Loading...
Minutes AV 20-2022 7.20.22(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/20/2022) 1 TABLED ITEMS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 20-2022 SEQRA TYPE II ERIC CARLSON AGENT(S) CHRIS KEIL (ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN PARTNER) OWNER(S) ERIC CARLSON ZONING WR LOCATION 67 BRAYTON LANE (REVISED) APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DEMOLISH AN EXISTING HOME AND DETACHED GARAGE TO CONSTRUCT A NEW 3-BEDROOM HOME WITH AN ATTACHED GARAGE. THE HOME WILL HAVE A FOOTPRINT OF 3,381 SQ. FT. THE NEW FLOOR AREA OF 6,033 SQ. FT. THE PROJECT INCLUDES NEW STORMWATER MANAGEMENT, ALTERATION OF SHARED DRIVEWAY AND PARKING ARRANGEMENT, GRADING, AND EROSION CONTROL. SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA, HARD- SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF SHORELINE, NEW STRUCTURE WITHIN 50 FT. OF 15% SLOPES, DRIVEWAY GREATER THAN 10%, AND FRESHWATER WETLAND WORK WITHIN 100 FT. OF THE WETLAND. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS, HEIGHT OF GARAGE, AND STORMWATER DEVICE LESS THAN 100 FT. FROM SHORELINE. CROSS REF SEP 241-2019., SP 26-2022 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MAY 2022 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 1.25 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.12-2-84 SECTION 179-3-040; 147 CHAPTER 94; 179- 5-020 NICK ZEGLEN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 20-2022, Eric Carlson, Meeting Date: July 20, 2022 “Project Location; 67 Brayton Lane Description of Proposed Project: (Revised) Applicant proposes to demolish an existing home and detached garage to construct a new 3-bedroom home with an attached garage. The home will have a footprint of 3,381 sq. ft. The new floor area of 6,033 sq. ft. The project includes new stormwater management, alteration of shared driveway and parking arrangement, grading, and erosion control. Site plan for new floor area in a CEA, hard-surfacing within 50 ft. of the shoreline, new structure within 50 ft. of 15% slopes, driveway greater than 10%, and Freshwater wetland work within 100 ft. of the wetland. Relief requested for setbacks and stormwater device less than 100 ft. from shoreline. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks and stormwater device less than 100 ft. from shoreline in regard to construction of a new home with an attached garage. The parcel is 1.25 ac and in the Waterfront Residential zone-WR. Section 179-3-040 dimensional, Chapter 147 stormwater device Revised with the garage being attached to the proposed home which removes the height variance. The portion of the home with the garage is located 6 ft. from the property line where a 25 ft. setback is required. The stormwater device is to be 50 ft. where 100 ft. setback is required. 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. The project may be considered to have little to no impact on the neighboring properties as the home is moved further from the back and detached building is in similar location as previous. 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. The feasible alternatives may be limited due to the lot shape, proximity to wetland, and shared access by adjoining properties. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered moderate relevant to the code. Relief for the setback is 19 ft. and stormwater device location is 50 ft. (revisions relief requested is less) 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project as proposed may be considered to have minimal to no impact on the environmental conditions of the site or area. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The project as proposed may be considered self- created. Staff comments: (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/20/2022) 2 The applicant proposes to construct a new home on the site with associated site work. The plans show the location of the new home with covered porch areas and attached garage.” MR. ZEGLEN-Good evening. Nick Zeglen with Environmental Design Partnership, here on behalf of the applicant, Eric Carlson. As was stated, the applicant proposes to remove the existing singl e family dwelling and attached garage and construct a new single family dwelling with an attached garage, shifted back further away from the lake beyond the 50 foot setback. The additional site improvement include the realignment of the existing access road off Brayton Lane for the property to the south, as well as on site stormwater management, landscaping and additional plantings. We are requesting relief for three variances tonight, the side yard setback to the southern property line, six feet versu s twenty-five feet proposed. We need two variances for infiltration devices, and setback of 50 feet for one filtration device to the lakeshore and another 50 feet for a separate infiltration device from wetlands on the adjacent property where 100 feet is required. This project was before this Board back in May of this year where it was tabled. The Board and the public had concerns regarding the stormwater and getting some more time to go through the Town Designated Engineer review, as well as some discrepancies and issues with one particular variance in the garage height being excessive, and since then we have gone through the Town Engineer’s comment letters. We have addressed all their comments, and then they had the most recent letter had I believe two comments that were minor comments regarding hydro cad modeling calculations because it was Major stormwater project, and we have since addressed those comments. So I believe there are no outstanding comments with the Town Engineer, and secondly we w orked with the applicant’s architect, Danny Williams, to revise the house design to provide a conditioned space in between the main part of the dwelling and the garage so that it’s considered an attached garage per the Town Code, and no one requires a height variance. We feel that these improvements have taken steps to address the concerns, and with that I’ll turn it back over to the Board for any questions or comments. Thank you. MR. MC CABE-Do we have questions of the applicant? MR. HENKEL-Yes. I see you attached the garage to the house. That’s a good idea, but why can’t you still bring that over farther so you’d have less relief on that side yard? MR. ZEGLEN-Sorry, I failed to mention. We actually did shrink the footprint of the garage an additional foot, and the significance of that is the existing garage that’s on site now is six feet off of that property line. So it won’t be encroaching any further on that property line whereas before it was five feet. MR. HENKEL-Five feet. That’s right. So why do you need the, because you’ve got an entry. You’re telling me you can’t incorporate that entry and move that garage a bit farther over towards the house a little bit? MR. ZEGLEN-Yes, so the reason it wasn’t shifted over further was just to allow for turning radiuses for getting vehicles in and having that turnaround to get back out to Brayton Lane. MR. KUHL-Even if they moved it eight feet, they’d still need a variance. MR. HENKEL-Well I realize that, but it would be nice to have a little bit more space there, because you do have that back, you could back out out of the garage and go out straight. So you’re not like backing out of the driveway. How many feet is that to that turnaround there, that hammer? MR. ZEGLEN-I don’t know off the top of my head. MR. HENKEL-That’s more than two car lengths. MR. ZEGLEN-Yes, it’s probably somewhere in the neighborhood of 20 feet. MR. HENKEL-It’s more than that. MR. ZEGLEN-Yes, I mean I think the thought was just that, you know, the existing garage was that height and we’re not going further with that. I think this is actually a little bit shorter in height than the existing garage, that similar footprint, wouldn’t encroach on, you know, being more of a detriment than what’s there now. MR. HENKEL-Okay. Thank you. MR. KUHL-What about the other people on the street? Are they all in favor of this? You don’t know? MR. ZEGLEN-I don’t want to speak for any of them. MR. KUHL-Okay. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/20/2022) 3 MR. MC CABE-Other questions? So we have a public hearing that’s been advertised. So at this particular time I’ll open the public hearing and see if there’s anybody in the audience that would like to speak on this matter. Chris, you were first there. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN CHRIS NAVITSKY MR. NAVITSKY-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good evening, Board. My name is Chris Navitsky, Lake George Waterkeeper. We do have some comments on this project. First off, we feel that, there were a lot of comments on stormwater at the last meeting, particularly regarding the shoreline setback. It doesn’t appear that there’s been any change to that stormwater device. It still remains 50 feet setback and they may have addressed a lot of the comments with the Town Engineer, but they still don’t have a compliant stormwater system. There is a question regarding this. They’re setting it right next to a 9 foot high retaining wall and all retaining walls have underdrains behind them. So this stormwater device is right next to where there will be an underdrain. So where is that underdrain? There’s no information on that retaining wall. You don’t build walls that high without drains. So I feel that that could short -circuit it and wind up discharging stormwater closer to Lake George. There’s a question why a variance isn’t required for a nine foot high retaining wall within the 50 foot setback. There’s an application, I think the next one that actually is requiring a variance for a retaining wall. I don’t know why there’s not one required for this which is substantially higher than the one in another application. Information should be provided on the delineation of the wetlands. They did show what they marked as a wet area, but I submitted a map from the Warren County Community map with my comments, and this shows the wetlands extending three times further into the property. So there could be some questions on that. We feel that that should be delineated and certified by the APA. Project proposes clearing well into that 75 foot protective buffer that the Town Code requires along wetlands. So we feel, in closing, the mitigation measures that are proposed, we recognize the new septic system, some stormwater, does not provide a ba lance between the benefit and the impacts from the numerous variances, excessive grading, hardening of the site and the non- compliant shoreline buffer, and we feel that there should be more information, especially a delineation shown accurately by the APA. Thank you. MR. KUHL-Before you go, Mr. Navitsky, APA says 35 feet for stormwater management. Our regs say 100. MRS. MOORE-So it’s the Park Commission that says 35 feet. MR. NAVITSKY-Right. MR. KUHL-So are you, as the Waterkeeper, are you in tune in favor of what the APA regs are? MR. NAVITSKY-It’s the Lake George Park Commission, not the APA. MR. KUHL-Yes. MR. NAVITSKY-And, no, I was not. I felt that the setback, I understand the change in the setback for the infiltration from 100 feet, but I felt that that should be equivalent to what the building setback is. So I don’t see the reason you need to push that down to 35, and if building setbacks are either 100 or 75, you can set those next to the building, such as what this application did. So I do not support 35 feet. There’s no science that that provides better drainage. MR. KUHL-We sit here and people use that to, well, Lake George Park Commission says 35 and ours say 100, and you’re the Waterkeeper, you know, and it gets very confusing. MR. NAVITSKY-I have no regulations. MR. KUHL-No, you don’t, but you have recommendations, and we look to your recommendations. MR. NAVITSKY-Well, my recommendation is that the 50 feet may be adequate, but it’s not in this scenario because you’re putting it right next to a retaining wall that is going to have an underdrain that’s going to drain everything that goes into the ground is going to hit that underdrain and, you know, there’s no detail provided. I mean we all put underdrains behind retaining walls. MR. HENKEL-You used to see outlets in the middle of the wall, halfway up. MR. NAVITSKY-Yes, I mean you need to. Otherwise the hydrostatic pressure will knock it over. I feel that that’s going to short-circuit any benefit of that stormwater device, and I told the Park Commission I don’t agree with that. MR. KUHL-Thank you. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/20/2022) 4 MR. NAVITSKY-Yes. Thank you. MR. MC CABE-Ma’am? PAM LESTER GOLDE MRS. LESTER GOLDE-My name is Pam Lester Golde. I am also a registered landscape archit ect who practices as Pamela Lester. I’m also on the Assembly Point Water Quality Committee and I have been appointed to the Town’s new Master Plan Committee and will be looking at the zoning ordinances, but I want to add something to what Chris was saying. In this area where this nine foot high retaining wall is going, it’s ledge, and they’re basically putting nine feet of fill on top of ledge. So even if the water goes down, seeps down in, it’s going to hit that ledge and then go against the retaining wall. So there’s got to be, as Chris said, some kind of underdrainage. They also have indicated that they are putting in, in that storm structure, an overflow that goes out onto the front lawn. Well they’ve only indicated that the steep slopes is at 15%. The steep slopes range from 15 to over 20%, and in the area where that particular retaining wall is, that’s where it’s 20%. So the overflow is going to go onto a steep slope. That’s also true of the infiltration structures on the right hand side of the house that are going down along the property line, but what I would like to focus on is the Zoning Ordinance. The Zoning Ordinance, the Town of Queensbury’s Zoning Ordinance, under it’s Purpose and Objectives, says the Chapter is to promote health, safety and general welfare of the residents and property owners. This particular area is a Waterfront zone area and it’s a Critical Environmental Area and we’re not a closet subdivision. We have, the lots are probably undersized. They never would have been zoned, the subdivision never would have been what it is under current zoning, but we have to live with it. The thing is that we can’t turn around and just give zoning setbacks that are egregious to the environment and to our neighborhood. Because our neighborhood was basically a summertime community, and everything that people buy now turn them into mega mansions. I’m one of the few that doesn’t have a mega mansion. I have a 1930 Abraham Lincoln Log Cabin and everybody says Pam you’ve got the million dollar view. Yes, I do, and I pay the taxes for it, but it is only a three-season home and it can never be winterized. There’s no foundation. There’s no crawl space or next to no crawl space under most of the house. The water is not winterized, and when I lie in bed and I look up at the ceiling, I’m looking at the roof of my house. There is no place to put insulation or any type, shape or form. The storm that we had last Tuesday, a week ago, lying in bed, the rain comes through the joist. MR. MC CABE-I’ve got to shut you off here. We’ve got a whole bunch of cases tonight. This isn’t really pertinent to this particular application. MRS. LESTER GOLDE-Okay. What I am pointing out is I’m asking the Zoning Board to respect the Waterfront designation and the Environmental Critical Areas. So Mr. Henkel brought up the fact that this garage is, yes, it’s six feet from the property line. That’s what the existing is, but they’re taking the existing down. They’re starting from scratch. There’s no reason why they can’t overlap it. That garage is a two car garage. You can maneuver a car well within that driveway and do a three-point turn to be able to not back out to drive out straight. The other thing that I’d like to note i s that they re-submitted on the 20, sometime in June, a new stormwater management, stormwater narrative. The Town Engineer has not submitted his comments yet. I have FOIL’d them. I asked Laura today. MRS. MOORE-For the West project? MRS. LESTER GOLDE-No. MRS. MOORE-I apologize. I thought you were talking about the West project. MRS. LESTER GOLDE-No, this project, and I FOIL’d it because the letter that was given, which was dated the 23rd by LaBella, is for the May, the March stormwater narrative, not the June stormwater narrative. So the engineer has to respond to, and I would like to see the comments before zoning accepts the plan. So that’s it. MR. MC CABE-Is there anybody else that would like to speak on this particular project? MR. HENKEL-Is that true, Laura? MRS. MOORE-I’ll have to look. I know they’ve responded. LORI SHAY MS. SHAY-Hi. My name is Lori Shay, and I submitted a second letter. I’m Mr. Carlson’s northbound neighbor and some of the things I have concerns with were brought up here already. When my dad built his house, not a mega mansion, but when we built it, we had to conform with all of the rules that Queensbury had, including setbacks, push backs, take down buildings, all those things. My only complaint is that I reached out to Mr. Carlson, in full disclosure, to see where he’s moving his driveway, which is now going to abut my driveway. Our driveway has never changed. I have a problem with his (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/20/2022) 5 setbacks. We have an original wall that goes around the front of our property that we didn’t change, specifically for water, and we have a sprinkler system. That whole side where Mr. Carlson’s wall that’s going to come down and sits on shale, I don’t even have a sprinkler there. There is water there every day, whether he builds something there or doesn’t build something there. So all of the stormwater that everybody has discussed here, I have a concern with, not only with my front stonewall, where I’m going to get water that’s probably going to degrade my stone wall, but we have water all the way down the north side of the property, and by him putting his driveway, moving it to my side, I’m going to see all the traffic, all the noise, and I know what he’s doing, and he doesn’t want to see his driveway. H e wants it next to mine. So I have a concern that my driveway’s going to collapse because it’s stone and he goes and puts in his driveway literally next to the property line. So I have a few concerns with what everybody spoke about and I’d like my letter that I sent to the two representatives entered into the record. MR. URRICO-I can summarize it, unless you want to summarize what you have in the letter. MS. SHAY-I don’t have the letter with me, but I summarized it in terms of I am the northbound neighbor. As I said previously, I am Mr. Carlson’s northbound neighbor. I’ve reviewed his materials, okay, and his re-design, and I see why he had to redesign his garage. My concern is the northbound side and the buffer and where the septic is going to sit as well. I see it too close to my property line, and I see all of the things that Mr. Carlson doesn’t want anywhere on his nice, green grass next to my property line, because I know when he does all of this work, I’m going to see damage and/or erosion to my property line. So I’m not in favor of where his setbacks for his stormwater management is as well. I’d like them to be further pushed back into the property and he has a big enough property that I don’t even think he needs to move the road, and I know that that property across the street from Mr. Carlson is wetlands, and when you drive out my driveway there’s water on the right hand side of my driveway. There’s water on the left hand side of my property where he’s proposing his new driveway. So I have already summarized what my concerns are as a northbound neighbor. I ask that he be able to put in some kind of plantings on my side, whereas I know he’s putting them all down the southbound properties, but I do have concerns and I don’t think they’ve been addressed by Mr. Carlson’s redesign of his garage at all. MR. MC CABE-Is there anybody else in the audience that would like to speak on this particular matter? Do we have anything else written, Roy? MR. URRICO-No, that was it. MR. MC CABE-Would you like to address the comments? MR. ZEGLEN-So as far as the stormwater goes, this was treated as a Major stormwater because of the slopes, and the Major stormwater as the Town interprets it, because of the slopes. The hydro cad calculations were provided. They were reviewed by the Town Engineer. There was another letter that had two comments that we responded to on July 11th. As far as the wetland area and the road, so that new road is designed to sheet flow water back to the stormwater device and capture that water prior to going into the wetland, into the wet area, and this site also was developed with no stormwater to begin with. So that’s something else I’d just like to add. As far as the retaining wall, there needs to be separation, in order to capture water and treat it before it’s discharged down to the lake, there needs to be separation. So to achieve that separation we have built up, as was stated, there is rock there, but we need to have a stormwater device in that location, 50 feet off of the shoreline because that’s where the house setback is. So therefore we had to put a stormwater device in that location. We couldn’t put it further away. We can’t pump stormwater up. So we put it at the 50 feet, and we had to raise it up in order to get separation above the bedrock in order to treat that water as it passes through the soil, and as far as the overflow pipe, where it’s discharging, it’s not shown on this plan, but if you go to the planting plan, we actual ly have a berm in that area with plantings, and that overflow pipe will be discharging into that area, not out into the middle of the lawn. As far as a mega mansion, this project does not exceed the floor area ratio. It’s far below it. I believe you’re allowed 11,000 square feet on this lot. They’re at I think 6,000, so almost half of the floor area ratio allowed. There’s no height variances. So I think calling it a mega mansion is excessive. I think that’s all I have. Any other questions, I’d be happy to answer them. MR. MC CABE-So we had quite a bit of discussion about the retaining wall, and did we say it’s nine feet high? MR. ZEGLEN-Yes, I believe in the one corner where it tries to catch up to existing grade does reach nine feet, yes. MR. MC CABE-And the reason for that? MR. ZEGLEN-Is to keep everything separated up above the bedrock and provide that required separation, and then in the area where the stormwater device is it’s not as high, but then when you extend it out to finish it off and the grade keeps going, it’s going against the grade. So it’s steeper at the corner, yes. MR. CIPPERLY-How high is it at the stormwater area? (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/20/2022) 6 MR. ZEGLEN-At the stormwater area I believe it varies because the stormwater area goes along that whole grade. So I think at the top it’s like one or two feet, and then it just gradually continues. MR. CIPPERLY-That’s right against the neighbor. MR. ZEGLEN-That’s correct. And we will submit, you know, we’ll have a geotech that designs that retaining wall and submit that during the building permit process to make sure it’s up to Code. MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time I’m going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-And I’m going to poll the Board, and I’m going to start with Roy. MR. URRICO-I still have some severe concerns about the size of the structure in terms of what it does to the setback from the property line and I have concerns about the stormwater device and whether it’s going to be able to handle stormwater during, it’s not far enough away to handle the property. So I’m concerned about it and I would not be in a position to approve it right now. MR. MC CABE-Dick? MR. CIPPERLY-I guess I share the same concern, along with adding a huge other driveway to the back of the site to access the site. What is that driveway going to be made of? MR. ZEGLEN-That will be an asphalt driveway which I think the existing driveway might just be gravel. MR. MC CABE-So you don’t support the project? MR. CIPPERLY-No. MR. ZEGLEN-And again just in regards to the driveway, that existing driveway now is just gravel or asphalt. Water just runs right off that and runs right into that wetland. This new driveway is going to be done to capture that water, sent to that infiltration device, prior to going to the wetland. MR. MC CABE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I think the project needs to be re-thought and modified from what it’s presently being presented to us as a Board. I think the garage could easily be placed on the back side of that lot. I, too, echo the comments on the stormwater devices as well as the driveway. MR. MC CABE-John? MR. HENKEL-There’s a lot of things. We can’t stop them from doing it. When you say it’s a mega house, it’s not because they’re allowed to put 22% which is still below. It’s at 6,000 square feet and they are allowed to go to 11,000 square feet. The shoreline setback they’re at the 50 which is where they’re supposed to be. So it’s tough, but there’s no doubt that the stormwater device in this case should be farther than the 50 feet and I’m not happy with the garage situation. I think they should be able to move that back and make it to Code of 25 feet. It’s not acceptable to me to be at the six feet, nineteen feet of relief. So I’m not on board with this project as it is. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR. KUHL-I think is new is nice and new gets to be an improvement over the old, but the garage should be off that property line more. I agree with what everybody else said, that there has to be more work on the stormwater. So I’d not be in favor of it. MR. MC CABE-So you don’t have a lot of friends here. The way I view this is I don’t think it’s practical to set the stormwater device back 100 feet because 100 feet is well back from where you want to capture things, and so I think the stormwater device being somewhere around the house is a more practical matter and then perhaps a cascading device down further to further help capture things because it is a fairly steep slope, but, you know, what we’re being asked to judge here is the setback on both sides. It seems practical to me that the six feet, if you’re five feet now, and you don’t have any device controlling runoff, that you’re going to be better off with the new design at six feet, but I think there has to be some better understanding of what we’re doing with the stormwater here. I don’t think it’s very clear, and I think that’s causing the confusion here. So I think you have a couple of choices here. Yo u can ask for a vote, but you’re not going to do well there. You can table this and go back and maybe look at providing some more definitive information on the stormwater management. We have a short Board anyway, but that’s not going to make any difference. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/20/2022) 7 MR. ZEGLEN-I think we’ll table. Just a little further on the stormwater. As far as the setbacks, the house setback is 50 feet, so, the house is 50 feet. So that roof is going to be at 50 feet so we can’t really move the stormwater further back than the 50 feet in order to capture the roof runoff. MR. HENKEL-Without moving the house back. MR. ZEGLEN-Without moving the house further back. So I understand the garage concern and the retaining wall. We can take another look at that grading in that area to try to make that. The only thing I don’t know about is pulling the stormwater device further than 50 feet back., MR. MC CABE-All right. So I’m going to look for a motion to table. MR. HENKEL-Until when? MRS. MOORE-We have room on the September agenda. So if they can get information in by August 15th. MR. HENKEL-Okay. So which September are we going to do, September 21st or the 28th? MRS. MOORE-I would do the first meeting. MR. HENKEL-Okay. The 21st. Okay. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Eric Carlson. Applicant proposes to demolish an existing home and detached garage to construct a new 3-bedroom home with a footprint of 2,381 sq. ft. which includes porches/deck areas and living space of detached building. The project includes a detached garage with an 873 sq. ft. footprint. The new floor area of 6,194 sq. ft. The project includes new stormwater management, alteration of shared driveway and parking arrangement, grading, and erosion control. Site plan for new floor area in a CEA, hard -surfacing within 50 ft. of the shoreline, new structure within 50 ft. of 15% slopes, driveway greater than 10%, and Freshwater wetland work within 100 ft. of the wetland. Relief requested for setbacks, height of garage, and stormwater device less than 100 ft. from shoreline. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 20-2022 ERIC CARLSON, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Tabled to the September 21st, 2022 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting with any new information to be submitted by August 15th, 2022. Duly adopted this 20th day of July, 2022, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Cipperly, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. McDevitt