline than the existing house. However, and it’s well within the 50 foot normal setback from shoreline. However, when you average the two adjoining structures, we need a little bit of relief to meet, that setback becomes 73 feet I believe, and we’re at 66. So we’re requesting a little bit of relief on that. It’s Conways goal to get a new house that’s more compliant that works better for their needs on the property, and with that, Jim, do you have anything you want to add? MR. CONWAY-Just a little background. We bought the property in 2002, and we used it as a summer residence until 2009 we moved up here permanently. So the last year and a half we’ve been enjoying going up and down the stair. We love it on the lake and just looking to improve our living condition plus be as compliant as possible. 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/23/2011) MRS. HUNT-I have a question. Why is there a discrepancy between the agenda where it says the existing home is 1330, and replacing it with 2341 square feet, but on the application here it says an existing 2660 square feet replacing it with 1946 square feet? MR. HUTCHINS-Because you’re looking at floor area and footprint, and I think Keith will chime in here on the, on the agenda, and I had made this point to Keith. I think that’s stated incorrectly. It’s comparing the footprint of the existing house, which is 1313 square feet, with the total square footage of the basement floor and the main floor and the garage of the propose residence, and I believe that was done in error, and, Keith? MR. OBORNE-It was, it was. MRS. HUNT-All right. So the new residence is going to be 1,946 square feet. MR. HUTCHINS-Correct. MR. OBORNE-Yes, regardless, it’s going to be less than what currently exists. MRS. HUNT-Less. MR. HUTCHINS-And it’s 973 in footprint, which would compare to the 1330. MRS. HUNT-I’ve got it. Thank you. MR. CLEMENTS-I’ve got a question on height. The side setback requirement paper that you have here, the existing, there’s no existing height right now for the current structure. Do you have that number? MR. HUTCHINS-No, I do not have that number, sir. MR. CLEMENTS-Okay. MR. KOSKINAS-Can I ask you quickly just to explain what requires the, based on the average setback of the other houses from the shoreline, I understand where the calculation comes for 73 feet. What I’m struggling with, just looking at your submissions, is why you can’t make up that seven feet. MR. HUTCHINS-Push it further back? MR. KOSKINAS-Sure. MR. HUTCHINS-Well, we’re into a balancing, as we push it further back, it’s going to exacerbate the height issue on paper, because if we push it back, it’s going to have to go up, because of the slope, because of the grade. Okay, and so that’s. MR. KOSKINAS-But that’s the height from the existing grade of the existing structure. MR. HUTCHINS-That’s the height from the existing grade adjacent to the existing structure. MR. KOSKINAS-It’s not a big building. MR. HUTCHINS-It’s not a big building. MR. KOSKINAS-So again I ask, you know, it puts this Board always in a challenging position. You want to do everything you want to do, and still we’re obligated to grant the minimum relief that gets the job done for you, and this one looks like an issue of convenience because the lot’s big enough for seven feet. MR. HUTCHINS-I would also run into issues, and the wastewater system was granted a variance from the Board of Health. MR. KOSKINAS-I saw it. MR. HUTCHINS-And it’s at, I’m at my minimum from the house to the wastewater system. So if I move the house back, I would be encroaching on the 20 foot setback to the wastewater system. MR. UNDERWOOD-Because your distribution field is right there. 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/23/2011) MR. HUTCHINS-That’s correct. MR. KUHL-Just on an operational standpoint of view, with the wastewater system, is there going to be a generator? Are you going to put a generator in there, Jim, generator backup? MR. CONWAY-Absolutely. We definitely will. MR. KUHL-Yes, that’s a good thing. MR. GARRAND-Any other questions from Board members? At this time I’ll open up the public hearing. Anybody from the public like to comment on this? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. GARRAND-Not hearing any I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. GARRAND-Any correspondence? MR. URRICO-No. MR. GARRAND-Okay. At this time I’ll poll the Board members. I’ll start with Brian. MR. CLEMENTS-Thank you. I think generally this is a pretty good plan. You have particularly shoreline and side yard setback, it’s going to be better than it was before. The permeability is going to be better than it was before. The only question that I’m really concerned about is the height, because I know that we’ve run, you know, we’ve run into this before, height from grade and from, you know, after it’s filled in kind of stuff. So I’m a little bit concerned about that. I see, you know, from the map that you have here, it doesn’t look like there’s anybody behind you that the height is going to bother them. Would that be true? MR. CONWAY-There’s a neighbor across Nacy Road. MR. CLEMENTS-Across the road from you? MR. CONWAY-I don’t think it would be an issue. MR. CLEMENTS-Nobody’s said anything to you about it. MR. CONWAY-No. MR. KUHL-Well, what’s the height going to be from your parking area? MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, I can get you that. The parking area is about the same elevation as basically the soffit of the house, okay. So you’re going to see. MR. KOSKINAS-You’d be looking over it. MR. KUHL-Okay. MR. CLEMENTS-That said, then, I think that it’s a good plan and I’d be in favor of it. MR. GARRAND-Mr. Kuhl? MR. KUHL-Yes, I agree with Brian. I think an improvement from an older home to a newer home, the fact that you want to live there and go from a seasonal cottage to a full year. My concern was with the wastewater, that it would always work, that it wouldn’t overflow, and I guess your next step is stormwater control. Where does that come in, Mr. Chairman? MR. GARRAND-Planning Board. MR. KUHL-Okay. So you still have to go back to the Planning Board? MR. HUTCHINS-We have to go back to the Planning Board. MR. KUHL-Okay. That takes care of your stormwater. Yes. I’d be in favor of this project. 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/23/2011) MR. KOSKINAS-I’m in favor of your project. I think it’s an improvement. You’ve reduced the liabilities on a nonconforming lot. I wish you well. MR. GARRAND-Mr. Underwood? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. As far as the height goes, I think it’s reflective of the steep slope you have there, and we’ve been in that situation before, and if you look at the complete setback of the home, it’s an improvement over currently what exists, you know, you’re going to be 66 feet. So that’s probably better than 95% of the houses on Glen Lake that are closer to the water. It’s a brand new septic tank and system up on top of the hill. So that’s a major improvement. So, I don’t think any of the requests for the variances are out of line with what’s realistic for what you’re proposing here, and I think you’re project looks good. MR. GARRAND-Mrs. Hunt? MRS. HUNT-Yes. Thank you. Yes. I think this is a good plan. I don’t think there are ay feasible alternatives because of the constraints of the lot, and I think the variances you’re asking for are minor to moderate at most, and I would be in favor. MR. GARRAND-Mr. Urrico? MR. URRICO-Yes. I agree. It’s a well thought out plan. I think it reflects very well on the owner and the designers of it. They really put together a nice plan. I’d be in favor of it. MR. GARRAND-Thank you. And I also agree with the other Board members. I think this plan is an improvement on what’s currently there, and the new wastewater system is certainly an asset to the lake. Would somebody like to make a motion? MRS. HUNT-I’ll make a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 9-2011 JAMES & LILLIAN CONWAY, Introduced by Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brian Clements: 32 Nacy Road, Glen Lake. The applicant proposes to demolish an existing 2,660 square foot residence and replace it with a new, 1946 square foot residence. The relief required. Height request for three feet of height relief from the 28 foot requirement per Section 179-3-040. Side setback request for seven feet from average shoreline setback relief as per Section 179-3-040, and 179-4-010D(2)(a), and side setback request for eight feet of west side setback relief as per Section 179-3-040. I do not think there will be any major impacts to the neighborhood, as this home is replacing a current larger and more nonconforming one proposed for the new structure. The feasible alternatives appear to be limited because of the lot constraints, specifically the slopes on the parcel, and the variances, the height request variance is minor compared to the allowable ordinance. The shoreline setback relief is also minor, and the side setback relief of eight feet is moderate. I don’t think the request will have any adverse effects on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood. I think it’s a good project, and it may be considered self-created only in the fact that the owners want to upgrade their residence. So I would be in favor of Variance No. 9-2011. rd Duly adopted this 23 day of February, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Koskinas, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Clements, Mr. Garrand NOES: NONE MR. GARRAND-Thank you, gentlemen. MR. HUTCHINS-Thank you. MR. CONWAY-Thank you very much. AREA VARIANCE NO. 10-2011 SEQRA TYPE II SCHERMERHORN COMMERCIAL HOLDINGS AGENT(S): J. LAPPER, ESQ. BPSR/T. NACE – NACE ENGINEERING OWNER(S): SCHERMERHORN COMMERCIAL HOLDINGS ZONING: OFFICE LOCATION: LOT 9 WILLOWBROOK ROAD, BAYBROOK PROF. PARK APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 37-UNIT SENIOR APARTMENT BUILDING. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF.: SUB NO. 9-2000; SUB. NO. 9- 2000M; SP 9-2010 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: FEBRUARY 9, 2011 LOT SIZE: 9.15 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.12-1-27.2 SECTION: 179-4-090F 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/23/2011) JON LAPPER & TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 10-2011, Schermerhorn Commercial Holdings, Meeting Date: February 23, 2011 “Project Location: Lot 9 Willowbrook Road, Baybrook Prof. Park Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of three story, 35-unit senior apartment building. Relief Required: Parcel will require area variances as follows: ? Minimum parking requirements-Relief for 55 parking spaces in lieu of required 79 parking spaces as per §179-4-090F. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives would be to install the compliant amount of parking spaces or create a smaller structure with less dwelling units. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for a reduction of 24 spaces or 31% relief from the required 79 spaces as per §179-4-090 may be considered moderate relative to the ordinance. Note: The determination of whether the requested area variance is substantial is based on an empirical calculation and not subjective reasoning. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor impacts or adverse effects are anticipated as a result of this request. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): SP 9-2011 Pending SUB 9-2000 16 Lot Business Park Approved 12/20/02 Staff comments: The applicant has proposed a reduction of 24 parking spaces from the 79 spaces required per the code. According to the applicant “senior apartment complexes are very low traffic generators”. This is noted as this is an opinion based on observation and as a result may be considered subjective. As a result of this request, this application requires relief from the Zoning Board of Appeals. SEQR Status: Unlisted – Short form provided.” MR. URRICO-And the Queensbury Planning Board met and based on their recommendation adopted on February 22, 2011, they had limited review and has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal, and that was th approved unanimously. Also the Warren County Planning Board met on February 11, I guess, and there was No County Impact. MR. GARRAND-Thank you, Mr. Urrico. Mr. Lapper. 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/23/2011) MR. LAPPER-Good evening, everybody. For the record, Jon Lapper with project engineer Tom Nace. To begin with Rich wanted me to express that he’s in Florida with his family this week for the vacation. He always accompanies us to these meetings and apologizes that he’s not here. The application and the Staff Notes summed it up pretty well. Rich has a lot of experience with multifamily projects in Queensbury and with senior projects, and the seniors, right now the Code requires the two and a quarter, which is really excessive. I mean, he doesn’t even need that for the regular projects. You always want to have enough for the residents and for visitors, and enough spaces so people aren’t parking on the grass, but the idea of putting in 2.25 is really unnecessary, and the 1.6 is really more than he needs for this project, but we wanted to not ask for too large a variance. To back this up, the Staff Notes talked about it being subjective, and to back this up, I’ve got the proposed Town Zoning Code amendments which are, my understanding is they’re to be voted on on Monday night, next week. That would require one space per two housing dwelling units. The Town Code now separates multifamily senior living from multifamily housing. The multifamily housing would be 1.5 per unit, which is again less than what we’re asking for tonight, and the multifamily senior of one per two housing dwelling units. So half a space per unit. Rich feels that that’s a little low. I mean, there are, a lot of the apartments are single, you know, primarily widows. Even the two bedrooms are often just a single person, and not everybody has a car. It’s more like one car per unit, but just since the Town recognized in this zone change from the planning staff and the Town Board to propose the half, I think that shows that what we’re doing here is justified. If we could count it on that being passed on time, we wouldn’t have needed the variance, but you never know how that process goes, and Rich would like to get going with the project. So we think that the 1.6 is a modest proposal, and I think that this, I’ll just submit this for the record, just copies of that. MR. GARRAND-Thank you, Jon. MR. LAPPER-But in all of his experience, the 1.6 should be sufficient. Tom, is there anything you want to add at this point? MR. NACE-Not really. MR. LAPPER-We’re both here to answer any questions. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think this is the second or third time that you’ve requested, on similar projects. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-And I think we’re all pretty much dialed in as to what the necessary requirements are. So, yes, I was kind of wondering when the Town was going to get around to changing it, too, because it didn’t make sense to have you coming back 20 more times, but thankfully that will be done. MR. GARRAND-Questions by any of the Board members? MR. URRICO-Just my curiosity. Has there been any thought about using pervious asphalt? I know there’s been a lot of progress in the types of materials that can be used for parking lots to make it less impervious. MR. NACE-Yes, we have considered it. It’s still a little bit nebulous as far as maintenance requirements and underlayment requirements up here in the North Country. I think we’re going to see more of it in the future. It’s just not quite at that place yet where it’s practical. As far as I know there’s only one manufacturer that will supply that asphalt, and they do it on a very, very limited basis. MR. URRICO-I know it’s being used in Saratoga Spa State Park. MR. NACE-Correct, I believe so, and it’s been used a couple of times in Albany. MR. GARRAND-Any other Board members? MR. KOSKINAS-Yes. My understanding, if my understanding is accurate, is that because it’s a seniors facility, the parking requirements are necessarily less? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. KOSKINAS-Older people drive less, have fewer cars. Is there something that says this project, that structure, will always be a seniors apartment complex and someday not be a, you know, a kids in their 20’s with roommates and trailers with snowmobiles and two cars each? 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/23/2011) MR. LAPPER-That’s a valid question. MR. KOSKINAS-What keeps this a seniors place? MR. LAPPER-Sure. The answer is that when we apply to the Planning Board, we specify that this is a senior project. That’s what would be granted site plan approval, and with the zoning application. If that were to change, it would require approval of the Boards, because the project’s being approved for seniors. So it’s a condition of the application and of the approvals that this is a senior project. MR. KOSKINAS-What’s a senior? MR. LAPPER-Fifty-five and over. What’s happened, I’ve explained this in the past, but what Rich has found is that the seniors like being segregated because it’s just quieter. They like, I mean, collegiality. They like being together. He provides for community rooms in the senior projects, and they have holiday events, and it’s just that the seniors prefer to be with the seniors. So they’re leaving his other projects, and those projects are more for the younger families, and it’s just how it’s worked out, but the senior projects have been real successful because the seniors like being there, but we would have, to answer your question directly, we would have to come back to the Town and ask for it to be changed. MRS. HUNT-Now you said that this is 1.6 parking spaces per unit? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MRS. HUNT-And I live right across the street at Baybridge, which is not a senior complex, and we have 86 homeowners and 104 cars. So we have 1.2 cars per homeowner, and that’s not a senior development. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MRS. HUNT-And people still go to work, but most people, couples have one car. MR. LAPPER-It shows that the 2.25 is just really excessive. MRS. HUNT-Very excessive. MR. LAPPER-Yes, and to follow that up, Rich’s project right behind this, the Willows, which has been fully leased, now, for over three years, when you take a look at that, the parking lots, there’s all sorts of spaces. MRS. HUNT-All sorts of spaces. MR. LAPPER-Yes, no reason to build more parking than you need. MR. KUHL-How many senior projects does this Mr. Schermerhorn own? MR. LAPPER-This would be the third one. MR. KUHL-So we could go to his other two and we could see empty parking spaces? MR. LAPPER-Yes. One is right behind this, just behind where his office building is, and behind this lot. It’s called the Willows, and if you go there, someone on the Planning Board last night said they were there yesterday and saw lots of spaces. MR. GARRAND-You can make U turn there without hitting anything. Any time of day. MR. URRICO-With the additional green space, and I’m assuming green being when everything melts, what will be done with the additional space? Will there be benches or more trees, bushes, what will you do with the additional green space? MR. NACE-Well, if you look at the parcel of land, it’s, if I remember right, maybe 12 acres, and two thirds of that is within the wetland or wetland setback area. So that will be preserved. You may have walking trails on that and just a place for the seniors to get out and get some exercise. MR. LAPPER-And we’ve done that with some of the other Schermerhorn residential projects to have walking trails. 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/23/2011) MR. CLEMENTS-I’ve got a question. I think it’s for Keith. Let’s say that, down the road this does get sold and it’s used for something else and there are more parking spaces that are needed, what would the process be to do that for a new owner? MR. OBORNE-Well, my understanding is that they would have to apply for Site Plan modification. They’d have to come back for those extra spaces. MR. CLEMENTS-To the Planning Board? MR. OBORNE-Yes, to the Planning Board, but as the laws are written, they would be going into the 100 foot setback which would require a Freshwater Wetlands permit also. MR. CLEMENTS-Okay. Thank you. MR. GARRAND-Are they still required to have a Freshwater Wetlands Permit? Because the th Zoning Administrator sent a letter on the 16 of November saying they were required to have a Freshwater Wetland permit. MR. OBORNE-And that was during the Preliminary phase of the application, and the applicant has presented a plan that does not require it at this point, and that is subject to change. MR. GARRAND-Thank you. Any other Board members? Okay, at this time I’ll open the public hearing. Anybody from the public wish to speak on this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. GARRAND-Seeing none I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. GARRAND-And we’ll poll the Board members. Mr. Urrico? MR. URRICO-I think Mr. Lapper’s made a great pitch for this. I think the spaces are probably excessive as presented right now by the Town. So I think minimizing it is a good step in the right direction. I think less space, more green space is better. I would be in favor of it. MR. GARRAND-Mrs. Hunt? MRS. HUNT-Yes. Even at the parking relief that you’re asking for, 1.6, that’s still less than they are suggesting for regular development. So I would be in favor. MR. GARRAND-Mr. Underwood? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. This site, it’s reflective of what you could actually build on the site. This size apartment is the only thing that would fit there, and as Joyce said also the parking’s going to be enough to accommodate, even if you switched over to regular accommodations for the rest of humanity, other than 55 and up. I’d be all for it. MR. GARRAND-John? MR. KOSKINAS-I have no reservations. MR. KUHL-No, I agree, too. MR. CLEMENTS-I agree with the rest of the Board members. I’m for it. MR. GARRAND-I, too, will fall in line with the rest of the Board members. I think it’s a modest relief. There isn’t that much parking needed here. These other parking lots for the Willows are pretty empty during the day. So I would also be in favor. Would somebody like to make a motion? MR. OBORNE-The Board needs to accomplish an Unlisted SEQRA prior to your approval. MR. GARRAND-That’s correct. HAVING REVIEWED THE SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM FOR THIS PROJECT, AND THAT, AGAIN, IS AREA VARIANCE NO. 10-2011 SCHERMERHORN COMMERCIAL HOLDINGS, IT’S A 9.15 ACRE PARCEL, AND HAVING REVIEWED THE PROCESS FULLY ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM, WE DO NOT NOTE 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/23/2011) ANY POSSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF THIS PROJECT. IT LOOKS LIKE THE STORMWATER’S GOING TO BE ADEQUATE, AND WITH LESS PARKING IT’S GOING TO BE LESS IMPERMEABLE SURFACES, SO I WOULD GIVE IT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: rd Duly adopted this 23 day of February, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Clements, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Koskinas, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Garrand NOES: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 10-2011 SCHERMERHORN COMMERCIAL HOLDINGS, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Koskinas: Lot 9 Willowbrook Road, Baybrook Prof. Park. The applicant is proposing construction of a three-story, 35 unit senior apartment building, and the parcel will require the following Area Variances: The minimum parking requirement is relief for 55 parking spaces in lieu of the required 79 parking spaces, as per Section 179-4-090(F). In making the determination the Board considered whether any undesirable change will be created in the character of the neighborhood, and we feel less parking will be a plus. The Town Board, as noted, will also be changing, and this will fit within the requirements if, in fact, the parcel ever reverts from senior housing to regular housing at some point in the future. The request is for a reduction of 24 spaces or 31% relief from the required 79 spaces, and would be considered moderate, but it will be within the parameters and still more than what’s required by the new change in the Code, and the variance will not have any adverse effects but will be a positive, without having excess parking out in front of the building. It is self-created by the fact that they want less parking, but it does fit more with the actual traffic generated by a structure that’s going to accommodate seniors. So I would move for its approval. rd Duly adopted this 23 day of February, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Clements, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Koskinas, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Garrand NOES: NONE MR. LAPPER-Thanks, everybody. SIGN VARIANCE NO. 11-2011 SEQRA TYPE: UNLISTED JUDY FROLISH, SARATOGA SIGN PRO’S INC. FOR TCT FEDERAL CREDIT UNION AGENT(S): JUDY FROLISH, SARATOGA SIGN PRO’S INC. OWNER(S): TCT FEDERAL CREDIT UNION ZONING PREVIOUS ZONING MR-5 AND RR-3A YEAR 1989 LOCATION: 9 HUNTERBROOK LANE, CROSS ROADS PROFESSIONAL PARK APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REMOVE EXISTING FREESTANDING SIGN AND INSTALL A NEW FREESTANDING SIGN AT A NEW LOCATION. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM FRONT YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF.: SUBDIVISION NO. 5-1989 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: FEBRUARY 9, 2011 LOT SIZE: 0.59 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.15-1-3 SECTION: 140 JUDY FROLISH, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 11-2011, Judy Frolish, Saratoga Sign Pro’s, Inc. for TCT Federal Credit Union, Meeting Date: February 23, 2011 “Project Location: 9 Hunterbrook Lane, Cross Roads Park Professional Park Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to remove existing freestanding sign and install a new 27 square foot, 62 inch tall internally lit freestanding sign at a new location. Relief Required: Parcel will require sign variances as follows: ? Front setback-Request for 10 feet of relief from required 15 foot front setback as per Chapter 140. Criteria for considering a Sign Variance according to Chapter 140: 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/23/2011) In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this sign variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than a sign variance. The applicant could place the sign in a compliant location. 3. Whether the requested sign variance is substantial. The request for 10 feet or 67% relief from the 15 foot setback requirement for the MDR Zone may be considered moderate to severe relative to the ordinance. Note: The determination of whether the requested area variance is substantial is based on an empirical calculation and not subjective reasoning. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor impacts on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood are anticipated. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty could be considered self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): SUB 5-1989 BP 2010-584 27 sq. ft. freestanding sign Pending BP 2001-787 15 sq. ft. freestanding sign change of copy only Approved 10/12/04 BP 1994-449 Office Building Approved 12/20/94 BP 1996-519 224 sq. ft. commercial addition Approved 7/6/98 BP 2003-732 400 sq. ft. commercial addition Approved 10/7/04 BP 2004-618 210 sq. ft commercial addition Approved 3/29/05 Staff comments: The applicant states in the narrative that although the sign is within 5 feet of the property line, it is located 17 feet to the edge of curb. SEQR Review is required for this application-Short Form provided. SEQR Status: Type – Unlisted” MS. FROLISH-My name is Judy Frolish. I’m with Saratoga Sign Pro’s and with me tonight is Irv Hilts from the TCT Credit Union. This project is one of four new signs at all four TCT branches or locations, two of them have already been installed and this one and the one in Cambridge are yet to be installed. I have one question about what you had just read. Did you say the height of the sign is 62 inches? MR. URRICO-Sixty-two inch tall. Twenty-seven square foot sixty-two inch tall. MS. FROLISH-Okay. So we’re talking just the height of the sign itself, not the overall height from the grade. Okay. I just wanted to make that clear. In this situation, as I think on, in your packet you would have a couple of photographs. What we’re trying to do is certainly upgrade the sign to match, so that all of the TCT Credit Unions have the same branding, the same sign in front of all the locations, and part of doing that, we looked at the visibility of the current sign, which sits in kind of a planter up next to the building. In order to improve the visibility and the traffic flow, so that drivers can see the sign in time to make a determination and find the driveway we needed to move it closer to the road, but we really don’t want to remove any of the trees. So I’m not sure how well you can see this, but because of the curvature of the front, this red rectangle would be the traffic coming from the west. That’s a really problem area is trying to create a location where that west, the traffic entering from the west has a chance to see the sign before the driveway. Without removing two trees, there was really very little we could do except bring the sign forward on the lot. Coming from the south, there’s plenty of visibility to the sign, not really in its current location, but bringing it just slightly forward would have been fine. Our main issue is from the traffic that comes from the west, and as I mentioned, we didn’t want to remove any trees, so that was our solution was to put it in a little bit closer to the road, but still as is mentioned about 17 feet from the edge of the curb. The view coming from the west shows that there is still some significant blocking of the sign by the trees, and we’re going to try to do a 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/23/2011) little bit of trimming up of the lower branches to improve that. Coming from the south, it’s really quite visible and there’s really no issues with the location and the trees in that situation. Are there any questions? MR. KOSKINAS-Did you look at other locations like moving it more to the west so that the car heading east or southeast? MS. FROLISH-We did. So you’re talking about moving it closer to this situation? MR. KOSKINAS-Yes. MS. FROLISH-Actually we looked at locating it here in kind of this little corner that’s made by the edge of the sidewalk, that little “V” shaped area, and that actually significantly diminished the view of the majority of the traffic which does come in this direction. MR. KOSKINAS-I can see that, but from that location, if you move it toward the street what happens? MS. FROLISH-Well, we would need a variance for setback on that location as well, and of the two, we really prefer to have it central on the lot. So there’s not, the property line is such, because of the curve, that we would still need to have a variance there for the front setback. With the conditions of the sidewalk, we were right against the sidewalk if we were to use that location. So again, in order to move it forward and make it visible, we’d need a variance there as well. IRV HILTS MR. HILTS-We went out there and looked at all the possibilities and with heights and location from both sides, when we looked at it, and to place it where it looked probably the best from centering it on the property line and the visibility, this site became what we thought would be the best location from both visibility and the way it looks in front of the building. MR. GARRAND-Other Board members? MR. KUHL-But functionally it’s going to be 17 feet from the asphalt, is that what you’re saying? MS. FROLISH-Correct. MR. KUHL-But it’s going to be less than 15 feet from the end of your property line because your property doesn’t go to the asphalt. MS. FROLISH-Correct. MR. KUHL-Okay. MR. GARRAND-Anybody else on the Board wish to comment, questions? At this time I’ll open up the public hearing. Anybody from the public wish to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. GARRAND-Seeing none I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. GARRAND-Any correspondence? MR. URRICO-I don’t see any but I’ll look one more time. No correspondence. MR. GARRAND-Okay. We have to do SEQRA on it. Board members, your input please. Mr. Urrico? MR. URRICO-Well, normally I would not like to see a sign that close to the edge of the curb, and I think there might still be some room for movement there. So I would not be in favor of the current location. I would be in favor of looking to place it further back. MR. GARRAND-Mrs. Hunt? MRS. HUNT-Well, I can see the great need for it, coming from the south. I actually think you’d go right past the entrance to the parking lot and it would be too late, and I don’t think it’s a 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/23/2011) substantial request considering that, as you say, you’re 15, 17 feet from the road, and it is not a main thoroughfare. It’s really just used by the people coming in to those different businesses there. So I would be in favor. MR. GARRAND-Mr. Underwood? MR. UNDERWOOD-I would have to agree with Joyce. I think Roy’s right, too, but at the same time, this winter drives home the point. We’ve set these signs so far back now, and I think in a practical sense, in a big snow year like this, you know, they’re set so far back that you can’t even read them. I know the new Mobil station down on the corner of Route 9 there, their signs are low to the ground, their monument signs, like we wanted, and the snow’s piled up so high, you know, you need a periscope to see over the tops of the snow banks to see what’s on the sign as far as the price of gas. MR. KOSKINAS-But no trouble finding that Mobile station. MR. UNDERWOOD-No, not at all, but at the same time, as Joyce said, this isn’t on a main thoroughfare, and I don’t think it’s going to be sticking up in anybody’s eye. Is it going to be lit 24/7 or lit during business hours? MR. HILTS-It’ll have a photoelectric eye on it, when it gets dark it’ll come on. The only thing lit on the sign is the lettering, that’s it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. No, I would just think, I don’t think you get much generated business in the evening hours, really. So maybe there’s a sense the Planning Board will change that or something. I don’t know if they’re going to review it. MR. OBORNE-No, this is a strict Sign Variance. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. MR. GARRAND-Mr. Koskinas? MR. KOSKINAS-I agree with Mr. Urrico. I appreciate a commercial enterprise wanting to publicize their business and whereabouts in the event of a bank, it seems to me that you could have a conforming placed sign, and I’d like to see you look at trying to do that. MR. GARRAND-Mr. Kuhl? MR. KUHL-I think there might be alternatives, but I’d prefer not to have to start cutting down trees to have a visible sign. If, in fact, the property line were the asphalt, you’d be in conformance, but it’s not, so I would be in favor of it. I’d prefer to have the trees up and the sign visible. MR. GARRAND-And Mr. Clements? MR. CLEMENTS-I’d be in favor of this application also. Actually I do my banking there, and if I didn’t, I don’t think I would be able to find it very easily. So I’d be in favor of this. My only question is, is there an ATM there now? MR. HILTS-No. MR. CLEMENTS-Are you going to have an ATM there? MR. HILTS-That’s another variance. That would be another variance. We have looked at it. We’ve looked at the site outside of where the drive-in teller is, there are some freestanding ATM’s that can be put there. There are some security issues as to filling it, loading it with money, but we are looking at that right now. We have a firm coming in to take a look at what we might be able to do with that. MR. CLEMENTS-So will you put up that says ATM if there’s not one there? MS. FROLISH-Inside. MR. HILTS-No, that’s coming off that sign. MR. FROLISH-It is? MR. CLEMENTS-Okay. 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/23/2011) MR. HILTS-Yes. MR. CLEMENTS-I’d be in favor. MR. GARRAND-Okay. At this time I’d be looking for somebody to make a motion. MR. OBORNE-SEQRA first. MR. GARRAND-That’s right. SEQRA. MR. OBORNE-If I could interject. Are you going to remove the 24 hour ATM? MS. FROLISH-It’s news to me, but, yes, apparently we are. MR. OBORNE-Okay. So when you submit your application, final application, make sure you update that. MS. FROLISH-For the building permit, yes. MR. OBORNE-For the sign permit, and for this Area Variance. MR. HILTS-Didn’t catch that. MR. OBORNE-For this Sign Variance. MS. FROLISH-Okay. MOTION THAT HAVING REVIEWED THE SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM FOR PROJECT APPLICANT SIGN VARIANCE NO. 11-2011 SARATOGA SIGN PRO’S, AGAIN, IT’S TCT FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, WE NOTE THAT WE DO NOT FORESEE ANY ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE CHANGE IN THE SIGN LOCATION AS PER THEIR REQUEST SO I WOULD GIVE IT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: rd Duly adopted this 23 day of February, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Clements, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Kuhl, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand NOES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Koskinas MR. GARRAND-We’ve got to do the motion. Somebody make a motion for Sign Variance. MR. CLEMENTS-I’ll do it. MR. GARRAND-Mr. Clements, thank you. MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 11-2011 JUDY FROLISH, SARATOGA SIGN PRO’S INC. FOR TCT FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, Introduced by Brian Clements who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: 9 Hunterbrook Lane, Cross Roads Professional Park. The applicant proposes to remove existing freestanding sign and install a new 27 square foot, 62 inch tall internally lit freestanding sign at a new location. The relief requested is the parcel will require Sign Variances as follows: The front setback request for 10 feet of relief from minimum required 15 feet setback as per Chapter 140. Criteria for considering the sign, in making the determination, we should consider, Number One, whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by granting of this Sign Variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. Number Two, whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue other than a Sign Variance. The applicant could place the sign in a compliant location but this seems to be the best location. Number Three, whether the requested Sign Variance is substantial. The request for 10 feet or 67% of relief from the 15 foot setback requirement for the MDR zone may be considered moderate to severe relative to the Ordinance. However, it will be setback 17 feet, I believe, from the pavement. Number Four, whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood or district. Minor impacts are anticipated. Whether the alleged difficulty was self- created. The difficulty could be considered self-created. I move to approve Sign Variance No. 11-2011. 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/23/2011) rd Duly adopted this 23 day of February, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Clements, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Garrand NOES: Mr. Koskinas, Mr. Urrico MR. GARRAND-Thank you. MS. FROLISH-Thank you. MR. HILTS-Thank you. NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 1-2011 SEQRA N/A JOHN SALVADOR OWNER(S): HAYES & HAYES, LLC ZONING: NR LOCATION: OFF DIXON ROAD APPELLANT IS APPEALING A DECEMBER 11, 2011 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION RELATIVE TO THE POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGARDING ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: N/A LOT SIZE: 8.5 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.00-14-79.2 SECTION: 179-16 JOHN SALVADOR, PRESENT MR. GARRAND-For the purposes of this Appeal, I will recuse myself, since I am an affected party. I will ask Mr. Underwood to act as Chairman in my place. Thank you. JON LAPPER MR. LAPPER-Mr. Underwood, before we get started, I just have a procedural issue to raise. My client, Mickie Hayes, is the real party in interest, as we’ve established previously, so we’d like party status in this, so we’re treated as a member of the public, and I’ve submitted a letter to that effect. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, well, I think we’re always willing to give you guys time. So not a problem. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Notice of Appeal No. 1-2011, John Salvador, Meeting Date: February 23, 2011 “Project Location: off Dixon Road Description of Proposed Project: Information requested: Appellant is appealing to the Zoning Board of Appeals relative to a December 7, 2010 determination from the Zoning Administrator stating that a determination by the Director of Building and Codes is not appealable to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Staff comments: First, Standing: Was the appeal taken within the appropriate 60 day time frame and is the appealing party aggrieved? ? The application was signed and filed with the Town on December 13, 2010. ? The appellants are not the property owners, immediate neighbors or parties of interest in the subject property. While the appeal was filed within the required timeframe there does not appear to be any obvious direct impact on the appellant to indicate that the appellant is an appropriately aggrieved party. The appellant is not a property owner of the parcel in question, nor is he an immediate neighbor or even a property owner within an arguable “zone of influence.” Merely being subject to the same building code as the owner of the property of interest does not create standing. The appellants papers do not offer any proof of injury in fact or a very significant possibility of future harm to him as a result of the decision in question. There does not appear to be adequate standing for this appeal to move forward. Second, Merits of the argument if the appellant is found to have standing: 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/23/2011) The appellant is appealing a Zoning Administrator interpretation regarding a determination rendered stating that a determination made by the Director of Building and Codes is not appealable to the Zoning Board of Appeals. New York State Town Law, Article 16, Zoning and Planning, section 267a. paragraph (4) states: 4. Hearing appeals. Unless otherwise provided by local law or ordinance, the jurisdiction of the board of appeals shall be appellate only and shall be limited to hearing and deciding appeals from and reviewing any order, requirement, decision, interpretation, or determination made by the administrative official charged with the enforcement of any ordinance or local law adopted pursuant to this article. Such appeal may be taken by any person aggrieved, or by an officer, department, board or bureau of the town. As the reference to; “this article” is within the Zoning and Planning article of Town Law and the Town Building and Codes Director (BCD) is not the administrative official charged to enforce planning and zoning issues, the appeal of a determination by the BCD is not appealable to the ZBA. Further, Article 14 of the Town Zoning Code; Appeals and Variances, sections 179-14-010 and 179-14-020 clearly specifies that the Zoning Board of Appeals may only hear a decision, determination, order, requirement or interpretation made by the Zoning Administrator. This paragraph serves to further clarify that an appeal of a determination by the BCD is not appealable to the ZBA. Finally, in Appeal 3-2005 the question of appealing a decision of the Director of Building and Codes to the ZBA was answered by this Board and specifically to this appellant in a situation where he was determined to have standing. The finding of this Board was that such a DBC decision is not appealable to the ZBA. (please see attached resolution and meeting minutes as well as the Zoning Administrators December 7, 2010 letter and the Appellant’s November 22, 2010 letter and personally customized appeal application which was the genesis of this matter.) MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. So I guess we have several items that we need to address here. First of all is the merits of standing here, and I don’t know if you want to address that, Craig, first. MR. BROWN-Well, if there’s a question, I guess. I think my notes kind of covered everything. There’s a, I guess to clarify, the Section of Town law which is the Article 16 which is Planning and Zoning, not Building and Codes. In the Planning and Zoning Section, it talks about anybody who’s empowered to enforce that Section, those determinations can be appealed to this Board. The Director of Building and Codes is not empowered by that Section of New York State law Planning and Zoning to enforce this Town Zoning Code, neither is he by the Town Zoning Code. So any determination, decision, order, action by the Director of Building and Codes is not appealable to this Board. MR. UNDERWOOD-So he can issue a building permit even though you review those building permits in this instance on this specific project here that he’s addressing, and at that point, you would have to have made a determination, which you’ve done, previous to this. MR. BROWN-Right, but that’s not what he appealed. He appealed an action of the Director of Building and Codes. MR. UNDERWOOD-He’s appealing the, I would think if I were taken to gather, because he hasn’t spoken yet, I would gather that he’s appealing something to do with the issuance of seven individual building permits on a lot. MR. BROWN-He’s appealing, specifically, an action by the Director of Building and Codes. MR. UNDERWOOD-But that’s the action I would take, that we’re looking at. MR. BROWN-That’s what his papers say. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. MR. BROWN-Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay, and you did review those seven individual building permits on that lot after they were issued? 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/23/2011) MR. BROWN-Sure. Yes, before they were issued. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. You had to do that before they were issued. MR. BROWN-Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. So in other words, the Building and Codes Director works in league with you and together the two of you decide what gets through the gate, in other words, as far as Building and Codes at that point in time. MR. BROWN-That’s correct. Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Just so we get that squared away. All right. So I guess the first issue, then, would be standing, then. The issue comes up as to whether or not Mr. Salvador has been impacted by this project. I think that would be the gist of it, because he lives so far away from the project somehow he doesn’t have any negative impact on this person or property? MR. BROWN-Yes. If that’s a question for me. MR. UNDERWOOD-No, I’m just asking, I’m just looking back at your notes. MR. BROWN-Yes. I think the requirements, if this is to go to a court decision, the requirements for standing are that you have to be impacted. There has to be some injury caused to you from the decision in order for you to be able to appeal it. The extreme is to have somebody from Any Town USA come an appeal this decision. Well, they don’t, they’re not impacted by this decision at all, and in this case the appellant, in my opinion, is not impacted directly or harmed in any way by this decision. MR. UNDERWOOD-If he filed his appeal, though, he must somehow feel that he’s been affected by the project. That’s the basis for what he has. MR. BROWN-Absolutely, yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-So should we allow him, then, to proceed with that part of it so we have an understanding as to where he’s coming from, because I don’t know where he’s coming from as far as his Appeal, other than what he’s submitted. MR. BROWN-Yes. Sure, I mean, I’ve given you my opinion on what I think he has for standing, which I don’t think he has any, and if you want to hear his side before you make that decision on does he have standing or not, yes, absolutely, you’re certainly entitled to do that. MR. UNDERWOOD-No, I’m just thinking any citizen, like you say, it could be a frivolous thing, it could be something that he’s actually affected. I don’t know one way or the other until I hear from him, but I don’t know if we can just simply shut people off and say, no, you live too far away, we don’t need to hear anything from them, and I don’t know what you guys think. MR. KOSKINAS-In a limited review of New York State Town law and zoning litigation case law, when standing is challenged, the petitioner, in this case Mr. Salvador, has the burden to come forward with evidence sufficient to prove he has standing, and to have standing this petitioner needs to show specific injuries different from the public at large. Further, the subject administrative action has had a harmful effect on the appellant directly and that the interest asserted is within the zone of interest, and the zone of interest is an interesting little phrase they throw around, but arguably it’s defined as intended to be protected by the Statute that he’s appealing, and so I think that our best course of action is to allow Mr. Salvador to establish his standing if he can, and if he can, we’ll go further, and if he cannot I think that’s the end of it. MR. UNDERWOOD-How do the other Board members feel? Does that sound reasonable? MRS. HUNT-Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-So I don’t know if we proceed and get into the nitty gritty of it or you have something to say, to back up? JOHN SALVADOR MR. SALVADOR-I sure do. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Well, I would assume you wouldn’t have done this unless you had something relative to standing. 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/23/2011) MR. SALVADOR-Gentlemen, I have prepared a presentation. I’ve been invited here tonight to make my case, and at the proper time in my presentation I will address the issue of standing, okay. MR. KOSKINAS-I think you have to do that first, sir, in all fairness to this Board and to the public, and to yourself. You establish standing and we can hear it. MR. SALVADOR-Let me say a few words on this issue. MR. KOSKINAS-Standing? MR. LAPPER-We’d like to be heard on standing after him as well. MR. SALVADOR-This is an administrative Board. It gets its authority to function and to make decisions within the executive branch of government, not the judicial branch of government. Everything you’ve talked about here about standing are the rules set down by the judiciary of this State, and they have a right to make their rules and to establish the criteria under which someone can bring an Article 78 in the judiciary. We are not in the judiciary. We are in the executive branch of government, and you get your authority from the legislature. They make the rules. Okay. We don’t make the rules ourselves, which we tend to do. So in any case, I’d like to proceed with my Appeal. MR. KOSKINAS-In all fairness, sir. MR. SALVADOR-You can decide at a certain time whether or not I have standing, but that’s. MR. KOSKINAS-In fairness. MR. SALVADOR-To whom? MR. KOSKINAS-To this Board. MR. SALVADOR-How about me? MR. KOSKINAS-And you. Let’s keep that to you, too, first of all. MR. SALVADOR-I received a letter from the Zoning Administrator telling me to arrive here tonight to present my case, okay. There were no restrictions how, order, anything, to present my case, and I’m ready to do that, and I’d like to do that. MR. LAPPER-We’re ready to address standing if he’s not. MR. SALVADOR-Fine, at the time that you come to the microphone, you can. MR. UNDERWOOD-Board members, do you want him to follow through on his Appeal? MR. KOSKINAS-I’d like him to establish standing, sir, because we’re going to put ourselves. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. You’re one person, but I want to hear from the other Board members. Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes. I can’t understand how he’s aggrieved and based on what John talked about, I think that if he defines his standing, that should bring it out, and let’s construct this standing process where you have standing, where you’ve been aggrieved. MR. UNDERWOOD-Brian? MR. CLEMENTS-I don’t see a problem with that, either. I think that afterwards, you know, we’re just switching around the position of where he’s going to say things. So I think that that would be a good idea also. MR. UNDERWOOD-Roy? MR. URRICO-I really don’t know what we’re supposed to do here tonight. I really don’t know. MR. SALVADOR-You’re supposed to listen to my Appeal. 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/23/2011) MR. URRICO-Well, okay, you know, that’s the point, we have certain directions we’re getting here, and you’re making an argument for us to ignore those directions, and I don’t know if we can do that. That’s my point. MR. UNDERWOOD-Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Well, the Staff comments say the first thing was standing, and yet, I mean, these people have come in the audience and Mr. Salvador has come. I think maybe in fairness we should hear him. MR. LAPPER-Can we address standing? MR. UNDERWOOD-Let us just stay on task. Everybody keeps interjecting, and I don’t think that’s helping the mix at all. MR. LAPPER-Well, we have just as much right as him. MR. UNDERWOOD-I know, and you’ll be given your time also, but I don’t know as if this Board is going to make any decisions going forward tonight regarding the Appeal anyway, but unless we hear something of the Appeal, what are we here for? And I don’t see any harm in allowing him to, you know, address us, you know, and at that point we can decide whether we want to continue on further, and we can cut you off if we think you’re going overboard or. MR. LAPPER-Mr. Chairman, if you would hear us on standing before you do. MR. UNDERWOOD-Jon, everybody realizes your stake in it and it has nothing to do, going forward. I mean, we’re hearing an appeal. I don’t know as if we’re even going to render a decision at all. MR. LAPPER-The I agree. The threshold issue is standing and also whether you have jurisdiction because this is an Appeal of Dave Hatin, not of Craig Brown, and I think we’ve got to deal with that first. MR. SALVADOR-And I would like to proceed with the issue of jurisdiction, okay. I’m prepared to do that. That’s the first item on the list here, information requested. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Why don’t you proceed, then, Mr. Salvador. MR. SALVADOR-The interesting and unusual part about my Appeal this evening is that it actually represents an appeal of the Zoning Administrator’s determination directly related to another appeal which I filed earlier in relation to the wrongful interpretation of Chapter 88, Section 88-12 by the Director of Building and Code Enforcement. Basically, the Zoning Administrator’s determinations on behalf of the Director of Building and Code Enforcement have effectively stymied a hearing of that first appeal before this Board. The initial appeal filed on nd November 22 has yet to be assigned an identification number, whereas the appeal before you tonight is identified as Notice of Appeal No. 1-2011. It seems a few words of background are necessary in order to properly frame Appeal No. 1-2011. Within hours, and before the Board’s initial hearing, on November 17, 2010 of the Hayes brothers multi duplex project concerning an appeal of the Zoning Administrator’s failure to require a comprehensive site plan review and approval of the Dixon Road project, I examined the only file on record at the Town’s Community Development Department office and took note that it was a building permit file and that on March the 15, 2010 seven individual building permits had been issued by the Director of Building and Code Enforcement, on one lot of undivided land. I brought this fact to the Board’s attention on November 17, 2010, with a comment that such a procedure, quote, defies logic. That is seven different building permits bearing the same approval date issued for construction on a th single tax parcel. The record shows that at the same November 17 hearing, and after my comments, it was suggested that maybe the building permits should be withdrawn. With that, Attorney Lapper countered, and I quote from the record, the building permits are not before you because if somebody wanted to appeal the issuance of a building permit, that would have to have been done within 60 days after they were issued because the applicant is allowed to rely on the fact that after 60 days, it is not appealable. So when he, Mr. Hatin that is, issued the building permit, the time to appeal that was 60 days after that. Attorney Lapper’s statement carried several inferences, including that with respect to Town Code Chapter 179, the Zoning Ordinance, an act of the Building Code Enforcement Officer is appealable. That is to say that the simultaneous issuance of seven building permits on a single lot of land is appealable, providing the appeal is brought within 60 days of the date of issue of the building permits. It is th noteworthy that on the evening of November 17, the Zoning Administrator offered no testimony to the contrary with respect to Attorney Lapper’s statement. Town Counsel was present and did not rebut that nowhere in the Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 179, is there a provision which allows 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/23/2011) for the appeal of the issuance of building permits within 60 days or otherwise. Thereafter, acting upon my own individual experience, and my knowledge that the Building Code Enforcement Officer’s authority to issue building permits is conditioned upon specifications embodied in Chapter 88 of the Town Code. Chapter 88 is titled Fire Prevention and Building Construction. I nd filed an application for an appeal on November 22, appealing from the wrongful interpretation by the Director of Building and Code Enforcement of his duties and responsibilities as specified in Section 88-12 of the aforementioned Chapter of the Town Code. The experience I speak from deals with a complaint I was compelled to file with the Codes Division of the New York State Department of State, which precipitated the State’s investigation, and I’d like to read you a couple of paragraphs from the report of that investigation. Mr. Salvador states that by classifying the building activity as one of demolition and alteration, the Town allowed the owners to avoid a review of several agencies that are usually involved in the planning and review proposals for new buildings. On August 24, 2006, Staff visited the site with the Code Enforcement Officer and toured the site which was essentially framed and enclosed, rough plumbing, heating and electrical work was in progress. A review of the framing indicated that most of the framing was new. What was existing was a portion of the first floor foundation and framed located in the southerly part of the building and a very small section of an interior wall on the first floor. All other parts of the building structure were new, including windows, doors, roofing, insulation, siding, and stonework. This building, essentially 90% newly constructed. Now the issue here was that as soon as the Building and Code Enforcement Officer determines that a structure is a renovation, you don’t have to adhere to any of the requirements for new construction, and critical in this area was the septic system, okay. MR. KUHL-What was the location of that building? MR. SALVADOR-I’ll get to it. I’ll get to it. MR. KUHL-I hope so. MR. SALVADOR-A four family dwelling located on a lot, with a 15 minute percolation rate requires the installation of 24 sand filters. With reference to the issue of wastewater disposal also, this issue is important to the continued cleanliness of the nearby lake, Lake George. The Building Code only concerns itself with leading the water away from the building to prevent deterioration of the structure. Frequently minor alteration projects expand during construction. The owner starts the project with a limited scope and then changes course during construction. The owner frequently decides that elements of an existing building that are acceptable at the outset are now unacceptable when juxtaposed with the newly constructed components. This change of scope does occur on a regular basis in alterations. However, it must be stated that it is very rare that it occurs on this scale. This truly is a new building. Upon careful review of the facts of this complaint, Staff cannot find any violations of the family of construction codes of New York, although the extent of the change of scope of this project is large, the final result appears to be compliant with the Codes. I made this report available to the Town Board, no action whatsoever. So I know that the Building Code Enforcement Officer, I know that his power to issue building permits is not appealable to this Board. I understand that. I know that, and I wasn’t trying to do that, okay. Let me continue what I was appealing. Without attempting to nd argue the merits of my November 22 appeal, which has yet to be scheduled for hearing, there is one requirement which Mr. Hatin is obligated to ensure that all applicants appearing before him satisfy before a building permit can issue. I mention this now because it is directly in point with regard to Miss Monthie’s appeal. Town Code Chapter 88, Section 88-12, Subsection 88- 12B(5)(e) reads in total application for a building permit shall be made on forms provided by the Town Board, by the Town and approved by the Town Board. The application form shall require, at a minimum, that the following information be submitted. The very last of five specified minimum requirements, as each pertains to construction drawings and specifications, is the need to prepare a Site Plan showing existing site features and proposed improvements on the lot. Site Plan has its meaning in the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Hatin is compelled to enforce that part of the Zoning Ordinance. He has to get a Site Plan. We confuse Site Plan with plot plan with survey, okay, and they’re all different, and I dare say that what’s submitted most of the time for a building permit application is what we call a plot plan, not a site plan, and Mr. Hatin has a responsibility to require a Site Plan. Since filing my notice appealing Mr. Hatin’s wrongful interpretation of his responsibility to require a Site Plan for the Hayes and Hayes Dixon Road project, the Zoning Administrator has been answering the mail. The Zoning Administrator’s nd letter of December 7, 2010 outlined four reasons why my appeal of November 22 would not move forward, namely the appeal was not properly filed, and that the Zoning Board has no th jurisdiction. I responded on December 10, advising that to preserve my rights, I intended to file a Notice of Appeal appealing each and every determination Mr. Brown, the Zoning th Administrator, recorded in his letter of December 7, and that’s the subject of this Appeal, his thth letter of December 7, the Zoning Administrator. On December 13, I filed an application for an appeal from the interpretations Mr. Brown, the Zoning Administrator, outlined in his letter of December 7, 2010, as they relate to the Zoning Ordinance Sections 179-14-020 and 030. 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/23/2011) Within the confines of the application for an appeal, I attempted to appeal Mr. Brown’s th determination of December 7. The Code says that you have to file your appeal on forms prepared by the Town. The forms prepared by the Town do not recognize the ability of the privilege to file a Notice of Appeal of a Zoning Administrator’s determination. They’re outlined for a typical area or use variance. That’s what they’re outlined for. Anyway I responded in particular and filed the Notice of Appeal. Now tonight Mr. Brown states that we’re here, the appellant is appealing a Zoning Administrator’s interpretation regarding a determination rendered stating that a determination made by the Director of Building and Codes was not appealable to the Zoning Board of Appeals. That’s the issue before you tonight. He quotes from State law, and it was read here into your record that the hearing on appeals, unless otherwise provided by local law or ordinance, the jurisdiction of the Board of Appeals shall be appellate only and shall be limited to hearing and deciding appeals from the reviewing of any order, requirement, decision, interpretation or determination made by the administrative official charged with the enforcement of any ordinance or local law adopted pursuant to this article. I’m prepared to show that Mr. Hatin was in fact enforcing local law or, yes, local law because our Zoning Ordinance is a local law, that was adopted pursuant to Article 16 of Town law. He says here, reference to this article is within the Zoning and Planning article of Town law and the Town Building and Code Officer is not the administrative official charged with enforcing planning and zoning issues. Yes, but he is, and I will show you where he is. Also, as further enumerated in Chapter 88, that Chapter of the Town Code known as a local law providing for the administration and enforcement of Building Code of New York State and related laws, codes, ordinances and regulations, and related. Section 88-4B, in relevant part reads, the Department of Building and Codes shall continue to be charged with the duty to enforce said Chapter 179, Chapter A183, Subdivision of Land, and Chapter 140, Signs, but shall not otherwise assume duties assigned to the Zoning Administrator, other than expressly set forth herein. Thus, Mr. Hatin has a duty to enforce the Zoning Ordinance, the Subdivision Regulations, and the Sign Ordinance all matters of zoning compliance, unless the duties had somehow been assigned to the Zoning Administrator. Town Law Article 16, Zoning and Planning, Section 267-A, speaks to the administrative official charged with enforcement of any ordinance or local law adopted pursuant to planning and zoning. I am prepared to show that the Director of Building and Code Enforcement is a Town Administrative Official who was charged with enforcing certain of the Town’s zoning and planning matters at the time he issued seven building permits on a single lot of land, encumbered with a Town Planning Board issued SEQRA Positive Declaration. I have mentioned earlier the minimum requirements of Chapter 88, Section 88-12B(5)(e), that a Site Plan be provided with an application for a building permit. Site Plans have their definition in the Zoning Ordinance. The Building and Code Enforcement Officer was seen to be responsible to see that the Zoning Ordinance, in part, is complied with with respect to the preparation of a Site Plan. Up to and including the time of issuance of the seven building permits, the Director of Building and Code Enforcement was responsible for assuring satisfactory completion of the th improvements on TP 302.14-1-79.2, as recommended on the 28 of September 2004 by the Planning Board, to include the preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement. These duties are all related to zoning and planning and Article 16 of Town Law. I have been very th careful with reference at all times to the date of March 15. Not because it has a relevance to Mr. Lapper’s professed 60 day statute of limitations, which this Board must have long since recognized as nothing but a red herring, but because the Town Board adopted local law number 2-2010. The Town website posting describes Chapter A-183 as that adopted by the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, Local Law Number 2-2010. Entered as note, this Local Law also repealed former Chapter A-183, Subdivision of Land, adopted by the Planning Board 9/19/1988, and approved by the Town Board. As amended, amendment noted where applicable. I went to the Town’s website and I got a copy of that local law. The first thing you see on this posting is this electronic version is provided for information purposes only. For official version please contact the municipality. This is worthless. Worthless. For the official version, contact the municipality. Now you can imagine the great reception you get walking into the Clerk’s Office wanting all this information. They tell you it’s on the Web, yes, but it, in any case I went to the Town Clerk’s Office. Everyone will agree that Chapter 183, the Town’s Subdivision of Land regulation, is related to Chapter 179, the Zoning Ordinance. In fact, the Subdivision Regulations refer and rely on the Definitions section of 179. So they’re interlocking. You can’t separate them. There is, therefore, an inseparable link between A-183 and 179, that being Article 16 of Town Law. It follows, then, that as the Code Enforcement Officer is authorized to enforce the Subdivision Ordinance, he is engaged in enforcing the Zoning Ordinance. Embodied in Chapter 183, at one time, Article Six titled Construction. On the date of issue of the seven building permits, March 15, 2010, the requirements of Chapter 88, Section 183-16D, were in full force and effect for the Hayes and Hayes project off Dixon Road. Section 183-16D reads in relevant part, the Director of Building and Code Enforcement shall act as agent to the Planning Board for the purpose of assuring the satisfactory completion of improvements required by the Planning Board. I mentioned that I went to the Town Clerk’s Office and I asked to see the local law that put this ordinance in place, and I find that the Town th Board adopted Resolution 120-2010 on the 15 of March 2010. What a coincidence. What a coincidence. In any case, the Town resolved, the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/23/2011) Queensbury Town Clerk to file the local law with the New York State Secretary of State in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Home Rule law and acknowledges that the local law will take effect immediately upon filing with the Secretary of State. This was adopted by the th Town Board on the 15 of March 2010, the same day that the building permits were issued. Now the building permits were issued in the afternoon or in the morning, who knows when, but during working hours. This local law was not adopted until the evening of that day. The Town Clerk filed with the Secretary of State, this local law shall take effect upon filing in the office of the Secretary of State or as otherwise provided by law. The Secretary of State confirmed to the th Town Clerk in a letter dated March 26 the above referenced material was received and filed by th this office as indicated, filed on March 25, additional local law forms, etc. A copy of this letter from the Secretary of State’s office was distributed to the Town Counsel, to Craig Brown, to Stu Baker, to Mike Shaw and to Bruce Ostrander. So, as we sit here, the building permits were issued under the old Code because it was the old Code that was in effect on March 15, 2010, okay. That’s a point I’d like to make. Because the new Subdivision Ordinance, the one they th adopted and became effective the 25 of March reads, the Zoning Administrator and the Highway Superintendent shall act as agents to the Planning Board. So the Town Board removed the Code Enforcement Officer who had previously been entrusted with enforcing the Planning Board’s requirements, they removed him from this operation and put in place the Zoning Administrator and the Highway Superintendent. Now I attended this meeting, and I listened to all the comments that people had, and no one talked or picked up on this subject, and this change makes absolutely no sense. The way it was before, Planning Board’s have a lot of conditions in their approvals, a lot of things that have to go and be inspected as the construction progresses, okay. The Zoning Administrator doesn’t do his inspection work until everything is done. They write a final report, everything is done, the boathouses are built oversize. The roofs are not in the right place, all this kind of stuff. At the end, the Building Inspector is on the job with progress inspections and can enforce the requirements of the Planning Board, and that’s been changed for some reason I can’t explain, but in any case, as the building permits were issued, the Building and Code Enforcement Officer was, the Director of Building and Code Enforcement shall act as the agent to the Planning Board for purposes of assuring the satisfactory completion of improvements required by the Planning Board. MR. UNDERWOOD-Could I just interrupt for a moment? MR. SALVADOR-Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s very interesting what you’ve been telling us, but I don’t know as if it’s germane to what we were asking, and that was, we were looking for, and I will give you a little bit of leeway to conclude it and to get on with the process. MR. SALVADOR-Yes. The point is that Town Law allows for an Appeal to be heard by this Board, providing it has to do with an administrative official, someone charged with the administration of the Codes, rules, regulations, local laws, okay, and there’s no, that’s the issue, and Mr. Hatin was the official charged with enforcing that, and that was the subject of my Appeal, and that’s, Mr. Brown says here in his Staff Notes, appellant is appealing to the Zoning Board of Appeals relative to a December determination from the Zoning Administrator stating that a determination by the Director of Building and Codes is not appealable to the Zoning Board of Appeals, and I maintain it is appealable to the Zoning Board of Appeals because Mr. Hatin is a public official of this Town and he was charged with enforcing the Zoning Ordinance. MR. KOSKINAS-I understand clearly your grievance. MR. SALVADOR-Okay. MR. KOSKINAS-Now, can you address your standing to make it? MR. SALVADOR-Let’s see where I am. This is not the first time that the appropriateness of Building and Code Enforcement Officers determinations to issue building permits was the subject of an appeal before the Zoning Board. It’s not the first time. Some of these include, the Lakewood subdivision, construction of accessory structures, boat docks, without first citing the primary structure on the lot. That was an appeal before the Zoning Board of Appeals. Okay. Long time ago, but it was. The Mooring Post Marina storage buildings, that was an appeal of the building inspector. MR. KOSKINAS-You were going to, I thought you were going to honor my request to tell me about your standing. MR. SALVADOR-Yes, I’m going to, I’m going to. I’d like to complete my presentation, okay. And the third one was the re-opening of Allison Ellsworth’s public launch ramp on Dunham’s Bay after it had been closed for more than 18 months. All three of those were appeals of the Code 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/23/2011) Enforcement Officer’s issuing of a permit. Okay, all three. They were heard, and these have a history of an appeal having been brought to the Zoning Board dealing with a wrongful interpretation of the Town Code made by the Director of Building and Code Enforcement. In all cases the projects were stopped pending the outcome of appeal. The issue of standing. I like that sphere of influence. I like that. MR. BROWN-That’s a legal term, in the case law. MR. SALVADOR-Excuse me? MR. BROWN-I’m sorry, I was just informing the Board it’s part of the case law, that term. MR. SALVADOR-Yes, I understand that. I understand that, 100%. MR. BROWN-Okay. MR. SALVADOR-The Town adopted this new Zoning Ordinance and put into it this duplex which we’re wrestling with here. Not only is a duplex a permitted use in a Neighborhood Residential zone, it’s a permitted use in an RR-5A and an RR-3A zone. Do you know how many undeveloped lots in this Town, how many undeveloped lots in this Town are in RR-3A and 5 Acre zone? Including the one I live on. Okay. Including the one I live on. In our subdivision we have, of the 10 lots in the subdivision, two neighboring lots are owned by a single person. They could marry those lots together and what do we get? Do we get duplexes, up on Lake George? All of Bay Road, from Route 149 to 9L, is zoned five acre, five acre rural residential, all of it, duplexes up and down the whole road. Look in North Queensbury, north of the blue line, all the land zoned three acre, undeveloped. It’s undeveloped. MR. KOSKINAS-Moderate residential can also have duplexes. MR. SALVADOR-Pardon me? MR. KOSKINAS-Moderate residential also gets duplexes. MR. SALVADOR-Yes, but I’m not affected by that. I’m affected by the RR-3A and RR, okay. MR. KOSKINAS-So the zoning allows for duplexes where you live is the subject of your standing, the basis of your standing? MR. SALVADOR-I’m affected by this whole subject, okay. MR. KOSKINAS-Yes, I understand you correctly then. MR. SALVADOR-Yes. Okay. There was another issue that I’d like to, well, I would like the opportunity to rebut any comments that come before you, Mr. Chairman? MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure, that’s fine. Do you guys want to come up, Jon? MR. LAPPER-Thank you. For the record, Jon Lapper and Mickie Hayes and Jaime Hayes is with us, and we’re just going to try and simplify all that stuff that was going in all sorts of directions, the two main issues that Craig addressed, the jurisdiction of this Board and the standing of the appellant. There were a lot of things that John Salvador quoted that were just not true. For example, the Mooring Post matter was an appeal of the Zoning Administrator’s determination which was Jim Martin at the time, and I represented the Zoning Board as special counsel on that matter. So to sit here and just say that that was an appeal of the Building Inspector, you can say it, but it’s just not true. First of all, just in terms of what this Board’s jurisdiction is, it’s much simpler. Craig quoted the section of the Town Law, and it is 179-14-20. Appeals from requirements, determinations, decisions, interpretations, and orders of Zoning Administrator. The Zoning Board of Appeals is vested with the authority to interpret the provisions of this Chapter on an appeal from a written decision, determination, order, requirement or interpretation made by the Zoning Administrator. There’s nothing in here that talks about that, that broader language that is in Town law that this Town could have incorporated, which would be an officer charged with administering the law, I mean, we’ll get into that, and Dave Hatin is still the Building Inspector, and his decision is under Section 88. If this Board had to look at Section 88, you would have to be familiar with all sorts of building code issues, did Dave interpret it right, is there fire separation, is the size of the two by four’s correct. That’s not what this Board does, and so 179-14-20, authorization of Zoning Board of Appeals, it is to review an appeal of a determination of the Zoning Administrator, and that’s it, and it’s right here, and Mr. Salvador has said that this is, he’s trying to bootstrap Dave Hatin, but that’s not what this Board does. Even more importantly than that, attached to Craig’s notes was the prior 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/23/2011) decision which is binding on this Board, in a matter in 2005, which is kind of unbelievable to me, because Mr. Salvador was also the appellant in that case. Notice of Appeal 3-2005, John Salvador, Jr.. His appeal was denied. Determination of the Zoning Administrator dated January 10, 2005, regarding the processing of an Area Variance, and also seeks to appeal an action of the Director of Building and Codes, and right there this Board, on February 16, 2005, determined that the Zoning Administrator, in the decision, made the argument that the decision, based upon New York State Building Code, is unfounded as the Director of Building and Codes is not the administrative official charged with the administration of enforcement of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance. So that’s where that language came from, and this Board determined already that a determination of Dave Hatin of Director of Building and Codes is not appealable before this Board, and it was John Salvador who was told that by this Board, and here he is again doing the same thing. So this Board just doesn’t have jurisdiction to interpret Dave Hatin’s, for an appeal of Dave Hatin’s interpretations, and you know that that’s never come before you, and that’s why, because your jurisdiction is for variances and for an appeal of Craig Brown’s determinations. Now I need to read into the record the case law that deals with the standing issue. You should all have a copy of my letter to the Board. This firm represents Hayes and Hayes, LLC with respect to the above-referenced matter, which is the appeal by Salvador. “As you know, an appeal of the determinations made by Zoning Administrator, Craig Brown, in a December 7, 2010 letter to John Salvador, Jr. is scheduled to be considered by the Zoning Board of Appeals (“ZBA”) on February 23, 2011. The Zoning Administrator determined, among other things, that an appeal by Mr. Salvador dated November 22, 2010 was untimely and that Mr. Salvador did not identify how he was aggrieved by issuance of the subject building permits, and thus had no standing to appeal their issuance. It is clear under both the Town Code and New York State law that the subject appeal was filed long past the expiration of the 60 days within which to challenge the issuance of the permits. Further, Mr. Salvador, who lives over 10 miles from the project site, has no standing to challenge the issuance of permits. The November 22, 2010 Appeal is Untimely The at-issue building permits were issued on March 15, 2010 and the time to appeal the issuance of those permits accordingly expired on May 14, 2010.” Now I want to just digress for a second. He was talking about the, to confuse things, in March of 2010, the Town Board apparently passed a subdivision law, but this whole matter with the Hayes on this property has to deal with, comes from the April of 2009 change in the Town Code which allowed duplexes as a permitted use in this zone. So that was just a, just to confuse everybody. The building permits were issued based upon a law that was passed a year earlier, not the same day. This isn’t a subdivision, as you know. It’s all on one piece of property. So his reference to something that happened the same day in March of 2010 on the subdivision is completely irrelevant. This is not a subdivision. I’m going to continue. The November 22, 2010 appeal is untimely by over six months, based upon the date of issuance of the building permits in March of 2010. “The Zoning Administrator correctly determined that the November 22, 2010 appeal by Mr. Salvador was untimely. Town Code § 179-13-040(D) provides that an appeal “shall be taken within 60 days after the filing in the Town Clerk’s office of any order, requirement, decision, interpretation or determination of the Zoning Administrator.” Thus, Mr. Salvador’s assertion that the 60-day statute of limitations for appealing a Zoning Administrator’s determination begins to run from the date of actual notice to him,” which is what he had in his letter, “is completely unfounded and a mischaracterization of the law. The Town Code Section is clearly modeled after New York State Town Law § 267-a(5)(b), which states that an appeal to the Zoning Board of Appeals “shall be taken within sixty days after the filing of any order, requirement, decision, interpretation or determination of the administrative official.” To interpret either the Town Code or the Town Law to permit the statute of limitations to be perpetually extended so long as one town resident remains unaware of a project’s existence or progress would completely nullify both of the above-referenced sections. Further, although Mr. Salvador claims to not have been aware of the issuance of the building permits until November 17, 2010, he had every reason to be aware of this project months sooner. Excavation and clearing for the buildings began on May 26, 2010, nearly six months prior to the date of the subject appeal. Further, as demonstrated by the attached inspection records of the Town Building Department, inspections were conducted by Town officials on at least 10 different dates between June 24, 2010 and September 14, 2010, showing that construction was being conducted during that time. Also during that time, there were dozens of deliveries to the project site by large cement and lumber trucks which would serve to notify the public of the project. Notably, the project is visible from the Northway. Further, by early July 2010, framing of the first floor walls of at least one of the buildings was completed, making the project even more visible. Multiple buildings were completely framed by September 2010. Thus, Mr. Salvador and any other reasonable observer should have known of this project at least four months prior to the date of his appeal. For all of the foregoing reasons, we respectfully submit that Mr. Salvador’s November 22, 2010 appeal was untimely under the Town Code and state law, and the Zoning Administrator’s determination that the appeal was untimely is entirely correct. Standing A large part of the reason Mr. Salvador may have been unaware of this project is that he lives over ten miles away from the project, and is completely unaffected by the issuance of the subject building permits. Pursuant to Town Code Section 179-14-040(C), an appeal “may be taken by any person aggrieved” by a determination of the Zoning Administrator. The Zoning Administrator has correctly determined 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/23/2011) that, in addition to the fact that the subject appeal is untimely, Mr. Salvador does not qualify as a “person aggrieved” by the issuance of the building permits. In Wyman v. Braman, 298 AD2d 787 (3d Dept. 2002), the Court held that “[i]n order to establish standing, a petitioner must demonstrate that he or she has ‘suffered an injury in fact, distinct from that of the general public’ and ‘that the injury claimed falls within the zone of interests to be protected by the statute challenged.”’ The case law is consistent with the Town Code’s requirement that an appellant be a “person aggrieved”. As Mr. Salvador lives many miles from the subject property, he cannot claim to have suffered any injury which is distinct from that of the general public. As such, he has no standing to bring this appeal, and the appeal should not be considered by the ZBA. Notably, in reliance upon the issuance of these permits and the absence of any appeal in the 60- day period following the filing of the permits, Hayes & Hayes, LLC invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in commencing this project. The reason for the 60-day statute of limitations is to provide permittees with certainty that their investments will not be lost due to an untimely objection to a project’s approval. To permit this appeal to go forward would completely abandon the reasoning for the 60-day limitations period, and provide permittees with virtually no way of knowing whether a permit or approval will be challenged after significant time and resources are devoted to a project. Although the appeal was filed by Mr. Salvador, the rights of Hayes & Hayes, LLC may be affected by the outcome of the appeal. We therefore request that Hayes & Hayes, LLC and its attorney be permitted to address the ZBA in connection with the determination of this appeal. As the “real party in interest,” Hayes & Hayes, LLC has the right to appear as a matter of due process and should not be subject to the time limitations for comments from members of the public. For the foregoing reasons, we respectfully submit that this appeal must be denied. We look forward to addressing the ZBA at its February 23, 2011 meeting.” When he sat here and said that there could be duplexes in other zones in the Town, that’s exactly what this case law talks about. That would be the same injury as the general public, and that’s not, he’s not aggrieved because we did it on Google, and he lives between 10 and 12 miles from this site in North Queensbury. He’s not a person aggrieved. Now, all that said, since we were here on this project in the past, we’ve moved to the Planning Board. We’re in the middle of Site Plan Review. The Hayes have made significant concessions to the neighbors in terms of buffering. We’re working through the Site Plan Review process, but for John Salvador, who lives 10 to 12 miles away, to come in here, months later and try to challenge the building permits, alleging that he somehow is aggrieved, he’s not aggrieved, and that’s why we have rules, and that’s why the Town Code says you can only hear an appeal within 60 days of a determination by the Zoning Administrator, and that’s Craig Brown, and just to keep it simple, and we, Mickie has been working with the neighbors, meeting with them, offering plantings on their sites. We’re not avoiding his responsibilities in terms of this project, but in terms of appealing the building permit, I had said previously that it could be appealed. You can appeal Dave Hatin’s determination, you can file an Article 78 against the building permits, but it’s not something you can appeal to the Zoning Board of Appeals. It’s just not part of your jurisdiction. So there’s two things. You don’t hear appeals of the building inspector, and someone who lives 12 miles away from a project, they can drive by the Northway and see it, that doesn’t make him an aggrieved person. Finally, just in terms of a couple of other of his points, I don’t know what that whole letter from the Department of State, I’d ask you to ignore that. It had nothing to do with this project, and that trying to tie Dave Hatin in with being related to Section 179, I mean, it’s clear in your Code that it just, it’s Craig Brown, it’s just about the Zoning Administrator. It’s not about Dave Hatin. This SEQRA issue, that was a different project on this site, a single family project. That was the SEQRA on another project that has nothing to do with this, before the Town Board changed the zoning in 2009, not 2010, so that’s not relevant and Craig’s made that determination, and then just that whole Mooring Post thing, I mean, that’s just talk. So, it’s just difficult to sit here with somebody who lives 12 miles away complaining about something and trying to be a hero. Mickie and Jamie are trying to follow the rules. I hope that you won’t hear this appeal and it doesn’t have to go any farther because you don’t have jurisdiction and he doesn’t have standing. Any questions of Mickie or me? Okay. Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-The issue that I think we had at hand was standing, and I don’t know what you guys feel after listening to Mr. Salvador, listening to Mr. Lapper. Do you want to decide amongst ourselves whether we would grant standing to Mr. Salvador to continue? Are you finished, Mr. Salvador or are you going to do more? Why don’t you come back up first. MR. SALVADOR-I don’t know if anyone else from the public has comments. MR. LAPPER-It’s not for him to ask that question. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I think at this point I would like the Board to think about it. So why don’t you come up here for a moment. I think I’m asking the Board members, do we want public input? Do you have enough input of your own? 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/23/2011) MR. BROWN-Yes. I think procedurally, while you’re thinking about this, what you want to do first is determine whether the appellant has standing. If he does, then you move to the merits of it, and during the merits argument, then you’d have the public hearing. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. Okay. I think we’ve listened. I was able to listen to what you were saying, you know, I mean, it was very interesting. There were some things that I think I picked up on, and I think I picked up on your comments in respect to your rights as far as what’s going on here also, but what I think at this point I’d like to do with the Board is, before we continue, if we’re going to continue, I would like you to consider standing here, whether he has standing, and I think the basis of your standing, as far as I understand it, is that you feel, as a landowner, that the land adjacent to your property could be developed similarly? MR. SALVADOR-Absolutely. Excuse me, by Mr. Hatin simply issuing building permits. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, that’s what I was going to say, that by the issuance of building permits that this same type project could occur in your neighborhood. You would be similarly affected. MR. CLEMENTS-Could it also occur on your land? MR. SALVADOR-Well, I already have a dwelling on it, but I could convert the dwelling to a duplex. MR. UNDERWOOD-No, I think, from what I wrote down, I think that we look at it this way, that your standing is affected by possibility of building of duplexes and the issuance of permits for those structures, and it’s my understanding that we have allowance for the same type of occurrence that we have on Dixon Road to occur in a mixed residential zone, a rural residential three acre zone and a rural residential five acre zone. Those are the three possibilities where you could do similar projects. So if you had X number of acres, you could figure out your formula for how many duplexes would fit on that number of acres. You could go in tomorrow, and I think we’ve addressed this previously, if you owned large acreage, you could go in and apply for X number of duplexes, as long as you were going to own those duplexes and maintain them yourself. That’s my understanding how it works. MR. KOSKINAS-Let’s not argue whether they should be granted or not. MR. UNDERWOOD-No, no, I’m not arguing that. I’m just saying, so that’s the basis of the appeal and your standing, that, if you would agree to that. MR. SALVADOR-I just have a couple of comments. MR. KOSKINAS-So, in your view, sir, does he have standing? MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, yes, do you have anything else you want to add? MR. SALVADOR-Yes. MR. KOSKINAS-He’s arguing the case. MR. SALVADOR-This issue of not being harmed any more than the community at large, does that mean that if the government screws everybody equally, it’s okay? Is that what that means? That makes no sense. Okay. That argument makes no sense. Just a couple of things. Town Law, Town Law, not Town Code, Town Law says that an appeal may be taken from the administrative official charged with the enforcement of any ordinance or local law adopted pursuant to this Article. Article 16, and my point is Mr. Hatin is charged by this Town to enforce certain aspects of law that are derived from Article 16. That’s finished. Now, included in the building permit application, included in the building permit application, which these folks filled out, okay, is a form that reads principal structure, singular, principal structure, and that’s why they put in seven building permit applications. Application for Zoning Approval and Building Permit, Zoning Approval. That’s what Mr. Hatin was reviewing, zoning approval. The following questions were answered. Has there been a site plan review. MR. URRICO-We’re getting into the merits of the argument. We’re not talking about standing. MR. SALVADOR-No, I’m finished with standing. MR. UNDERWOOD-John, if you would just bear with us and let us. MR. SALVADOR-Jim, I asked to come back to the microphone to rebut any public comment. That’s all I’m doing. Now I will, if I want to address standing again I will. 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/23/2011) MR. KOSKINAS-No, we’d like to finish where we were. MR. UNDERWOOD-We would consider your continuance, but I think what we need to do first is decide amongst ourselves whether we would grant you standing, and I would like to do that at this time, if you don’t mind. I know you mind, but if you would bear with us, please. MR. SALVADOR-Well, my point is is that Mr. Hatin is charged with enforcing certain aspects of Town Code, and that’s why. MR. KOSKINAS-No arguments. MR. UNDERWOOD-No arguments. MR. SALVADOR-Well, that’s the crux. MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. Well, I think what I’m going to do at this time is, you’ve listened to Mr. Salvador. You’ve listened to Mr. Lapper. I think everybody’s quite familiar with the conditions, and whether, our principal thing that we need to do at this point in time is to make a determination as to standing for Mr. Salvador. If we grant him standing, then we will get into the merits of his argument. If not, then I think at that point in time, the Appeal will be denied. That would be my take on it. If you would agree with me at that point. MR. KOSKINAS-Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. So I think what I’ll do is I’ll just start with you, Roy. MR. URRICO-I’d like to ask Craig a question. Craig consulted with the Town Attorney on this, and I don’t see any information from the Town Attorney weighing in on this. MR. BROWN-No, I did not consult with the Town Attorney. MRS. HUNT-I have a question. MR. BROWN-Sure. MRS. HUNT-If someone gets a building permit to build on their property, aren’t the neighbors notified? MR. BROWN-No. MRS. HUNT-They’re not? MR. BROWN-No. MRS. HUNT-Okay. MR. UNDERWOOD-Any other questions from you guys at this time? MR. KUHL-So, Craig, the only visibility of that building permit is where that builder posts it? MR. BROWN-Well, yes, and no. There’s a monthly building permit report that’s posted in our Building Department. We produce a report every month, and that report is also posted on our website. So there is notice of the issuance of building permits, but the only physical indication of a building permit, yes, is the posting of the green card on the site. MR. KUHL-Okay. MR. BROWN-Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-Any other questions from Board members? Anything else you want me to do other than poll you? Okay. When I poll you, if you want to add any commentary that’s applicable also. If you want to say yes, no, that’s fine with whichever prerogative is. So I’ll start with you, Roy. MR. URRICO-I feel that, based on what we have before us, there’s a very limited decision that we can make. We’re talking about standing here. Number One, I do feel there should be some voice heard in this process, which hasn’t been heard, but I do understand the appeal process as it stands here, and I do not believe Mr. Salvador has standing. 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/23/2011) MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Brian? MR. CLEMENTS-I also don’t believe that it has standing. I don’t know about the, I’m not clear on the jurisdiction of the Zoning Board of Appeals with regard to the appealing of Building Inspectors determination, but I have to agree with Mr. Lapper and the Zoning Administrator, Craig Brown, and I think the appellant is using this Hayes, in quotes, project, to appeal a variety of other projects, but I don’t see that there’s any standing for this project. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Mr. Koskinas? MR. KOSKINAS-Mr. Salvador has not demonstrated specific injuries different from the public at large. Zoning allowing duplexes affect the public at large, and affect me. I have enough acreage to have duplexes, and so do my neighbors. Mr. Salvador has not demonstrated a harmful effect on him, as regarding any decisions made here. In my view, then, Mr. Salvador has no standing to be heard here. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Mr. Kuhl? MR. KUHL-I tried to listen very intently to Mr. Salvador’s presentation, and directly relate it to the fact of standing, and the only thing that I see is that he has a piece of property with the same kind of zoning, and I think that’s a stretch at best. So I don’t see he’s got any standing here to appeal this. MR. UNDERWOOD-Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Yes. I mean, it says the appeal may be taken by any person aggrieved, and I don’t see how Mr. Salvador has been personally aggrieved by the decision. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Just to summarize, then. It’s the general feeling of the Board, Mr. Salvador, then that what you have asked us to do is something that we cannot do at this point in time. I would just say, in general, I think that, you know, we listened and I think everyone understands where you were coming from as far as what you were trying to do, and as Mr. Lapper said, it’s still an admirable thing, even though it’s at converse to your way of thinking, at the same time, it’s useful for us to deliberate and do these things in the public sphere because it does make our Town function better in the future, and I think, irregardless of our feelings on the projects and how the whole thing came to be and where it’s at and where it’s going now with the Planning Board, our greatest hope is that we can resolve the differences that have been built up through the process. At the same time, there’s a sense of fair play that’s involved, and I think that if we could go back in time and start the whole thing over again, I think that we would all recognize the fact that we could do things much more properly, significantly different than probably the sequencing and the way that it occurred. I think that any time that we do Site Plan Review, the result usually is something that the public can live with, because we start with the process as the game rules are supposed to be, and any time that we convolute the details and we hop, skip and jump ahead two or three paces, we don’t end up with something that’s palatable to anybody. There’s a lot of pain involved for the people that live there. There’s pain involved for you guys who are building the project, and it’s not fun for us on the Board, either because we take a lot of flack, too, but at the same time, at this time I guess I’ll make a motion, based upon the feelings of the Board. MOTION THAT WE DENY THE NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 1-2011 JOHN SALVADOR, JR., DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE BOARD DOES NOT FEEL THAT HE IS DIRECTLY AFFECTED BY THE PROJECT AS IT EXISTS., Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Koskinas: rd Duly adopted this 23 day of February, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Clements, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Koskinas, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Garrand MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. AUDIENCE MEMBER-No public hearing? 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/23/2011) MR. UNDERWOOD-No, because we didn’t get to the merits of it, because the feeling of the Board was that he did not have standing in regards to the project site. Okay, guys, if you have any questions, you can come up and ask them. AUDIENCE MEMBERS-I just have a question. One word that you said, and I approached the Town Board in January, and asked them three questions and I was totally ignored. You said the possibility of building duplexes next to your property, right? MR. KOSKINAS-No, actually, if you look at the table, is this meeting closed? MR. GARRAND-No, we’ve got to close it. AUDIENCE MEMBER-When you said duplexes. I’m asking for guidance is why I’m asking. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Sure, just as a general public question, you can ask a question, and that’s it. AUDIENCE MEMBER-You mentioned the word duplexes. I asked the Town Board, Webster’s Dictionary has the table in (lost words) law says duplex. Webster’s Dictionary defines it as one building. I don’t think anybody would complain if they put one duplex up. MR. KOSKINAS-I don’t think they would, either. AUDIENCE MEMBER-Okay. They’re going to put seven up. Okay. I asked them to explain why a singular term was used in a law but yet they made multiple. The other thing I said is, the other thing is the commercial aspect. This is a commercial venture in a residentially area. Again, Webster’s Dictionary. Where do we go to get this, obviously, according to Webster’s Dictionary, the law, the building permits were issued for (lost word) building. They should not have been issued. MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. AUDIENCE MEMBER-How do we go from here? MR. UNDERWOOD-I don’t really have any answers for you, other than you would have to go to the Town Board. AUDIENCE MEMBER-But they ignore me. I mean, is it the case that I should seek legal advice to go after them? MR. UNDERWOOD-They’re your elected officials, you know, we’re just a volunteer Board here. We don’t make the rules. All right. I’m going to end tonight’s meeting, then. MR. GARRAND-I make a motion we adjourn the ZBA meeting for February 23, 2011. MRS. HUNT-Second. MR. KUHL-Aye. MR. CLEMENTS-Aye. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Richard Garrand, Acting Chairman 30