Loading...
01-18-2012 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/18/2012) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 18, 2012 INDEX Use Variance No. 4-2012 Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless 1. Tax Map No. 295.6-1-1 (Cont'd Pg. 29) Area Variance No. 1-2012 William Threw 2. Tax Map No. 309.17-1-7; 309.17-1-13 Area Variance No. 2-2012 William Threw 14. Tax Map No. 309.17-1-12 Area Variance No. 3-2012 J & D Marina, LLC 20. Tax Map No. 240.5-1-26 Area Variance No. 5-2012 Gregg Laber, GMS Realty, LLC 29. Tax Map No. 308.16-2-4.2 Notice of Appeal No. 1-2012 John Salvador 32. 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 01/18/2012) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 18, 2012 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEVEN JACKOSKI, CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY JOYCE HUNT RICHARD GARRAND JAMES UNDERWOOD RONALD KUHL BRIAN CLEMENTS ZONING ADMINISTRATOR-CRAIG BROWN STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY MR. JACKOSKI-Good evening. Today is January 18th, and we'd like to start our first meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals for the Year 2012. For those of you who haven't been here in the past, on the back table is a brief sheet explaining our process here. We will call up each application, after doing some housework here; ask for it to be presented to us. We'll ask some questions, open up public hearings where they are noticed, bring the applicant back to the table, address some questions again, and then look for resolutions. So, under some housekeeping matters, we do have minutes of meetings to approve here. The first set is from November 16, 2011. APPROVAL OF MINUTES November 16, 2011 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZBA MEETING MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 16, 2011, Introduced by Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: Duly adopted this 18th day of January, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Clements, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. The next set of minutes is for November 30tH MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZBA MEETING MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 30, 2011, Introduced by Brian Clements who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 18th day of January, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Clements, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you everyone. Another quick matter that I'd like to address, before I forget it, is Cellco Partnership, doing business as Verizon Wireless. USE VARIANCE NO. 4-2012, SEAR TYPE UNLISTED, CELLCO PARTNERSHIP d/b/a VERIZON WIRELESS, AGENT(S) MICHAEL E. CUSACK, ESQ. OWNER(S) TOWN OF QUEENSBURY, ZONING RR-SA-RURAL RESIDENTIAL, LOCATION 1127 WEST MOUNTAIN ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES A NEW 120 FT. MONO POLE TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWER. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE USE REQUIREMENTS OF THE RR-5A ZONE. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 7-12, TB RES. 85-11, WARREN CO. PLANNING REFERRAL JANUARY 2012, LOT SIZE 4.82 ACRES, TAX MAP NO. 295.6-1-1, SECTION 179-5-130 MR. JACKOSKI-We're being asked to put forth a motion to let our Planning Board here that the Town of Queensbury be the Lead Agency and have Lead Agency status. Should we have some discussion about that or is everyone okay in general with that? Craig looks like he wants to make a comment. 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/18/2012) MR. BROWN-Just a reminder that there was a public hearing advertised. So you want to at least open it up tonight and see if there's anybody here that wants to make comment at some point. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So just some discussion first or are we okay? MRS. HUNT-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. There was a public hearing noticed. Is there anyone here in the audience who'd like to address the motion concerning Cellco? If you would come to the table, please, and state your name for the record. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED AUDIENCE MEMBER-(Lost words) comment on the Lead Agency motion. MR. JACKOSKI-That's the only motion that we're looking to at this point. Okay. Is there anyone else in the audience who'd like to? So at this time I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. JACKOSKI-And entertain a motion. MOTION THAT THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ALLOWS THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD LEAD AGENCY SEAR STATUS REGARDING USE VARIANCE NO. 4-2012 CELLCO PARTNERSHIP D/B/A VERIZON WIRELESS, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: Duly adopted this 18th day of January, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Clements, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. On to New Business. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 1-2012 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED WILLIAM THREW AGENT(S) MICHAEL J. O'CONNOR, ESQ.; G. THOMAS HUTCHINS PE OWNER(S) WILLIAM THREW ZONING CLI-COMM. LIGHT INDUSTRIAL LOCATION 369-375 BIG BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT BETWEEN THE NORTHERN AND SOUTHERN LOTS AS WELL AS COMBINING THE NORTHERN LOT WITH EXISTING WESTERN LOT IN ORDER TO PROMOTE SITE COMPLIANCE AND SEPARATE OWNERSHIP; RESULTING COMBINED LOT SIZE TO BE 9.18 ACRES. FURTHER, APPLICANT PROPOSES A 9,600 SQ. FT. WAREHOUSE, RELOCATED 4,500 SQ. FT. QUONSET HUT, SAWMILL AND FIREWOOD OPERATION, AND EQUIPMENT STORAGE YARD. NEW USES AND NEW CONSTRUCTION PROPOSED FOR THE PROPERTY REQUIRES REVIEW AND APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. VARIANCES: RELIEF REQUESTED FROM LOT SIZE RELIEF FOR SAWMILL USE AND SIDE SETBACK RELIEF FOR EXISTING POLE BARN. CROSS REF SUP 1-2012; AV 1-2012; SP 1-12; SP 2- 12 WARREN CO. PLANNING REFERRAL JANUARY 2012 LOT SIZE 3.14 AND 5.55 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.17-1-7; 309.17-1-13 SECTION 179-3-040 MICHAEL O'CONNOR & TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. JACKOSKI-It is an Unlisted SEQRA. So we will be having SEQRA this evening. STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 1-2012, William Threw, Meeting Date: January 18, 2012, Project Location: 369-375 Big Bay Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a boundary line adjustment between the northern and southern lots as well as combining the northern lot with existing western lot in order to promote site compliance and separate ownership; resulting combined lot size to be 9.18 acres. Further, applicant proposes a 9,600 sq. ft. warehouse, relocated 4,500 sq. ft. Quonset hut, sawmill and firewood operation, 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/18/2012) and equipment storage yard. New uses and new construction proposed for the property requires review and approval from the Planning Board. Relief Required: Parcel will require area variances as follows: 1. Lot size- request for 90.82 acres of relief from the 100 acre requirement as per§179-10- 070W for the sawmill and firewood operation. 2. Side setback -request for 3.6 feet of relief from the 30 foot requirement for the existing pole barn associated with the firewood operation. 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. Concerning the sawmill use, the potential for impacts on the surrounding neighborhood may be an issue as the use potentially could have a noise impact on the environment. 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. Concerning the sawmill operation portion of the application, feasible alternatives appear limited as the lot is only 9.18 acres and 100 acres is required. With respect to the existing pole barn associated with the firewood operation, short of removing and placing the structure within the parcels building envelope feasible alternatives appear limited. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 90.82 acres or 91% relief from the 100 acre requirement for the sawmill use as per §179-10-070W may be considered severe relative to the ordinance. The request for 3.6 feet or 12% relief from the 30 foot side setback requirement as per §179-3-040 may be considered minor relative to the ordinance. 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 may be anticipated. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, AV 1-12: Setback relief and lot size Pending AV 2-12: Permeability relief Pending SP 2-12: Pending NOA 3-10: Threw for Jerry Hunt-Appellant is appealing the Zoning Administrator's determination regarding "junkyard use" on the parcel Resolution date 5/16/2010 BP 10-360: Hunt's Towing-CO only-Personal Occupancy only. SP 80-90: Inside storage of equipment Approved 12/27/90 SP 67-89: 40 x 64 addition to existing storage building Approved 10/24/89 BP 07-753: Adirondack Truck Repair Approved 1/25/08 BP 07-246: 16 sq. ft. freestanding Sign-Morehouse Truck& Equipment Repair Issued 9/21/07 BP 07-229: C/O Morehouse Truck/Equip. Repair Issued 6/4/07 BP 00-631: 9600 sq. ft. commercial bldg. BP 96-720: 1408 sq. ft. commercial addition (office) Issued 3/31/97 BP 89-410: Storage shed Staff comments: Both uses requiring area variances are after the fact approvals as the uses have been existing for an indeterminate amount of time. SEQR Status: Type: Unlisted" 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/18/2012) MR. URRICO-And the Planning Board did meet and they made a recommendation on their behalf to the Zoning Board, and they did not identify any significant impacts that cannot be mitigated at Site Plan Review, and that was passed unanimously on January 17tH MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. If you could identify yourselves for the record, please. MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm Michael O'Connor from the law firm of Little & O'Connor. I represent the applicant, and with me at the table is Tom Hutchins who is the engineer for the project, and in the audience is Jeffrey Threw, who is one of the principals for the applicant, and will end up being the owner of one of the parcels that we're trying to create. Basically, this goes back to probably 1985 when William Threw relocated his construction operation from Luzerne Road. It was in a residential neighborhood, backed up to Herald Square, or that subdivision known as Herald Square, and he's been in this location since then. Much of what we're talking about has been in operation since then, particularly when you get, and I think Area Variance No. 1 deals with what we call the northern lot, where the two large warehouses are located, and where we hope to maintain the sawmill operation, out behind the two large warehouses. There's been a sawmill on the property since 1985 when he moved there, and apparently without a great deal of problem as to the sawmill itself. This property has been before this Board or the Zoning Board at least 10 times, and it never was raised, prior to these applications, and it never was raised, to my knowledge, as being an exception or a problem, and I'm not sure whether or not there was a change in the Use Schedule that goes with Light Industrial that had the impact or not, but basically the Ordinance now says that you need 100 acres in order to have a sawmill on the property, and we do have a sawmill. If you've ever been out to the property before on other applications, there used to be a large sawmill mounted off the back of a truck, just behind the two big warehouses, and it was driven by the clutch from the truck and the wheels and what not, the access of the wheels, and it was a much larger sawmill than what we are proposing here. We are asking for permission for the existing sawmill, which is a portable sawmill, it's a band sawmill. We've got photos of it there that we've submitted. It's not a very large operation. We're willing to, we've got to go, and this isn't the final analysis of what happens with that sawmill. We still have to go to the Planning Board and get a Special Use Permit and we presume that they will condition the Special Use Permit in a manner that will protect and any of the adjacent owners, and we've said we're willing to live by those conditions as they impose them. The variance for the sawmill also involves, to my surprise, the wood splitting operation. That's considered a wood handling product, or handling of wood product, so that's part of the sawmill definition. That is also by a portable piece of equipment, and we've submitted photographs on that. To have both of those on the property require the Area Variance that we go away from the 100 acre parcel to what we have which I think will be 9.8 acres for the northerly parcel. Really the noise element is not a consideration or shouldn't be a consideration when you're looking at that, because if we had a 100 acre parcel, there's no restriction that we couldn't put it on a boundary line. So whether we have 100 acres or not is not consequential to the question that has been raised. We presume that that will be handled by the Planning Board, and they will treat it the same as if we had 100 acres. They will make us take necessary steps to mitigate the operation of it if it were to be bothersome. It's been there for the last I don't know 20 some years, a sawmill of some operation, sawmills much larger than this. This is something that is very low intense use. It's used only seasonally. It used to be up front, this particular sawmill here, after he discontinued using the larger sawmill that was driven off the truck. It was probably next to the end of the first warehouse in the paved area there, and now he proposes to move it to the back of the site, which we think will properly buffer it. We've asked for, and I saw, if you've seen the notes from the Planning Board, they want actual engineering data on sound and sound study basically, and we will submit that to the Planning Board. We do not have that at this time. So that's basically our presentation with regard to the sawmill operation. It is in a pole barn. The pole barn needs relief of three feet six inches in the northwest corner. It adjoins the property that is used by Joe Gross Electric. In fact, if you look at one of the pictures, you can see his warehouse is behind it. It doesn't really affect that 3.6 feet. It doesn't affect anybody. The only alternative to that would be to move the pole barn, which would seem to be an unnecessary expense for very little benefit to anyone if you're balancing between the relief asked and the impact on the applicant. That's as simple as we can make it. We understand that your approval of the variance isn't a blank check. Your approval of the variances that we request say that we can go to the Planning Board and make a presentation to them with all of the criteria that is necessary for a Special Use Permit, which is the same thing as a Site Plan. If you have any questions, we'd be glad to answer them or I'll go on to the second application, if you want, which is the application for the permeability on the southerly lot. MR. UNDERWOOD-As far as the wood processing for the cord wood, is that in continuous operation year round? MR. O'CONNOR-No. 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/18/2012) MR. UNDERWOOD-Is that seasonal also? MR. O'CONNOR-It's mostly fall. MR. UNDERWOOD-1 assume you guys, they're still doing land clearing and they're just bringing good logs, saw logs back to deal with, they're not purchasing them? MR. O'CONNOR-This is a separate operation with somebody who is basically a tenant. I'm not sure the source of his wood. The source of his wood is not ours. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay, but I think initially probably that was the case? MR. O'CONNOR-1 can't tell you that, Mr. Underwood. I should mention, too, the sawmill that we're talking about, this is a band saw. As I said, you've seen pictures of it. Basically, at this point, we do want to keep it, and a Special Use Permit can either be temporary, can be permanent, or it can be for a fixed period of time, and we've said that we understand that. We want to be able to saw up the logs that are on the site, and we can then construct the enclosure fence that we're going to enclose the construction equipment for. So it's a portable piece of equipment, and we have a particular use for it on our site. I'd just say that to you. Do you have both sets of pictures? I have two sets of pictures. MR. KUHL-But that new warehouse has got nothing to do with the wood operation? MR. O'CONNOR-No. MR. KUHL-And the log splitting is not in that pole barn? MR. O'CONNOR-It's in the pole barn. MR. KUHL-The log splitting and the sawmill are all under the same roof? MR. O'CONNOR-No. MR. HUTCHINS-The firewood processing is in the pole barn. The sawmill is in the open. It's a trailer mounted saw. It's, for comparison, it's about the size of that table. It might be a tad longer, and that's operated within the open. MR. O'CONNOR-(lost words) wood processor, firewood processor, and that's the pole barn. This is the actual sawmill. MR. KUHL-So it's not under the pole barn. It's out in the open. MR. O'CONNOR-Right. MR. KUHL-So then, Mike, what's the function of the pole barn? MR. O'CONNOR-The pole barn protects the wood processor. MR. KUHL-Okay, and that equipment in there is stationary, it's not mobile? MR. O'CONNOR-It's mobile. It's on wheels. It's on wheels, but they keep it out of the weather, and if they're doing the processing in inclement weather they can man it and operate it without being out in the weather. They built the pole barn, I think, for that purpose. MR. UNDERWOOD-Craig, how many of those operations have we got scattered around Town at the present time, like firewood? Steve (lost word) got one, right? MR. BROWN-1 don't really have an inventory number. I mean, a lot of people do their own firewood in their backyard, but as far as a business, I couldn't tell you. MR. UNDERWOOD-Right. MR. KUHL-And this sawmill operation has been going on since '85? MR. O'CONNOR-A sawmill of some nature has been on that property, has been operated since 1985. Bill Threw used to be probably one of the biggest excavators and road developers in the Town, and somebody said he used to bring the trees back and try and process the trees on his own property. He's always done it as a rough sawmill. In fact, he owned this whole tract of land back to the other industrial park land, and he owned the land all the way over to Eagan Road, 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/18/2012) which is a residential property. That's the closest property to it. That residential property is probably three to six hundred feet on Eagan Road. It's quite a ways from this. Part of this process here was they cleaned up the lot that extended over to that property, 630 feet by property line. MR. HUTCHINS-No, 630 from where the sawmill. JEFFREY THREW MR. THREW-Yes, it's basically in the back of this property. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. It's not on top of somebody, but that's something that we'll have to do during Site Plan and show what the noise receptor would be at that property line. Do you want me to talk about the permeability? Or do you want to do these individually? MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, I'd like to do them individually. Any other questions from the Board at this time? We do have an Unlisted SEQRA and we do have public comment. All right. At this time I'd like to open up the public hearing. Is there anyone here in the audience this evening who would like to address this Board on this particular project? If you could, come to the table, please. Hello. Welcome. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MARGARET FOOTE MS. FOOTE-Hi. Margaret Foote. I own the property that's on your maps as the property of Maille, and I go right up to the property that's in question right now. He's had the sawmill, the current one, I don't know if he had one before I moved there, but the current one he got from BOCES showed it to us. It's a portable sawmill. My concern is if we're getting into the other ones where he's at in the building. His property and mine but. I don't know if you can show mine in there. MR. BROWN-This is yours right here. MS. FOOTE-Right, and so the property in question is, yes, I have a total connection to all of Bill's back property that he's looking, and one of these to actually have put together with the other property. So I have a concern that what would, since it is portable, what would keep him from bringing it right down into the rest of those three properties and mine? Is there anything that would keep him up there where he has it currently? It is portable, and it's been, as they said, it has been in the front. He's moved it now to the back when he built this pole barn back there, and I'm not sure when he builds what else is on there tonight, when he builds the other warehouse, will he keep it behind the warehouse, or is he going to bring it to this side? And that's just on the, I have other questions, but they don't relate to this one which I guess you want to do first, right? MR. JACKOSKI-Sorry. MS. FOOTE-Those are just my concerns. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-The sawmill is located on that map in front of her. MS. FOOTE-1 know where the sawmill is, but it's portable. Correct? MR. O'CONNOR-It is. MS. FOOTE-It was portable when I saw it. MR. JACKOSKI-We can certainly bring those issues up when the applicant comes back to the table, and I will tell you that the Planning Board will also be aware of that. MS. FOOTE-Right. Okay. MR. JACKOSKI-Anything else? DAVID BOGUE 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/18/2012) MR. BOGUE-My name is David Bogue. I own the property adjacent to Margaret's property, which abuts the front end of that acreage down to the river. All right, but I also live with Margaret, so we co-habitat on this particular piece of property we're talking about. I also want it on the record that I know Bill. My dad has known Bill for numerous years, and he's a good neighbor. We know a little bit about this operation because Bill invites us back when we're out walking our dog. We've walked his property. Within a couple of weeks of his purchase of this sawmill that he's talking about, he bought it from BOCES. He took us over. He showed us the work he's doing, and actually I've talked with Bill about having him do some Adirondack siding for me because he does build or saw and mill Adirondack siding which he's been selling for the last couple of years. I guess one question I have, is this a change in the business plan that he originally, you know, we talked about, because he was planning on building, you know, siding for various people and doing, you know, supply work in that area. What I'm hearing now is that it's a wood operation for firewood. In general, we don't hear it, but it is a concern in the event that it is this mobile unit and if approval is given, one of the concerns I have is that as it gets closer, it gets noisier. So I share Margaret's concern, in the aspect that if the parcels are contrived the way they're represented, this is a mobile unit and plans could change next year, or they could change a few months from now. So we'll talk about this at the next segment, I'm sure, but one of the things that has been a problem for us, abutting this particular parcel of land, is that very early in the morning, on any given day of the week, we hear a lot of noise because there's a salvage operation going on, and it starts sometimes at six, sometimes at seven in the morning, and oftentimes it goes well late into the evening and often, oftentimes on weekends. MR. JACKOSKI-What would you describe the salvage operation to be? MR. BOGUE-Well, there's metal in the back, a lot of metal, and, you know what, I haven't really paid that much attention to it. When we walk our dog, we walk right along that property line because there's a tractor path or pathway that basically runs the perimeter of that property line, and, you know, there's a big cherry picker and what have you, and we hear it. There's just no way to avoid it because we're that close. Separating that to a different discussion, the same issue would apply, I think, with a sawmill if it had the ability to move and come close to the property line. MR. JACKOSKI-And we'll make sure to ask the applicant regarding how permanent that sawmill apparatus will be in that location. Okay? MR. BOGUE-Okay. Great. MR. JACKOSKI-Is there anyone else this evening who'd like to address the Board? Seeing no one at this time, I am going to leave the public hearing open. MR. UNDERWOOD-1 would just ask them to clarify the difference between the firewood operation, the band saw operation. MR. O'CONNOR-If I can answer the questions, I think. We anticipate, when the Planning Board approves the Site Plan or Special Use Permit, we will show a specific area on the map, and that'll be the area where the sawmill operates. There is no change of plans as to the business plan. That firewood processing thing has been there for the last couple of years anyway. I'm not sure even how long that's been there, probably the last five years, and that is in a fixed place underneath that pole barn which is on the extreme north boundary. We're going to have to show an area on a map, and that'll be either approved or disapproved by the Planning Board. We're glad to hear that where the sawmill was before wasn't a problem to them. We're not very far removed from that where we propose to show it now. As to the salvaging, I'm not sure about the hours of operation, but that's under, not necessarily an order of consent, but with some good cooperation between Cathi Radner, who is the Town Attorney, Dave Hatin and Craig Brown, we've cleaned up those three acres that adjoin these people's property, and we've moved most of the stuff out of there, and like any old construction firm, they had a lot of surplus equipment there, some of which they could use if they worked on it a little bit, some of which they had two or three of, and they've been scrapping it. When that is done, it's done, and we have to get it to a point where we can put all of the equipment that we're not actively using, that we cannot actually have, turn on with a key, in a 60 by 120 foot enclosure. That's the purpose of that enclosure that you see on our map. That will be where the surplus construction equipment is stored, but this three acres that extends toward the Maille property or the property that was formerly the Maille property that adjoins the Maille property is for the most part going to be a vacant parcel of land. There's nothing that we show on there. We show a snow storage area. MR. JACKOSKI-When all that operation is completed, how many vehicles on the property will be unregistered at one time. 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/18/2012) MR. O'CONNOR-On Bill Threw's property, there'll be construction equipment only and it'll be within this enclosure that we have here. It depends. I mean, you can have a loader that can be registered and not be registered. He will have his construction equipment on here. The problem that is referred to, there's a letter by the Town Attorney, has to do with a tenant of one of the front buildings, which was before you before, Hunt Towing, and you determined that his operation, because it was salvaging parts from unregistered vehicles, was a junkyard, and that we're going to terminate. We've given notice that he has to cease and desist or be evicted, and that's not improved. So we don't know of any vehicles, and this is not part of the application, that we be allowed to operate a junkyard on this property, when the Junkyard Ordinance is different than your Zoning Ordinance, it's much stricter in how it defines things. We had a lot of discussions last night with regard to Jeffrey's parcel, which is the next parcel, as to unregistered vehicles, because right now there are three, I think three new trucks that are parked, or two new trucks that are parked in front of his place that are unregistered. They belong to one of the local wholesalers, distributors, and they've got them there so that he can locate, remove a body from one of the existing trucks, put it on the new chasse, and then put a new body on the old truck. Now they are there for the purposes of repair. They're not there for the purpose of salvaging parts of and selling the parts. So the Planning Board seemed to be comfortable, at the end of the discussion last night, that that would not be a violation or would not be considered an unregistered vehicle in violation. It would be considered an unregistered vehicle. They tried to ask us how many do we have. We don't know how many of those we're going to have. People bring vehicles in and say okay I want to switch this, that, I'm not going to keep it registered until you get it done, though, or I'm not going to register it until you get it done, but it's for the purpose of repairing maintaining vehicles, and the way we left it with the Planning Board is we would stipulate to agree to language that is agreeable to the Town Attorney and the Zoning Administrator that sets up what is permitted and not permitted as far as unregistered vehicles. MR. URRICO-Mr. O'Connor, I have a question. This is an after the fact variance request. Now I'm not sure. Did the Code change that precipitated this request, or did the operation change which triggered the need for a variance? MR. O'CONNOR-Some place along the line it's my impression that the Use Schedule attached to Light Industrial changed. What was permitted in the Light Industrial was amended when one of the code schedules was adopted. MR. URRICO-Craig, is that correct? MR. BROWN-Yes, that's accurate. In 2009 the Town Zoning Code made some significant changes, you know, Town wide, not only to the map but the use tables and the area bulk tables. One of the things, one of the uses that was added to this Commercial Light Industrial zone was a sawmill, chipping mill, pallet mill, and that now allows the applicant to appear before Town Planning Board and Zoning Board to get an approval for it. Has there been a sawmill operation on the property for years? It sounds like it. Has there ever been an approved sawmill on the property? Not that we can have any record of. So this is, is it an after the fact request? It is, but now that it's listed as an allowable use, it's an allowable use there. MR. URRICO-So prior to the Code changing, then it was not disallowed. There was no regulation at all at that point. MR. BROWN-Well, it was disallowed because it wasn't listed as an allowable use. MR. URRICO-So it was operating illegally at that point? MR. BROWN-1 think you could say that, yes, but again, now it's listed as an allowable use. MR. O'CONNOR-1 don't know if I agree with that. I haven't done all the research as to that. There is the mantra that if it's not a listed use, you have to use it in some other zone, but I don't know if it was in any zone at that time. MR. BROWN-It was. MR. O'CONNOR-And why it got shifted into Light Industrial I'm not 100%, 1 don't really know. MR. JACKOSKI-When was the BOCES equipment purchased? MR. O'CONNOR-1 can't tell you that. Jeff, when was it? MR. THREW-At least two years ago. 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/18/2012) MR. O'CONNOR-Two years ago. Prior to that, there was a sawmill larger than this room that was homemade that was operating there. The BOCES thing, I don't know, I looked at it a couple of times, one log at a time, you bring it in by a forklift, put it on the side, there's a machine that lifts it up, rolls it on to the blade and the blade goes up and down, and the old one, the logs went up and down. So you can imagine if you've got to have a table large enough for the logs to go all the way up and down, as opposed to having the saw travel the log. It was quite a different operation, and I think, Craig, you've seen that old one that was hooked up to the trucks. MR. BROWN-1 did. Yes. I don't really know where it is on here. This is a spring 2008 aerial photo. So it's probably on her someplace. I think this is about the area where that pole barn structure is right now. So, it's, you know, less than three years old. MR. JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-Mr. O'Connor, so what you're saying is all the non-working vehicles are going to be in this snow storage area, is that where they're going to be? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. KUHL-They're going to stack them up, and the Hunt operation is not going to be on the property anymore? MR. O'CONNOR-The Hunt operation is going to be limited strictly to towing of vehicles that are licensed, if he's on the property at that time. He has also started a towing business which is a permitted use for that zone. The issue is, when they go out and they buy cars that aren't registered, bring them in, take off the catalytic converter, and then take the car to the Albany junkyards, and that's what we've tried to get them to discontinue. We've got to try a little harder. MR. JACKOSKI-Is there any concerns with automobile fluids and stuff on the property? MR. O'CONNOR-There's no dismantling, well, aren't you way into Site Plan application? What does that have to do with having a 25 foot portable sawmill? MR. JACKOSKI-I'm just trying to understand the overall use. MR. O'CONNOR-Well, Mr. Threw can answer. MR. JACKOSKI-And it will come up in SEQRA. MR. O'CONNOR-1 know it will. I know it will. MR. JACKOSKI-But that is what we're challenged with this evening. MR. O'CONNOR-The variance itself, usually sawmills don't produce any fluids that are discharged into the grounds, either the sawmill or the wood processor. The others are used; there is no dismantling of vehicles. MR. JACKOSKI-But there is storage. MR. O'CONNOR-That's been discontinued to the point that we think it's taken care of. The only thing that's supposed to be there now is Mr. Hunt's own vehicles, and his was, his operation were the ones that were in issue. The ones that are in Mr. Jeffrey Threw's operation are, Jeffrey, you can come up and talk about whether they have any fluids or don't have any fluids. His operation is on variance two, okay. It's not on variance one, but go ahead. MR. THREW-As far as any waste oil that I generate, it's all reclaimed and burned in a waste oil furnace. MR. JACKOSKI-Gasolines? All fluids. MR. THREW-All fluids. Most of my work is diesel anyway. MR. JACKOSKI-And that's on the smaller of the two parcels. MR. THREW-It's on the southerly. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/18/2012) MR. O'CONNOR-There is no vehicle repair maintenance that's on the northerly parcel I don't believe. MR. JACKOSKI-But there are construction equipment, right? MR. O'CONNOR-There is construction equipment, yes, there is. MR. JACKOSKI-And some of that construction equipment is just on standby so to speak? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Any other questions from Board members? Do we want to close the public hearing and perform the SEQRA? What would you guys like to do? AUDIENCE MEMBER-Could I have a couple of more questions? MR. JACKOSKI-We did leave the public hearing open, if that's okay. Sure. If you could come to the table, if you wouldn't mind, and re-stating your name for the record. Welcome again. MS. FOOTE-Sure. Thanks. Margaret Foote. MR. BOGUE-And David Bogue. We don't want to drag this out further than it needs to be, but as more discussion ensues, it generates more questions. So as it relates to the sawmill in particular, should the Planning Board rule favorably for the application, does anything in this preclude an upgrade to the sawing operation as it currently exists? Because obviously, the saw that's there now, the portable saw, which was purchased from BOCES, as it was accurately represented, it's about the size of that table, it's portable, you hook it up to a trailer, you can tow it anywhere, but in the future, you could bring in a massive sawing operation, which is a whole different issue than currently a band saw, which is designed specifically to saw boards. MR. JACKOSKI-And fortunately we have the Zoning Administrator here this evening and he can give you a very brief answer to whether or not an expansion of the current plan would require the applicant to go back to the Planning Board. MR. BOGUE-Okay. MR. BROWN-1 would think that they'd have to come back. Sure. My guess is when this gets before the Planning Board you may appear before them with similar questions, and they can certainly put any condition of approval on that approval if they choose to, and if it is limited to the sawmill as shown in these papers, then that's what they're limited to. Does that preclude them from coming back and asking for permission to put a bigger unit in there? It doesn't. They can do that, but it's this process. It's public notice. You get to see the plans again. MR. BOGUE-But it's not an automatic? MR. BROWN-It's not automatic. No, and again, I'm guessing that you may ask these questions and they may put that specific condition on that it's limited to Model No. 1, 2, 3 sawmill and that's what they're limited to, and because it's a Special Use Permit, they can do those types of things there. MR. JACKOSKI-And any expansion that would get closer to the property line would then also require another zoning variance. MR. BOGUE-Okay. We know, as a result of any kind of a sawing operation, there's a huge amount of byproduct. I haven't heard any discussion about what's going to happen with the disposal of the byproduct, mainly sawdust. MR. JACKOSKI-You don't want a big old pile like Finch Paper used to have? MS. FOOTE-The fires. MR. JACKOSKI-We understand. MR. BOGUE-The thing about sawdust, you can manufacture a lot of it, and it can become a biohazard. We live in a heavily wooded area which is what we like, but if it's not maintained properly, it can become, you know, combustible material, and then finally any capital improvements made are not necessarily limited by any relief granted now, is that accurate? I guess it's probably similar to the first question I asked, but if they wanted to add on additional 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/18/2012) pole barns or add different buildings and things as that amount of space has still got a lot of expansion there. MR. JACKOSKI-Again, if it fit within the Code, then it's within the Code, but if it changed permeability, if it changed lot line setbacks, any kind of expansion like that would probably require a Zoning Board thing or it would require a Site Plan Review. It depends on what the event is. MR. BOGUE-All right. MS. FOOTE-My concern was when Mr. O'Connor mentioned that it's been there since '85. Because we've lived there since probably 2005 and we know, you know, when this unit came and when it started, and so I just want to make sure that we're not approving whatever he's referring to. He says it's always been there and it was a huge unit and, you know, it had this and that, any approval, if it's approved, is what's existing today. Is that correct, not what's been there? MR. JACKOSKI-Correct. MR. BROWN-Yes, it'll be whatever they're applying for, and that approval won't come from this Board. That'll come from the Planning Board at the Special Use Permit review. So it'll be specific to what they're asking for. MS. FOOTE-But they're asking for a variance to operate it. MR. BROWN-They're asking for a variance for not having a parcel big enough to operate a sawmill and relief for the existing pole barn that's like three feet too close to the property line. The actual operation of the sawmill and firewood operations, all those details and nuts and bolts are all going to get worked out with the Planning Board next time. MS. FOOTE-Okay, and the other thing you've talked about really doesn't relate to the sawmill but you have talked about it so I wanted to bring it up is you talk about the fenced in area that he's proposing which is not even, I don't believe, 35 feet from my property line, and I believe under zoning it has to be 50 feet from my property line. So I don't particularly care that it's there, although I do worry about fluids coming out of vehicles in there, but it is not, I think on the map that I looked at, I don't even think it's 35 feet from my property line because I guess it's not a building, it's a fence. MR. BROWN-Yes, it's roughly 20 feet, I just scaled it, and you're correct. It's not a structure. So it's not required to meet a property line setback. MS. FOOTE-So in other words, he could actually put the stuff right up to my property line? MR. BROWN-He, again, he's going to have to follow this plan that he submitted, and if his plan shows a fence 20 feet away from the property line, and that's where it gets approved, he can't put it anyplace else. That's where it has to be installed, and if the approval is to store things inside the fence, he can't store things outside the fence. MS. FOOTE-Okay, and so the things that are there now, now I haven't been out this week. We've been busy, but I have pictures of, last weekend there's still tons of stuff on my property lines of his. MR. BROWN-Yes, I know that having spoken with the Director of Building and Codes, Dave Hatin, who's had an enforcement action with this property for, you know, probably longer than he cares to have, I think the ultimate goal here is to get as much of, as Mr. O'Connor said, to get as much of the salvageable scrap, unusable materials, whether they be vehicles or steel or wood or whatever, get that stuff removed from their property as soon as possible. When it gets to that cleaned up state, whatever else is still usable goes inside the fenced area and there's nothing else on that three acre parcel. I think that's the goal. MS. FOOTE-Okay, but if the variance is given, we're not just going to take all that stuff and push it into that fenced in area, which would be adjacent to my property line. Is that correct? MR. JACKOSKI-Again, that's Site Plan, and this Board is looking at the sawmill operation and the setback relief of the pole barn. MS. FOOTE-Okay. The other thing on the sawmill, just so you know, we said the sound isn't bad. He has put a huge mountain of dirt between us and that sawmill right now. 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/18/2012) MR. JACKOSKI-To buffer the sound. MS. FOOTE-To buffer it. So it has been okay. I don't want you to think it hasn't been okay. It has been. MR. BROWN-Yes, and again, on this plan, not to interrupt here, but this plan shows a building between the sawmill. That might help, too. MS. FOOTE-Yes, okay. Thank you. MR. BOGUE-One other observation I just want to make. There's a lot of moving parts going on here, and it's very hard for me to discern which piece we're actually talking about, because right now all of this activity is amalgamated on that entire parcel of property. So when, let me give you an example of what I'm talking about. When Jeff talked about how he manages his piece of the business, which tends to be in the front end of that parcel of property, I have absolutely no doubt that he's complying with the law and he's doing his best to make sure that there are no contaminants. He's following the law there. What I'm not sure of is this stuff that's going on with the junkyard operation. What's going on with the piece that's going to be the sawmill and what required equipment is associated with that, and what other future plans with other equipment are required. It just is all over the place to me. I haven't been able to make sense out of it. So having said that, I have a genuine concern for any vehicles, new, used, registered or otherwise, that are being stored there if we don't have some sort of a plan that says we're going to maintain the contaminants, because we happen to be on a well system, and the property that I own adjacent to Margaret's, our summer residence, but we depend on that aquifer for our water supply, and we're close. It's not like we're going down all the way Big Bay to get to the river. We're, you know, a couple of acres away. So that's of genuine concern to me, on how that piece is going to be managed and monitored going forward. So I just wanted to express my concern on it, because I haven't gotten a clear answer yet as to all of these moving parts and how they're going to be (lost words). MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Well, we'll bring the applicant back to the table. They'll attempt to address some of those questions for you, but I can say to you that a lot of what your concerns are sound to me like they're Planning Board issues, and that's where a lot of this detail will be brought up. Thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience again? Okay. Seeing no one else, I'll still leave the public hearing open. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. We're trying to make this as simple as we can. We will stipulate that we will not increase the size of equipment either for the sawmill or for the wood processing than what is presently there, and you can condition, if you want, your approval on that basis, so that there is not a question of a moving target as to those items which we're here for for the variance. There's no intention to have that. As to, again, the issue of, you know, if those are the other issues, fluids and what not, there are comments in the Planning Board engineer review comments already about that. There's comments about a buffer from a residential use and we've got to address all those comments. We've got a four page or three and a half page review letter from the Site Plan application at this point. We tabled, or we asked the Board to table their consideration of it, hoping that we would get our approvals tonight, but we won't be answering the Planning Board comments until the filing date, I think, of February 15t", with an idea that we would be on a March agenda before the Planning Board. We have a lot of work to respond to all the comments that they had, and to take away the idea that there's a moving target here. This is the whole process in which we're trying to do is to define what can be done on that property, define where it can be done on that property, and move forward. MR. JACKOSKI-Would you be able to address the waste product issue? MR. O'CONNOR-As far as I know, they probably have been using the sawmill, from what I can see, more than what they intend to use it for, and that; there is no accumulated waste product on the property. They have farmers that pick it up, the sawdust; farmers come to get it for bedding. It's not an intention to expand that business, and we think that they will continue to do that. There is a market for sawdust. So if we do have any size of sawdust, we can get rid of it easily. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other questions from Board members? So would we like to close the public hearing, SEQRA? What would you like to do? MR. UNDERWOOD-Just poll the Board, I guess. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. We'll poll the Board. Why don't we start with Brian? 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/18/2012) MR. CLEMENTS-Sure. I think that it looks like a (lost word) cleanup project there. I went out there and noticed that the sawing was different than it was the last time I was here, which was several years ago, and as it's been detailed, I have no problem being in favor of the variance. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes. It looks like this property finally may be cleaned up. That's what it sounds like your intention is to do, and I would also be in favor. MR. JACKOSKI-Rick? MR. GARRAND-I'm hoping that the Planning Board will take some of the comments to heart, when and if they issue a Special Use Permit, that they condition that with restrictions on hours of operation, placement of the sawmill and so forth. I think the applicant also coming forth with their own imposed condition that they will not increase the size or amount of equipment on site related to the sawmill is a plus, too. So I'd be in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I think we can make the distinction here, as far as the sawmill operation. It's not like Mead Lumber over on the other side of the line in Washington County where you've got a major production and major cutting going on. It seems to me to be a small operation. I think that we can put the language as such that if we limit it to the band sawmill presently on site. As far as the firewood processing, I mean, that's been there for years. That's also been established. That doesn't tend to generate a lot of noise or, you know, huge impact on the neighborhood either. So I think that that's a problem that we can deal with also and we can grant the variance as requested. I think when we get to the other one, as far as the lot line adjustment and all that, I think that we need to keep in mind the continuous clean up that's occurring on site, and I think that's been worked out with the Town, and to everybody's mutual benefit to continuously reclaim all the old vehicles that aren't going to be re-used and limit it to the ones that can be used again in the enclosure. So I have no problem with it. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Thank you. Yes, I have no problem with it. I think the fact that the applicant has said they will keep the sawmill operation, firewood operation to its existing size and scope, and the fact that they have put a soil barrier by the pole barn, I have no problem with it. MR. JACKOSKI-And Roy. MR. URRICO-1 don't have a problem with the side setback. However, I don't know why the Code changed, why 100 acres is now required for the sawmill operation, but it has, and I'm reluctant to grant 91% relief so soon after the Code has changed. There is a reason why that Code was changed, and I'm not in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So we have polled the Board. At this point I think we will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. JACKOSKI-And we'll move on to SEQRA. Rick? MOTION THAT BASED UPON THE INFORMATION PRESENTED, THIS BOARD FINDS THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION WILL NOT RESULT IN ANY SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS REGARDING AREA VARIANCE NO. 1-2012 WILLIAM THREW, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 18th day of January, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Clements, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Jackoski NOES: Mr. Urrico MR. JACKOSKI-And then Rick is going to make a resolution for approval. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 1-2012 WILLIAM THREW, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/18/2012) 369-375 Big Bay Road. The applicant proposes a boundary line adjustment between the northern and southern lots as well as combining the northern lot with existing western lot in order to promote site compliance and a separate ownership. Resulting combined lot size will be 9.1 acres. Further, the applicant proposes a 9,600 sq. ft. warehouse, relocated 4,500 sq. ft. Quonset hut, sawmill, and firewood operation, and equipment storage yard. New uses and new construction proposed for the property requires review and approval from the Planning Board. Relief required, lot size request of 90.82 acres of relief from the 100 acre requirement as per 179-10-70W for the sawmill and firewood operation. The other relief requested is side setback relief for 3.6 feet of relief from the 30 foot requirement for the existing pole barn associated with the firewood operation. In making the determination, on the balancing test, whether benefits can be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant. At this point, I don't see how other means feasible to the applicant, how they can do this. They're looking for a boundary line adjustment for a separate ownership here. Will this produce an undesirable change in the neighborhood or character to nearby properties. Nothing new is going in. The existing uses are staying the same. So I don't see how it's going to change the character of the property. Also the owner has made some improvements. Is this request substantial? From a numerical perspective, yes, it is substantial. Whether this request will have adverse physical or environmental effects on the neighborhood. At this point this Board cannot see any environmental impacts on the neighborhood. Is this difficulty self-created? As far as the 100 acre requirement for a sawmill, I think that was introduced after the sawmill was already in place. So that part of it is not self- created. So I move we approve Area Variance 1-2012. The applicant also agreed, as a condition, they will not increase the size or amount of equipment related to the sawmill operation on site. Duly adopted this 18th day of January, 2012, by the following vote: MR. UNDERWOOD-Do we limit the size to what's currently on site and that's the band saw, the portable band saw? MR. GARRAND-As a condition? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-And before we get a second to that motion, I just want to make note that during the public hearing I don't believe we addressed whether we had written comment but I believe, Roy? MR. URRICO-There's no. MR. JACKOSKI-There is no written comment, just for the record. MRS. HUNT-Second. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Joyce. AYES: Mr. Clements, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Jackoski NOES: Mr. Urrico AREA VARIANCE NO. 2-2012 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED WILLIAM THREW AGENT(S) MICHAEL J. O'CONNOR, ESQ. G. THOMAS HUTCHINS, PE ZONING CLI-COMM. LIGHT INDUSTRIAL LOCATION 369-375 BIG BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT BETWEEN THE NORTHERN AND SOUTHERN TO PROMOTE SITE COMPLIANCE AND SEPARATE OWNERSHIP; RESULTING LOT SIZE FOR SOUTH LOT TO BE 1.91 ACRES. FURTHER, APPLICANT PROPOSES TO RELOCATE EXISTING 4,500 SQ. FT. QUONSET HUT TO NORTHERN PARCEL AND CONSTRUCT A 6,000 SQ. FT. VEHICLE REPAIR FACILITY. VARIANCES: RELIEF REQUESTED FROM PERMEABILITY REQUIREMENTS OF THE CLI ZONE. CROSS REF AV 2-2012; SP 1-12; SP 2-12 WARREN CO. PLANNING REFERRAL JANUARY 2012 LOT SIZE 2.22 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.17-1-12 SECTION 179-3-040 MICHAEL O'CONNOR & TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 2-2012, William Threw, Meeting Date: January 18, 2012 "Project Location: 369-375 Big Bay Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a boundary line adjustment between the northern and southern lot to promote site compliance and separate ownership; resulting lot size for south lot to be 1.91 acres. Further, applicant 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/18/2012) proposes to relocate existing 4,500 sq. ft. Quonset but to northern parcel and construct a 6,000 sq. ft. vehicle repair facility. Relief Required: Nature of Area Variance: Parcel will require area variances as follows: 1. Permeability - Request for 9.5% or an additional 7,912 square feet of impermeable surfacing relief from the required 70% impermeability allowed 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 a result of this request. 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 could include reducing the impermeable footprint to comply with the zoning code. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 9.5% or an additional 7,912 square feet of impermeable surfacing relief from the required 70% impermeability allowed as per§179-3-040 may be considered moderate relative to the ordinance. 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 environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated as stormwater controls have been proposed were none currently exist. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, AV 1-12: Setback relief and lot size Pending AV 2-12: Permeability relief Pending SP 1-12: Pending NOA 3-10: Threw for Jerry Hunt-Appellant is appealing the Zoning Administrator's determination regarding "junkyard use" on the parcel Resolution date 5/16/2010 BP 10-360: Hunt's Towing-CO only-Personal Occupancy only. SP 80-90: Inside storage of equipment Approved 12/27/90 SP 67-89: 40 x 64 addition to existing storage building Approved 10/24/89 BP 07-753: Adirondack Truck Repair Approved 1/25/08 BP 07-246: 16 sq. ft. freestanding Sign-Morehouse Truck& Equipment Repair Issued 9/21/07 BP 07-229: C/O Morehouse Truck/Equip. Repair Issued 6/4/07 BP 00-631: 9600 sq. ft. commercial bldg. BP 96-720: 1408 sq. ft. commercial addition (office) Issued 3/31/97 BP 89-410: Storage shed Staff comments: The existing uses on the property include Heavy Equipment Repair, Tow Business and associated junkyard use which includes the dismantling of vehicles and sale of auto parts; please see attached letter from Town Council. As a condition of approval, the Zoning Board of Appeals may wish to consider restricting the applicant to one unlicensed vehicle at any one time on the parcel. SEAR Status: Type: Unlisted" MR. JACKOSKI-Welcome. If you could identify yourselves for the record, please. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. For the purpose of your record, again, I'm Michael O'Connor from the law firm of Little & O'Connor representing the applicant, and with me at the table is Tom Hutchins from Hutchins Engineering, who is the project engineer, and Jeffrey Threw who is the 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/18/2012) operator of the vehicle repair facility that is on the property that, the parcel that we're trying to create for the southerly parcel or that is subject to this variance. Basically my comment on it is that this is an already existing developed parcel. Much of the non-permeable area that we are talking about is not visible to the public, won't be visible to the public. It's behind the existing building and the proposed addition to the building. The area up front actually has quite a bit of the green space that's on this site, if not all the green space that's on this site. There's no intention of removing the trees that are along the road, that separate the site from the road. The parcel or business serves heavy duty trucks for the most part and it needs to have this amount of pavement for them to be able to maneuver in and out of the site. There will be a common driveway with this and the parcel to the north of it, and there will be a maintenance agreement for that common driveway, so that there's a two way access or a loop system so that they can get behind the building, coming from the parcel to the north. The rest of the comments I would ask Tom to make because this is really an engineering issue, and with this decrease in permeability, is the site capable of handling the stormwater, and that's something that he's charged with designing. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. We've laid this out in a manner to, one, provide separate ownership and separate the uses as best we can, and also to meet the needs of the applicant and his operation, and there's not a whole lot of permeable area presently, and in our layout where the boundary line is shown we're unable to meet his intentions and keep the amount of permeable area the Code requires. To a certain extent, well, let me step back. We have designed stormwater systems in an effort to meet both Queensbury and DEC standards, and we are in the process of reviewing with your engineer and we're going to get through that and we're going to come up with a system with a system that's good and it's effective and it's compliant, and the part of the issue with vehicle storage, where you have vehicle repair obviously you have vehicles and it's not always a great thing to lay out permeable areas for the storage of vehicles, because when you do have issues with vehicles for fluids or whatever, permeable areas aren't necessarily where you want them. DEC standards do not encourage maximizing permeability on uses such as vehicle repair, which is why we're doing a lot more collection of stormwater than is presently the case. I mean, realistically this area is pretty easy to manage drainage. The soils are so porous that pretty much anywhere you direct it it's not a traveled on corridor that infiltrates. We've done a fair amount of collection here for that particular reason. I guess we'll turn it over to, for questions and comments. MR. JACKOSKI-I have a couple of questions, Tom. The lot line itself, the demising line, the reason that it didn't go further north was because the asphalt would affect even more permeability issues on this small site? MR. O'CONNOR-There would not be a gain in permeability because that is all paved. MR. JACKOSKI-Right. Yes, I mean, it makes sense that it would probably make the ratio even worse. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, it wouldn't because you'd be picking up more paved area. So your total area would increase but your paved area would increase by the same amount. So your permeability would actually decrease. MR. UNDERWOOD-Craig, can you give us a clarification on the relief required that we're talking about here because there's nothing in Staff Notes. MRS. HUNT-It's all blank. MR. UNDERWOOD-The second set. MR. BROWN-1 can certainly try. MR. UNDERWOOD-I mean, we're talking about permeability. MR. O'CONNOR-There is a percent difference. Nine percent, 9.5. MR. JACKOSKI-And while Craig's working on that. MR. HUTCHINS-The required permeability is 30% and we're proposing 20.5%. MR. UNDERWOOD-So you're 10% lacking. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-9.5. So they're at about 75%, 80%. 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/18/2012) MR. JACKOSKI-On this chart it says 80. MR. BROWN-Yes, 79.5. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, my chart shows impervious. MR. JACKOSKI-Because of the permeability issue, because of the buffer area, do we have any idea how many trees are actually substantial trees on that lot, on the small lot? You know, one of the offsets would be to maintain those trees. MR. HUTCHINS-In terms of quantity of trees, I do not. I do not. MR. JACKOSKI-But would you be willing to insure that those trees, you know, stay there? MR. HUTCHINS-Well, we do indicate a certain degree of cutting along that area, but. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, it's because we're dealing with permeability issues, and screening. MR. O'CONNOR-This is a Light Industrial zone. If you go up and down that road, almost all the uses are Light Industrial. I don't know what we're screening from. MR. JACKOSKI-Well, I just, you know, unfortunately the history of the parcel is lots of vehicles, lots of stuff, lots of, I know it's going to get cleaned up. I hear that, you know, it's the when part. I'd leave it up to fellow Board members also. That's my question. Any other questions from Board members at this time? MR. UNDERWOOD-So all your catch basins you're going to build, the catch basins you're going to build they're just going to be, they're just going to percolate in right where they are? They're not going to be tied together? MR. HUTCHINS-No, these are going to be piped to an open area. We can't use typical drywells, well, actually new DEC standards you can't use drywells for parking area. You can't use them for anything except roofs. So the catch basins are square structures that catch it, it's piped out to an open area which is actually a big pre-treatment area, and then it overflows into the final treatment and infiltration area. MR. UNDERWOOD-And your perc's pretty good down there because it's all sand on that. It's gone in an instant. MR. HUTCHINS-It's incredible. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. MR. HUTCHINS-It's incredibly fast. In fact, I believe this is the site of the fastest percolation test that I've ever done. MR. UNDERWOOD-It's all river (lost word). MR. JACKOSKI-Any other questions? We do have a public hearing scheduled for this evening. Is there anyone in the audience who'd like to address this Board at this time regarding this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. JACKOSKI-Seeing no one in the audience at this time, is there any written record? MR. URRICO-No. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Before I close the public hearing, any other concerns from Board members? MRS. HUNT-1 still would like a little more clarification on the relief required. I didn't get your percentage. MR. BROWN-Well, they're seeking 20.5% of permeable, where 30 is the number. So 9.5% relief. MRS. HUNT-Instead of 25. 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/18/2012) MR. JACKOSKI-No, 9.5 points, but it's about 33% relief. Correct? MR. BROWN-Yes, doing percentage on percentages, yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Nine and a half of thirty, roughly ten percent of thirty. So it's roughly one third. Thirty-three percent relief. Does that make sense? MR. BROWN-They're seeking 20.5 versus 30. MR. URRICO-Okay. MR. JACKOSKI-That's roughly 66% of what they need to get to. MR. UNDERWOOD-No, they have 78%. MR. JACKOSKI-A third. Any other questions. There is SEQRA. Okay to close the public hearing? Okay. We'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. JACKOSKI-Would anyone like to put forth SEQRA? Rick, you did a great job last time. Do you want to poll the Board? Okay. We'll start with the other end tonight. Roy? MR. URRICO-1 do not have an issue. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Joyce? MRS. HUNT-1 have no problem. MR. JACKOSKI-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-1 think when you're going to create all these retention basins and tie everything together, it's going to be 100% better than what exists now, which is probably just whatever it is. We don't know. Probably nothing. So I'd be in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-Rick? MR. GARRAND-Mr. Underwood echoed my concerns. MR. JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-No, I have no problems. MR. JACKOSKI-Brian? MR. CLEMENTS-1 have no issues. I'd be in favor. MR. JACKOSKI-Rick? MOTION THAT BASED UPON THE INFORMATION PRESENTED, THIS BOARD FINDS THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION WILL NOT RESULT IN ANY SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS. I THEREFORE MOVE WE GIVE THIS A NEGATIVE DECLARATION, REGARDING AREA VARIANCE NO. 2-2012 WILLIAM THREW, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: Duly adopted this 18th day of January, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Clements, Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Would anyone like to put forth a motion approving the resolution or the application? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I can do it. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 2-2012 WILLIAM THREW, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/18/2012) 369-375 Big Bay Road. The applicant is proposing relocation of some buildings on property. Also the proposal for a new warehouse building. Along with the construction will be the re-do of the catch basins on site will be created and they will deal with runoff water as per the new stormwater protection plan required by the State of New York. At this point in time they are requesting relief from the permeability requirements. 30% is required, they are proposing 20.5%. So we would grant them the different between that which is about 32% the relief is essentially what we're asking for. As far as an undesirable change, it's a longstanding commercial worksite in a Light Industrial zone. The benefit probably could not be sought by any other means, and as far as the request being substantial, while substantial, the new created structures to handle stormwater will greatly improve what's been present on site since its inception. We do not feel there will be an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. We feel it will be a positive effect and even though the alleged difficulty is self-created, it's something that the Planning Board will be able to deal with. So I would move for its approval. Duly adopted this 18th day of January, 2012, by the following vote: MR. JACKOSKI-I believe the percentage of relief is 32%, that is 9.5 divided by 30 comes out to 32%, just so that the record is clear. MR. UNDERWOOD-So that will be 32%. MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, does that mean that we can design to the 20.5? MR. JACKOSKI-Are you suggesting you're going to make modifications to what's been presented as to what the layout will be and what the macadam will be and where the buildings will be? MR. O'CONNOR-We possibly will reconfigure the building and we might gain a little bit of green space from it, but we haven't been able to calculate that, as opposed to having that come off the (lost words) relief for 20.5, which is what we have before you today. We will be within that. If we can alternatively find some other way of doing less, more permeable, we will. We haven't to date. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think I included those numbers in there initially. So they're all on the record. MR. O'CONNOR-I was just confused when he was talking percents, that's all. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I think you're talking percents and 30 is the requirement, 20.5 is what's proposed. MR. HUTCHINS-Right, and that all jives what he said with the percentage reduction. MR. JACKOSKI-So how much of a change to the plan that you have presented are you anticipating? I guess I'm confused with? MR. UNDERWOOD-It might get better than the 20.5. MR. HUTCHINS-It's possible that it could get better. MR. JACKOSKI-Well, it can always be less. MR. HUTCH INS-There's no doubt there's going to be some changes to this plan before we get it through engineering, okay. There's a number of issues that we've got to address. MR. O'CONNOR-Some of them will either be amended by the engineering comments that we've seen. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. It's going to Site Plan anyway. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Clements, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Jackoski 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/18/2012) NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 3-2012 SEQRA TYPE II J & D MARINA, LLC AGENT(S) CHASE ENGINEERING-LONNY CHASE OWNER(S) JOHN MATTHEWS, THALIA CHASE ZONING WR-WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL LOCATION WARNER BAY APPLICANT PROPOSES CHANGES TO THE EXISTING MARINA OPERATIONS TO INCLUDE THE RE-POSITIONING OF MOORINGS TO ACCOMMODATE LARGER BEAMED BOATS; RESULTING SLIPS DROP FROM 80 TO 75 IN TOTAL. AREA VARIANCE: RELIEF FOR DOCK LENGTH IN EXCESS OF 40 FEET FROM THE MEAN LOW WATER MARK. CROSS REF SUP 4-12, BP 04-964 WARREN CO. PLANNING REFERRAL JANUARY 2012 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY YES LOT SIZE 3.99 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 240.5-1-26 SECTION § 179-5-060 JOHN MATTHEWS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 3-2012, J & D Marina, LLC, Meeting Date: January 18, 2012 "Project Location: Warner Bay Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes changes to the existing marina operations to include the re-positioning of moorings to accommodate larger beamed boats; according to the applicant resulting slips drop from 80 to 75 in total. Relief Required: Parcel will require area variances as follows: 1. Dock Length - Request for 190.9 feet of dock length relief from the 40 foot dock length requirement as per§179-5-060. 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 appear limited as any change to existing dock conditions would most likely require an area variance. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 190.0 feet or 477% relief from the 40 foot dock length requirement as per§179-5-060 may be considered severe to acute relative to the ordinance. 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 may be anticipated as a result of the requested area variance. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, SUP 4-12-Pending BP 04-964: 3840 sq. ft. commercial addition (service area) 1/28/09 Staff comments: 1. Clarification on the time frame for this project should be forthcoming. 2. Specific standards for Class A Marinas shall comply with the standards for Class A marinas as adopted by the Lake George Park Commission as per§179-10-070F. SEAR Status: Type II-no further action required" 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/18/2012) MR. URRICO-The Queensbury Planning Board also met and they did not identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal, and that was adopted unanimously on January 17, 2012. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Good evening. MR. MATTHEWS-Good evening. John Matthews, owner of J & D Marina, Castaway Marina. What we're proposing is to remove a few of the sections of dock on the southerly most finger and re-locate them in position so that we can decrease the number of boats but allow wider dock slips for the boats. That's one area. The reason we're looking to do this is, is when we purchased the Marina and when the Marina was built many decades ago it was designed for smaller boats. The beams on the boats were quite a bit smaller than they are now. Now the beam is nine feet, eight and a half feet, nine feet plus, a little bit, on most of the brands. So we're having an issue with trying to fill the Marina with the situation. So our full occupancy is pretty detrimental to our existence with the assessment that we have to face on a yearly basis. Now the second area and I can show you this very easily so the public can see. Okay. This area over here starting right about in here is where we plan to remove the fingers that stick out and the posts that go down into the dirt and replace the fingers at a distance so that we have at least our 10 feet or so to make the mooring and the boats more effective, and the other area would be from this boat on this section here, we're going to leave the end boat and this end boat exactly the way it is so we won't be changing the lengths of the existing dock and we'll take all of these little fingers out and the posts and re-mount the posts and so that we have a distance between each boat where the widths will be compensated. That's basically the structure that we're looking at. The area, the variance that we need for the posts is something that I decided to add to the project, only because of the heavy winds that we had during the big storm this summer. The way the boats are orientated, they're facing east and west, and the majority of the wind comes north and south. So the way that the posts were put in, the furthest post out on the boat. It usually ends up about mid-ship, about 15 or 16 feet from the dock. So when you're tying a boat that's longer than that, say a 25 or 26 foot boat, the majority of the boat is sticking way out past where you tie it, and it makes the leverage on the posts and what not quite a bit stronger or harder, and it was a real concern for us during the big storm that we had this summer. We haven't had any issues, but I would like to increase the safety for the customers in the area, and that's basically why we wanted to do that. Otherwise we could live with what the distance that they were at and go from there. MR. JACKOSKI-Any questions at this time from Board members? MR. KUHL-I have one. John, so what's really going to happen here? You're going to reduce the amount of boats that are in this (lost word)? MR. MATTHEWS-Correct. Yes, we're going to reduce the boats on the southern side by two boats, and on the piers facing east and west will be reduced by three boats. MR. KUHL-Any reason you didn't move the southern ones out further, why you're doing it in towards the land? MR. MATTHEWS-Well, the ones that are out further are wide enough. For some reason or another they made a few of them in there that went nine and ten feet wide, and we can live with that. It's just a matter of the ones in toward the shoreline, we end up with three or four or five of them empty because we can't get two boats between the docks. MR. URRICO-John, are you actually changing the dock size, other than removing the moorings/ MR. MATTHEWS-No, no. Well, we're changing the space between the boats. MR. URRICO-The space between it. MR. MATTHEWS-By eliminating three boats in the one area, we're going to put the balance of the boats in there. So the width between the boats will go from eight feet to ten feet or eleven feet. So when they're trying to back their boats in, they won't be putting it into a, trying to thread a needle. MR. JACKOSKI-John, how much farther will the new pylons that are easterly of the northern finger project out into the lake from the existing pylons? MR. MATTHEWS-Ten feet. MR. JACKOSKI-Ten additional feet. 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/18/2012) MR. MATTHEWS-Ten additional feet. That's the only distance we're asking relief for. MR. JACKOSKI-And who owns the land along the highway there? MR. MATTHEWS-The State, DEC. MR. JACKOSKI-Where does the State line go as it adjoins your property at the shore? Where is that intersection? MR. MATTHEWS-It's right on the shore and it basically follows the edge of my parking lot there. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Any other questions from Board members? There is a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone here in the audience who'd like to address? There are some folks in the audience. So if you could give up the table, please, and for the record, is there any written comment? There is. Okay. If you wouldn't mind, I'd like to have the written comment read into the record so you can hear it, and then maybe that will also allow you to modify your comments. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-Okay. I do notice Chris Navitsky in the audience. I don't know if he wants to read his own letter. MR. JACKOSKI-Do you want us to read your letter into the record, Mr. Navitsky. CHRIS NAVITSKY MR. NAVITSKY-I'll do it. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. MR. URRICO-Okay. "It has come to my attention just this morning that a meeting is to be held tonight 1/18/12 concerning the above variance. Our property on Seeyle Rd. is more than 500' feet from the marina so we were not notified by mail of this meeting. This subject is too important to all of Warner Bay residents, both sides of the Bay. The whole Bay could be affected by this variance if allowed, not just the people within the 500 foot range. Everyone realizes the size of boats has gotten larger as well as the number of boats and any changes to docks will affect the quality of the water. The Bay is relatively shallow especially in the area of the marina, and any movement will stir up mud, grass, Milfoil, and who knows what effect that will have on the fish. Larger boats when leaving the Marina already create larger wakes and the revving of the motors stir up mud. We cannot attend this meeting on such short notice, but would have if we were aware of it earlier, therefore, we think you should postpone or table any decision at this time and rethink the importance of this to all; of Warner Bay, not just the 500 foot neighbors. We feel the variance should be denied at this point. Respectively, Robert and Geraldine Middleton 119 Seelye Road Cleverdale, NY 12820" And I just was handed another one. "I am writing in regards to a Zoning Ordinance for J & D Marina, LLC. There is a public hearing scheduled for Jan. 18, 2012 at 7:00 P.M. This request impacts many people in the area where the notice was only sent to a few people where all people in Warner Bay are affected by this request. I would like to request at this time that this be postponed until all parties are able to present their concerns and the impact on the area. Mary Jane Marra 120 Seelye Rd. Queensbury, NY 12804" MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. MR. URRICO-1 have more. "We are writing this email in reference to the zoning meeting this evening. It seems like this is not a good time for meetings as half of our road are seasonal residents, and we did not receive adequate notice of this meeting. Our neighbors have informed us that the purpose of the meeting is to allow the marina at the end of the bay to expand to accommodate for larger boats, but we feel this would create more activity in our quiet bay than we would like. Our area pays a lot in taxes to live comfortably there, and we should be allowed to do that in peace. We would ask that the meeting be rescheduled to allow for most if not all of the residents to attend. If you have further questions please call us. Thank you, Dr. and Mrs. Joseph Guerra, 123 and 127 Seelye Road, Queensbury." I am the legal owner of two properties in Warner Bay. Addresses: 12 and 16 Fishing Hole Loop. I am writing to voice my concern over not having been contacted about this proposed variance which would impact our bay and to let it be known by all, that I am personally opposed to such changes. We continue to be negatively impacted by high boat traffic in a very small bay: the boats who do not respect the "no wake" zone, the fishermen who nudge right up to our dock and hook our dogs instead of fish, the noise produced by a rather large diesel party/house boat that has plagued our bay for 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/18/2012) the past few years, the boaters who think we are an offshoot of Sandy Bay and tie together with stereos blasting for hours upon end, the traffic in and out of Castaway's and the Lakewood Estates docks that are rented to non homeowners. The south end of Warner Bay that runs parallel to Rt. 9L is littered with old telephone poles that have been a hazard for years: when the lake is low, they are visible, but barely. I am not certain which aspect bothers me more: the fact that I was NOT notified of these proposed changes or the changes themselves that are being requested. I am hoping that my input will be presented at tonight's meeting. Sincerely Serena G. Boyd 6712 N. 58th PI Paradise Valley, AZ 85253" I'm not sure where she lives up at the lake. It doesn't say here. MR. JACKOSKI-I believe the Boyd family lives across the Bay. MR. URRICO-Okay. And I think there was one more. "At 9:00 pm Tuesday January 17, 2012 A concerned neighbor informed me of this very important meeting. I am unable to attend I have another meeting in Albany. Because you only sent notices to property owners within five hundred feet (500') we and a multitude of other property owners were not sent notices. This is not a simple issue that only affects properties within five hundred feet. This could have an impact on many more properties especially considering the commercial aspects of the change asked for (In Warner Bay as well as properties on Rockhurst and other properties in the Town of Queensbury on Pilot Knob). Whether I or Susan choose to support this project or not is irrelevant at this time. What is important is that all these parties deserve the courtesy to have an opportunity to review this. We ask respectfully that Area Variance No. 3-2012 be tabled at this time so property owners can be notified. Respectfully, Michael and Susan Kaidas 113 Seelye Rd. Cleverdale, NY 12820"And that is it. MR. JACKOSKI-Welcome. Hello. JERRY HAUSLER MR. HAUSLER-Good evening. KAREN HAUSLER MRS. HAUSLER-Good evening. Wow. I'm Karen Hausler. My husband Jerry, and we own 143 Seelye Road, which is the property immediately adjoining Castaway Marina, and we were here two years ago in an attempt to help separate our property from Seelye Road, and we moved our dock to distance ourselves from the Marina, and we moved our dock 20 feet away from the Marina to help basically with the traffic flow and to help also, well, also to improve our property. We did create a boathouse. The problem we have with the Marina expanding or having larger boats, we've had many close calls with swimmers out, you know, everybody swims off of a dock. It's a recreation area. The larger the boat, the more likely they are to even speed in the no wake zone, and we've had many times where we've had children out there, and we're not talking about letting them go out far. You're talking about people who are just a couple of feet away from the dock but some of these boats have literally hit our dock, have hit the boathouse within the last couple of years, and I'm very concerned with the possibility of larger boats being, actually having, or hitting a swimmer. The other problems we have are larger boats use more gasoline. We've had several instances where the gas hasn't been filled properly and there have actually been spills into the lake, and I'm very concerned about environmental problems with this and my third concern is larger boats would also mean more partiers or more people staying overnight on the boats, and while I don't mind, you know, there's a couple of families that you know stay there all year and they're nice, quiet people, there've been many times where at midnight and two in the morning you hear loud parties coming from one or more of the boats, and that's a major concerns, and if there are going to be larger beamed boats, that means there'll be more boats with sleeping facilities, which would mean more overnight stays there. MR. HAUSLER-As you know, two years ago we were here and you were very cooperative in allowing us to move away from the Marina. Part of that reason was our marina was partially destroyed by people backing in, repeatedly, where we are, in proximity to Castaway Marina's launch is very close, and we thought this would help us out, but now what we're finding out is instead of people taxiing one behind another, people just take the sharp angle and just whiz right by our place, and we can't let our kids swim out there without one of us being out there and we have, you know, young adults, and they're even concerned. The problem is when the boats are high enough, you can't see down, and you can't see a swimmer, and I have already gone to the Lake George Commission and asked them what can we do about a buoy to protect an at least identify where the barrier is and let boaters see that there's a potential of swimmer being there. So I'm quite concerned about the safety issue, and that's why I'm here tonight. MRS. HAUSLER-Just the one last thing I would say is in addition, I would hope that any repairs would also be done, because I've noticed that the state of their decking has deteriorated in the 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/18/2012) last couple of years as well, and I don't know if this was just waiting to be done all at once, if there was an approval, but it's looking, it doesn't seem to meet the criteria of the rest of the neighborhood there. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you for your comments. MRS. HAUSLER-Thank you. MR. HAUSLER-Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Is there anyone else in the audience this evening who'd like to address the Board? Yes, come on up. LINDA MC COLLISTER MS. MC COLLISTER-Hi. My name is Linda McCollister. I live on 103 Seelye Road. I've been there for 40 years and I love Warner Bay and I love Lake George. This, I only myself found out about this Zoning Board meeting last night, because I wasn't within 500 feet of the project or I would have been here. Anyway, I may be repeating myself, but this project definitely affects everyone who has property in Warner Bay. It is not fair, whether it is a law or not, to only notify people who are 500 feet from the project. Also this is a commercial project in a residential area, and not a single family home, and I feel strongly that as a taxpayer it is unfair not to have been sent a notice of this (lost word) plans, and I've known John for years, and I think very highly of him, but I just wish the law could change about this 500, if nothing else people need to be notified, because this Warner Bay, it's the whole Bay. It's going up Pilot Knob Road, going over into Rockhurst area. I mean, there's a lot of people that would be wanting to know about this project. Also, as you know, Warner Bay is very shallow at the location of the Marina, and I'm also concerned about the ecology of the Bay, because it's very precious to us. Many people drink the water. I do, and how can we keep our Bay clean and fresh if the boat traffic keeps increasing? There already is high boat traffic in the Bay now, and many boaters refuse to use the no wake zone. Also every weekend during the summer our beach is full of debris, both plants that have been kind of cut in half and they float in, and also other miscellaneous items that you don't need to know about. So my hope is that the Zoning Board of Appeals will look very closely at these variances and think of the welfare of our beautiful lake before they okay a project, and I thank you for your time. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else this evening who would like to address? Mr. Navitsky. CHRIS NAVITSKY MR. NAVITSKY-Good evening. Chris Navitsky, Lake George Water Keeper. The Waterkeeper recognizes the reduction of five boat slips with the application proposing dock width modifications, which would appear to benefit the lake by decreasing boat traffic. However, there concern about the potential impacts of larger boats, especially in the near shore area where some modifications are proposed. Alternative location for berth expansion should be considered to reduce potential environmental impacts. The application proposes to modify the western dock slips along the southern pier in close proximity to the shoreline to accommodate boats with larger berths. Information should be provided regarding the existing depths of water and the drafts of the larger boats. There is concern of potential scouring of the lake bed, which could result in re-suspension material and nutrients into the water column. It is recommended to reconsider enlarging dock slips with greater depths of water with a greater setback to the shoreline. Two points of note regarding Warner Bay for consideration which were in the Lake George Recreation Study Plan by the Lake George Park Commission, 2005 are: Warner Bay is considered as a bay with high density boat use and categorized as a "Bay where Boat Carrying Capacity is an Issue"; and, Warner Bay averages 51 docks per mile of shoreline, which places the bay in the highest density category. This indicates high boat use in Warner Bay, which can have negative impacts. It is our opinion this justifies the consideration of berthing larger boats with the greatest separation from the shoreline and greater depths of water to reduce the potential negative impacts. There's also concern about the navigation issues with larger boats, and I think the local residents are more adept at speaking that than we would because we're not familiar with navigation in that area. Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-Can I ask you a question before you go? That woman brought up people staying overnight on their boats at that marinas. Is that a common occurrence at the marinas on the lake now, to your knowledge? MR. NAVITSKY-I think it's more common than people are aware. 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/18/2012) MR. UNDERWOOD-Because I mean I think the issue would be if we're going to go to bigger and bigger boats with accommodations for sleeping overnight and things like that, it would be imperative that we recognize that as a major use issue, especially in a residential zone. I mean, I think that would be important for us to reflect upon that. MR. NAVITSKY-There's always been the debate, and I think it's been raised in the Town of Queensbury, about Class A Marinas even, you know, or a residential home that has a dock and has two slips that are rented becomes a commercial use, and does that require a Use Variance for commercial use in residential neighbors. MR. UNDERWOOD-Thank you. MR. NAVITSKY-Thanks. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Is there anyone else? I had the suspicion. Mr. Salvador. JOHN SALVADOR MR. SALVADOR-Good evening. My name is John Salvador, and as you know I own and operate a marina on Dunham's Bay. Mr. Brown, could you put that photo up of the aerial photo of the Marina. It's going to be no mean trick to maneuver a large boat between those boats that are docked there and the shore, and I dare say, you know, a slip 10, 11 feet wide is going to accommodate a boat in the order of 26, 28, even 30 feet in beam. Those usually have twin engines, and I suspect, and I think the experience will show, at least ours is the same experience, these large boats become live aboard quarters. With the price of gasoline today and the restrictions on the lake, people tend to just use them as a floating camp, and I can tell you when these people arrive at the lake, even though they have onboard toilets, the first thing they do is hit the john, and even if they go out on the lake, that's the first thing they do before they leave port, and when they come back, that's the next thing they do. So these large boats that have live aboard facilities, some of them even have ice machines today. You can expect a significant increase on the load of that facility's septic system, and that should be looked into. My experience is that you simply don't need a permit to rearrange mooring stakes. We do it all the time. I've never had to get a permit for it. The DEC doesn't regulate a pile unless it's a square foot in area, and these are only six by six's I think. So it's not necessary to get involved in approving the relocating of mooring stakes. They're not regulated by the Commission. They're not defined in our Code, and there's no relationship between the length of a dock and the position of a mooring stake. As I say, we've pulled stakes to accommodate large beam boats, between two, what would normally be two slips, and when the boat left the marina, we put the stake back in to put regular size boats in. That should not require a variance. The question of local government's jurisdiction on the navigable waterways is looming big in the State right now and there are a couple of prime cases in the courts on Lake George at this time, one of them has been before you folks. That's the Hoffman case. The centerpiece of Hoffman's defense is that the Town has no jurisdiction on the navigable waterway. Now I've been mentioning that many times, and that case just doesn't seem to want to get (lost words). How old is it now, five years, five years? And those people are allowed to continue to use their dock. There's been a recent court decision involving Lake Placid and the Supreme Court decided that the local government does not have jurisdiction on the navigable waterway. Now the foundation of all these cases goes back to a 1971 Court of Appeals decision in this regard, and we just don't want to pay any attention to it. Closer to home, in the Town of Lake George, there's a similar issue where the Town denied an applicant a permit to build a boat dock and the applicant took the town to court, it's in Supreme Court right now, before Judge Krogmann, and he's made an interim decision in this regard that favors the applicant. Final decision has not been made, but the centerpiece of the applicant's claim is the town does not have jurisdiction on the navigable waterway. With regard to Lake George Park Commission regulations, we, in conforming to their regulations, have been forced to obtain an OGS easement for the occupation of the bed of the lake that is not in our ownership, that is in the ownership of the State of New York, and we had to obtain that easement. The Harris Bay Yacht Club did the same thing. The Harris Bay Yacht Club has an easement to have their docks on the bed of the lake that is not in their ownership, and I think this applicant should be made to do the same thing, is to obtain an easement. That's in the regulations, and is referred to in our regulations as we refer to the Lake George Park Commission regulations. I think what you have to take a look at is, and the neighbors have brought this up, you know, it used to be, if I could, 30 years ago the ideal boater was a person who owned one of these smaller boats you see there, 23 feet long, arrived at the lake early in the morning with his family and a cooler, got on the boat and went out for the day, used the toilets out on the islands, okay, came back at the end of the day, docked the boat, took the cooler, put it in the car and went home. Now they want TV, telephones. So that's what it is. You have to face the fact that there has to be infrastructure available to support what's going on on the water, and I'm very concerned about the septic system in this regard. 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/18/2012) MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Mr. Salvador. Is there anyone else in the audience this evening who'd like to address the Board on this particular project? Seeing no one else, we will leave the public hearing open for the time being. If you could try to address a few of the comments made by the public that would be great. MR. MATTHEWS-I certainly would. First of all I have an easement for the water under the docks. It was part of my deed when I bought the property and that easement encompasses all of the permanent dock fixtures which we are not touching. You can see it on the map. MR. JACKOSKI-You are touching some of the fingers that stick out? MR. MATTHEWS-No. It encompasses the walkways. MR. JACKOSKI-Aren't you moving four of the fingers closest to the shore on the left? MR. MATTHEWS-Correct. MR. JACKOSKI-And those aren't considered in the permit? MR. MATTHEWS-That easement that is there encompasses all of the boat area also. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. MR. MATTHEWS-Number Two, one of the first things that I did when I purchased the Marina back in 1978, '98, was to put in a whole brand new septic system. What was there before was a holding tank, 25 feet from the lake. I removed it and put in a sealed tank, which is my pump chamber. I pump all of my effluent up to the top of the hill to the, right where the arrow is. I own the whole, that lot where all the woods are also which is undeveloped, except for the area where the septic system is. I dug. I went down several feet before we hit ledge, way below the distance you needed. Fortunately up in that area the ledge slopes the opposite direction from the lake. So I had Mr. Hutchins design a septic system that would accommodate the use of the marina, and it's worked perfectly. One of my next project's was to install complete men's room, ladies room, with shower facilities and a separate transient restroom for the people that just come in to launch their boats. So we have adequate restroom and facilities as far as that is concerned. Works fine, no problems, no blockages, no backups, no septic tank guy coming every twice a week to pump it out. As far as the notices are concerned, I can't, all I know is is when my neighbor did his dock a couple of years ago, I didn't get a notice, and I'm right next door. I didn't know what was happening until it started going on, but the dock that was there was an illegal dock to begin with, and it should have met the separation. MR. JACKOSKI-That's okay. Let's keep focused on this one if we can. MR. MATTHEWS-Okay. MR. JACKOSKI-Can you talk a little bit about the change of use of the boats that are currently berthed there versus the bigger boats that probably have better sleeping quarters? MR. MATTHEWS-The reason we're doing this is because a 20 foot Cobalt is 9 feet wide. A boat like that would go on the eastern side in the area closest to the road. We wouldn't put a 28 foot twin engine boat in there. They wouldn't fit. I mean, I bought the place as it is. So we're trying to make use of what we have. We're not expanding. We're reducing the number of boats by five boats. Only to make the boats fit. We probably don't have five families at the most that stay on their boats for the weekend. We used to have a live aboard a couple of years ago, a man, and a lady, but they left. They're no longer there. The only people that do stay on their boats would be weekends. I don't have anybody that stays on their boat. Times have changed. Back five; ten years ago we would have 10 or 15 people that stayed there for the whole weekend. They'd picnic at our picnic area that we set up next to the water. We don't see that anymore. The people come. They get in their boats, they go out, and they do their picnicking up on the islands or whatever and come back and leave. I mean, I'm amazed at the numbers of people that stay actually on their boat at our docks, for one reason or another. Ask me questions. MR. JACKOSKI-Is the diesel party boat docked at your place? The reference to the party boat. MR. MATTHEWS-There is a houseboat, if that's what you're calling a party boat. It's a family. They have three young kids. They come up maybe six times during the summer when they're on vacation. When they're there, they go out and they camp in Paradise Bay or they anchor out some place in a bay. If they come back and sleep on their boat Sunday night and get up and go to work in the morning on Monday morning, that's probably what they do, but they spend very few time, and it's a gas engine. We don't have any diesel engines on our dock. 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/18/2012) MR. KUHL-Do you limit the length of boats in your facility or will you take anybody that comes? MR. MATTHEWS-We haven't limited the length of the boats, but our docks really aren't built to hold really long boats because of the way the posts are, and what I'm doing isn't going to really accommodate a boat any longer. It's going to make what's there more substantial. I mean, we have 28 foot cruisers, 36 foot cruisers. They've been there. I mean, the majority of our boats are 20 to 26 feet, 25 feet, runabouts, day boats. As far as the channel on the southernmost portion, the second year that I was there, realizing that we couldn't use those docks that were in there because it was so shallow, I applied for the permits. I came to the Board here and got my permit and went to DEC and got permits and I dredged that channel up that side. So every dock has at least three and a half to four feet of water and that channel is probably five feet deep in there. Now every once in a while a stump will float in. We'll have to pick it out, something like that, because we get debris that floats in there from storms and what not, but I haven't done any other dredging since then. So we have made efforts to accommodate what we have, and improve it to that point, but we haven't grown, and we're not growing now, and I have not had any complaints from the DEC about issues with traffic, and I don't know about the people that are cutting in front of docks. I'm there 99% of the time. I take care of most of the launches. I see who's coming and going. We have not had any fuel spills. We're inspected regularly by the EPA, the Park Commission, DEC, whatever. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other comments at this time from the Board? MR. UNDERWOOD-We don't have any kind of a marked channel down the Bay or anything either out there? I mean, it's too wide to do anything like that I would imagine. MR. MATTHEWS-Never had an issue with it. MR. UNDERWOOD-That's what I thought. Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-It is a five mile an hour zone. MR. MATTHEWS-And it is a five mile an hour zone, and if we see people disobeying it, we reprimand them, we tell them, look it, because we do get people that come in and day launch that don't know, and, you know, you'll mention it to them and it really won't register until people on their docks going out the Bay are yelling at them which I don't blame them. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. I'd like to, at this time the public hearing is still open. I'd like to poll the Board. So we'll start at Roy's end. MR. URRICO-Well, to me, this is not an expansion of the dock. It's movement, it's creating more space within, not without, outside of the dock, and I think they're making some intelligent decisions here to not only accommodate what they see coming into their place of business, but also to alleviate some problems that would result without making this expansion. So I think it's a shrewd business move, and I don't think it's going to create extra problems. I think it's going to minimize the problems they're already seeing. So I would be in favor of this. MR. JACKOSKI-Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Yes, I would agree with Mr. Urrico. I think going from 80 to 75 is a good move. MR. JACKOSKI-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-1 think we have to look at it in a practical sense, and we realize that there are many other issues on Lake George that are tertiary to what we're doing here, and in this case here we're going to be lowering the number of boat slips that are available. I think that the environmental concerns, as voiced by the Water Keeper and other people, about the southernmost docks that are going to be changed, everyone recognizes as you go into the Bay that it gets shallower and you're at the apex of the Bay there. If things are turned up and it gets muddy, it's going to stay primarily in that zone there. I don't think that's a concern that it's going to migrate further out into the Bay because the natural wind flow from that is usually coming in the Bay there especially when you have the big winds, and I think in a practical sense the extension of the docks, as you propose, to protect those boats that are way out on the end of the, far end of the pier there facing east, that's a practical sense to do that, too. I mean, if I was a marina operator, I would ask to do the same thing because it's just commonsense. The impacts I don't think are going to be substantial. I think it'll be an improvement. There'll be a few less boats on the Bay, and when people go in and out of the Bay, people are impatient to get out to open water, and they're the ones that horse it up and gun it to get out of there sooner. So, I mean, it's not a problem that the marina has created. It's always been there as long as that 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/18/2012) marina's been there, and it would be nice if people recognized what they did as they're out on the lake and everybody participates and does things properly, but that's usually not the case with humanity. As a side issue, though, I think that the people who spend overnights, as you say, it's only five people that currently spend overnights there, but if that were to change, I think that the Town would be concerned because you are adjacent to property owners who do pay high taxes and do appreciate their privacy, recognizing that they live next to a marina, they bought the property, so that comes with it to, the territory, but at the same time, I think that, you know, some kind of a sign saying, you know, no noise after 11 p.m. or 10 p.m. or something, you know, that's something that could be policed up a little bit, if it becomes a problem. It doesn't seem like it is a problem to me at the present time. So I would be in favor of the project. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Rick? MR. GARRAND-1 think it's incumbent upon the business owner to have the least impact that he possibly can on the surrounding property owners, but also he has a right to run his business in this Bay. His impact, from what I can tell, is going to be less, with less boat slips. As Mr. Underwood stated, also, it's very important that he's responsible for policing up any debris and also controlling what might be going on out on the dock after hours, so that the people of the neighborhood can have a peaceable enjoyment of their properties. With that said, I would be in favor of this. MR. JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes. I agree with everything that's been said before. I come to find out that anything over 20 feet has got in excess of an eight foot beam. So, because I was wondering why he was doing it so close to shore, but you're making it safer, better for boats, you know, safer for the people that do it, and it just seems like all the negative comments that were read into the record, maybe people should know you're reducing it by five, and not increasing it by five. So I'd be in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Brian? MR. CLEMENTS-1 agree with the rest of the Board members here. This is not an expansion. I think there's going to be a small (lost word) boat traffic. So I'd be in favor also. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. So, I've polled the Board. I'm going to close the public hearing at this time. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. JACKOSKI-Would anyone like to put forth a motion? MR. CLEMENTS-I'll do it. MR. JACKOSKI-Brian. Thank you. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 3-2012 J & D MARINA, LLC, Introduced by Brian Clements who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: Warner Bay. Granting the following relief: 190.9 feet from the 40 foot dock length requirement as per Section 179-5-060. Finding that no undesirable changes to the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties will be created. No increase in boat traffic or the number of slips will result. The applicant does not have reasonable alternatives not involving the Area Variance. The boats are being built and purchased with wider beams and that to keep and attract patrons; slip width needs to be accommodated. Number Three, That the variance is not deemed to be substantial reasoning the 4.6% increase in dock length over what exists at this well established enterprise is not excessive and compares to other commercial activities, the large percentage relative to the Ordinance aside. Number Four, the variance will have no adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. The reasoning is the anticipated physical changes are modest relative to the size and orientation of the complex located at the very end of the Bay. Number Five, that the applicant's difficulty is considered to be self-created. The choice to invest in slip modifications is their own business decision, and motion to approve. Duly adopted this 18th day of January, 2012, by the following vote: MR. JACKOSKI-When's the timeframe for actually completing the work? 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/18/2012) MR. MATTHEWS-Well, if I can get all of the necessary permits, I would like to do it while there's ice, but we haven't had much luck in getting ice yet. So who knows, and if we can't do it this year, I'd like to do it next winter. Because the easiest way to do the work that I have to do is on the ice. MR. JACKOSKI-Right. Okay. AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Clements, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-But just so you know, I always vote against docks that project so far into the water. So, yes. USE VARIANCE NO. 4-2012 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED CELLCO PARTNERSHIP d/b/a VERIZON WIRELESS (CONTINUED) MR. JACKOSKI-It is property owned by the Town of Queensbury, Tax Parcel ID Number 295.6- 1-1. There is a public hearing, and it is an Unlisted SEQRA. MR. BROWN-There's a SEQRA resolution already. MR. JACKOSKI-Correct, but they still need relief. Well, yes, there's nobody here, right, Craig? There's nobody here anyway. MR. BROWN-No, they left when you guys did the, allowed the Planning Board to be Lead Agency. So you guys can't do anything until SEQRA's done. MR. JACKOSKI-So we're going to table this. MR. BROWN-Table, yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Wonderful. Any particular date? MR. UNDERWOOD-Whenever they get back to us. MR. BROWN-1 think they're on the Planning Board meeting. Give it a February date, if you could, maybe the second meeting in February. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Can I have a motion to table this application to the second meeting in February? MOTION TO TABLE USE VARIANCE NO. 4-2012 CELLCO PARTNERSHIP D/B/A VERIZON WIRELESS, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Underwood: Tabled to the second meeting in February. Duly adopted this 18th day of January, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Clements, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE AREA VARIANCE NO. 5-2012 SEAR TYPE II GREGG LABER, GMS REALTY, LLC AGENT(S) SAME AS APPLICANT OWNER(S) GMS REALTY, LLC ZONING CLI- COMMERCIAL LIGHT INDUSTRIAL LOCATION 319 CORINTH ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A HANDICAP RAMP FOR PROPOSED OFFICE LOCATED AT NORTHWEST CORNER OF PARCEL. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM FRONT SETBACK, TRAVEL CORRIDOR AND SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE CLI ZONE. FURTHER, RELIEF REQUESTED FOR EXPANSION OF NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE. CROSS REFERENCE SP 8-12, SP 64-11, SP 56-11, SP 7-11, SUB 10-10M, SP 56-10 WARREN CO. PLANNING REFERRAL JANUARY 11, 2012 LOT SIZE 3.94 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.16- 2-4.2 SECTION § 179-9 GREGG LABER, PRESENT 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/18/2012) STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 5-2012, Gregg Laber, GMS Realty, LLC, Meeting Date: January 18, 2012 "Project Location: 319 Corinth Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a handicap ramp for proposed office located at northwest corner of parcel. The applicant is also seeking approval for the placement of racking equipment associated with the wholesale/retail electrical use for the storing of conduit to the rear of the parcel. Further to the racking equipment, the applicant proposes an approximate 2,200 square foot conduit storage area locate to the south of the proposed racks. Relief Required: Nature of Area Variance: Parcel will require area variances as follows: 1. Front setback - Relief request for 17.7 feet from the 75 foot Front Setback requirement for the proposed handicap access ramp. 2. Travel corridor - Relief request for 17.7 feet from the 75 foot Travel Corridor Setback requirement for the proposed handicap access ramp. 3. Side setback - Relief request for 4.5 feet from the 30 foot side setback requirement for the proposed handicap access ramp. 4. Expansion of a non-conforming structure - This variance will need to be approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals. 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 appear limited due to the location of the existing structure and lot limitations. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 17.7 feet or 24% relief from the 75 foot front setback and the 75 foot Travel Corridor setback requirement may be considered minor to moderate relative to the ordinance. The request for 4.5 feet or 15% relief from the 30 foot side setback requirement may be considered minor relative to the ordinance. Expansion of a non-conforming structure must be approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals. 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 may be anticipated. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self created. Parcel History(construction/site plan/variance, AV 5-2012: Pending SP 57-2011: Multi-tenant use to existing on-site office space. Change and expansion of use in the CLI zone requires Planning Board review and approval Approved 8/23/2011 SP 7-2011: Modification to existing approved site plan. Approved 2/15/2011 AV 49-2010: 4 lot subdivision - Relief requested from front, side, and travel corridor setback requirements Approved 9/22/2010 SP 56-2010: Wholesale & retail electrical sales Approved 9/30/2010 SUB 10-2010: 4 lot subdivision Approved 9/30/2010 Staff comments: The project before the board is associated with properties owned by GMS Realty and leased to Green Mountain Electric. Currently the 915 square foot building to be utilized as an office is vacant. SEQR Status: 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/18/2012) Type II-no further action required" MR. URRICO-The Planning Board did make a recommendation, and they did not identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal, and that was passed unanimously on January 17, 2012. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Welcome. Do you have anything else to add to that very lengthy description? MR. LABER-Not that I can think of. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Any Board members have any questions concerning the project? MR. URRICO-The handicap access ramp is something that you need to put in, right? It's required. MR. LABER-Yes. If we could have been renovating the house and have it rented now, as is, then we would have done that, but it's been a requirement. So we went through the process of getting an engineer involved to design it. MR. KUHL-Have you got a tenant in there? Have you got a tenant for it? MR. LABER-No. We don't. We haven't advertised it. It's going to need some work. We're going to have to replace the roof. We have to do some work with the sheetrock inside, because I think the roof's leaked over the years. So it's going to be a fair amount of work to get it up to speed. So we wanted to get approvals first and then start working on it this spring. MR. KUHL-Where's the racks going to go? MR. UNDERWOOD-In the back. MR. KUHL-In the back of this building, or the back of the property? MR. LABER-No. I think that might be the back of the property, right there. MR. BROWN-Where is the ramp going to go, or the racks? MR. UNDERWOOD-The racks. MR. GARRAND-Do you guys sell electrical supplies, or? MR. LABER-Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-It's just Glens Falls Electric moved down to the south end of Town from up at my end of Town. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other questions from Board members? Any other questions? There is a public hearing scheduled for this evening. I'll open the public hearing. Is there anyone in the audience who'd like to address? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. JACKOSKI-Seeing no one in the audience that was willing to address, is there any written comment? MR. URRICO-No written comment. MR. JACKOSKI-No written comment on the project. Any discussion by Board members? Do I need to poll the Board? MR. URRICO-No. MR. JACKOSKI-Great. Can I have a motion? I'll I close the public hearing, by the way. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. UNDERWOOD-I'll make the motion. 31 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/18/2012) MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 5-2012 GREGG LABER, GMS REALTY, LLC, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: 319 Corinth Road. Applicant proposes a handicap ramp for proposed office located at the northwest corner of the parcel. The applicant is also seeking approval for the placement of racking equipment associated with the wholesale retail electrical use for the storing of conduit to the rear of the parcel. Further to the racking equipment the applicant proposes an approximate 2,200 square foot conduit storage area to be located to the south of the proposed racks. As far as the amount of relief required, the parcel will require Area Variances as follows. Front setback relief, 17.7 feet from the 75 foot front setback requirement for the proposed handicap access ramp. Travel Corridor relief requested for 17.7 feet from the 75 foot Travel Corridor setback requirement for the proposed handicap access ramp. Side setback relief request for 4.5 feet from the 30 foot side setback requirements for the proposed handicap access ramp, and four, expansion of a nonconforming structure. This variance will need to be approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals. The nature of the requests seems, in a practical sense, practical, because the building is already pre-existing out there by the road. The handicap ramp is a requirement by law. So they have to add that on, and where they propose it is a practical place to put it. As far as the racking equipment in the back, that's also necessary for easy access for loading and unloading purposes, and none of the requests, even though it's minimal, I would say most all the requests are minimal requests. It's not anything out of the ordinary that we haven't seen before. So I would move for its approval. Duly adopted this 18th day of January, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Clements, Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Congratulations. MR. LABER-Thank you. NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 1-2012 SEAR TYPE N/A JOHN SALVADOR OWNER(S) ELEANOR SEELYE ZONING WR LOCATION 12 JOSHUA ROCK ROAD; NORTH ON BAY ROAD TO ROUTE 9L APPELLANT IS APPEALING A PORTION OF THE NOVEMBER 30, 2011 STAFF NOTES RELATIVE TO AREA VARIANCE NO. 63-2011, ANDREW WEST. CROSS REFERENCE AV 63-2011 WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE N/A TAX MAP NO. 239.19-1-9 SECTION 179-16-090 JOHN SALVADOR, PRESENT MR. SALVADOR-Point of order, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to talk about the issue of alternate members. You'll recall at your last meeting when you voted on this application that Mr. Garrand was present and Mr. Koskinas sat in the meeting and voted on this. You recall that? MR. JACKOSKI-I do, yes. MR. SALVADOR-Okay. The issue of alternate members, Town Code Chapter 179 Article 16 Section 179-16-070 speaks to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Pursuant to 267 of Town Law, the Town of Queensbury has created a Zoning Board of Appeals consisting of seven members appointed by the Board in such manner and for such term as provided by the Town Law. The Zoning Board of Appeals shall have all the powers and to perform all the duties prescribed by statute, etc., etc. The Zoning Board of Appeals shall have appellate jurisdiction, etc., etc. Pursuant to Article 14 of this Chapter, Appeals, and Variances, Town Law Section 267-11 of Town Law, alternate members may be established for the Zoning Board of Appeals. That's what our Town Code says. Town Law speaks to Zoning Board, to alternate members by saying, establish alternate Zoning Board of Appeals member's positions for purposes of substituting for a member in the event such member is unable to participate because of a conflict of interest. The only way an alternate can sit and vote is if one of you members has a conflict of interest. Absenteeism does not qualify an alternate member to sit on the Zoning Board, or for any other reason. Only conflict of interest, and you, Mr. Garrand, did not announce that you had a conflict of interest that night. In fact, you sat for all. MR. GARRAND-I sat for the whole meeting, Mr. Salvador. MR. SALVADOR-Yes, but not because you had a conflict of interest. 32 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/18/2012) MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Regardless, can you tell me how this is relevant to your Appeal that we're hearing this evening? MR. SALVADOR-Okay. I wanted to mention that. MR. JACKOSKI-But, I mean, if you'd like, are you suggesting that you would like Mr. Garrand to not attend here? MR. SALVADOR-No, I'm just pointing that out. MR. JACKOSKI-We understand, and what we will suggest to you going forward is we will address conflict of interest, but I have to take exception. I believe that the Town has the ability to also utilize alternates when there is an absence, and I believe that is an election that they can make, but I will refer to Town Counsel and Staff to confirm that. So it may not just be for a conflict of interest. Craig, are you aware of that? MR. BROWN-I'm not, but I can certainly find the answer. MR. JACKOSKI-I believe that we can elect to also do it, in Town Code, and the statute, if there's an absence. MR. SALVADOR-All right. I have the statute here. MR. JACKOSKI-That's okay. Let's move on with what we're trying to accomplish this evening. MR. SALVADOR-All right. Okay. Good evening, Mrs. Hunt, and gentlemen of the Board. This Appeal is not an appeal from Staff Notes. I would like to make that clear from the outset. MR. JACKOSKI-First off, Mr. Salvador, can you help us understand if you have standing? MR. SALVADOR-1 will get to that in my arguments. MR. JACKOSKI-Well, I'd like to address it with the Board at this time. Given the circumstances of this project and our past appeals, etc., are we comfortable in moving forward that Mr. Salvador has standing? MR. UNDERWOOD-1 would just say, in a (lost word) having heard that last one that we just did with the marina, that we just went through, and I think everybody picked up on the fact that people are notified within a certain distance of any project if they're going to be directly affected, and I think the statute reflects the fact that most people that would be affected by any project, anywhere in Town would be within that limited distance area, but I think the last issue we just did there with the people and some of the commentary that came in via the mail that Roy read into the record there was appropriate. Lake George is kind of a different situation, and when we're talking about a bay like Warner Bay, in the instance of that last one there, certainly if there's a marina at the end of the bay or something like that and all that boat traffic that's generated is going in and out of the bay everybody is impacted who lives on that bay, whether they live within 500 feet of it or whether they live way out at the end of the bay, 1,000 feet or 1500 feet at the end of Rockhurst even, you know, so I think that we have to keep in mind that when people appear before us and they have an interest in the outcome of a project, there must be some practical sense that they're not just doing it out of malice or, you know, malfeasance or something like that. I think that Mr. Salvador, because of his interest in the area where he lives, which is at the end of the bay here, he may not be directly physically affected by this project, but anything that occurs in that bay has an effect on anyplace else in that bay. I mean, it's not limited. Ron and I live on a lake, and of course when somebody does a project on our lake we're always concerned no matter what it is, you know, that it be done and done properly. So I think that for us to limit the public and say that, you live on the other end of Town and we're going to put a nuclear waste reprocessing facility here on the other end of Town, you're not going to be affected like that because you don't live within 500 feet of it would be silly for us to assume, but I'm just saying. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So are we okay? We're all in agreement that he has standing and we can move forward, right? MR. URRICO-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So we're okay with standing and now if you could address the concern that it is the Staff Notes. MR. SALVADOR-Okay. Thank you. 33 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/18/2012) MR. JACKOSKI-Sure. MR. SALVADOR-This appeal is not an appeal from Staff Notes, as has been portrayed by the Zoning Administrator. Contrary to the Zoning Administrator's stated position, this Appeal deals with the Zoning Administrator's erroneous interpretation of the setback relief required by the applicant that it is 20 feet, and that the 20 feet is said to represent a 100% variance from a property boundary line common with the Joshua Rock Corporation property identified as 239.19- 1-8. Again, this Appeal deals with an erroneous interpretation by the Zoning Administrator. The exact time and place of this erroneous interpretation is unknown, but must have been determined by the Zoning Administrator sometime between the submission date of the Van Dusen and Steves map of a survey of the Seelye Estate, and the framing of projects AV 63- 2011 and SP 66-2011, that is between November 23, 2011 and the respective public hearing dates in December 2011. Evidence in written form of his erroneous determination did not appear until the issuance of Staff Notes shortly before the public hearing conducted on November 30, 2011. The Zoning Administrator has turned my reference to his Staff Notes from that of evidence to that of fact. His erroneous determination is a fact. Even if he never issued his so called Staff Notes. I appeared before the Planning Board public hearing to have that Board stay its proceeding on December the 15th because Town Law provides for such a stay upon the filing of an appeal from the Zoning Administrator's determination. My plea for that stay was not honored because Mr. Hunsinger, the Chairman, was in possession of confidential advice in the form of an opinion from Town Counsel, quote, Mr. Hunsinger, we do have a comment from Counsel relating to the comments that Mr. Salvador made about the need for a stay. Relative to this Appeal, I received Staff Notes which concludes with the statement; if it is found that the Appellant has standing please refer to the Town Counsel memo on this subject. Staff Notes are not appealable to the Zoning Board of Appeals. It appears that Town Counsel's memo, referenced by the Zoning Administrator, is the same Town Counsel comment which was in Mr. Hunsinger's possession during the December 15th public hearing that is Staff Notes are not appealable to the Zoning Board of Appeals. As you know, there is absolutely no mention in Town Law of a criteria for taking an appeal from Staff Notes. Why, then, would anyone attempt such an appeal in the first place? I am appealing an erroneous determination, something that is mathematically incorrect. An algebraic expression for the method of calculating percentage of setback relief is not included in the Zoning Ordinance. Therefore there is nothing to cite as the basis for proper determination of any degree of setback relief. The application for a Notice of Appeal asks you for the section of the Zoning Ordinance you're appealing from. Well, there's nothing in the Zoning Ordinance that addresses how you calculate setback relief. If, however, we do define it as the percentage of setback relief is equal to 100 times the distance from the location of a structure to the allowed location divided by the allowable setback, it works in every single case. Substitute the numbers in that expression, it works for everything, and when you do it in this case, okay, it's 100 times 27.1 divided by 20 is 135%, and that's the degree of relief that should have been talked about and granted. You granted relief on the basis of it being only 100, and every one of you complained about the fact that it was very substantial. That's in the record. It is also known that the extreme southerly point of the finished U-shaped supported boathouse wharf will encroach a total of 7.1 feet onto the neighboring property to the south, which is the one titled in the Joshua Rock Corporation. The Board's agenda for this evening, prepared by the Zoning Administrator, suddenly names Eleanor Seelye as the owner of TP 239.19-1-9. This conflicts with the County's records which show that the Joshua Rock Corporation is the owner. It is known that Eleanor Seelye died on December 17, 1982. How could she own anything? At which time whatever interest she possessed ceased to exist as an operation of law. She had a life estate in this property, the Mellowstone. She had a life estate, and that's, she only has an interest until the day she dies, and then evaporates. We're still carrying in the record that she owns the property. Between December 1999 and the date of death of Elwyn E. Seelye in December '82, her ownership interest in Mellowstone consisted of a life estate granted to her by her husband, Elwyn E. Seelye. As an operation of law, her interest in Mellowstone evaporated upon her death in 1982. Now, my concern with all of this is the lousy records we have. County, Town, Planning Department, nothing is consistent. How can you make an intelligent decision on something if you don't have a good record? The uncertified, undated, and anonymous abstract of the Mellowstone title was pro offered by Miss Sharon Davies as early as May in 2011. By their own submission, I'm quoting, by their own submission, and I have it here, and I don't have to read it, you've heard it before. There is no question that Eleanor Seelye predeceased Edward Seelye, and of course then the title goes to Dr. Edward E. Seelye. Now I have been trying to access the records in Westchester County where their wills were probated, and I think I mentioned to you before, they're not available because they've been sent for microfilming, and no one up in this part of the country can understand why it takes so long, but I guess when you hear it from their side, they take one full year of probate cases and send them for microfilming. Now in a County like Westchester, that's thousands of cases, okay, and it takes a long time, and I've been told by the Deputy Clerk that it could take as long as eight months. 34 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/18/2012) MR. JACKOSKI-But, Mr. Salvador, how can we go back to your Appeal and try to understand why you're appealing, what harm you have encountered personally or in property, so that we can better understand how to move forward? I mean, I think it's important to address how has the current project harmed you, personally or by property. MR. SALVADOR-1 have spent many, many years trying to sort out these matters that go on, and I have raised issues that have been silently addressed. The issue of the Town boundaries. The issue of the Town boundaries. The County says its one thing. The Town says it's another. MR. JACKOSKI-But how can this Board help you in those matters? MR. SALVADOR-Recognize that there's inconsistency. Sir, you don't have to make a decision at the first instance of hearing something. Take it under advisement. Search it out. Get your questions answered. MR. JACKOSKI-But what you're asking us to do in regard to, for example, docks and wharfs within the Town of Bolton or the Town of Queensbury is something that has been consistently done for I don't know how long. For us to change that. I don't know what you're trying to get at for us to do. MR. SALVADOR-1 don't expect you to be able to change it, but you can get to the people who are responsible for this and get it corrected, that's all. MR. JACKOSKI-If it needs correcting. MR. SALVADOR-If it needs correcting. MR. JACKOSKI-So, again, we'll go back to this Appeal. How do we address, for this particular parcel, for this particular Appeal that you've made, how do we have harm to your person or your property? MR. SALVADOR-This is one more example, this is one more example of the many I have brought up over the years, and you've heard them all, of an inadequate basis on which you can make a decision, and it's the way the projects are framed. To have a project come before you for a variance that lists two lots is bizarre. I've never heard of such a thing. When the project description that was before you for the determination of the variance listed two properties, it listed the Mellowstone property and the one to the south. Well, how does this make any sense? It's unheard of. Giving a variance of 135% is unheard of. MR. JACKOSKI-In your mind, even if it has been an existing matter for probably as long as you've been on that end of the lake, that dock has been there. MR. SALVADOR-Yes, that's right. I don't deny that, but there's a way to correct what's there. Okay. I believe there's a way to correct, there's an easy way. By the way, I should say they were very anxious to get all these approvals so that they could change title. They were worried about interest rates going up. I haven't seen any titles changing hands yet, and the construction is going on. They're working up there at Mellowstone. There's nobody. MR. JACKOSKI-On the dock? MR. SALVADOR-No, on the building. MR. JACKOSKI-Again, I believe this is about the dock. MR. SALVADOR-Yes, I understand, but this problem could have been created, could have been solved very easily by either an easement or the transfer of land. That could have been done very easily. MR. JACKOSKI-Well, I understand that's your concern, but again, how are you affected by what this Board did? MR. SALVADOR-Continuous decisions being made on the basis of faulty information. Okay. Misrepresentation, if you will. MR. JACKOSKI-So you're saying to us that we would have made a different decision concerning this matter if the owners of this property were different? MR. SALVADOR-No, I'm not saying that. 35 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/18/2012) MR. GARRAND-The facts were presented differently? MR. UNDERWOOD-1 think that in a practical sense here what he was saying that in Staff Notes, Staff Notes identified 100% relief that he argues that it should have been 135% relief, and as everybody recalls, the vote was a four to three vote. It was a pretty close vote. So it could have gone, maybe, I think everybody recognized that the 100% was a lot of relief. We usually do in that case. If it had been couched as 135, possibly the vote might have gone down differently because we would have said that's way over and above what could have been done. We voted as we did based upon what we knew at the time, and I think that now, at this point in time, it's a practical matter. We made the decision. We'll live with our decision, even if it might have gone a different way. We can only speculate. MR. SALVADOR-Worse than that, you don't have the authority to grant 135% relief. Okay. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. MR. SALVADOR-That's why it was put down as 100. MR. BROWN-You've got the authority to grant whatever relief you see fit, 100%, 200%, 500%. You've got permission to grant that. MR. JACKOSKI-To me, you know, we're dealing with that parcel and that parcel's lines, and to me, whether it was 100 or 190, it was still in excess of everything that was a setback requirement. So, again, what is the harm, if the title wouldn't have swayed the Board members to make a different decision, which I'm suspecting we can poll the Board and ask them, if it was titled by somebody else, no matter who owns the property, would it matter. Is that what you're appealing? That particular part of the record? Or is the percentage what you're appealing? MR. SALVADOR-its more misrepresentation. That's all. My point is that you were not aware that the magnitude of the relief was greater than what you thought it was. You were lead to believe it was 100%, and it's really 135%. MR. JACKOSKI-I do not think anyone on this Board did not realize that that dock was sticking out over the property line, and whether it was 100 or, the practicality of the matter at hand that you could see on paper with your own eyes, regardless of the map, I think every person here understood, that voted on it, that that dock was over the line some percentage. Whether it was 100 or 135 it was fully not on that property line, and I suspect that that was enough for this Board to make its decision. MR. CLEMENTS-1 agree with that, and I'd say one other thing, too. It's been that way for years. MR. JACKOSKI-That if it was 10 feet over the line or 40 feet over the line, it was 100% relief, not 130, 140, if you did the math. MR. UNDERWOOD-In this instance here, we didn't have anybody who was peeved about that being over the line, the effected property owners, but we might, at some future point, be in a position where we did have somebody who was peeved over something like that, and at that point, probably Staff Notes should reflect that that was 135% relief, you know, and that would greater satisfy the relief that we would grant, you know, in a different instance than this one, but, you know, it's water over the dam now. MR. JACKOSKI-Correct. So we'll go back to this Board. How do we want to handle this particular Appeal? MR. GARRAND-I've got a question for Staff. Mr. Zoning Administrator, did you make the determination cited by Mr. Salvador? MR. BROWN-No. I did not. MR. GARRAND-Thank you. MR. SALVADOR-Excuse me, what was the question? MR. GARRAND-1 asked the Zoning Administrator if he did, in fact, make the determination cited by you, and he did not make the determination. MR. JACKOSKI-And therefore your. MR. SALVADOR-Who did? 36 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/18/2012) MR. GARRAND-1 would have to say probably a member of the Planning Department, but not the Zoning Administrator. MR. SALVADOR-It's under his supervision. What if we didn't have a Senior Planner? Okay. What if we didn't have one? MR. GARRAND-I'm sure they'd hire one. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So do we have a motion here? MR. GARRAND-Motion to Uphold the Zoning Administrator's determination. MR. JACKOSKI-Which is another way of saying we deny the Appeal. MR. BROWN-Yes, in this case I don't think there was a determination made. MR. GARRAND-Lack of determination. MR. BROWN-Or motion to deny the Appeal. MR. JACKOSKI-Just deny the Appeal. Okay. So the motion on the table is to deny the Appeal. MOTION TO DENY NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 1-2012 JOHN SALVADOR, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Underwood: Duly adopted this 18th day of January, 2012, by the following vote: MR. UNDERWOOD-No. I think that we can do it in a diplomatic way, though. I think we can recognize that there was a point to his Appeal, but, and everybody recognizes that point, but at this point in time. MR. GARRAND-We are aware and we've all had these arguments in the past and we all understand the complications of the ownership and maps, but at the same time we're trying to work with everyone because it is complicated. Okay. So we have a motion to deny the Appeal. We've had discussion. Is there a second? MRS. HUNT-Second. MR. JACKOSKI-Joyce has seconded the motion. Call the vote, please. AYES: Mr. Clements, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. SALVADOR-You'll look into the alternate member issue? MR. JACKOSKI-I will, yes. MR. SALVADOR-Okay. By the way, the Castaway docks were not being used, right? They weren't being used. So for an increase of five is an expansion. MR. JACKOSKI-I don't know how long they were in use, and I haven't had a determination on that. So I'll move forward. So, is there any other business in front of the Board? No other business. Can I have a motion to adjourn? MRS. HUNT-Motion to adjourn. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Joyce. Seconded by Jim. All those in favor? Thank you, it is 9:45. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Steven Jackoski, Chairman 37